The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1971/04/19~ City Hall Anaheim, California April 19, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular ac,eting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:05 P.M. a _ _ ' _ . ,. - c , quorum being present. Y b.s ,. J.:i'ta q` ?' PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. `.~ Gv - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano (who entered the Council ~µ' Chamber at 2:13 P.M.), Gauer, Kaywood ;,~ , Seymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ,.ti PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: " Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: ,, Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: ; Malcolm Slaughter Commission Secretary: ; 'r` Ann Krebs ~> ' PLEDG~ OF - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to ALLEGIANCE h ,.t: t e Flag. .~ ^ APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of March 22, 1971, were approved THE MINUTES with h ;~ t e following corrections on motion by Commissioner j Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED: ;~ ? Page 71-134 - Paragraph 1, lines 6 and 7, delete line 7- -; duplicate. ~ ~ Page 71-136 - Paragraph 9, line 1, "Mrs. Kenneth Pirt" - -~ delete "Currie". ~ ' ~ Page 71-158 - Paragraph 9, line 4, "Commissioner Allred ~°- : ± ;rr seconded the motion". t ~' ~ ~j i TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: J. W. KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., TRACT NO 7137 4 . , 540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California. REVISION NO 2 ~ . ENGINEER: Millet, King & Associates, 1303 West '~ Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California. Subject ; tract, located on the north side of the Santa Ana River channel east of Imperial Highwa a d ~ y n containing approximately 90 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 440 R-2-500 , 0 zoned lots. 4 x Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location o£ subject ro t " p per y and the proposal, advising the Planning Commission that the developer had submitted a lett _~ er requestiny an additional two weeks to revise the map to be mo i <" fi re n conformance with conditions of approval of the zoning. ~: ;~'~ Commissioner Kayw~od offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 2, to the meeting of , ~ , May 3, 1971, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED ~ ~ . r;~;: '': { ~:' ~. - ; TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: L. A. MUCKENTHALER, 1530 West Avolencia TRACT NO 7370 . ~ . Drive, Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: Anacal " z Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim ~ , California. Subject tract, located on the north side of the Riverside Freeway, east of Lakevi A ~'. ew venue, is proposed for sub- di~.•ision into 41 R-1 zoned lots. 71-193 ~'. `.~.'t; ,. . r: : : :. :. - . _ ~....~:.. : , .. . ~~. ;r .. _. ~ .. _ _ ,;;,~ ~ . ' - - ~ ' y(( ' ~ ._ .~~..._ ..: y ` _ . ... . ~ . + . ~ i .~ _ ' ..__. _ _. .. . .. . _~-_ " " "__~ ~. ._._ __" .__'-. _ _ _'_ _ ~ ~ . . . ~ .~~1 "_ . . ~~.x. ~--c . ~+S"' i~•~ ..:T.. :..i:~::S ~ ..w,.,- ~ . . • .. ~ . .. . i . ... ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 ~.~ 71-194 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed TRACT NO. 7370 the location of the proposed tract and the Report to (Continued) the Commission together with a quote from a letter received from the Orange County Flood Control District pertaining to severe lateral erosion of the unprotected sand levees of the Santa Ana River together with the OCFCD's recommendation that the tract be disapproved or the property not be permitted tc d~velop until such time as the Santa Ana River was improved upstream from LakAview Avenue. No one was present to ~epresent the engineer. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that Mr. Cal Queyrel of Anacal ?'"'''- Engineering was interested in this tract and woulc3 most likely want to ~ address the Commission regarding the recommendations, therefore, the ' ~` Commission might wish to tem oraril ,' P y postpone consideration until the - ~ engineer arrived. Mr. Jack Hall, civil engineer, representing the developer of the tract to the east of subject property appeared before the Commission and stated that the same problem facing subject property would affect the property to the east and staff in referrinq to the letter from the OCFCD did not state whether there was a commitment by the Flood Control District as to when the work would be done to construct the revetment along the levees up stream from Lakeview Avenue and would it be the policy of the City of Anaheim to require a satisfactory flood hazard letter from the OCFCD for any development along the river? Chairman Herbst requested that the letter from the OCFCD be read in full, which was done by Mr. Roberts. Mr. Hall then noted that staff had recommended an alternative - would that be approval subject to an agreement with the Flood Control District? Chairman Herbst noted that the tract could not be approved until this lateral erosion was provided for either by the Flood Control District or the developer. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer of the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and stated at the ICPS&GW meeting they had discussed the condi- tions of approval and the possibility of issuance of a building permit only after the levee was completed; that he had walked the levee earlier in the day and he was convinced that there was no lateral erosion of subject property; that in this particular area other tracts had been approved on the same basis, and the situation had not changed from that ti~r~e when these tracts had been approved and developed, therefore, it would appear that subject property was being treated unfairly because it was his feeling that the OCFCD should have completed the revetment of the levees to Imperial Highway at the same time as they were completed to the south; that since he had walked the levees and felt there would be no problems since the levee turned away from subject property moving in a northerly direction rather than to the south; that when the bridge at Lakeview Ave. was constructed it had changed the channelization of the water from a former 600 foot width to only 200 feet, and any property immediately adjacent to the bridge would be affected, hewever, subject pxoperty would not be so affected; and that this was the first letter submitted by the OCFCD regarding possible flood problems since the recent decision made by the Corps of Engineers-U.S. Army, therefore, it was his opinion that there would bc no more danger to subject property than to other tracts in the immediate area which were approved and developed. Commissioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 2:13 p.m. ~ Mr. Queyrel then noted that he had contacted Mr. Jack Sc:~warze, division engineer of the OCFCD, who had advised him that his intent in stating that subject property would be subject to a standard project flood was to mean a 100-year flood. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not it would be of any assistance if subject tract were approved subject to working out this flood problem with the OCFCD. Whereupon Mr. Queyrel stated it would be helpful, but ~ ~ . . ~.+e.--,.~..~~ ~_ . . . ~ ~ '~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ I E~. ,' ^ T ~ ~ . ( ~ ----- _ _- MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19 1971 , 71-195 TENTATIVE MAP TRACT NO. 7370 OF - there could be a problem with the financial instituti if _ . (Continued) on a favorable flood hazard letter could not be obtaitted. However, if there was an flood been created by the OCFCD wh b e _ ~' we en they had narrowed the channel and controlled the flow of , re a serious water since if there storm the flow of water could which could ca create turbulence at the bridge use erosion and which the OCFCD for any repair should be held responsible to damage caused by this erosion to the adjoining properties. -_.: --:~ '~.; The Commission protecting the noted t_hat they were impowered with the responsibility of safet of h ~` the Commission y t e residents of the City of Anaheim, and since had requested opinions fro , m other governmental bodies, the letter would not have been written if there w % as no concern as stated by Mr. Queyrel. Therefore, if the Plannin Co i `~` ` overriding the g mm ssion approved subject tract objections of the OCFCD th •. ~ .' sible for any , en the City would be held respon- flood or water damage J . ~ . Mr. Queyrel, in response to Commission questioning, stated that it was ; his opinion that Prado Dam was deficient, however, if the water would break ,` through th~ levees as it did in 1938, it would occur east of Imper._al Highway and would affect the industrial area. Chairman Herbst noted tteat the U.S. Corps of Engineers recognized this ; deficiency of the dam, however, they also stated it could be 20 years before ~ they could have anything done to improve the dam. i; Mr. Queyrel, in response to Commission questioning stated that a one year delay would not have too much effect on the tract, but he could not understand ~~ how all the other tracts had bcen a r's questioned when the PProved, and now subject tract was being .~ problem had been the same for all the properties in the area. I :i Chairman Her~st replied that as a result of the Scenic Corridor study and `~ other studies by the Cor s of En _,.~ P gineers, this was brought into focus and made everyone more aware of the problem. ,..:s r ~ ._ ';) ~: .f:t : I Mr. Queyrel responded that the levees had never been constructed properly; however, the other tracts were still allowed to develop, and that the levees had never been improved adjacent to these developed tracts, although the levees were improved up to Glassell Street. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission had a certain responsibility to the Citizens of Anaheim and having received this letter from the OCFCD the erosi.on problem was brought into focus, however, the Commission had discussed this flood problem before and had found that the Commission was not the determining body as to flood problems. Commissioner Allred noted that some of the lots were on1~- 94 feet which did not meet with the SC Zone requirements. Whereupon, Mr. Roberts replied that although subject property was within the ~C study area, the developer was desirous of developing this tract, and since the SC 2one had not been adopted by the City Council as an ordinance, the:e was nothing within the Code which could be applied t~ cuntrol this. Chairman Herbst noted this would place the homes almost immediately adjacent to the freeway. Whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the homes in the sub- division imme3iately to the east on the south side of r~c Kinnon Drive were a little more than 100 feet, and that Mc Kinnon Drive already had the street alignment established. The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Fraak Lowry what effect would be experienced by subject property if the SC Zone ordinance was established and the tract had not developed for sometime because of the inability of obt~ining a satisfactory flood hazard letter - which was possible if the levees were not improved until 19'2 - furthermore, if a final tract map were recorded in six months and in the meantime the SC Zone was adopted, ~aould the SC standards sti;l apply, since other property owners in this area were being made to comply as a condition of obtaining the zoning for their groperty. _ ' S . _a.r \ .: _ , _ I . ~ ~ ~~« __._._. ___~ -' (` - _ - ~: . V ~~ ~ MINUTES, CxTX.~LANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 7].-196 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Mr. Lowry replied that if the tract were not finalized TRACT NO. 7370 in one year, then th> developer would have to ask for (Continued) an extension of time, and perhaps at that time the City could require the SC site developr.znt standards to be imposed as a condition of granting the extension of time. However, if the final tract map were recorded within the year, then the conditions that appeared on the books at the present time would be the controlling factor. _'° Commissioner Farano noted that if the SC Zone were established and the "~`~ ~ tract were not developed within a year, then the tract before the ~:,;:,;?;,,, '` Comm3ssion now would have to be re-drawn. ~ Mr. Lowry then inquired of Mr. Queyrel whether or not it would impose any c problem with his client to meet these new requirements oE the SC Zone; ' whereupon Mr. Queyrel replied that the map met present code requirements; ~ and that Mc Kinnon Drive was in and improved, therefore, they could lose n ~ four lots which would not be buildable lots if they had to meet these new requirements. 1 i Office Enqineer Jay Titus, ia response to Commission questioning, stated that the center two lanes for Mc Kinnon Drive were constructed and the alignment for said street was adopted. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred ~ and MOTTON CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7370, subject `~' to the following cunditions: ;f'^; a ~}. (1) That a final tract ma of sub'ect p ~ prorerty shall be submitted to and approved by the City Counci.l and then be recorded izz the offic:e of .,~. the Orange County Recorder, provided however, that no final tract _ map shall be approved until the Santa Ana River channel is improved to OCFCD standards or unti]. a favorable flood hazard letter is !;;i obtained from the OCFCD. (2) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to :~ approval of a final tract map. ;~ (3) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be ;:~ agpropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time 4: the building permit is issued. '.;~. (4) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (5) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (6) That Mc Kinnon Drive, Maychelle Drive, and Street "A" shall be constructed with a 40-foot roadway and a 60-foot right-of-way. (7) That drainage of Tract No. 7370 shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Orange County Flood Control District. (8) That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the southerly property line between the tract and the Riverside Freeway. ~ `. ~~ (9) That a 5-foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the north ,.:: ~,:~, tract boundary. ''~ 3 ~ .. . .. ~ . ' ~ . ~ ' ~ ~~ .~~' ~ . ~ ,1:~ A~" . _. ~- ~^1' \ . . . . ` ~ . ^ / .. e _; ~ ,._ , _ ~ -. ~ ` sl , . Y~ ~.a ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 c,~ 71-197 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EUGENE F.. LA MERES, New England, North Dakota, Owner; WILLIAM J. LA MERES, 1570 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER Oi' MINIMUM NUMSER OF REQUIRED PAI2KING SPACES TO PERMIT EXPANSTON 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 5treet, having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, and being located approximately 290 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1759 South West Street. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from thE meeting of April 5, 1971, for the petitioner to be present to answer questions which the Commiss~on had. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request of the petitioner to waive 328, or 22 parkiirg sgaces, of the required parking in order to expand the existing motel; that a similar request had been considered by the Planning Commission several years ago, however, at that time the Commission required dn impartial report to verify state- ments made by the petitioner regarding the number of parking spaces avail- able; and that the Planning Commission had requested staff to make a study of the Commercial-Recreation parking requirements to consider possible revisions, however, due to work loads, this study had not been completed. Therefore, the Commission wauld have to judge the requested variance on its individual merit. Mr. william J. La Meres, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to ans~ver any qucstions tY,e Commission miyht have. Chairman H!:rbst inquired as to the reason for the request by the peti- tioner pertaining to parking waivers. Mr. La Meres replied that they were trying to uti.lize their property to its fulLest advantage; that a previous variance had been granted for a similar request by the representatives of the Ivanhoe Motel; that the figures he had available from a survey he made could be questionable; that their business was such that it was becoming more and more having guests arriving via the airlines; that on April 3, 1971, their facilities were full because it was the "Spring Fling" which attracted people within a 200-mile radius and from which they had expected more automobile arrivals than normal - however, when he made his survey that evening at 11:00 P.M., the Lamplighter Motel - subject property - with 26 units had 8 empty parking spaces; the Cosmic Age Motel had 6S empty parking spaces; the Saga Motel with 100 rooms and no vacancy had 48 vacant parking spaces; and the Park Vue Motel with 90 rooms had 64 empty spaces; that they had this type of vacancy consistently because of their airline program; that a report by the Southern CaZifurnia Visitors Sureau indicated that 57+h of the visitors to the Southern California area arrived without an auto- mobile, and 40+E of this total rented an automobile, or a total of 22.8~ of the visitors - therefore, it could be assumed that there would be many vacant parking spaces in the motel parking areas. Commissioner Farano inquired during what period of t'ie day and what period of the year was this survey made by the Southern California Visitors Bureau; whereupon Mr. La Meres replied this was a summertime sLrvey. Commissioner Farano then inquired over what span of time was the survey made - for a week, a month, or what; whereupon Mr. La Meres replied that the information was not given in their survey - therefore, he felt the evidence he could present would not be sufficiently factual. Chairman Herbst inquired whether the Southern California Visitors Bureau report covered the Anaheim area or Southern California since if it covered Southern California, there was an entirely different situation as it pertained to the Disneyland area. ' ` f _r , ~ ~ ;.-= 1.::~ ~ . _ ; r , (~ ~} MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CC;MMTSSION, April 19, 1971 ~ _,l ~~ .~ 71-198 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - Mr. La Meres stated he felt the Disneyland-Anaheim (Continued) situation was the opposite of that in the other parts of Southern California, namely, that the majority of the tourist business came by airplane. Chairman Herbst noted that when the previous petition for waiver of park- ing was submitted, the petitioner had submitted a day-by-day and month- by-month, impartial audit of his needs; that th~ ~ommission realized that during the summer months motels were filled with automobiles - therefore, if the petitioner had some data which the Commission could consider that all the parking provided ~vas not being utilizEd during the summer months, it should be submitted; and that the only reason the other motel operator obtained approval was because of the verified data submitted which reprPSented business for an entire year. Thus, each motel would have to present substantiating data regarding their operation before any considera- tion could be given to waive these requirements. Commissioner Gauer inquired of the petitioner what he would do with the rooms that were still vacant after all the parking had been utilizcd - ~~ would he provide valet parking; whereupon Mr. La Meres replied that they _ would not rent a room until they could assure the guest that a parking space would be available. However, most families arriving rented two rooms with only one automobile arriving, and no one appeared to take this into consideration. The Commission then requested a copy of the supporting data or study from which Mr. La Meres was quoting; whereupon Mr. La Meres gave the Commission a copy of this report for their perusal. 'li ',:\ ; ~,. ~. ~~~ ~ :`~! ~ i Mr. La Meres continued by stating he operated four motels with approximately 600 rooms, havi-.g considerable airlines business which was heavy in compari- son with what ~ne small motel would have, since if they did not have an adequate supply of rooms available, they could not offer this package deal; that they had several promotional packages with United Airlines and Delta Airlines, as well as ticket reservations with cther airlines; and that these guests arrived by bus either at the Grand or Disneyland Hotels where they were picked up by the motel bus service, and subject property was only 200 yards from the Disneyland Hotel. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not Mr. La Meres ever rented out these motel units as apartments to people who stayed a long time. Mr. La Meres replied that they did not rent by the month since no one stayed longer than two nights, except during tlie summer when people some- times stayed for one week, taking tours of the area with this as a base, but because the room rates were higher, as a rule, people on these package tours stayed only two nights. Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. La Meres staced these statistics represented his business, however, the brochiire stated the average stay was 10.8 nights; whereupon Mr. La Meres stated that most people stayed in the Disneyland area only two nights because of the hiqher prices for rooms and then moved on to other areas of interest. Commissioner Seymour then observed that if the ]S:sneyland area were different because of the environment, maybe the statistics presented did not hold up as they pertained to thE Disneyland area. Mr. La Meres replied that he did not have any other figures on which to base proof of his statements regarding adequacy of parking. Commissioner Farano inquired whether a survey had been made for the entire Easter week, since the "Spring Fl.ing" was considered for local residents primarily. Mr. La Meres indicated that he had guests from Burbank and nearby cities who stayed overnight. ` ~ _,. i r.~ - _, , % ! ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 l_.~ 71-199 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - The Commission further inquired why information for (Continued) statistical purposes could not be obtained from the registration; whereupon Mr. La Meres stated that he felt a true and accurate repcrt could not be made from the registration. The Commission continued questioning Mr. La Meres zegarding the time the heaviest arrivals were experienced; whether or not the vacant parking areas could have been because people were still visiting the various spots throughout the area; and why car registration on the motel regis- tration cards could not be used to arrive at some supporting evidence. Mr. La Meres replied that there could have be?n a number of vacant car spaces because many people flew in during ~.aster vacation; that their operation was a family-type operation and did not participate in "night ~ife" unless on a convention - this could be verified because the night- clubs in the area were having a difficult time making ends meet; and that although most registrations were filled out, not all were complete with vehicle license numbers. Commissioner Seymour noted he would like to channel his thinking along the same lines as Mr. La Meres - however, h.e wasn't sure with the statistical information provided that he could make such a decision, and although staff had been requested to undertake a study of parking requirements, this was not possible because of insufficient personnel time. Therefore, if the petitioner, or even the mote~ industry in this area, could present data that would substantiate statements made, this ~:ould be of great assistance - how_ver, there was too much disparity between the present ~ data submitted and statements made by the petitioner since the data " stated visitors stayed at one place, and the petitioner stated that the `~{ visitors stayed only two nights in the Disneyland area. ,~ i r:~i Commissioner Farano inquired how these visitors arrived in Anaheim; '~ whereupon Mr. La Meres stated that a great deal of their business was `~ from airline employees - that sometimes these people would stay in the ,~~ Disneyland area for ten days, which was indicated on the vacation brochure. ,~ Commissioner Seymour noted that the data submitted indicated that the :<f average stay was ten days - however, Mr. La Meres was of the apinion that ~ these people did not stay in the Disneyland area for that length of time. :~ ',"rr Commissioner Kaywood noted that if these visitors went from one place to ;`:%j another, this would mean they would have to rent an automobile; whereupon ' Mr. La Meres stated that only about 22$ of the arrivals drove automobiles, `` many arrived by bus and were transpo.rted by them to the various facilities >; in the Disneyland area - however, some people even arrived from Los Angeles :~ by cab. Commissioner Allred then noted that the petitioner was requesting ~. 32+E ` waiver of the required parki.zg, and the petitioner also stated he managed ~';:~ three other motels - therefore, it made him wonder how many more motels " would be requesting the same waiver; then one day the City would find the automobiles were coming back and the motels would be in a predicament of ~; not being able to rent their rooms because of ±he inability to provide _' parking for these automobiles. : ;=~ .::I Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not it would be feasible for the Motel Owners Association to get together and hire someone to prepare '. statistical data which the Commission could review in order to determine `' `; whether or not the requests aere warranted. f ::~ '~` Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that since this was the second r'.` request, and in all likelihood more would be coming in, it was the responsibility of the motel operators to provide proof that more than , ;,` .. , f: ' _ "-.. ~ti . , i . . . . i . .. . ' . ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES~ CITy pLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 ~J 71-200 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - adequate parkina was being provided, and the City's (Continued) parking requirements should be amended. Chairman Herbst observed that the City of Anaheim had two seasons - thP vacation season and the convention season; that conven- tioneers also arrived by air, and there might appear to Le too many parking stalls, but having visited the Disneyland area and noting the number of automobiles parked at the motels, it would appear there would not be suf£icient parking stalls if the proposed waiver were granted. However, it was up to the motel owner-operators to provide these parking facilities. Furthermore, the latest traffic survey indiaated there was a greater number of vehicles arriving i.n Anaheim than had been previously recorded, and the request before the Commission to waive 32~ of the parking should represent a hardship which the petitioner must prove, but if granted, it would appear that the hardship would be on the City, not on the petitioner since people would have to find their own off-street parking which apparently ;aas not available in this area. ' Commissioner Allred noted that he weuld be willing to continue subject petition to allow the petitioner ~_ime to obtain the necessary documentation ~' which the Commission needed to make a decisioa, and this should be sub- stantiating statements made by the peti~ioner`that these Code-required parking spaces were unnecessary. Mr. La Meres answered by stating that the motel industry in the Disneyland area had c•hanged completely, and there appeared to be no parking problem in the summert';,,e because business was coming in primarily by air. However, :; the motel business was saddled by the Parking Ordinance. ~t; ~'y; Commissioner Seymour stated he would agree 100$ with Mr. La Meres if he •~?i had submitted any data that would substantiate his statements - however, j the data submitted did not verify this evidence, and that what some of the fj Commissioners were requesting was for the motel industry to supply this `~ data. ~',:.,:;'.;f Commissioners Gauer and Farano again noted that the petitioner who had -y; been granted the variance several years ago for a similar request had ~ ~ submitted substantiating evidence, takin re ? documenting them to verify that he wouldghavelsufficientfparkingyspa~end ;'~ that there would be vacant parking spaces. Therefore, if one motel ' operator r,ould bring in this substantiating evidence and since the `?? Commission had indicated in their a '-i pproval that any subsequent request wuuld also have to submit this type of evidence, then in order not to give the petitioner of subject property a privilege not enjoyed by others, this corroborating evidenae would have to be submitted could tak before e an a the Commis y ction, sion ' Mr. La Meres advised the Commission that the Innkeepers Association did not represent the majority of the motels; therefore, this organization could not serve a~ a catalyst for documenting this iaformation. However, no one took into consideration the fact that many visitors to Southern California came from the eastern states and would not be arriving by automobile. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission and the petitioner had expounded at great lengths on this subject, and then inqui.red whether or not the petitioner wanted the Commission's action today, or would he prefer a continuance to allow time to gather this data. t~ Mr. La Meres replied he would prefer a continuance since from statements '.~' made by several of the Commissioners, it would a :, of the petition as it now stood, and the motel ~ndustry~wouldWhaventoavor r:~ ~ present evidence that would convince the City that a change had occurred in the industry in oraer to allow them to capitalize on their investment, the parking requirements would have to be amended. .'~ ' ~ ~ `: akc ' \ ...~... ~..ss~~,.,.+eri ~ ... ~ " ~..~~ _, ~ ,~ ~~ ~ . . . . ~ . r _y ~ ~ ~ i _. _ .-----~___::-- ----- ,~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Apsil 19, 1971 ~__~ 71-201 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue (Continued) consideration of Variance No. 2244 to ~ ~ of May 17, 1971, to allow the the meeting time to prepare documentation which1wouldssubstantiate I statements made that there would be sufficient parkzng without re uirin i the one space per unit. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.q MOTION CARRIED. _ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CHARLE ~ : ar: ~ 1 ;~? , .~: ._ : ~~; ~y _ ~.~ : ~ ~'.~. .~t : NO. 70-71-35 1616 South Euclid Street.and CHARLESNANDRFRED~NK, KOHLENBERGER, 1233 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, VARIANCE NO. 2237 California, Owners; H.M.S. AIR CONDITIONING CORP., 760 North Main Street, Orange, California, Agent; of land having no streetefrontagerlocated•a An irregularly-shaped parcel State College Boulevard and approximately 225rfeetanorthZof Placentia ~f Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRSCULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM SUIT,DTNG HEIGHT, (Z) MINIMIIM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (3) MINIMUM LAND AREA PER DWELLING UiJ2T, AND (4) MINIMUM ACCESSWAY WIDTH TO ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY, 30-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of March 8 and 22, and April 5, 1971, to allow time for the petitions to be readvertised and for the submission of an access agreement. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, .uses established in close proximity, and the proposal as set forth in the Report to the Commission, noting that subject petitions were continued from the April 5, 1971, meeting in order that the petitioners would have time to resolve problems as to easement over property to the west; that an official of the owner of that property had verbally stipulated that the owner would not object to their propos`ed use of the easement; and that the owners were working with the City Attorney's Office to prepare a written agreement. Mr. David Mayer, 6806 Titan Circle, Yorba Linda, developer of the proposed apartment complex, appeared before the Commission and stated that they had met with the City Attorney's Office and had resolved the easeme:it problem with the UAW officials; that papers had been submitted last Friday to the City Attorney; and that in addition to the easement drive, there would also be a drive along the east ~roperty line. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission he was not in the office last Friday; therefore, Assistant City Attorney John Dawson might have been working with the developer regarding the easement - whereupon Mr. Mayer stated that Mr. Dawson had laid out the criteria necessary for drafting this easement agreement, and this now had been submitted to UAw. Mr. Lowry then ad~'.sed the Commission that it would be his recommendat3on that if subject pe~:ition were approved, it be subject to the agreement being approved by the City Attorney and should include all parcels which would have access to the easement. Mr. Slaughter then noted that at the first public hearing the developer had agreed that the square footage per unit required by Code would be complied with - therefore, this would mean approximately 26.25 units per acre instead of the 28 units per acre stated. Chairman Herbst noted that the petitioner would still need the variance e~en if the number of units were reduced to 28, I ~ ~ + ~ .. ~~. ~ r ~ar;,~_.. ; __~, -a~,. ,. . - ,' ... , ~ . ,... . .. _ N't; ~ •.:~ ~ - ~ ~ _ , . ~ , _s l _ . ^ 1 ._ , , . ~ . . ~. . ----- ' - -- --- • ` ~ C~~ (~ ( _) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-202 RECLASSIFICATION - No additional persons appeared in opposition to NO. 70-71-35 subject petitions. N • VARIANCE NO. 2237 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. (Continued) •• Commissioner Seymesr noted that since the property to the east had been approved for R-3 zoning, it would be logical to extend said zoninq for subject property since the developer was the same for subject and abutting property to the east. +~-: Chairman Herbst expressed concern that no precise plans had been submitted ti;.~, :~~ for the portion fronting on Placentia Avenue, and it was quite possible that a substandard R-3 development of the property could occur with the additional waivers requested; therefore, he was opposed to secommending ;~ approval of R-3 for all the property while still holding out development ~:` , of a portion of the Kohlenberger property. . Mr. Mayer advised the Comm3.ssion that there was a good prospect that this property would be developed in the near future with eight to eleven units; ~; howEVer, he could convey an easement to this property for access so that there would not be so many drive approaches to Placentia Avenue in the event this property was developed as a separate parcel. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-65 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassification No: 70-71-35, subject to conditions, with the added condition that a vehicular access easement across thE property to the west, permitting ingress and egress for all parcels included in this petition, ' he submitted and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to issuance ,.i of a building permit. (See Resolution Book) I ;;) Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '.' i :i; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. j NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. '~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Rowland. ;~ Further discussion was h.eld by the Commission regarding the variance, '?,j • Commissioner Farano being of the opinion that since the entire parcel could be develoged under R-3 standards, the portion being held out would ' have to be included if the variance were not granted. , . ai '~ Commissioner Seymour noted there were on~y two waivers, those being building site area and off-street parking. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that since the petitioner had stipulated to developing only 28 units, the parking waiver was no longer necessary. Chairman Herbst inquired whethe~ or not the 28 units maximum stipulated to by the petitioner would bring the developmcnt into conformance with Code _ requirements of 1200 square feet of land per unit; whereupon Mr. Roberts replied that in order to meet Code requirements, the number of units would have to be reduced to 26 - therefore, the petitioner still would need this waiver. Commissioner Seymour noted that if 28 units were built, this would provide 1130 square feet of land per unit. ` ~ Commissioner Farano stated that the Commissio,i had given the petitioner, ..:;' ~ - with the reclassification and approval of an easement, the opportunity to :;', develop the property in a manner to his benefit, and if a portion were held out by one of the petitioners as a homestead or any other purpose, this was their own decision. However, the Commission had done everythi:ty ~ it should so that a development could occur that would be complimentary to the area and not create any burden on the City. t~ ~:. ;, .~c `: '<. ~-._ . • ,, = ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ _~ RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-66 'w_~~:, NO. 7U-71-35 and m~ved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2237 on the basis that VARIANCE NO. 2237 subject property was sufficiently large enough to i'`, `i (Continued) be developed in accordance with Code requirements, - and that the petitioner had not submitted pr.oof of hardship ~hich the C~mmission could consider to grant aaiver of the square footage of land per unit. (See Resolution Book) 1 n:; y; .. fi ;ii: :~'i ~ .u,.: `?~~{ ~~~ ~~", a :~ s. '~ ,, , .. ! _',) ~:. ',.~ '> On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HUGH D. AND LELA PROCTOR, NO. 70-71-32 144'S South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; property described as: An irregularly-shaped CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land having a frontage of approximately PERMIT NO. 1223 192 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and being located a~ the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Midway Drive, and further described as 1445 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURA?„ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTAB7,,ISH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITA ON-SALE LIQUOR AS A CONFORMING USE. Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of February 22 and March S, 1971, in ~rder to allow the attorney for the petitioners time to resolve parking problems through the possible acquisition of additional property located to the north. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject propzrty, uses established in close proximity, and the reason for cor.t:Anuance of subject petitions, notinq that as of the date of the report the pe4:3tioner had not been able to acquire the property to the north for parking purposes. However, a parking design was submitted, and give:~ the difficulty ''aced by the petitioner in acquirinq the property to the noYth, if the Planning Commission felt the C-1 zoning was an appropri- ate use, they might wish to consider`i•ecommending approval while at the same time adding a condit3on requiring provision of Code-required parking and development in accordance with the: C-1 site development standards prior to the reading of the ordinance since there would be no building permit under which these standards could be required. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission arid noted that little progress could be reported regarding acquisition of the portion of the pxoperty to the noxth from the State - however, use of this property dated back for approximately thirty years when it was the main connection with Anaheim Boulevard and the State highway; that no one was aware of the fact that this parcel did not belong to the petitioners until subject petition was filed; and that although he strongly supported the Zoning Ordinance, it was his feeling that there would be no parking proulem since the parking situation was the same as it had been for a r. °ber ci years, and the alternate parking plan submitted would meet their r irement. Chsirman Herb~t inquired of the attorney for the petitioner whether or not they could comply with the site development standards of the C-1 Zone as it pertained to landscaping, and if so, would the petitioner so stipulate. as well as stipulating to providing parking in conformance with the C-1 standards if and when the property to the north was acquired, then tandem +::_•: ' ::i::.:. _~ r~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ,~ cJ ~ ~;~,. ' ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION ~.J 71-204 - parking spaces would be permitted for the present-- however, other means of gaining access to the parking would have to be found in the event someone decided to construct a wall along the north property line; and thac the development of the property in accordance with the C-1 site development standards pertaining to landscaping would upgrade the appearance of the property. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission had made a field inspection of .,.= ~. the property this date to observe the number of cars p arked there an3 the : ~ ~: manner in which customers gained access to the parking area. .Y,:+':~~' '~`•~t, ~ ..1. ;' ~ ' D,.r. Knisely noted that the facili ty had been there as a nonconforming use 'r . Eor the ast P seventeen years, and there appeared to be no problem as it ;"~~ pertained to parking. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ;;•.: ~,: e, .,',_; ;. ..Y. C ^. x~ ,_ * .IfS! < `t i ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-67 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-32, subject to conditions, requiring landscaping in accordance with the C-1 site development standards prior to reading of the ordinance. (See Resolution Book) Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired of the Commission whether or not the landscaping should be placed in the front setback; whereupon Chairman Herbst noted that the petitioner would have to remove some of the existing pavina in order to provide the necessary landscaping. On roll call the foregoing res~lution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-68 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1223, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 2, adding, "Providing, however, that tandem parking may be provided along the north part of the property, and the entire setback in front of the building shall be lan~t- scaped and landscaping provided wherever the parking area abutted a street. (See Resolution Book) Chairman Herbst noted that in granting this petition approval of the waiver of off-street parking, allowing ten tandem parking spaces along the north- erly property line, shall not be construed as:_,granting approval to drive across the adjoining property to utilize said parking spaces, and that ' this should be a finding in the granting of subject petition; whereupon ~ Commissioner Allred concurred with the amendment to the motion. ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NO:'S: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION -{g~HEARING) PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM NO. 70-71-34 CITY PLANNING G~~MMISSION, 2(34 East Linco.ln Avenue, Anaheim, Cal::surnia; proposing that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 437 acres bounded generally by Haster Street on the west, Katella Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, and Orangewocd Avenue on the south, be reclassified from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, C-1 AND C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, AND R-A, AGRICULTORAL, ZONES ;~o the C-k, '..:t+MMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. : ~: ~ u ti-u. ~ r , . . _ . . ~ ' . , C . . ~ .._ . . . . . . ~a ~ . _ - i_ • ~ ~ ' i C~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 ~:.~ 71-205 RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed NO. 70-71-34 the location of subject property, uses established in (Continued) close proximity, and the purpose of readvertising subject petition after the Commission had taken action at their March 8, 1971, public hearing, noting that although the City Attorney's representative had advised the Commission two major zones could be established on s,ibject property, the City Attorney was of the opin3on that there were legal implications and that two major zones could not be ,established on property as a resolution of intent by the City unless so request:d by a petitioner. In addition, the Commission had originally initiated subject petition based on the fact that the General Plan projected subject property for commercial-recreatian uses due to the development of the stadium and approval of Pacific World (The Orient), the latter on 80 acres of property in tY,e heart of this area. Chairman Herbst informed interested persons that at the last public hearing ? on subject petition the Commission felt they had resolved the zoning problem for the area under consideration by recommending approval of C-R 1:. , zoning for the properties - however, the City Attorney determined that the ~ Commission would have to hold another public hearing since the action taken was not considered legal. Mrs. Margaret Haas, 1850 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and requested further cla.rification as to the purpose of the rehearing since it was her understanding, as well as others attending the _ March 8, 1971, r..zblic hearing, that the Commercial-Recreation Zone had been approved for the property. ~„i Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised interested persons that although ;,{ he had advised the Commission that it was correct to establish a.resolution ~ of intent for C-R zoning by the Commission, there were technical reasons ^ which made it legally impossible to establish a resolution of intent, ~ particularl where ;,1 Y properties had been developed within the confines of ~ the M-1 Zone, and the City could only establish a resolution of intent as `•~<~ blanket zoning for properties where only an R-A 2one was on the property, ;i not the major ~ones presently existing on many of the properties. 1:,~ Mrs. Haas inquired whether or not the Commission wanted C-R zoning on the ~ property, and wasn't that their intent in the public hearing resolution. ~;~,j Mr. Lowry stated that this was what he had advised the Commission, but he ~.; was in error. Mrs. Haas then inquired whether or not the zoning would apply to the ~ , `~ stadium and Pacific World properties only. ~ Mr. Lowry stated that this was true - in additzon, for any R-A properties in the area; however, where a major zone existed or where development had occurred, two major zones could not be available for the property, Chairman Herbst noted that Pacific World-The orient had a conditional use permit approved to build their particular complex, even though it still was , in the M-1 Zone; that there was no C-R zoning in the area since it was primarily M-1, together with a few comiaet~ial parcels along Anaheim Boulevard - however, the General Plan ^•:•oj~•cted the area under consideration for future C-R uses, and it was felt th:ts overlay zone would accomplish implementation of the General Plan proj~_ctions, but it would appear the existing major zones would have to remain, and the Commission did not intend ; that these properties develop piecemeal for commercial-recreation uses, ; thereby creating spot zone effects. Mrs. Haas inquired whether or not the existing zoning would remain on the property. Commissioner Farano noted that when the Commission contemplated establishing C-R zoning for the properties, it was based an the fact that the Deputy City t Attorney had advised the Commission that the various zoned properties could remain as they were, and if someone owned M-1 properties and developed ~:. ~ ; 1 ~'~. ' ,~ , 5 _i ` . , ~ ' ~ i ~ ~ ;~ I ,,. ,, ; ------_.._ _.._ --- ~ O ~3 ~ --~ " MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, Ap7~i1 19, 1971 71-206 . RECLASSIFICATION - industrially and wanted to purchase land immediately ~ NO. 70-71-34 adjacent to them for expansion, they would be able to (Continued) develop within the confines of the. existing zoning. However, the adjoining property would be R-A, and . based on the Deputy City Attorney's opinion, this ,, could be done, and at the same time, this could deve2cp for C-R uses, however, this was not so. In zoning of property fr•am an existing major zone it would have to be through filing of a petition by the property owner and considered at a public hearing rather than establishing a resolution of intent by the City, as was the Commission's inter:t. ~ :, ~ Mrs. Hass then noted that she had a possible sale for commercial-recreation ~>.'.;"~~'^ uses for her property, and the proposed zone would be to their advantage. `~ Furthermore, there were other prop~rty owners who were not aware of the z public hearing today and requested a continuance of subject petition until `~ ~~ they had been fully apprised of what was now being considered. Furthermore, as she understood the resolution of intent, this would permit someone to ~ develop as soor_ as an ordinance was read, rather than waiting approximately ~: ';~ three months for the hearing and approval of a resolution. ~ s i: ~ .f~t The Commission noted that her last statement was correct. Discussion was held by the Commission on the alterhatives presented by staff, whether or not it was necessary to have C-R zoning an the stadium property, whether or not The Orient prcperty would develop, and whether or not the Commission should continue consideration of subject petition until other property owners were in attendance to present their viewpoints. Mrs. Haas requested a four-week continuance so that other interested persons could be present. Mr. Ray Curran, representi.ng Orange Empire Heat Treating Company, 1000 East Katella Avenue, noted that if the Commission were planning to continue subject petition for four weeks, he would request that all property owners be so advised of this continuance. Mr. Vincent Maiocco, owner o£ the Roadside itest Motel, 1836 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared before the Commission, noting that he was the new owner of the motel, and he had not been advised of the proposed change in zone - therefore, he would request a continuance so that he could further study the implications of the proposal. The r,ommission inquired when he had purchased the property since the address list indicated a notice had been sent; whereupon Mr. Maiocco stated he had purchased the property late last year. The Commission Secretary advised the Commission that the assessor parcel listing was a year old; therefore, the former owner had been sent a legal notice. Commissioner Seymour noted that if subject petition were continued, Mrs. Haas and any of the property owners she was representing should contact the staff or the City Attorney for any further information. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRTED, to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 70-71-34 to the meeting of May 17, 1971, in order that more property owners affected by the proposed reclassification could be present to voice their opinions, and that the staff should notify all property owners again. Furthermore, if any persons present at the public hearing wanted further information, they could contact the Development Services Department staff or the City Attorney's Office regarding the action taken and the reason why it had to be reconsidered. RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a ten-minute recess at 4:10 P.M. RECONV'~:NE - Chairman Herbst rec~nvened the meeting at 4:22 P.M., Commissioner Rowland being absent. . ` ~~ ~ - - ,~. - '~- , „., =~r*t~; °~? 5 .~. ,~~ ! _a . ~_ • ! r ~ ~ r:~'~ ~ MINUTES~ C~TX,PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri~ 19, 1971 ~ ~~ :,, 71-207 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MAGNOLIA BAPTIST CHURCH, 720 South PERMIT N0. 1231 Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; SID LEVEE, c/o Maxwell Starkman & Associates, 8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING CHURCH COMPLEX WITH WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approximately 463 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, extending atproxi.mately 510 feet easterly to Velare Street, and being loca*_ed approximately 850 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 720 South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to expand an existing church complex, requesting waiver of the required 25-foot front setback, proposing only a 24-foot setback - however, it would appear that the plans could be shifted very easily so that this waiver would not be necessary; that the primary consideration before the Commission was one of land use and whether the proposed expanded use was appropriate for the area since a previous conditional use permit approved expansion along Velare Street, at which time the Commission required a 15-foot wide landscaped area with a 6-foot masonry wall to screen the parking area, and if the Commission considered subject petition favorably, it would appear desirable to continue this screening treatment along the Velare Street frontage to enhance the appearance of the area. Furthermore, the Commission might wish to determine whether 6-foot masonry walls should be required along the property lines adjacent to the existing single-family homes. Mr. Sid Levee, architect and agent for the ~etitioner, appeared before the Commission and, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the 1-foot waiver was not needed, and he would stipulate to meeting Code requirement; however, th~re was one concern which the church had, and that was the wall proposed by staff, noting that comments by the church regard- ing staff's recummendation were in the report being presented to them cover- ing screening the wall on Velare Street, the 6-foot masonry walls adjacent to the single-family homes, and indicated the petitioner proposed to convert the property on which a home presently existed - the northerly parcel - on Velare Strcet since it was their intent to retain the home for use for youth groups; that since it was anticipated acquiring addi- tional property, namely, the parcel surrounded on three sides by the church property, they were requesting posting of an improvement bond in lieu of constructing the sidewalks, walls, and parkways until said property was acquired; that the existing wall betweEn the church and the single- family home on the north boundary was mutually satisfactory to the property owner, who was the church's maintenance superintendent; and that the parking area lighting, rather than requiring a 6-foot height limitation, be made subject to the approval of a specific lighting plan. Furthermore, it was the church's opinion that the street lighting fees had been paid for under a previous petition. `;' Commissioner Kaywood inquired why there was~no lands^aping on the Velare Street frontage as was required under Conditional Use Permit No. 889, since • ~_,p~ ~~ isited the property ,snd found none. .a~+4~ ~t.e..¢- :-;:, Mr. Levee stated that the church would comply with the requirements of the " City. i Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission, for clarification ' ':;' purposes, the street light and street tree fees were paid for the properties ~ ~;,- previously considered - however, the charges proposed were for additional ; church property. k~ + Mr. Roberts then inquired whether or not the netitioner proposed to change the existing parking area when the new structure was developed; whereupon Mr. Levee replied that they woald lose some parking space - therefore, ~a rather than providing the general 6-foot high lighting, they would prefer to present a lighting plan at such time as the new structure was developed. ~ .~ac . . I h i y ~-' .~ +=-- _.- ... . . . ~'e , .. . _ r 2 . >.i3 ~ i:-~,,,,..~,~.,.. ~ ; . .. C ` _" . ~ , ~ ~ ~J MINUTES, CSTY PS,ANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 197Z 71-208 CONDITIONA.G USE - Commissioner Kayv;ood then inquired whether or not the PERMIT NO. 1231 petitioner inten3ed to exercise the proposed R-3 (Continued) zoning existing on the property, or would the petitioner stipulate to termination of the reclassification and variance pending on the property; whereupon Mr. ~evee stated that these petitions could be terminated since th~ church did not intend to exercise the use approved under said petitions. : No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '-...c:,- ~~~_.~°~.r. Chairman Herbst noted that attractive homes had been in existence for some a time on the east side of Velare Street; therefore, he felt these single- ~ family homeowners should be given some protection from parishioners parking in this new area by requiring a 6-foot masonry wall now, rather than the ~° posting of a bond. ' Mr. Slaughter then stated that if the etitioner p planned to use the exist- ing home with existing landscaping, the wall and 15-foot landscaping strip ~ could be required at such time as the existing home was removed. Mr. Levee advised the Commission that they had a five-year program, and the existinq home would be removed within five years. ~~ Mr. Roberts noted that if the plans progressed and development occurred sooaer than the five-year program, these improvements should be provided for at that time. :';~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-69 and mc+ved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use .Permit No. 1231, delet- ir.g waiver of the front setback since the petitioner stipulated to meeting ~ Code requirement, and subject to providing a lighting plan to the Develop- ment Services Department for approval; that a 15-foot landscaped setback and a 6-foot masonry wall to the rear of said setback be provided along - Velare Street at such time as the existing house was removed and tMe _~~.<I property was developed for parki.ng or some other use, or within five years, ,,t whichever occurred first; and that a 6-foot masonry woll be provided along ~ the northerly property line adjacent to the parcel surrounded by subject `~ property or that a bond be posted to guarantee said wall construction, ;'.i and subjec* to conditions. (See Resolution Book) - ,, ~ y;a~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe3 by the following vote: ,-~r AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. s,~. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Kaywood offere~ Resolution No. PC71-70 and moved for its passage and adoption to recammend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-57 be terminated on the basis that the peti- ~ tioner no longer planned to exercise th e rivile e of R- P 3 3 zoning for the property. (See Resolution Book) ~' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,,; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. I ABSENTc COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. z:. Commis_ioner i:aywood offered Resolution No. PC71-71 and moved for its = passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ~ Variance No. 1671 be terminated on the basis that the petitioner no longer M1; w intended to exercise the rights granted by said getition. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: rt~ : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. a` .fi! : t i ror .~~.~~.~'.~ '~ . ., ~ ' ~ ~ -Di i ~ ~, ~ ~ ,,_~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-209 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ZION EVANGELICAL LUTH~RAN CHURCH, PERMIT NO. 1232 118 North Emily Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ' ARTHUR W, GRAY, JR., 914 West Lincoln Avenue, Anahei.m, , California, Agent; requesting permission to USE AN EXISTING CHURCH COMPLEX AS A PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL WITH kAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUTRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the south side of Chartres Street, having a maximum depth of appraximately 120 feet, with frontages of approximately 80 feet on the west si&e of Philadelphia -.~Y,,. Street and 120 feet on the east side of Emily Street, and further described as 118 North Emily Street. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL ,~"`=°~~ COMMERCIAL, ZONE. .~; :~ ~: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location o: - ` subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal ~~, to establish a private high school for the Lutheran High School Nssociation + in the existing church complex; that the petitioner indicated that nnly ~ ninth graders would be using the site for the 1971-72 school ~ year, w:tl,. ninth and tenth graders using the site in the 1972-73 school year; that ~` the petitioner also indicated they intended to move the entire sch~oa into a new facility in the fall of 1973; that Code required one off-,street parking space for each ten seats in the high school or auditorium; that no seating plans for the proposed use had been submitted - however, the agent for the petit?oner indicated that a maximum of 70 students was anticipated during the 1971-')2 school year and a maximum of 140 studEnts during the 1972-73 school year, and based upon the 1972-73 school year enrollment, a total of 15 on-site parking spaces would be required. Therefore, the Planning Commission would have to determine whether the ~~ proposed use would have any adverse impact upon the surrounding area and ; whether there was any justification to waiving the parking requirements so as not to require any on-site parking. ,I -I Mr. Arthur Gray, agent for the petitior.•r, appeared before the Commission and stated he had been a member of the ~hurch for the past fifteen years and also a member of the Orange County Lutheran High School Association; that for over ten years he has been directly involved with the church expansion program when they obtained eight acres across the street from '~? their parochial grade school and presently had the new church under. y construction, investing over one million dollars for land a^_;: imprcvements; =r.~! that for over a year they had been attempting to sell the church a~u: Y~a~i ..~ but had no offers for its purchase; that the Orange County Luthera~; High School owned 13 acres in the City of Orange and planned to build ttxe high ,;?;~ school in two years, wnen all pledges had been paid off; that since the ~ church building would be empty in July, the high school approached them for use of the property to begin junior high school in September, 1971, with the ninth grade having 60 to 70 students; that the High School Association was a non-profit association owned and operated by twenty .' churches in Orange County and two in Los Angeles County; that there were four churches in Anaheim, three of which had their own parochial grade , schools; that this high school woiild be an extension of the Lutheran parochial school system in Orange County; that use of the church facilities would not make an ideal high school facility - however, after having analyzed the facilities, it was determined that the parish hall could be utilized for eight usable classrooms since it was originally built for school purposes, and, therefore, the basic school site would be the parish hall which had a lunch room, kitchen, office space, and a gymnasium; and that the church building would 'ue used only for assembly purposes, with the old parsonage building which had been used for an office building for the past twelve years used for the office of the principal of the high ' school. Mr. Gray then reviewed the uses surrounding subjec~ property, noting that the public parking lot formerly belonged to the church but had been sold to the City for less than market price with the understanding that the church could use the parking lot, if needed; that it was their intent to ' operate the high school at this location for only two years because the higher grades required more sophisticated classrooms, such as laboratories, *~'. A~t _ _ ~ ` ~ ` , ~ ~~.~ t~ MINUTE$~ CITY PI,ANNING CONiMISSION, April 19, 1971 ~ ._l 71-27.0 CON7TTIONAL USE - etc. ; that the principal of th~_ ~r, ~osed high sci:•:~ol PERMIT NU. 1232 indicated he would have two f'~11::~-tf•nA; permar~ent (Continued) teachers besides himself, w~~.:t ~r;~ aC~ult teachers to teach specia:~.ized rlass~.e, s;icc'~ as band, art, etc. , which wou:d r.c~. bR on a f!:IL-t!me ~asis, and they would not Le there ~t the same cime - theref.r,r~~,, h~,~t: the two Fermanent teachers, one prir.cfna~.i, an3 a secretary, +~nl.;~ four full-t.tmP spaces would be needed, lea:*i*~; ~wo spaces fcr vi sit:~:xs and on days when spe~ialized teachers w,.re teaching there; tha~. +`_hey would be unable to provide any additional parking on-si~e; and th~at. the church -nad been there for the past forty years under the same c'Crcumstances - theref~xe, it was h3's orinion that waiver of th,= required parking for a short time use coul/x be made since no parking wi~uld be needed for the students. 1~4~. Gray noted, in reviewing the re,::atnmended conditions of ~,pproval, that the parish hall in +::hich the cla:+se.s would be held was compu:;atively new -• therefor~, there would be no pro!~lem in meeting the Uniforrnliuilding Co3e, a,~d that the church itself would be used on:y on rare occa~aions for_ as:iembly, similar to church service, naw being held in a c:Yiurch. Commissiones Seymour inq~iired wheti?er or. not the two-year gexi.,d maxiir,s~ was from this date or from t:~e beginning of the school year; whereupon Mr. Gray replied that the church would nat be moving to the new locat?.on until July, and classes were planned fo:r September of 1971 - therefo~e, it would be through the 1972-73 school year. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Cortuu~35ion t.hat the requirement of complying with the Uniforrn Baii~.•:;: ~,,g Co3e ?vas necessitated by the fact that the buildings wouid be used f~ar school puzpc~ses. Commissioner Farar.o then stated chat the Commis~sion would nut have the power to waive th~~ building cod.re requir?:nents. Mr. D. H. Var. Meter, 201 Narth Emily SL;-pet, appeared before ~he Commission in oppositi~~n ~~~~ waiver of the reque'.r~d ,ar~rking, noting he o:vr,e~l a six-unit apartment b•aildi~g ~~ tie northwe~t ^orne~ of Emily and Chartse.~ S.`ree~s; that he cou~cl no. ..,; any •reason 2.~;c an~~ther nigh school since there were fifteen public 'uni~r high scl~~ools and six public senior high schools; that there was :~ considerable parking problem in this area now, and his tenants' guests sometir,i~s parked several blocks away; that he realized the church had the riglit to park in the City parking lot - however, nar.k~ng for a school was c:ifferent becz~use this wou)d be on a daily basis simi~ar to the hours o£ business for which this parking lot was establi=;hed whi:e the church asage was p•rimarily a:: night or on Sunday. Commissioner Faran_ i,~quired whethe.r or not Mr. Van Meter would be opposed to the petition if the oetitioner stinulated to having •,o more than six cars at one time on th~e premises, which would not necessitate any additional parking. Mr. Var, Met~r r~_•- '.ied that he ;aould have no opposition to the •~rai~<.r of the parking in that instzince; nowever, there was s further consid~ratioi: and that was bussing the chfidren to school - wheze would this bus be parked? Cha~.rman Herbst noted tihat if there were a npzd for any additional parking, the petitioner could obtai~~ parking space from the City parki.ng lot by payment of a monthly parking fee. Mr. Van Meter st,sted that t~e dia not want the streets cluttered with any more automobiles, ~nd iP he ^c~uld be assured ::here would be no need for more parking at any oiae t.imeth.an the six proposed, he would withdraw his opposition. Mrs. Georgia Cummings, repesenting the Cris Bus?ness College, 112 North Emily Street, ap~eared before thie Cammission and i:ated she was a long- term ~ess~ee of the buiiding and represer:ced the pro~:erty owner, as well; ~ i 1' ~f~, ' , . . . . - ; / - _ - . ~.,,, . ~ c:.. . . . .- ci_ . .. _ ~ . y C - ,_ .. a ~ / ~ MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMISS70N, April 19, 1971 ~ ~! 71-211 CONDITIONAL USE - that the church had not been a PERMIT NO. 1232 in the area since their meetin sroblem to the parking (Continued) Sunday or at ni ht g 4enerally were on many children drivingutotschool,aitlwouldhcertainly create a parking problem - therefore, she was ooposed to waiver of the parking requirement. However, if the petitioner stated their needs were for only six parking 5paces, why was the waiver necessary? The Commission advised the opposition that there were specific requirements g the type of school proposed, and calculation per square foot would i_cate that fifteen parking spaces would be required. Mrs. Cummings further noted that when the Aome Savings & Loan Association was located in •the area, they had an agreement to use their parking spa.ces, however, since they had relocated, the parkinq area had been taken over by a private individual who charged a fee for parking; and that she would have no opposi~ion to the proposed use so long as the parking problem was resolved. Chairman Herbst inquired by what method of transportation would the school childrer. arrive a,ad depart; whereupon Mr. Gray stated that they would be transported by the9.r parents the same way the parochial school children arrived and departed. Chair.:nan Herbst taen inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate to providing additional parking by private means if the parking require- ments were more than six ~paces as they proposed; whereupon Mr. Gray stip~lated that thay would provide additional parking if needed. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-72 and moved for its pa~saqe and adoption to grant Petition, for Conditio:ial Use Permit No. 1232, waivinq the required number of pa.rking spaces since the petitioner stipulated to providing adequate o~f-street parking should the six on-site parking spaces prove insufficieat, and that the petitioner had stipulated to terminating the use on or before January 1, 1974, and subject to connitions. (See ;tesolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pa~sed bp the following vote: AY;S: COMMISSIONERS; A17.red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NG3S: COMMISSIONERS; None. A235ENT: COMMISSION~RS; Rowland. CONDITIO*;iiL USE - PliBLIC HEARING. P,F,iVE AND N,ARY r PE'DLiIT 2J0. 1~33 Stre~t, Portervil2.e, California~ nwAersR~Walt ~isney Productions, 1313 South Harbor Souievard, Ai~ah~im, Calirornia, Age ,t; requesting permi.ssi.or~ to ESTABLISH A CARWASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROP75F,D SERVICE STATIUN A1~~D CAR CARr, CENTER on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of. land locate3 at the northeast corner ~f Katella Avenue an~ West St:.reet, having approximate froii;:ages of 245 feet on K•~,te11a Aver~ue and 215 feei on West Street. Property presently ciassified P.-F, A~RYCU'LTURAY,, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter revi~wed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a carwash in con;unce~ion with a proposed service station and car care center sonth of the llisneyland pc..rking lot; that it was the applicant s intent to service cars while guests visited the Disneyland Park; that the applica,:t should be advised that the Anaheim Municipal Code limited the noise level to 60 decibels at the property li:~e; and that the Planning Commission would have to determi.ne whetl:er the proposed use was appropriate for the area. Chairman Herb>t noted that a service ~tation was permitted by right in the Comi;iercial-Recreatior~ Zune, and that the consideration before the Commission ~vas a cdrwash in addition to the proposed service station. 's ~~i~!l~Lk~l7~,~7/ '~'~{Y:7.?~,,~Bl ~` ` r . .. . . . . ~ ; f .. __ - Yr. ' i: - . ' . . . :',at~ . . . - , - ' C i ' . ~ ~:~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 ~ ._~ 71-212 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Jack Lindquist, ~epresenting Walt Disney Productions, PERMIT NO. 1233 agent for the petitioner, appear~d before the Commission (Continued) and 3tated that the carwash facility was designed and proposed in conjunction with a car care center primarily to serve guests in Disneyland; that it was the intent of walt Disney Productions to operate this facility as part of their opera- tion in cooperation with Gulf Oil Company; and that it was the3.r belief thia pr~posed operation would bring the same type of rapport ~rith the City that had• existed in the past. " Chairman Herbst noted that some time ago a plan had been presented for an ~` interior service station at the park and inquired whether or not this was -~ that original plan. Mr. Lindquist replied that there was a service area within the park, but `$ this served only their own vehicles. 't ': Mr. Slaughter advised the Commission that Walt Disney Productions was working with the Gulf Oil Corporation for a service station site at Cerritos 1 Avenue - however, this project was not in the final ~tage at this time. Mr. F. E. Pacheco, Director of Engineering and Construct?.on for Gulf Oil Corporation, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and noted that the caswash would be totally enclosed and completely automatic and was a totally new concept which was a necessary adjunct to a service statioxt, and that there would be minor tune-ups. Mr. Pacheco, in reply to Commission questioninq, stated that the carwash cycle was a two-minute one. 'I i Mr. Howard Thompson, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, also from Gulf 'j Oil Corporation, appeared before the Commissioi, and noted that although =i the hearing was t~ consider the carwash additiu~, he would like to explain ~~ ' something about the car care service proposed; *_hat when thex started r~n this project they were instructed to design something that was superi : 'i in service and design to anything existing in Southern California; there- >~`f fore, this would be a quality development. Then the colored ren~.ring was reviewec~ by Mr. Thompson as to the type of service that was propc~sed `°?~ and the location of the car care center which would have bays opening to the rear of the propert,y, noting that because the carwash fa.cilitp was :,~ completely enclosed, they would maintain a low noise level. Y, ~'~ Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner could meet Code signing requirements and received an affirmative reply. - Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not there would be adequate parkinq - if people became familiar with this type of service proposed, the car could be left on the premises all day. `~~ Mr. Thompson replit:d that there would be no on-site parking since the `":~b vehicle would be taken back to the Disneyland qeneral parking area after 4. it had been servictd. Furthermore, this would not be a metal building _ as most service stations were, but would k~e of brick, masonry, glass, and anodized aluminum. ',;'.^, Commissioner Faxano inquired as to the hours of operation. Mr. Pacheco advised the Commission that the hours of operation would be similar to the Disneyland hours of operation - however, the carwash :r:~'.. _.:.,~„~ ?" operation would be daylight hours only. ~^ Chairman Herbst noted that his only concern would be the whin. .• noise - from a carwash operation which could be very disruptive to the _est of ~~`'- the guests at moteis, even though the Code permitted a maximum of 60 decibels. Furthermore, the rendering presented was evidence that the ' oil companies could design far superior facilities than had been constructed ;1;, in the past, and this could set a precedent for more attractive service station sites. *`. ;~ :, ~;~ ~. +___,_~ _ > ... ' ~~ _ , sn , -. , 5 . d . . . ~ -- ' ~ ~ -y ~ ,~ .3~ - . ~ ~ i . ~ - ,_.-- ~ --- - ~::~ ~ ~~ ----- ,`~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-213 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Seymour noted that the zoning which PERMIT NO. 1233 approved the Disne~land parking l~t required screen (Continued) landscaping; therefore, he would suggest that this . be extended, and inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate to providing additianal '. screen landscapinq; whereupon representatives of both Disneyland and Gult Oil Corporation stipulated to providing screen landscaping. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-73 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. - 1233, subject to conditions, and the stipulation by tne petitioner that '~~~ screen landscaping would be provided as an extension of the llisn~:.yland o` +•;,~ parking area. (See Resolution Book) 7'. ~.. +' On roll aall the foreg.ing resolution was passed by the following vote: - ?,YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Sevmour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ .~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. t CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. KILROY INDUSTRIES, 626 Wilshire PERMIT N0. 1234 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; CURTIS YOUNG, c/o Coldwell, Banker & Company, 2333 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requestinq permission to ESTABLISH A TECHNICAL SCHOOL WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres located on the east side of Claudina Place, approximately 400 feet north of the cen•terxine ~ of Ball Road, and further descr.ibed as 1100-D Claudina Place. Property ;~~ pr~asently class~fied M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ;~ ':I Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize 8,000 square feet of an existing industrial building as a trade school to train game wardens, wa.ter control technicians, industrial pollution technicians, and conservationists; that although the industrial ri, zone permitted industrial training centers as a matter of right, a non- ;~ industrial training school would require approval of a conditional use permit; and that the petitioner was proposing a total of 230 parking spaces for three industrial buildings located on the site, while Code would require a total of 290 parking spaces. In addition, the Commission would have to determine whether or not the proposed use would have an aRverse impact upon the area and whether there was sufficient justification for waiver uf the parking of the n:sgnitude requested. Therefore, if the Commission determined the use appropriate, a time limitation on the use ' could be established so that it might be reviewed in the future for : , compatibility. Mr. Curtis Young, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission 7 and noted that the tenant proposed for this facility was the National School of Conservation and Ecology owned by the National School System; that this school previously functioned as a correspondence school, however, - they now planned to have a resident school with students coming from California and surrounding states; that the school woul~d be foz males only; <i~~ that one of the considerations by the proposed school oi`ficials was the `i location of adequate ho~ising for the students, and this was made ossib p le by the apartment development to the north; and tkat approximately 808 of the students would be living in apartments, with the balance of the students being boarded out. f ~;." Mr. Young, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the school "~ term would be six months and that the site was Eormerly used by another school so that the classroom facilities were already in the building. Chairman Herbst noted that staff had expressed concern regarding the large Z amount of parking shortage and inquired whether or not the petitioner would be in a position t~ supply additional parking after the City reviewed the site at the end o; one year and determined that the parking was inadequate. 1~ r .~.'! - -- `''_ ~ +- ._,_ ...~-- - ' .g~'. . . . . . . . _ . . ~~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - = -. ~,.` t .. .,. " . . . . _ . . . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ I ~.~ t~ ~ _~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A~x~,l 7.9, 1971 71-214 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Leslia, representing the National School System, PERMIT NO. 123~ appeared before the Commission and stated they would ~Continued) ~ have to investigate the area to find other parking since the site could not supply additional parking at this time; that they had designed the facility for 150 students, however, most of these students would be arriving from out of town and would live in apartr:~nts adjacent ta the school - there- fore, there would be little need for an automobile for transportation. Mr. Leslie, in response to Commis~ion questionin~, stated that they had another school in Inglewood, and from experience at that site, those wk:., did not live cl.ose to the school had car pools, lnd that there would be ~ eight instructo~:s and r~hree administrative personnel. Mr. Slaughter noted that the parking waiver would apply to the entire site since Code would require one parking space per student, and if some of the parking spaces of other faci.lities were utilized, this could affect the development of the adjoining property. Mr. Young noted that there would be warehousing use of the balance of the building. Chairman Herbst noted that the number os parkiny spaces for student parking needed was greater than normaY wa.rehousing requirements. Mr. Young ~-eplied that a previous use of the warehousing facility in this complex had only one man and one truck, and, general'ly speaking, there would be no parking problem, and that the space in the building s~ras originally designed and adapted for school use. Furthermose, there was a five-year lease, w3th K;.lroy industries having a lease for half of that time and the balance would revert to the original owner. Commissioner Farano expressed concern that a waiver was being requested while the Commission did not know what would be estabiished in the vacant portions of the other buildings; the•refore, there was grave doubt that this waiver should be granted. Mr. Slaughter noted that staff would have to analyze very carefully any future use proposed for these buildings to make sure that warehausing only would be permitted in these buildings since the school would use one-half of the parking spaces. Mr. Young noted that Mr. Leslie had stated that if additional parking spaces were needed, they would acc;uire additi~nal property for sazd parking. Commissioner Allred inquirea whether or not the petitioner would stipuJ.ate to providing additional parking if at the end of one year a review of the property would indicate a shortage of parking space for this complex; whereupon Mr. Leslie stipulated to providing additional parking if requested at the end of the year by the City. No one appeared in oppositi~n to subject petition. i~.;'.. ~ ~- :t:;. _ r ,'~~ ~;: ,j , w'`i ;`~l:; ~_: .; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-74 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Pe~~ition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1234, granting waiver of parking on the basis that the petitioner stipulated to providing additional off-street parking if, after one year, a field inspection by the City would reveal a shortage of parking spaces, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the f~regoing resolution wa, passed by the follow=.ng vote: AYES: CONIKISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMY4ISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~ ~ t ~ i ! f 7':a,%:+.9r.-, . ~ . - . . . _-~ . . . . - ~f. _ -.t~-.. . . . _ . . ~ . . . ~ ~ . _- ~~:. l .._...~7~ ~ . . . ~ _ ~ , - ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ .. . . . ~ . . .". .. . ~ ' '_a ~ . ~ ~ , - CJ ,,.~ ~ MINUTES, CITY.pLANN2NG COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-215 ~ i i VARIANCE NO. 2247 - PUBLIC HEARING. LUCIO O. AND ESTHER D. MUNO'L, 416 i North Sabina Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT A BEAUTY SALON IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME on property described as: A ~ rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ~ 7~ feet on the east side of Sabina Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 48.23 feet, and being located approximately 117 feet south ~ of the centerline of Sycamore Street, and further described as 416 North Sabina Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY , RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ,.,-'; Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~'1''';~~ , subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to convert a room in a single-family home for a oae-chair beauty salon having access to the outside from a new door to be constructed; that the ,~ Planning Commission would wish to determine whether the proposed use would be appropriate in this location or whether it might have an adverse ' ef£ect upon the area; and that if the Commission determined the request appropriate, a time limitation might be considered for the use. Mrs. Esther Munoz, one of the petitioners, appeared before ti~e t;ommission and stated she needed to establish a beauty salon in her home to take care of four children and a disabled husband; that it had worked a hard- shiF• on her family having to work outside of the home; that if she could work in her home, she would have better control over her children; and that there would be no parking problem. Mrs. Munoz, in r.eply to Commission questioning, stated that she would need ' tliis use for approximately three years, and then at the request of the ' Commission, stipulated tio the time limitation of three years and to the ':;i operation of a one-chair beauty salon. ,~, ..~ Chairman Herbst noted that a variance granted went with the land unless .j a time limitation was set at the time of granting of the petition since -:~ the petitioner could sell the home and a commercial enterprise could be ; j developed in a residential area. ~j The Commission also inquired wh~ether or not the petitioner intended to '~ sign the property; whereupon Mrs. Munoz stated no signing was necessary "' since she already hdd her customers. '~y No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. :~ ' `.;- <~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '';:~;, r.'~t Commissioner Allred oifered Resolution No. PC71-75 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2247 for a `; period of thrae years for a one-chair, owner-operated beauty salon with- ;;. out any signiny, as stipulated to by the oetitioner, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~`3 `` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: :, ;a .~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. _ ',i.~'~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. VARIANCE NO. 2250 - PUBLIC HEARIIQG. DOYLE & SHIELDS REALTY COMPANY, -;' '; P. O. Box 386, Westminster, California, Owner; EBS TAX SERVICE, 934 ~a~ith Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) Mi;:IMIIM DISTANCE BETWEEN SIGNS A13D (2) FREE-STAHDING SIGN LOCATION TO PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL FREE- STANDING SIGN on property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres, having a frontage of approxi- i, mately 343 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 267 feet, and being located approximately 197 feet north of the centerline of Sall Road, and fur*_her described as 934 South Euclid , Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. R; ', .@! :: r ~4~~~~ ~..~ . .. ._ . . -- ~~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ , . ~ ra ~ - ' ... ^C ~`a -. . .. :' ~ ...~.., .,.. ir ~;`: ~' .: ~ ; f ~~,~ ~ r~ MIN'iTES, CxTy PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-216 VARIANCE NO. 2250 - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed (Continued) the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning actions on the property, sign requests considered by the Commission and City Council, and the proposal of the applicant to establish a 15- square foot, free-standing sign 43 feet north of the existing Spires sign and 208 feet south of the Maanay~,, sign on subject property, whereas Code woulcl require a minimum of 300 feet between eacn of these signs; that the Code would require that the sign be located within the center 208, or a minimum of 120 feet away from any adjoining property - however, the sign was proposed to be located within 43 feet of the side property line. Therefore, the primary question before the Commission was whether there was justificati~on for approval of this variance, and the Commission would have to determitte whether there was a hardship inherent in the property which deprived this property, not the individual shop owner, a right enjoyed by other psoperties in the area since the Sign Ordii:ance estab- lished a maximum amount of signing to which any property was entitled, and the allocation of that sign area to the various uses in the commercial center was a matter of contract between the property owner and his tenants. However, if the owner allowed one tenant to use up all of the permitted signing, it would appe.ar that it was not the responsibility of the govern- ing agency to see that additional signs or sign area were made available to other tenants. No one appeared to r~pr,e~~nt the petitioner. Mr. Sam Magid, 724 Nort'~h Elm Street, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and noted thaC he owned commercial property in this general area; that when these commercial areas were built, it was required of them to be built 300 8eet in from the property line, and trying to see these establishments when t.he public drove by was almost impossible; that he realized that the City could not permit signing every 50 feet, but there should be some type of system of perhaps every 75 feet, taith one standard sign so that these people would not have an anonymous business; that business conditions were very poor, and these people needed some manner of advertising - therefore, if subject property were subdivided and the petitioner had a 50-foot frontage, even though the sign would be located only 30 feet from another sign, he would be permitted this signing. ~; ~ ' Commissioner Gauer noted that something could be done to make this ~ shopping center more attractive with integrated signing. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the signs on Harbor Boulevaz3 were every 50 i feet, and while driving down the street one could never read the signs - .' therefore, this was the reason for the Code requiring shopping centers to have integrated signs so that people in need of services in the shopping center could know what was being offered, and where an integrated shopping center sign was developed, this shopping center appeared to be more successful. Mr. Magid inquired whether or not the existing integrated sign could be increased to permit additional signing; whereupon Commissioner Allred stated that the Commission would prefer seeing one inteqrated sign rather than numerous signs. Mr. Slaughter noted that when the Commission granted the previous variance to establish the Magnavox sign, together with the Sleep Shop sign, he was allowed to have any names on the sign, but he elected to put only two tenants on the sign - therefore, he had created his own hardship. ~ Furthermore, the height of the sign would be governed by the adjacent residential uses. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2250 on the basis that the petitioner had not established a hardship existed. T~~. ~ ,: ; ~ . . ~.. , ~ (' ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 ~~~ 71-217 VARIANCE NO. 2250 - Prior to taking a vote, Zoning Superv.isor Charles (Continued) Roberts noted that the petitioner, in all likelihood, would appeal this action to the City Council, and rather than having action taken by the City Council, the Commission might wish to continue subject petition to the evening session while staff attempted to contact the agent for the petitioner regarding an appearance before the Commission to answer questions. Commissioner Farano withdrew his motion of denial and stated that action should be taken when the evening session started, after staff had contacted the aqent for the petitioner. RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a recess to adjourn for dinner at 5:40 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE NO. 2250 - 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the (Continued) Commission that he had contacted the agent for the petitioner regarding apgearance before the Commission at the evening session; however, he had been advised that the petitioner requested a two-week continuance. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2250 to the meecing of May 3, 1971, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MASAMI OGATA AND JOHN WEBER, 1095 NO. 70-71-44 North Main Street, Suite S, Orange, California, Owners; LEONARD SMITH, 125 South Ciaudina Street, Anaheim, VARIANCE NO. 2248 California, Agent; property described as: A rectangu- larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 264 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 607 feet, and being located approximately 800 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED DWELLING UNIT FLOOR AREA, (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, TO ESTABLISIi A 110-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub;~ct property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning, and ti~e proposal to establish a 110-unit, one and two-story apartment complex, noting that thc site development standards of the R-3 Zone required a minimum floor area of 700 square feet, ~+hereas 12 of the units were nroposed with 550 square feet, these being bachelor-type units and was approximately 108 of the total number of units proposed; that waiver of the minimum building height within 150 feet of single-family zoned properties to the east and west adjacent to R-A zoned properties would appear to be technical since R-3 zoning had been approved on the parcel to th,e west and the General Plan indicated medium-density designation for this area - therefore, the zoning would appear to be appropziate. HowPVer, two-story construction was proposed within 74 feet of the R-1 p.~perties to the south, located in the City of Stanton, but the City of Stanton required only a 50-foot setback for two-story apartment construction, and a similar request had been approved on the parcel to the west - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether or not the most recent request was considered appropriate. --- " _ ~- . . . , ~,:-. \ 0 '' t . ,~ . ~.. - ~ _ ` . ~ r~: .~' . ~' _i ~ n ~ k' ' i ~ ~~ ~ `,.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 197b 71-218 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. William Phelps, 1095 North Main Street, Orange, NO. 70-71-44 designer of the prouose3 project, appeared before the Commission and noted that the waivers requested VARIANCE NO. 2248 were technical to a degree, particularly as they (Continued) pertained to the 150-foot height limitation adjacent to the R-1 properties in the City uf Stanton since the City of Stanton required only a 50-foot limitation; and that the distance between buildings was within courts and not between buildings. A letter of opposition was read to the Commission. No one appeared in oppasition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts noted that this project was similar to the one approved to the west in terms of design and waivers requested. Commissioner Seymour noted that this particular piece of property merited R-3 zoning since R=3 zoning had been granted for the property to the west, and the entire area on the General Plan was designated for medium-density residential use; that the waiver of the minimum square footage for dwelling units had been waived in the past, provided that only 10$ of the units were proposed for bachelor units; and that since the City of Stanton required only a 50-foot distance between two-story apartment construction and sinqle-family homes and a similar waiver had been granted in the past, it appeared this waiver seemed to be justified. Furthermore, as noted in the letter of opposition, the matter of subject property being in the path o£ the proposed Beach Freeway might pose a question, but to require a property owner to retain his property in a vacant stage for ten or fifteen years until the freeway was constructed was also imprac~tical. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution iJo. PC71-76 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-44 be approved, 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, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-77 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2248, based on findings as previously stated 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, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ka}~wood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. -~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUHLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC MOTdRS CO., INC., H. R. NO. 70-71-43 Mc Neil, President, 325 'South Atlantic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; DONALD F. BUHLER AND .. M. L. BOWER, 4001 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acres, having a - frontage of approximately 90 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximi±m depth of approximately 644 feet, and being located approximately 991 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the t R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ ~ ~ I i i }, i ~ ~ :~ ; ~ ~i ~ ~ V ~ 1 : rz!~+~ww+4s'.., .. -~,.+_,,, . . . - . , ~ ~-, f ' ~ ^ r _. - , --__ ~. , __._ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ -- -- -_T ~ ~~.,_) MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-219 .. RECI~ASSIFICATION - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the NO. 70-71-43 ].ocation of subje~} property, uses established in _ • (Continued) r•„lose proximity, previous zoninq action on the property, and the proposal to establish R-3 zoning on the property; that the area was designated for medium-density development on the General Plan - therefore, the requested ',. I zaning would appear to be appropriate; that no plans of dev been preserated, aad the applicant would be required to developpinnaccord- ance with the standards of the R-3 Zone should this zoning be approved. Howeve2, the Interdepartmental Committee, after reviewing this proposal '~~,;^ `- in light of the adjoining properties and their anticipated land use, ;;~e. were of the opinion that some type of street circulation should ba ~' provided - one possibility would be to extend a street southerly from .:; Broadway along the westerly property line of subject property, then ,~' running westerly along the northerly line of the school Loara Street, thus providing both north-south and east-westPaccess~for - the anticipated units, and in view of this, the Planning Commission might wish to undert•ake an area development plan study to determine whether such circulation was necessary and appropriate. Furthermore, if the .~ Commission were of the opinion that a study should be underta'ken, subject petition could be continued in order that it mighr_ be heard in conjunction with the area development plan. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the petitioner understood the staff's recommendation as to providing~a circulation plan and further inquired whether or~not a special time element was involved since the F~tit"ioner had not submitted~plans with the application, and only zoning was being requested. Furthermore, before he would consider approving ti R-3 zoning for subject property, he would have to see some plans of ,°~ development. ,i t~r. Don Buhler, one of the agents for the ~,etitioner, appeared before the ~ Commission and stated that they did have plans for development and could submit them to the Commission at the hearinq. . ..1 :~ The Commission advised the petitioner that staff would have to review the plans to determine whether any waivers were nacessary prior to consideration by the Planning C~mmission. l : Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that based on the number of items ;•~ scheduled for the next public hearing, he would recommend that a four- h week continuance be considered for subject petition in order that staff ,•., .! might review the plans in detail, as well as consider an area development plan. - Commissioner Gauer stated that some consideration should be given to the property being held out s.ince it was a very irregular parcel, and if it ever came in for a rezoning request, it would have similar problems to the one heard earlier in the afternoon by the Commission wherein a portion was proposed to be held out without any zoning. Furthermore, it was his feeling that an area development plan should be considered by the Planning . Commission in conjunction with any plans of development for the property. ~ Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of i Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-43 to the meeting of May 17, ;:, 1971, in order that staff might prepare an area development plan and to ~~ review development plans proposed by the petitioner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~"" RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION CO., 12053 ~, . NO. 70-71-45 Paramount Boulevard, Downey, ~a3.ifor,nia, Owner; VARIANCE NO. 2249 Suite S, OrangeR Californ~.aioAgentrtpropertytreet, described as: An 3.rregularly-shaped parcel of land Z consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 900 feet on the n.orth side of II,a Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi.mateY~ 23O feEt, and being located opposite the terminus of Fronter~ St.seg~. a.*. La Palma Avenue. Property presently ~ classified R-A, AGR3CULTURAL, 20NE. ' .~t ;~ . y .. _ 34.:.. :... . ~ ~..~a~ . " . . ~~. .. ' .. ~ . ~ ~ . ~' . ~ .. . .. . , . ~ _ . .._i ---~i ~-.. ., . c~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 ,~ - ~ ..E. t~ 71-220 RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY N0. 70-71-45 RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. VARIANCE NO. 2249 REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED (Continued) DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO PERMIT A 90-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 90-unit, two-story apartment complex having access over a 700-foot long, private accessway; that the variance was necessitated by the irregular configuration of the proposed structures which were governed by the irregular shape of the property; that the General Plan projected subject property for commercial land uses - therefore, the primary consideration before the Commission was whether or not the property was appropriate for medium-density land use given the proximity of the freeway right-of-way which made this property less desirable for residential uses and more appropriate for commercial uses. Furthermore, if the Commission determined that the land use would be appropriate, then the question was whether the requested variance was justified, and in view of the irregular shape of the property, the variance might not be unreasonable. ~~ '' Mr. William Phelps, representing the ayent for the petitioner, appeared ;M before the Commission and indicated he was available to answer questions. ~ ;~ Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the developer had taken into ~~, consideration the possible widening of La Palma Avenue in developing the plans before the Commission since this was not indicated; whereupon ~i Mr. Phelps replied that the 53-Poot half-width for La Palma Avenue was taken into consideration. ~ Chairman Herbst further inquired whether or not a slope analysis had _~ been made, and if the street were widened, this would increase the slope; , ,, whereupon Mr. Phelps replied that this was covered by him in conference with the Road and Traffic De ar tment p s of the City; that this was a very difficult parcel left by the State after the freeway was constructed, and the man who purchased this property realized that it would be very diffi- cult to overcome a 20Q-foot total depth; that the property owner had <~ inherited the problem on the property as it presently existed; that a ;'~;;k large apartment complex nearby did very well in their development adjacent to the freeway; and that the waiver between buildings was, in essence, ~.~ a corridor rather than space between buildings. Chairman Herbst noted that subject property was completely surrounded by freeways and roadways, and the question in his mind was the establishment of a residential use which would certainly leave a lot to be desired from an nvi e ronment al vi w e oint for liv' in P uarters 4 Q . - Mr. Phelps replied that from a first glance, this might be true, but after having visited the property a number of times there appeared not to be a great noise problem since the roads were either above or below the pro- posed development. ~'~+ Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the property owner had purchased th~e p,~operty from the City; whereupon Mr. Phelps replied that it had been ~urchased from the State; that the State had created a very -i, difficult pa:rcel which the City of Anaheim inherited; and that the man 'r; ~i who purchased it also had a difficult piece of property, although he knew +'ei this would be a difficult piece of property to develop. Chairman Herbst noted that the property was located in a hole, and all that would }a~e visible would be the roofline of the apartment complex and the slopes. t ~ ~. ` ~e -: ~~ .. ~_ ."Jy._~... . ~ .. ~ . . ... . . 1 ~ - - ~ . ~ - . . ! ~ .. _ _ . ~ _a ~y.:~ .. .. ~...'.... ~ 7 ^ 1 . c > (~} ;.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-221 '. RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Phelps replied that this would be a flat roof NO. 70-71-45 with semi-mansard e£fect to reduce the roofline, making it softer in appearance. VARIANCE NO. 2249 - (Continued) Commissioner Seymour noted he appreciated the fact that apartments would bring the greatest return, but . he would find it difficult to approve apartments for this property and inquired whether or not the owner had given some thought to developing a miniature golf course. Mr. Phelps replied that the owner was an old friend who had come to him .-~:: because he had designed many apartments in Anaheim; that any recreational _~'~'`; use would have just about as manp drawbacks as an apartment use; that the r - appearance of daylight for this parcel was from only one direction which ~~ would make it very difficult for use as a recreational facility - however, ~ he had not discuss~d this with the pet~+ioner. Then, in response to ' questioning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Phelps stated that i:hey had only ! planned the residential use, alt•hou+gh th,ey had talked about a commercial use, but any commercial use of siz,e would fill the "eye" completely, and they did not pursue the commerciai use beyond the £irst stage of their ~ discussion. Eiqht persons indicated their presence Tn oppo~sition to subject petitions. Mr. John Hoppert, 518 North Chantilly Avenue. appearesl befo~•e the Commission noting his property was just south of the proposed site; that he had resided in this area for about a year, having moved there for th~e obvious reason that this was a clean, residential area; that Anaheim was a city with a fine residential atmosphere, good ~parks, and schools; Chat the thought of having a multiple-family development so close to single-family residential uses was inconceivable; that there 'vrould be insuffioient area for parking ~'~ for guests, anc~ these people would be parking on Chanf•illy Avenue; and that he would not want his children, who werz both u~nder six years of age, to have to face multiple-fam_ly residential trs~.ffic. Mr. Robert White, 533 Chantillp Avenue, noted h.is home was the first one ° people came to who were involved in a wreck on t_he freeway and roads in '~. this area to telephone for help, and he would cr~ncur with the statement made by Mr. Hoppert that this would add to the +:raffic problem to this '~ area, creating congestion at this intersection. °;,n Mr. Phelps, in rebuttal, noted that the commercial traffic generated more ':?~ traffic than a residential use, and small children would have to cross a very heavily traveled speedway to get to a commercial use; that when ,,~~;~ he discussed the traffic flow early in the design stage with the Traffic _''? Engineer, the Traffic Engineer asked that he design the development so ~% that traffic would not ~be geared to Chantilly Avenue; that the apartment, as such, should be considered one building; that the actual appearance of the apartment would not affect the single-family homes because of the existence of the roads; that as a designer, apartment development for subject property would be much more acceptable than a small commercial ' shopping center; that he would agree that La Palma Avenue needed widening % and development cvould add an appearance to the area rather than detract •= fr~m the area; that he was sure no one would be parking on Chantilly Avenue in the residential area because it was too far away; and that they met ; ,;;' Code requirements as they pertained to parking. Commissioner Allred, in reviewing the plans, noted that four apartments i' were located only 12 feet from the Orange Freeway, and he could not see the logic in having people living in apartments down in that "hole" since ~s, ;~ one would be subjecting these people to some of the highest noise e2ements, ' and that he was very much concerned with the environmental living quality ~' of the area, particularly with the on-ramp noises. ;-;., Chairman Herbst noted that in some instances where right-of-way was taken from homes adjacent to on-ramps, this was done after development of the apartments or homes had occurred - however, the Commission had never _, approved a new development that was as close as the one proposed. ~.';. .~~t r; ~ ~ ~ -- - k` ' ~ ,:. - .._. _ ::. . . . ~ ~ _ i~ ~ .. . _ . _ . . .~~.~i ~ . _ . : . ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~:;,:~4,.r ~.. ~~-. _ ~ 5 Q ~ . '~ . . ~ ' _s , .. .. . . . i ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . ~.I . . . . - ~', C.~ ~ (_~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON, April 19, 1971 71..2Z2 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seym~ur noted that the use proposed was NO. 70-71-45 wrong and suggested that a different type of use be considered for the area since he could not see placing VARIANCE NO. 2249 people in that area and subjecting them to an undesir- (Continued) able living environment. Mr. Phelps replied that before they ever started any designing, he had visited the site several times, and they had presented a similar design ;:o the City of Garden Grove and had answered these same questions; that the desian was not undesirable; and that the Hirsch property in Santa Ana oft Bristol Street did aot find any difficulty in their location. Chairman Herbst noted rhat w~.th the size of the units and being only 12 feet from the freeway, this w?s mos~ undesizable; however, the designer had done an adequate design job with the lo~cation, but the question before the Commission was whether or not this wa:e an environment which the Commission wanted residents of the city to be subjected to, particularly the noise factor which ::ould resound throughout the area because of the freeway and roads, and the only thing he could see this turning into was a slum with low residential units because he had never seen any property quite surrounded by roads and freeways as this property was. Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that if another use were to be considered, it would have to be readvertised, and if this were not to be considered, then the Commission had two other choices, either approve or deny the petitions, but if it was the Planning Commission's desire to encourage the property owner to consider somethinq else, these platts could be presented to the staff who then could readvertise these petitions. ''ia ~ ~~ Chairman Herbst noted that the petitioner could review alternatives and ",:'`;; could still come in requesting that the Commission consider his original '~ request - then the Commission could act upon it by recommending whatever they wanted to the City Council. •.ti:: :~; `' :~ :+ ,r y.':J ti, i>.; ~:. ~," - '~ *': ~ .~se . Mr. Paul Scott, 12035 Paramount Boulevard, Downey, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that when subject propertp was purchased by them, they had negotiated for a restaurant and motel aFter having talked with representatives of the City on what would be acceptable for the property - however, after the Orange Freeway and overpass of the freeway were constructed, it was their opinion that it would be impossible to ha:~e a commercial use for the property because of the difficLlty in havir.g access from the freeway and heavily travelled roads, and this migltt create problems in the residential area with motorists taking the wrong turn; that several automobile ag~~cies had looked at the property also, but they felt that only one acc:~ss would be insufficient for commercial uses; that after viewing the property developed to the south, adjacent to the Orange Freeway, it was their opinion that they had only one choice, and that was developing it for apartmer.ts si.nce it would be a monumental p,-.oblem for cammercial traffic to gain access to the property, and that apartments would cause less problems and less congestion than anything they could think of. Furthermore, none of the commercial prospects felt this was a desirable spot. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner felt this would be a good living environment for himself. Mr. Scott replied that when they purchased the property they had been informed that a motel or restauraat could be built on the property. Commis~ioner Kaywood then inquired whether the petitioner would chose to live in this type of environment - would he feel this was a desirable living environment for anyone? Mr. Scott replied thati he did not feel it would be detrimental to the City, and the noise factor would not be any greater than any other area. , ~ _ ; - ~ :-;.; .:;_.:.,... . - ~- : ; _ - _. ~ ~ k :- , ~~.. o. ~ - • .:.,~ ,._, ~..,,,~-' ,.,;, ~ . , ~ _« i . i ~,.-~ '~ ~~; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-223 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Kaywood noted that it was one thing to NO. 70-71-45 have a situation where an area was developed with homes or apartments and another thing where oaie would VARIANCE NO. 2249 qo into an arPa knowing full well this would be a (Continued} difficult area to be successful, and with all these factors to consider, it woul~ appear that this would not be a good living environment for people; and that she would have to vote "no" if approval was proposed. Commissioner Gauer observed that the State had left many pieces of property __~~_ that were undevelopable, and to permit people to build on a left-over ,.. piece, particularly with apartments, was undesirable; and that the State •,, had done a great disservice to the cities by leaving these small parcels, "` ' selling them to private parties, thereby creating more problems for the cities in which these parcels were located. .~. a ' Mr. Scott was of the opinion that apartment development would be better than commercial development located in the center of apartments and homes. Chairman Aerbst observed that the opinion of the majority of the Commission ~ was that it was not a good living environment for residential uses, and he - would not vote for a residential use for this property. However, he would n~t want to say what zoning would be appropriate since he felt design plans should be considered before any zoning could be approved, even though a property owner had the right to request any zoning he desired. The Commission appeared to be of the opinion that the use proposed, beinq surrounded by hiqh traffic, was not the proper zoning for the property. In addition, he felt this would turn into a ghetto with a poorer class of people residing there. ": r1r. Scott stated that other apartments had been approved adjacent to the ~ Orange Freeway; whereupon Chairman Herbst noted that these other apartments ~ were provided with garages adjacent to the freeway right-of-way which 7 effectively blocked noisec from the freeway traffic. ~ Mr. Scott, in response to Cotnmission questioning, statied that he would~ ; like a four-week continuance to review alternatives for subject property. ~~_~ Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions ; for Reclassification No. 70-71-45 and Variance No. 2249 to the meeting of May 17, 1971, to allow the petitioner time to consider an alternate use for .the property. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~' RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING ``~ NO. 70-71-46 ,. COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: RECLASSZFICATION Eight areas in the unincorporated portion of Orange NO. 70-71-47 County iocated as follows: Area I- bounded by Orange Street on the aorth, blue Gum Street on the ;~ west, La Palma Avenue on the south and Kraemer Boulevard on the east; Area II - bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on the east ,' by Kraemer Boulevard, on the south by the Riversi.de Freewaf and extending . westerly approximately 3,000 feet from Kraemer Boulevard; Area III - bounded by Anaheim Lake on the west, Oranqethorpe Avenue on the north, Jefferson Street on the east, and Miralom3 Avenue on the south; Area 24' - ;; east side of Lakeview Avenue, south of the flood control channel and ~~ extending southerly approximately 900 feet therefrom; Area V- east side of Lakeview Avenue, the southerly boundary being approximately 700 feet north of La Palma Avenue; Area VI - bounded by the Santa Ana River on the south, Fee Ana Street an the west, a line 400 feet north of and parallel to La Palma Avenue and extending approximately 1,500 feet east of Lakeview _ Avenue; Area VII - north of the Santa Ana River, south of Orangethorpe Avenue, approximately 1~500 feet west of imperiai Highway; and Area vtll - north of the Santa Ana River, south of La Palma Avenue, approximately 300 feet west of Imperial Highway, be reclassified from the County of Orange ~ M1 and 100-M1-20,000 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL u2STRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE for Reclassification No. 70-71-46 and to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE for Reclassification No. 70-71-47. * .~ .~! :::, i ~-~,. - . : r~ _.__"__ _"_ . / ..~~ ~'-''~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CnMDS2SSION, April 19, 1971 ~~_/ 71-224 RRC~,ASSIFICATION - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the NO. 70-71-46 location of subject property, existing zoning, and the proposal to establish City of Anaheim zoning RECLASSIFICATION under Reclassification No. 70-71-46 at such time NO. 70-71-47 as the properties were annexed into the city since (Continued) these properties were within the sphare of influence of the City of Anaheim, and establish a resolution of intent to M--1 after said parcels were in the City of Anaheim, thereby expediting reclassification procedure permitting property owners to meet the conditions of the resolution of intent to have an urdinance read rather than having additional public hearings. Mrs. Carrie Coykendall., 15332 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that she did not understand the reason for the two legal notices and inquired whether or not the City was planning to annex these properties into the cit.y, Mr. Roberts noted that there was no intent to annex these properties into the city, but when property owners were ready to be annexed into ttie city, their property would havp the proper zoning established on the property with a resolution of intent awaiting completion of conditions for zoning the property to M-1, and this would alleviate the problem of spending four to five months with public hearings after annexatiori took place. Thus, when any proparty was annexed into the city, the M-1 ordinance would be available for anyone who was ready to develop the property.by meeting the conditions of the resolution of intent. Chairman Herbst noted that the proposed reclassifi~ations would be of assistance to the property owners in the•event tney wanted to develop their properties much more speedily than they could if this zoning action were not on the property; that these parcels were within the sphere of influence of the City of Anaheim, and when developed, would be serviced by the City of Anaheim; that the action being taken now by the Commission would eliminate any further public hearings when and if property owners desired to develop their properties for industrial uses. Aotiever, he wished to assure all property owners that it was not the City's intent to annex these properties until the property owners so desired, but it was only providing a tool for these property owners at such time as they werF~ ready to annex to the city. Mr. J. J. Black, 2815 Coronado Street, appeared before the Commission and requested an explanation of what was meant by "amendment to Title 18". Mr. Roberts noted that amendment to Title 18 established a change of zone on properties not currently covered by Title lII. Mr. Black noted that it was his opinion his property was already zoned M-1; whereupon Chairman Herbst noted that all property owners within - 300 feet of property under consideration had been sent a legal notice advising them of the Commission's consideration. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. Mrs. Coykendall asked whether or not she c~uld still use her property for agricultural purposes and whether or not she had to be annexed into the City of Anaheim; whereupon the Commission assured her that so long as she was desirous of remaining in the County and using her property for agricultural purpose~, there would be no intent of the City to annex her property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-78 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council tha~ Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-46 bc: approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ! ~r Ey.:'. : ~ 7 ~~ 1 : r _ r ~• ' T ; ~~ ~ C~ : MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-225 - RECLASSIFICATSON - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ,::~. NO. 70-71-46 the folloaing vote: .r.,:.:~,.,,, ?~~~ RECLASSiF2CATION AYES: COMMSSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, ~ .,. : _-,,.- NO. 70-71-47 Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ` -';: (Continued) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~, Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-79 and moved for its ~~:,''- passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ~ ,yr_~-~'~~ Reclassification No. 70-71-47 be approved, subject to conditions. (See ~:~~~;x Resolution Book) ~~ '~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ;. <. ~'= ~' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. i;~,~',i;~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. *.'~" :°~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONE~S: Rowland. . .. -~ : f . I - - ---- _~ `--- ~ ~ ~ I . ~. C_) ~ ~_J ~; ~ ..; '.r.. 1 .+kc MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apxil 19, 1971 71-226 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Consideration of revised plzns for Reclassification No, 70-71-37 and Variance No. 2241 (Toussau property located on the east side of Sunkist Street, approxi- mately 200 feet north of Ball Road). Zoning Supervisor Charles ltoberts presented to the Planning Commission revised plans for Reclassification No. 70-71-37 and Variance No. 2241, noting that at the March 22 public hearing the Commission had considered the aforementioned reclassification for property located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street wherein 157 R-3 apartment units were proposed, at which time the Commission had recommended denial by a vote of four to three; that ±he dev~lopers had revised their plans, trying to incorporate some of the ideas of concern of the Commission and were now providing a 10-foot buffer strip along the east property line adjacent to tbe R-1 propertics in addition to a 10-foot strip along the north property line and had relocated carports so that they would be within 200 feet of the units lthey were to serve. However, the type of carports originally proposed was still a waiver that was requested. Mr. Roberts then noted that subject petitions would be considered by the City Council on April 20, 1971 - however, the developer was desirous of determining whether or not the Commission would have approved subject petitions based upun the site plans now before them. Furthermore, the density t~as now reduced from 23.8 to 22,7 units per net acre. Chairman Herbst noted that the surrounding area had changed sufficiently to warrant a change from low density as he personally feJ.t; however, if R-3 were approved and development occurred, it was his opinion that an adequate buffer landscape strip would have to be provided to protect the existing R-1 homes ;vhich liad been establishe3 for some time adjacent to subject property; that he had stated at the last public hearing he would not again vote for an apartment development which would provide a 20-foot wall adjacent to single-family properties because this presented a very unsightly appearance to the single-family homes and created a hardship by not giving these single-family homes the needed environmental protection; that after viewing the R-2-5000 on the west side of Sunkist Street, a:hich had a 20-foot wall in the rear yards adjacent to the R-3, he was more convinced t}ian ever that the City shouid never again approve this type of svironment but should provide a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer strip, or, as an alternative, developing a tier of R-1 homes in coniunction with the apartments - therefore, anyone purchasing these homes would be fully aware of the fact that apartments were adjacent to these homes, whereas this was not true as it pertained to the single-family homes already developed to the north; and that in four other instiances the Planning Commission had required either a 20-foot landscrxpe strip or the tier of homes to separate the multiple-family use from the single-family use. Furthermore, there appeared only one change of any importance to hxm, which was the fact that the developer was now proposing only a 10-foot landscape strip adjacent to the east - therefore, this plan did not meet the criteria under which he would consider R-3 favorably, as previously stated. Commissioner Allred noted that he would concur in Chairman Herbst's statements since he favored the R-3 zoning at the last public hearing. However, he also felt that it was necessary to establish a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer strip between the R-3 and the R-1 uses, and if the developer would agree to provide this, there was no doubt that others of the Commission might change their minds since the plans presented were a very attractive multipl~-family development. Mr. Larry Matzick, representing Ponderosa Homes_, appeared before the Commission and stated that the criticism~made by the Commission was well taken, but he could not commit himself to the 20-foot landscape strip since they would have to contact the property owner to re-negotiate the purchase price since they would be unable to achieve a density for which the price of the land was negotiated originally; and that they would have to attempt ±o have an answer in time for the City Council public hearing. ~ ! f ~s ' i ~ C.) ~ c ,~ MINUTES, CITY P.LANNING COMMIS30N, APRIL 19, 1971 ~1_22~ REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (continued) Chairman Herbst noted that since the General Plan prsjected low-medium density, and the proposed development did not meet this criteria, he ~ could not see where a loss ~as being taken, and that although apartments : ~ were built across the street, the same developer had built the homes and the apartments. Commissioner Seymour inquired of Mr. Matzick whether he saw anything tha*_ ~`~' ~ was desirable about a 10-foot concrete wall adjacent to the R-2-5000 r,;;,'~,. ~ across the street. ~ ' Mr. Matzick replied that the Code gave no specific criteria on what a .~; buffer strip should be, and they were proposing an open appearance with open-type carports 8 feet high, together with a 10-foot landscape strip -' which would be enjoyed by both the tenants of the apartments and the R-1, said strip could be used as a small picnic area for the apartment tenants. 1' - Chairman Herbst inquired ~vhether or not the developer would prefer to provide a tier of si.ngle-family homes adjacent to the north and east property lines in lieu of the 20-foot landscape strip - then people who ,: purchased the homes would be fully aware of the fact that apartments a were adjacent to them. Whereupon, Mr. Matzick replied negatively. Commissioner Gauer noted that since the Planning Commission had taken an ;:, action of denial, the Commission had no right to review the plans which ; had been changed to such a small degree. ~'~ Commissioner Seymour noted his personal feelings were summed up very ;~ adequately at the last public hearing which were due to the fact that ~; there were changes in the area, it was desirable to grant a more intense ~ use of the land for apartments, but he, too, felt that adequate buffering ,' should be provided, and if this could not be accomplished, then the Commission shoull consider either R-2 or single-family development for ~:~ the property. Therefore, he would suggest that the petitioner either :' provide the landscape buffer or a tier of single-family homes, thereby the developer of the multiple-family development would build in taeir own buffer as had been required on three or four other reclassification '`;`{ proceedings where R-3 abutted R-1. :~~ Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission could not take any further ~`.,~,~ action on the plans; however, three of the Commissioners would stipulate that they would approve the plans only if a minimum 20-foot landscape strip were provided. Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that one of the things the developer was seeking was to know a little more in detail some of the reasoning of the Commission's denial of the petitions since there was some question as to whether the petitions were denied based upon the R-3 zoning - the site p2an - or the waivers requested. ~" Commissioner Farano then noted that since he had made the motion for denial, there had been some discussion since the General Plan designated '``:~ this for low-medium density, and he had made an attempt to research the - reasoning for that, but he was not sure what transpired, but from his recollection, this property was supposed to have been designated low ;`, density, and the Commission, in reviewing the facts for this particular ~. r area, reached the con,r,lusion that certain developments in the area ~x;,. warranted a different density. Furthermore, the Planning Commission and City Council in recogn:izing this change by approving R-1 for the property ~~^ and also approved a variance reducing the lot size to 6000 square feet; that it appeared to him that the Commission on a five-to-one basis was in favor of the increased density, but he did not feel there was sufficient ,'~ showings presented that would convince him that there was that much of a change in the area to grant this since the Planning Commission denied the R-3 on the west side of Sunkist Street, and after the Commission and * ? .,~c : ; i ,.:~-. - _ .__ . _. .. . . ,~~.~ , ~ ,, . ,.. - -. ~ ... . - ' . ~ ` . • . ' ^ ~ ' ' , . G { r :-. J' \ ,. --- -_ ; r I - - I . ~ -~~------- - ~.--~ ~~ r J _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-22g REPORTS AND R~COMMENDATIONS - I'FEM N0. 1 (continued) • City Council denied the R-3 for subject property, a request for R-1 with • 6000 square foot lots was considered favorably by both these bodies only a few months later. Therefore, if the Commission desired this to be multiple-family residential uses, then the density shoul•? comply with the density designated on the General Plan, which oras a maximum of 18 _ units per net acre, not the 22.7 units proposed. > :_ f.,zs~,,•r . Chairman Herbst noted that if the 20-foot buffer strip were required, this would effectively reduce the density to about the 18 units per acre. ~;'` Mr. Roberts stated it would not be ! 18 units per acre but would be considerably closer than presently proposed. Commissioner Farano then stated that if this were developed with a 20-feot buffer strip and density reduced to 18 units per acre, he could ~ support the proposed development. Commissioner Seymour stated that it was important that the Commission~s feelings be conveyed to the City Council; that the Commission was not only concerned with the density proposed but was also providing a very much needed 20-foot buffer strip, something which the Commission had required in the past on at least four other occasions, that being adequate protection for single-family homes. Chairman Herbst, at the conclusion of the discussion, noted that the Commission could not recommend anything to the City Council - however, '{ it was the opinion of the Commission that if the density of the project '• were reduced to approximately 18 units per acre and a minimum 20-foot. ~~ wide landscape buffer strip ivith sufficient dense landscaping was _j planted along the north and east property lines, providing adequate '`~ protection from noises, fumes, etc., for the single-family homes, the `;~j Commission would have recommended approval of Reclassification No. :~:y 70-71-37 and Variance No. 2241. `• ~ ~~ Upon polling the Commission, the vote was: ''. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, i Seymour. `~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. `i ~~.; .~; ~ ITEM N0. 2 SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE - Consideration of ~ revisio,is suggested by the City Attorney and the ~ Development Services Department to the action originally taken by the Planning Commission. ~ Associate Planner pon McDaniel noted for the Commission that their bod had submitted their recommendations to the City Council on the Scenic Y f , Corridor Overlay Zone; that on March 30, 1971, the City Council considered the proposed zone, however, in order to "iron out" some legal and enforce- ment problems, the City Council requested staff and the Commission to reconsider the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone as proposed - therefore, the staff, working in eoncex'j['with the City Attorney's Office and the Public ~i~ Works Department, had revised the proposal in respect to this request. ;f-. In reviewing the changes, Mr. McDaniel stated that many of ttie items that ~ :" had been covered previously in the Zoning Ordinance were now proposed to ~ r- be included in the Subdivision Ordinance - such as 'sndscaping, windbreak j replacement, and setbacks which had been transferred to Title 17, and, as such, would apply to subdivisions of land throughout the city, whether or not hillside. Thus, by placing more emphasis on the Subdivision Ordinance , `t and Iess on the Zoning Ordinance, this would allow for a reduction in the ' area encompassed by the Scenic Corridor, and the new b~undaries would be ~~...,~,... . ' . . . ' . _ ` . . . . ~L . . ~~;~; ~ 1... .. ' . N ~' v!:,_".-. ~ . ~' ... , ~ ~ ; ~~ '~.J { __~ .~ S 71-229 MINUTES, ~xTY pLANNING COMMISSIOY, April 19, 1971 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) the Newport-Riverside Freeway intersection on the west, the AT~SF Railroad . on the north, the Orange Coutity line on the east, and a line one-half mile . south of Santa Ana Canyon Road on the south. Furthermore, the new proposal would eliminate the Development Review Committee since the present procedure of reviewing development plans was considered to be sufficiently thorough to accomplish the desir~d results. ~~- Commissioner Gauer inquired whether interested persons present were aware of the change in the corridor boundaries and asked that the new boundaries ~~~` `-~ be delineated on the map; whereupon Mr. McDaniel indicated that the original boundaries were from ridgeline to ridgeline for the north-south ~ boundaries, and the new boundaries would be approximately two and one-half miles at its widest point and one to one and one-half miles at its narrowest point - however, most of the portion between the ridgelines would still be governed by the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to hillside grading, etc., ~ therefore, the same rules would apply that were formerly in the zoning .~ portion of the (SC) Zone; that concern had been expressed that the view . from the freeway would not be any different than any other freeway in the County, but the liveability of tlie dwelling units could be less desirable, than if reqe.ired to have some buffer strip. Furthermore, staff was satisfied that the reorganization of the (SC) proposal was still in accord with the Planning Commission recommendations of a few months ago; that the same thing which the Commission was desirous of having would be attained and would still be palatable to the property owners and developers; and that it would be more enforceable and on a more stable legal basis. ~ Mr. Ray Spehar, 913 Paloma Place, Fullerton, requested an interpretation '``' of the requirements in the commercial zone as they pertained to a service `; station - since he had two service station sites, one would be within a ~ shopping center site while the other, at the opposite corner, would be ~ developed together with a restaurant or dinner house and motel - would -,j those both service stations be permitted, cr only o~e under the new ~ regulations? i •~ Mr. McDaniel noted that the Spehar property was at the northeast and ~ southeast corners of Imperial Highway and the extension of La Palma Avenue, and it would be his interpretation that the service station within the .:i shopping center would be suitable and so would the other be suitable for <::.~ the other corner, but because the Code required the approval of a condi- tional use permit when a service station site was within 75 feet of residential uses, this service station would not be permitted by right. Furthermore, it would be questionable whether the size of the lot of only - 135 feet would be suitable since the intent of the Code was not to allow a service station as a free-standing usc., but that it should be integrated with the motel and restaurant - however, the service station still would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson inquired whether or not Mr. Spehar had other comments on the balance of the proposed changes; .. whereupon bfr. Spehar stated he did not have any comments since he had not ~ read the amendments. ~ Mr. Harvey Berger, 2858 Stromboli Road, Costa Mesa, appeared bafore the + Commission and stated he had received a copy of the proposed Scenic Corridor changes and had reviewed them - however, there were a number of ' items which appeared to be objectionable before and had been deleted; that ~: some had been changed and made more restrictive, namely, under the original _ proposal, the setback on a secondary highway where lots backed up, parti- cularly R-2-5000 lots near La Palma Avenue and Esperanza Road, wherein a 50-foot setback was required or where a decorative wall was proposed, only a 40-foot setback, and based on that, a tract map had been filed with these . requirements where lots were required to be 110 feet in depth together 3!a ' _. ~,, _._ . ----- ,~ ~ . ., . . ,, _-- _ r ~~~TM,. i _ . , . ' ~` _ _. . ~ - 1 f I / I -__.. _..-,-- ~ ~ "'~ ~ MINUTES, CZTX PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 .~ ~,~~ 71-230 REP~RTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITGM N0. 2 (Continued) with a 40-foot building setback and a decorative wall was provided, but the tract would not be in conformance with the revised requirements which stated a 120-foot lot depth would be required and no reference was made to the required setback; that they had gone to a great deal of expense in preparing their engineering map for subdivision purposes, and now this would not be correct since the ground rules had been changed. Furthermore, the revision also restricted the lot coverage to the front 60$, which cou~d mean a 49 to 50-foot building setback - thus making all their draw- ings worthless. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that he had informed Mr. Berger that ' he would talk with the City Attorney about this tract map, and it Nas the `_ ! City Attorney~s feeling, as well as the Development Services staff, that where a developer-property owner had spent money for design maps and +. housing plans in which condit_ons were attached to the individual zone ° that did not pertain to the lot depth, staff would recommend favorably on ~ those lots where 110-foot depths were proposed for lots abutting the high- way, as was indicated on the map. Mr. Berger inquired.whether they would be required to file a variance if the zone were approved prior to the time the tentative tract map was ` ~ approved. Mr. Thompson noted that the tract map, in all likelihood, would be approved before the ordinance would be in full force and ef~ect; however, some of , the tract maps designed for these properties made no attempt to meet the - requirements of the zone approved with the Scenic Corridor Zone intent, i but where developers had met the intent of this, even though not the ' literal interpretation, staff would recommend that the tract be approved. a '~ Mr. Berger noted that with a 120-foot lot depth this would be much more .:~ than the Commission originally approved, and if the lots could be designed ;! for a one-story house with a 40-foot rear yard, it could be done more easily with a two-story or split-level house, and a 120-foot depth would ~j be a waste of property; and that individual homeowners did not want excess land to take care of - sometimes they had difficulty selling homes with only a 30-foot rear yard, and what this requirement was doing was spreading the lot. '! Chairman Herbst inquired as to the percentage of lots which wou?d abut 'i La Palma Avenue; whereupon Mr. Berger replied that about 25 of the 247 ;, lots would be so affected, or 10~. Furthermore, when the Planning ''~ Commission approved the (SC) Zone, there was no mention of the railroad .. tracks - however, the railroad now appeared in the amended form. Chairman Herbst advised Mr. Berger that the City had been informed that the railroad was planning to purchase additional right-of-way and add a . spur. Mr. McDaniel noted that this was correct, but in addition, in the approval of the reclassification of properties north of the river, the additional setback was required as part of the approval for R-2-5000 zoning. Mr. Berger noted that they were much more concerned with the lot setback even though they appreciated the fact that their tract map would not be affected; however, it appeared to him that this would not seem fair to the other developers coming in later; and that the City appeared to be going overboard since the additional setback could be provided very easily as the Commission requested. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not Mr. Berger felt that 10~ of his clients did not want larger lots; whereupon Mr. Berger replied this would cost about 13 lots of the subdivision, and yet they still could provide adequate buffering within the confines of the original (SC) Zone draft approved by the Planning Commission. k~..- :~t ,.;r:... : . . ~~ _.: - ~ ,~. , , ~ ; , ~.:~ ~,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 ~ 71-231 REPf'.r'~:1i ,`",rD RP~~~~'~~~!y;+;r''~?~;a~TS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) M':', ~u;rt ~"'u~-iher noted that there was a change from the 1'~ to 1 slope t: .:~.a t:s:;v~ - however, there was some flexibility in the amendments w};~t.. '. ;,K:: ;~3 before, and then inquired what if there was a natural s~~;`'~:' >~ t=, to 1- would this requirement mean the slope would have to be c"r~ari~s~u ta 2 to 1? -_,~ Mr. Thompson noted that this might create a problem. a• . i,. e= ~<;~;~ Mr. Berger then inquired wt:ether or not a tract map approval would be held ~~ up until the City Council also reviewed the Scenic Corridor changes, or ~ '~ would it be effective if the Planning Commission agreed with the intent; "-~ whereupon staff informed Mr. Berger that the zoning was based on s ecific ~ P ~: requirements which formerly were in the (SC) Zone, and the tract map would ~ r not be held up awaiting City Council approval of the changes to the (SC) Zone. ~ ~c Mr. Berger discussed the 2 for 1 slope, noting that the soils engineer and geologist used the 1'~ to 1 as a standard, and it was a matter of ~~ aesthetics to maintain the 1~ to 1 slope. ~ Commissioner Gauer inquired how the 1'~ to 1 slope would hold u~ if there were seepage; wher~=~}:a,i Mr. Berger noted that this would not hol& up. ~:~ Mr. Berger also stz~ted that the usual circumstances found the 1'~ to 1 ~,. slope acceptable, and if the soils engineer felt this met the criteria, ,~ wouldn't this be acceptable? Commissioner Gauer noted that if there were a series of rains which did not give the land a chance to dry out or give the watex a clxance to ! percolate down, then there would be soil slippage. r~ Chairman Herbst noted that someone would havc to determine what was the natural safe topography. ' Mr. Berger noted that if a soils engineer indicated the lesser slope was acceptable, could this be waived? Mr. McDaniel noted that unless something else was required, this could be ~ waived if determined :.o be safe by the ~oils engineer, but the intent was "' to reduce the amounL of cut and fiil. ~, ~ - Mr. Berger noted that rather than having all cut and fill slopes, slightly - t~err;sced lots could completely obliterate this. Mr. bfcDaniel noted that the City was referring to all cut and fill, and it was conceivable that a 5-foot high slope, 100 feet deep would be required to be terraced between the homes, and it was also staff's intent to ; require landscaping or plu.nting on the slopes. -;~,N ~ Mr. Thompson noted that FHA required the wall at the property line, while the City of Anaheim required the wall at the top of a slope. Mr. Berger noted that FHA usually checked with a city as to their require- : :~ ments, and the city's requirement should take precedent over theirs. ~ Furthermore, it would appear irrigation would be a normal thing on a lot or between pads, which could be accotnplished by using a hose rather than a~'' providing special irrigation facilities. r`'r` Mr. Thompson noted that special irrigation facilities would be needed outside of the wall, but he wauld agree there would be no need for irrigation in the side yards. t. Mr. Berger also noted their property or development would be at the bottom of a slope, and they would have to come partway down on the slope - however, to plant trees partway down would be a terrific job since their ' property line was at the top of the slope. p': .~IS! r ~ ~ ' . ry . _ _ . i' " -. . ~n . ~ . ~. _ -~ 1 I ~i ~ ~ ~ , . , . _ _. , . ;. . . _ ; ~ r _ , . ~- . ~ - ~. _ ... ~ ) ~ ~~7 -~. MINUTES, C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 19, 1971 71-232 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) Chairman Herbst noted that the purpose of requiring trees as proposed _ was to give the residents some protection from the railroad or the highways. Mr. Thompson noted that in view of the comments by Mr. Berger staff , would like to discuss this further with the developers regarding their _ ~. recommendations - therefore, staff would request a two-week continuance so that any chan es w ld b ~,.. _;:; g ou e reflected in a completed document for the Commission. t~i 1. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission was desirous of giving people developing in the ca t l : .~ nyon oo s with which to work; that this zoning was still being drafted and now was th i ' ~I e t me to ;aake any further recommenda- tions so that all changes could be reflected and th i ` , e suggestions made by Mr. Berger, as a developer, were of great assistance to the Planning Commission. ~ Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of the revised Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to the meeting of May 3 1971 to , , allow staff time to develop a completed revised copy. Commissioner G auer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~~: ~r~ ,t, r; ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, ~ '` Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to adjourn ~ th i ; e meet ng. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the ' motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~~ ~ The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. ~ a ' ~ Respectfully submitted, ,... 3 ` i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~/J~/K~ j~~%?~' r d '~ ANN KREBS, Secretary ~ =~,. Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on °- ;.:~ "t~ . , ;s, j` e~ ~..~ rY ~y ~,': N' : `G ~':: .. 1" t:~: 1'-: . ~ ' , ' l* ' ~:~, . ;'~~. . ~~~'~'.:.' ~'.~.~ : ~~~~~. :' . ~ °" ~~ ~~_. ` - t.~ • ~ ti::, ~ . . .. .. . . . _ . ~ ~ . . ^.. . .. ~ . r . _ _ ':.,~ ~ . ~ T., ~~ ~ - ~ -. . ~ ~ , . . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ _ . . ~. . . _ .. . . _,.. .. . .. . .. _ _ .. . . ~.~ .. . . '~ .. . .-. .~._ . • ~i ~ w~;~ ~ ~ „RY 7 ' :/ ! ' ~~ ~~~ , ~•. ~, ~ 4>~ ~ •. ~ ~ ~ n ,. ~. ~ ~:,~, ~~ fi ~ ~ t , . ~~:r' c` 1'~- i6 =~,. ~ 7 ' :r'~ r ,~ t7 1 ~~1 ..... . . . .. ... . . . .... .1..:.AC~~~...at''. ... ~F.'14~h~~~~,•;iV'1M'L 1-.~A ~:1~ ,t .. 1 ~ l 11~.. a: r~.~, w~ "' i ,° y i . ~ r ~ ~ ' r~ `r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~tF~~ ~ '' - ~'a aK ~ ~ ' __, , i 7 ~. ~, r F'„»«~Z ~{ ~e ti . ~, ,~ '' 1 ~.' ~ a ~, > > ~ '~ ~~~~. i ~7r:-'Y5' ~ 1 , ',t `" ~ r (' . J y ~ . F~` r~7~ l,~ t ~~ it ~ q . ~. r r~~t ~ ti. , ; ~y,a 1w Y w ^.~ l. .+ ,~ ~lt' ~~/~.~ ~ u. J ~ t~. i .~ .. ~ f z ~. ~ 1 4r ~ r r^'t ~ ~ ~ : ~, , ~ S ;: ~ ~ ~ ~ : t z ~ 3.: l} ~ •~ ~ A _. ~y~ 9a' S t' ~~ . l J ~ ` J ' y S ~ ~ . ~! tt' I _ t ~ ., --}',, f `~ l 4. {y _ ~t l ' s ~. J ~ ; t ' :i :. . . .:. ... . ',-~: ,.,. . ~ . .. ' ~,~_ , . ~.. ~~ ~ ~S ` _ ^~1 at _ 4 4. :- F ry - +k r t~ + . + . ~ ~,f k ~ ~~~li ~ _ .'!'~~~ 1 ,> ~ ' t. Y~ ~ t . ,.. ~ . . " t. . ~~ - t ...~ ~~:". ]„' _:. .: ~._. "F :: 4 S ~ r 1 '.i . 5~` `~t ~ t v ~ t 1 _ \ :.+ 4 , ~ - ft 'S ia.' r `r .P ~ ~ ~. .,~ ':.~ .1 ~..° i . ~ ~S ' ~ f W. .. T~ ._ 4 ,~'~' .. ; D : f G ~.'' ~ ~... F ." k ' ~ a' sey ~~ r -t' ~ ~' . ~. ^r) t, . tY ~.~ -N, Y 7 }"~} ';_ ~"s~ S'~.n~i~*y ~.t .t r~. ~~,,+-rJ'' ~ 5. ~ ~. ~F.r ~' ~~' S~ra S~tl~ 'rt 5 ~Fi' '~w? rk, ulaq ~ . i~ ._ ~ F }z' t ~ .•-'7~-~~ SF a?.j ~a .,.,~r "~v ~ r ~ ~ `~'1 ~7v . ~~;~r~'-a . r rA ~' r c . ~r -~~ ~., - -'.l 'fi`'?° . t 'Y 5 ! _ 'i ~ . .; .~-' ~ . ~ ~_:..~ e > . . . - .~;'.,,~ ' ~~,!'QfM~~~~~