Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/07/26, . ... . , . _ . .~ ~ ~. ., ~ . r ... - .. ~ _ - ; , , ; M r .. . ~~.~, " . .. . ~ j' ~ ~ ___. _ w ~ 4-' City Hall Anaheim, California ' July 26, 1971 AiQ ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF '~f1F<' 'Iry;r~ r pg ~ITy pLANNING COMMISSION ~ ADJOURNED - An ad'ourned re ular ^,w ~ REGULAR ~ g '~~ ~%~+.~ Anaheim City Planninq Commission was celleu t';a ,~;•; ,.vy Chairman Farano at 10:00 ~ MEETING A.M., a quorum bein 5 P~'caenE. ~•:~c~- =- PR^•.SENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. 7. ..I;';:~. - COMDiISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymaur. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Office Engineer: Frank I,owry . Assistant Zoning Supervisor: JaY Titus Commission Secretary: Don McDaniel Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion t^ a!~pr~ve the minutes I of the June 28, 1971, meeting, seconded o~ Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections; ~ Page 71-416, paragraph 2, lines 4 and 5, should read: "only, since Orange County had more Porsches than Germany, and i because....than"- paragraph 4, add to end of sentence: "; nnd that maybe 108 would be over the counter retail."; ~ paragraph 10, add to line 2; "single-family home next door was"; paragraph 11, line 1, should read: "Commissioner Seymonr indicated that aesthetics do much to an area, and". Page 71-422, paragraph 10, line 6, add: "Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED". Page 71-426, paraqraph 1, line 1, delete word: "main"; a6d word: "buildings". Commissioner Kaywood of£ered a motion to a i of the July 12, 197i, meetin pProve the minutet ~ and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the~following~correctionsSeY~~ur Page 71-446, paragraph 9, line 3, add: "Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. Upon tallying the vote, the Commission~ Secretary noted"; paragraph 9, line 4, should have: "Commissioner j Farano"; paragraph 13, add: "Page 71-373, paragraph 5, add to end of paragraph: ", if this met with the a the City Attorney's representative; whereupon DeputyaCity Attorney Frank Lowry stated he could see nothing wrong with `~ the recommendation, however, it would not be binding on the i City Council." Page 71-454, parayraph 7, line 17, should read: "13-acre parcel':i Page 71-455, par~sgraph 3, line 3, should read: "13-acre parcel". Page 71~459, paragraph 7, line l: "Commissioner Rowland offered.~ Page 71-460, paragraph 1, line 1: delete "NO" at end of line; paragraph 6, line 9: word should be "meet". ~ Page 71-462, paragraph 9, line 1, add: Charles "Roberts". ._ ~ ~, - ! _ , - I ~; ~_ 0 ~ - i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 I - DEVELOPER: HARVEY A. BERGER, 3333 West Coast Highway, Suite 200, Newport Beach, California. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, California. Subject tracts, consisting of approximately 70 acres, located east of Imperial Highway between the Santa Ana River and Esperanza Road, are proposed for subdivision inr_o #7417 - 66; #7151 - 44; #7458 - 75; #7459 - 72; and #7460 - 18, R-2-5000 zoned lots. _'r. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted the location of the property x-~ '~-; and the proposed subdivision, together with the fact that the developer had ~.:'4 r;:>: ~; `~3 submitted a letter requesting a continuance to resolve the location of the ,;'.;_ proposed park with the Orange County Planning Department. ~ ;: ; '•~~ ~'i Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative ~ Map of Tract Nos. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459, and 7460, Revision No. 1, to the ~ ~ meeting of August 9, 1971, as requested by the developer. Commissioner 7; Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ., , .`.. ,,,~~ a:`~~' ~~,' . ,_ . .; -c ~::~ `:~1~. TENTATIVE MAP OF - LEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport TRACT NO. 7471 Beach, California. ENGINEER: Toups Engineering, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. Subject tract, consisting of approximately 38 acres, is located east of Imperial Highway between the future extension of La Palma Avenue and Esperanza and is proposed for subdivision into 206 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDanie? noted the location of the property, the proposed subdivision and the fact that the developer had submitted a letter requesting a two-week continuance in order to allow time to resolve the loca- tion of the Yorba Regional Park along the southerly boundary of subject property. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7471 to the meeting of August 9, 1971, as requested by the developer. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING (READVERTISEMENT). GIACOMO AND AGOSTINA P~RMIT NO. 888 LUGARO, 420 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; FRANK CIAMPA (Caruso's Italian Delicatessen), 514 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; request- i ing peranission to have ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING DELICATESSEN RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land Iocated at the southeast corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues and having frontages of appraxiaracely 1,030 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and approximately 218 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted the location of the property and the reason for readvertising subject petition, together with the fact that the property owner, since filing a request for rehearing based upon a ruling of the City Attorney's Office, had a new prospective tenant for the store which formerly.had the permission for on-sale beer and wine a roved petition; therefore, the City Attorney determined that aPnew conditionalsuse permit would be required to permit on-sale beer and wine in the delicatessen- restaurant. Furthermore, the property owner had filed a new petition which would be considered on Auqust 9, 1971, by the Commission, and staff's sugges- tion would be termination of any consideration of the readvertisement now before them. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to terminate any consideration of the rehearing before the Planning Commission July 26, 1971, and that all previous action by the Planning Commission on Conditional Use Permit No. 888 shall still be in effect. Commissioner Kaywo.od seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ . (~ ' :vF:.. -. ~ ~ .. . ~ . .. ~ ~~~~ . ",5 . . , ` .~; . ~ ~ ; ~. ~ ~Y ~' :. . : .. ' . . .. ..: , ~ `. , i,;Y-. __ ~ ~, w,- ~~_.I i ';;l ':', '. , ; ~+ ^^,' ~r = r: 4''I: ;= I ;y 1; .~! 'i: <`i ~ ,: ~; e. . . ' . ~ ~ ~' . . . ~ . ~ .I . ' . . , -. . • ~ _ . . . , . ~ I~ ~ . _ ,_ , , ' -- ~ f;.~ ~ , ~,~ ~~ ~~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 71-466 ! VARIANCE N0. 2275 - PUBLIC HEARING. VIOLET STEVENS VOSBURG, 544 Concord Place, ! Anaheim, California; requesting WAIVER OF REAR YARD ~ REQUIREMENT TO PERMIT A SCREENED-IN PATIO WITHIN 6 FEET I OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE on property described as: An ~ irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 330 feet south of the centerline of Charleston ~ Drive and further described as 544 Concord Place. Property presently classi- fied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDanial reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct a screened-in patio with an aluminum cover to be located within 6 feet of the rear property line; that the existing residential structure was 16 feet from the rear property line, and a detached, two-car garage was within 6 feet of the rear property line; that the Anaheim Municipal Code permitted room additions'i within 10 feet of the rear property line, provided an equal amount of open area was provided elsewhere on the lot, not including other required yard areas; ~ that the addition did not cover more than 358 of the required rear yard, and ' the total coverage of all structures on the property did not exceed 40$ of the property; and that the applicant could easily accommodate all of these ~ conditions on this very large cul-de-sac lot. Therefore, the Commission would ~ wish to determine whether the proposed reduction in the required rear yard would be appropriate. , The petitioner indicated her presence to answer questions. The Commission reviewed the plan and then noted that because of the size of the parcel, the request did not appear to be unreasonable since the required rear yard was still being provided. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-143 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2275, subject to conditions, based on the fact that this was an unusually large parcel, and the location and im?rovements proposed would not affect the rear yard requirement. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. Chairman Farano noted that Item Nos. 5, 6, and 7 were on three separate parcels; however, the requests were the same and by the same petitioner Therefore, they would be considered together. VARIANCE NO. 2278 - PUBLIC HEARING. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 9901 South Paramount, Downey, California, Owner; GENERAL MAINTENANCE, INC., 11372 Western Avenue, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STAND2NG SIGNS AND (2) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described ais: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue with frontages of approximately 150 feet on Brookhurst Street and approximately 150 feet on Orange Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. VARIANCE NO. 2279 - PUBLIC HEARING. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 9901 South Paramount, Downey, California, Owner; GENERAL MAINTENANCE, INC., 11372 Western Avenue, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street amd Lincoln Avenue, having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Euclid Street and approximately 150 feet on Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, Z02:B, .. . --- ~ . . . ~.., . . . ,..~ ~ . . . . ~c , C . _a _ .. 1 ~ , Yt, , ~ .... .1 ~ i, ` l 'I ,_ , ---- ~.- . _ ____ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANN'CNG COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 ~~ ~ 71-467 VARIANCE NO. 2280 - PUBLIC HEARING. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 9901 South Paramount, Downey, California, Owner; GENERAL MAINTENANCE, INC., 11372 Western Avenue, Stanton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) MINIAIU:4 H~IGHT UF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and East Street, having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 135 feet on East Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of the proper- ties, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to erect 12-square ~ foot, free-standing signs 10 feet, 10 inches in height, advertising self- °~ ~ service pumps without removing any of the existing signs on the properties. '~, '~, Mr. Don Fink, representing the agent, General Maintenance In Avenue, Stanton, appeared before the Commission and noted~that.thelproposedern - signs were very simple, were aesthetically designed, and were not gaudy; that the signs were proposed to advise the public that these were self-service •.:: islands since the other pump islands would remain the same; that there was one ~, pole sign which advertised the two types of gasolines sold on each site, however, there was no sign on the main pole that would indicate self-service pumps or the price of the gasoline at those pumps; and that reference made by staff regarding the waiver of the minimum height of the sign could be met by raising the proposed sign to meet Code, although he did not feel the height - of the sign would be a traffic hazard. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not it was intended to have self- service pumps.and signs at the new service station at Orange Avenua and + Brookhurst Street since the City Council approved this service station after ''~ the Commission had denied it several weeks ago in June. ;d ; ;~ Mr. Joe williams, engineer with Mobil Oil Company, ,_peared before the :.~ Commission and stated he was primarily interested in the East Street and Lincoln Avenue site, although he was interested ir the proposal for all three stations; that he wished to answer Commissioner Krr,ywood and stated that this idea was "brand new"; that they were experimenting on a nation-wide basis with the proposal, and they did not know even month ago that they would be considering this form of salesj however, since June 15, some of the stations ;~ were in operation throughout the Los Angeles basin. Commissioner Seymour then inquired where these stations were located in ~ ~ Orange County; whereuF~n Mr. Fink replied there was a station in Stanton ~ ° and two ia Anaheim, however, the stations in Anaheim had no identification ~``j signs, and one of the dealers placed a cardboard sign on the pump, which he had printed, indicating this was a self-service pump; that the gasoline would be sold cheaper; and that this was one means of increasing the gallon usag_, `' Commissioner Gauer then inquired how this could be metered; whereupon Mr. Fink stated there was a speaker at the pump island and instructions would be posted on the pumps, while the station operator would be seated in a sales office ° adjacent to a metering device which would indicate the amount of gas being '' placed in the tank, and upon conclusion of gassing the car, the customer ' ~,~ would go to the office and pay for the gasoline either with a credit card or i cash. Commissioner Gauer then inquired whether or not the customer would have to wait in the event the attendant was working elsewhere in the building; whereupon Mr. Fink stated that there would be other personnel besides the one attendant. ! ~ t-.':.~ Mr. Williams noted that this operation would not affect the total personnel of the service station since it was felt the same number of emp7,oyees could handle this business. The Commission expressed concern that the customer would be delayed because of other services that were being performed by the operator, and then inquired of Mr. Williams whether or not this was the beginning of converting all service stations to self-service since it was apparent that the major oil companies were attempting a new method to entice the customer; whereupon Mr. Williams replied that to his knowledge he did not know whether this was the first step to c~mplete self-service stations. . _ _ , - -._3_-~ . .. ..-,-..- . ~y.. . ._.._ _ `~ ~ ~ i ; ~ ~ i ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ , f~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~7uly 26, 1971 71-468 VARIANCE NO. 227g - Commissioner Herbst was of the o ! VARIANCE NO. 2279 t pinion that some other ! ype of signing wou~d be required since he would not vote VARIANCE NO. 228p for the proposed signinq because it would be contra.ry to '~ (Continued) the Sign Ordinance, and then inquired why the oil companies i could aot attempt to incorporate all signing; whereupon ~ in explaining how this•service~operateda therefore,hadditionalVSignin?fwas~~y ~ proposed to clear up the confusion; that they needed some form of identifica- I tion that these wore self-service pumps; that they operated the price signs ' in accordance with the requirements of the ~tate on Fricing signs, who deter- mined the size of letters and numbers of each price sign for each service station in the state, and their price signs complied with these requirements; that since they now planned to have self-service pumps, they wanted the stations to be clean and uncluttered with signing clearly visible; and that their experiments indicated they were unable to identify the nc-w pump service under the existing signing. ~ .. ! Ms. Williams, in response to a question by Commissioner Gauer, stated the price signs were under the control the State Department of Agriculture, and ~ they had had a meeting with them, at which time it was determined that these _ signs would be eliminated from the pumps but they could have a price sign : welded to the self-service pole. ,~ Commissioner ~auer then noted this would mean additional signing, therefore, ;'¢ the petitioner would have to differentiate what was proposed and whether two ;_:;;~ or more signs wei•e needed with two types of gasoline together with the self- ; service pump signing, since this could become a real problem. ~; ''~ Mr. Williams noted there was another problem, and that pertaiaed to the low- 'y lead gasoline or no-lead products in which they were very deeply involved; ~~ although at the present time they had only two gasolines, in order to meet rt the demand for ecology requirements, the oil companies had to come up with a ;s~ new gasoline, making this a three-product operation; and that accordinq to ';~ a report in Newsweek magazine, it would cost Mobil Oil Corporation eighty- ~ five million dollars at the refineries for conversion to produce the low-lead ~, gasoline. '~` ~ ; ' Commissioner Kaywood stated she was not sure she understood th ; ~ j e statements made by both Mr. Fink and Mr. Williams and asked for clarificati th t L on whether ey were claiming that a hardship existed. ' ~-~ ~ Mr. Williams stated that as a matter of fact, if the self-service system were allowed to exist b th Cit \ "~?.;? y e y and they were not able to price it properly and so identify it, he would sa it . _~ y would be a hardship claim. ~ ~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that on the original plan submitted for the servi station site t ~ ce a Brookhurst and Orange Avenue, in March not in June as she had originally state3 there w , as no mention regarding self-service pumps, and she wondered whether the City Council would have ' apprcved this service station site if they had been aware of the sel£-servi ''::;~ ce pumps, since she interpreted Mobil Oil Corporation was rather begging for th e service station at this corner, although there already had been an abandon d M ~t e obil service station directly across the street and two other service stations alread wer at thi l i y e s ocated ntersection; that personally she, as a Commissioner h d ~~ , a many com- plaints from citizens on allowing another service station site to i thi ;; " go n at s location - now the oil company was coming in and stating there was a hardship, but previously the had l I y p eaded for this location, an empty, vacant parcel, therefore there was ~"~ ~' no reason for developing the service station at this site. „~ Mr. Williams replied that he was not familiar with the locati on since it was not in his territory. ,,;r~ ~ Commissioner Kaywood noted it was an empty, vacant lot and was now developed with a service station; however with ~ , in a very short time a claim of hardship was being made, and the Mobil Oil gas station formerl l _' y ocated across the street was abandoned and all structures were still on the premises. ` Mr. 47illiams noted it was a possibility that the location w ~~ as now owned by Mobil Oil where building structures and land belonged to a rivat ' .~c p e party, and they were only leasing said facilities, ~` ; : ,. '':' . .~.. :: .:: .~ _. . . _ . . . ~,. - ~,. - - . ' ^~ - ~ . . ~ , b '' ' ~ t ~ ~ I V V MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 ~~ 71-469 VARIANCE NO. 2278 - Commissioner Kaywood noted that the property was owned VARIANCE NO. 2279 by Mobil Oil Corporation at the time the site across the VARIANCE N0. 2280 street was considered, and the argument at that time, as (Continued) she could recall, the corner was not as good because it was too small a site, but with the larger parcel, more services could be offered, ~nd the service station operator would da a much better business. However, now another twist was being added, and that was wai~ers of the Sign Ordinance for self-service pumps. Mr. Williams inquired whether or not the City Council thought to ask about the final dispo~al of that property when they granted the present Mobil Oil service station petition. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the City Council, in making their findings, stated that the site on which the new Mobil Oil station was built had been a service station in the past, and thi~ was their reason for approving thE new petition. However, the service station had just been constructed, and the Mobil Oil Corporation was claiming a hardship since they would need self- service pumps to make this station successful, and because of this, they would need additional signing, which was against the Sign Ordinance, and this did not add up. Mr. williams replied that if tk;ey were allowed to install the partial self- service station and the City presented no oppositi.,n, if they were not allowed to identify this service, they would be willing to accept even a partial allow- ance of the identification - he knew the City's objections to the small signs, and he would agree this would not be desirable to clutter up the station. xowever, signing of the self-service facilities was of utmost importance. Chairman Farano noted that Mr. Williams stated there would be no lessening of the service, there£ore, what was the intent of the self-service - more gasoline sales7 Mr. Williams replied that it was hoFed the volume of gasoline sales would increase, and that the public might a.ccept this form of gasoline sales which might eventually lead to a reduction in the number of station personnel. However, this was future projections only. Deputy City Attorney Frank I,owry nated that in his most recent conversation with the Assistant Fire Chief he had indicated there was no equipment in the United States of this type that would meet the City's fire code; whereupon Mr. Fink replied that he had met with a representative of the Fire Department about a month ago, and these proposed facilities had been approved. Mr. Lowry stated he would check further with the Assistant Eire Cliief. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted tha~ many service stations had two types of signs - one sign for prices and the other for advertising of other services - which still met the Code raquirements, and in discussions with service station representatives, it appeared this worked out very well. Mr. Williams still contended that the price signs were under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Agriculture, and their signs today provided for only two types of gasoline, whereas they now prooosed to market the low-lead gasoline, Mr. Thompson suggested perhaps signing could be done with three tppes of gasoline for each type of service, either self-service or service by an attendant. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whet'.:er or not this original signing had been considered under the present petition, or would there be another request £or price signs. Mr. Williams replied that his company had not made a decision on what they wanted, but in his own opinion, their company was no different than companies now disper.sing three types of gasoline. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i . -~ ~ 1':~~~.::-;+is a.;. '. I ~.. :~ .~ E _. ,., ~ -v,~.- ~,-. ~ ~~ ~ '? ".a.: ~r~' _ ~~ ~.,. ~ ~ '~ . ~ - i ~ ~ 1 ~ MINUTES, CITY PL1{NNING COMMISSION, .Tuly 26, 1971 f...~ 71-470 VARIANCE N0. 2278 - Commissioner Seymour noted that there was little doubt VARIANCE NO. 2279 that the petroleum business was extremely competitive, VARIAnCE NO. 2280 and this could be discerned by the number of vacant (Continued) service stations in Anaheim where there now was over a 15~ vacancy factor, and in order tn meet the competition, they must be given the opportunity to produce and offer servioes, anci signing was one way to advertise the5e services and products, such as stamps, tires, automatic carwash, etc., and now self-service pumps - these myriad of services were needed, but it would appear that rather than integrating the sign, the oil companies were requiring one sign for each use - perhaps it was time for the oil companies to approach the problem differently, such as incorporating all products and services into one sign because there were now so many signs on a service station site that it was becoming diffi- cult to read them as one approached the site. Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that upon checking with the Assistant Fire Chief, these pumps proposed were now permitted. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-144 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2278 on the basis that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed; that the petitioner would be enjoying a right not granted to other service stations; that approval of this petition would establish an undesirable precedent with similar requests from other oil companies; and that signing of a service station with its myriad of ~ signs made it extremely difficult to identify the services and products being I offered at the site. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call, the following comments were made by the Commission: ' Commissioner Herbst noted that the service station business and oil companies were the most flagrant violators of the City's Sign Ordinance, as well as those throughout the State of California - there appeared to k~e no limit to size or how big was big. However, in most cities where the sign ordinances were enforced, the oil companies appeared to be able to live with these I ordinances; that some signs could be seen for miles, and although he recognized ~ the proposal was the coming thing where everything purchased would be self- ; service, this would give Mobil Oil Corporation an advantage over other service ~ stations - this would mean that as other oil companies went into the self- service business, all would be asking for similar signing, and since this was ~ the first request, he felt it was up to the oil companies to design service stations that could live within the City's ordinances; and that ? variance meant that there had been granting a ; in this instance, was onl tr in toroof of hardship, however, the petitioner, ~ Y Y 9 gain on his competitors. Chairman Farano noted ihat the statement made by Commissioner Seymour reqard- ing the oil companies being in a competitive business, as far as service stations were concerned, it was his observation that this was a situation created by the oil companies - it was not a auestion of quality service, but quantity of service by developing service stations at every vacant or other- wise corner lot along arterials. Commissioner Gauer noted he had been on the Commission for a number of years when the service station applications first came in, and many times the Commission had tried to discourage further construction of service station sites - ten of those which the Commission had denied and the City Council had approved, to his knowledge, were closed; however, they continued to construct service stations apparently thinking they had found the "get rich" formula, but it appeared they had tied up a lot of property and many were not succeed- ing, therefore, the oil companies should bear the brunt of the blame for their mismanagement in projecting and developing so many service stations. Commissioner Kaywood observed there had been a very serious accident at a carwash-gasoline station where a man turned into a human torch, and thi~ proposal, where no attendant would be at the pumps, could increase the hazard- ous conditions considerably. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Rowland. ~'?~'a.""~~ - -- , .. ~~. - .,~ ~ . '~'r ` _ , '~ ; _. _ _ ~ '" 1 _ . . . .. .,. i . . ~ . . . . ...... ~- . _. . . . .. ., _ , ,' ., , . % . V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .7uly 2b, 1971 VARIAISCE NO. 2278 - Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-145 and VARIANCE NO. 2279 moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for VARIANCE NO. 2280 Variance No. 2279 based on findings as set forth under (Continued) Variance No. 2278, (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-146 and moved ior its passage and adoptioh to deny Petition for Variance No. 2280 based on fii~dings as set forth under Variance No. 2278, (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing rssolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ A13SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. VARIANCE NO. 2282 - PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH C. TRUXAW, 888 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requestiny WAIVER OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION TO PERMIT A TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20NE AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of i land at the northeast corner of Lemon Street and Vermont Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 136 feet on Lemon Street and having a approximately 'j 122 feet of frontage on Vermont Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, ;~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ; Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject r~ Pr=perty, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning, and the ~.i request by the petitioner to permit construction of two two-story fourplexes i, on property within 150 feet of single-family residential uses -l ing stalls having access to the parking stalls from Lemon Streetr~thatntheark- 1 petitioner had indicated that in the future he might wish to file a to split the two fourplexes, and the proposed property line would splitcthe~ap ~ driveway in half, therefore, this woul d re ui a q re a reci r greement b p ocal ark `; e recorded at such time as the P ing and access ~~:; Planning Commission would wish to determineawhetherPtheswaiverVfor thetdistance :;°; between buildings would be of significance; that the maximum height of one story within 150 feet of single-family residential uses had long been a standard ~ of apartment development for the City of Anaheim and has seldom been violated, therefore, this request might be quite significant; that the other areas of concern the Commission might wish to consider involved the location of the _ trash storage areas and two of the open parking stalls at the easterly end of the driveway; that the Interdepartmental Committee had recommended in previous ;:' similar cases that trash storage areas be located closer to the public streets, ~ providing easy access for trash vehicles in picking up the trash bins; and that in a previous development the Planning Commission requested that the applicant submit revised plans to indicate that the open stalls at the end of the drive- way be accommodated in some other fashion to prevent automobiles from being _ required to back a considerable distance. ~:ii Mr. Joseph Truxaw, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that when he had filed his variance petition, no mention had been made to him ;, ", as to waiver of the minimum distance between buildings and inquired why this p; ~ waiver appeared to be necessary. %. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the petitioner that if a building permit was filed, the staff could not give approval to the plans, because this waiver had not been advertised under this petition and ~; granted, since it still would be necessary under the existing plans. j Mr. Truxaw indicated that a staff inember had indicated there was no problem as far as this was concerned, even though they had called him when this waiver requirement was found. ~-. . ` .4e : i' ~. , _ . .~~' ..~...~ ~..~.~......~... -.~,~~~~ _ ` . +d . . ~__~_ ~ ~• ~:J '~ ; 71-471 ~ i ~~ ~ --• ~ :. .~ :k/ : _ ' . , ~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 \~ `,: ~ ~~ ~ ~ 71-472 ! VARIANCE NO. 2282 - Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the petitioner (Continued) felt the steps taken by staff were inappropriate and what was his reason for complaint since the staff did not add items, and this was done only to assist the petitioner s~ that no delay would be experienced when a building permit was requested. Mr. Truxaw stated he appreciated the conc=rn of the staff, however, in his examination of the Code, he did not find a 16-foot requiremenk; that this was a questionable area, and on his original plan he had proposed one building, and it gave the appearance of two buildings; that two or three homes on the west side of Lemon Street were used as duplexes in what appeared a single- family zone, and this was not in a single-family neighborhood; that the Report to the Commission indicated that the one-story height limitation had seldom been violated, however, there were two-story homes in this area and two-story apartments to the south, therefore, he felt this statement was somewhat erroneous; that in the statement of the concern of the Interdepartmental Committee regarding trash storage arrzas, regarding it being more desirable to have them adjacent to the curb, this was, to his thinking, an undesirable way of exhibiting trash k;ins in the front, and for appearances sake, he was more desirous of having them less visible; that he had discussed this with the staff and stated that they would rather have individual trash containers in the garaqe, similar to single-family homes, so that each person could take his own trash out; that he did not want a trash bin to be parked in the front of his development for the entire day; that they were planning a very attrac- tive apartment development; that there was su~ficient turn-around area so that it would not be necessary for cars to back out 80 to 90 feet; that he wished to make further comments regarding the recommended conditions sin~e they had received the zoning of the property when the parks and recreation fee was $25 - therefore, he wished to have clarification as to whether they still would be permitted to pay the $?5 per unit or the present fee. Chairman Farano noted that the City Attorney would have to rule on this as the Commission had no jurisdiction over the fees. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted for the Coa~mission that there had been two increases in parks and recreation fees since subject property had been reclassified. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that staff had been directed by the City ~ Council that the only way to be able to take advantage of the old fee schedule + was to obtain a building permit prior to the first part of the year 1971. Mr. Truxaw then stated that since the reclassification specifically set forth the $25 per unit, was this ever i:ested in court? Mr. Thompson replied that he did nat know whether it was tested in court, but the Building Department would not issue a building permit until this was determined. Chairman F~rano again noted that since the Commission had no power relative to waiver of fees, they also could not give any clarification as to what the City Council intended. Mr. Lowry stated that he would have a ruling from the City Attorney regarding these fees the following 3ay if Mr. Truxaw wished to contact the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Truxaw then noted that since there was a fire hydrant already located across the street from subject property, he could see no reason for installing another fire hydrant, Mr. Thompson stated that if the Fire Department detezmined the development was adequateiy protected with fire hydrants, then this wuuld not be required. Mr. Anthony Arnone, 899 South Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he was opposed to the requested waiver of the one-story height limitation since he was not permitted to have two stories; that his duplexes backed up to two-story R-1, although he was required to develop with one story. ' • - C I ~ ,~~ ~ i ~. c_~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 25~ 1971 ~~ 71-473 VARIANCE NO. 2282 - Mr. Truxaw, in rebuttal, inquired whether or not opposi- (Continued) tion from an existing R-2 property owner carried any o:--r<,-*~;•' weight since it was nis understanding that only opposi- tion from the R-1 property owners would be considered. • Chairman Farano noted that the hearing was not a judicial procedure - the Commission did not weigh the facts judicially since they considered every- thing presented and weighed the entire -~ory - therefore, the opposition had a right to protest as a property owner. "' ""'"`- THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :':I ~::•'T' ;• Commissioner Gauer noted that in addition to the petitioner's R-1 property ~ t, being located immediately adjacent to subject property, there were singxe- ;'~ family homes within 120 of the property; that although Lemon Street already had multiple-family development, the petitioner should be given the same treatment as the proparty owner across the street when he was required to i;, develop one story. ~;;, Mr. Truxaw then stated that the property across the street was immediately :,,F adjacent to R-1; whereupon Commissioner Gauer stated that since subject ;~ property was within 150 feet of the R-1 property on Midway Drive, even though ~~~ this might be their rear yard, one-story construction should be required, and perhaps two-story could be permitted at Lemon Street and Vermont Avenue; then ~' the Commission would be using the same principle that had been used before. Mr. Truxaw replied that this possibly could be done, however, it was not i~ financially feasible; and that perhaps when the opposition proposed his property for multiple-family residential use, he may have had opposition { from the single-family residents. '';~ Commissioner Herbst then inquired what the petitioner proposed to do with the R-1 property fronting on Lemon Street - were there any plans for multiple- ~ family development of that in the future? -; ~` ` Mr. Truxaw replied that it was his intent to reside on the property, and they •~ had been residing there for some time. ~ Commissioner Herbst noted that he recognized since the petitioner owned both a ~~ parcels, this could be a problem in the future if a portion of the R-3 were ~ sold and the R-1 also was sold - multiple-family development could be requested ~ ~q~ on the smaller lot. `~ Mr. Truxaw re lied that an one ' `ti: P y purchasing the property would be aware that there were two-story apartments adjacent to the property. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission, in response to a question, that there would be adequate turn-around room for automobiles - the only problem would be for trash pick-up since the trash trucks, would not normally ga down on private property where they had to back up 80 to 90 feet. ~ - Commissioner Gauer then asked whether or not there wt~.s a solution to the trash 3 ;~ problem since this should be resolved with City approval, and he did not know ~ whether locating the trash area in the front would be the answer. ~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Petition for Variance No. 2282, ' '~ subject to conditions, noting that although the Commission in the past had not ~; granted waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1, there ;c were many parcels in this area having R-2 and R-3 zoning, and this particular ;~ .li corner could be developed with a service station, therefore, he felt it was ~;~`: better to develop it with apartments even though the two stories were proposed ~ ;% within 120 feet of the homes on Midway ~rive, and the owner owned the adjacent "` R-1 property - therefore, this should be given some ecognition: ~~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the amount of turn-around area since it would be difficult for trucks to back out thc 80 to 100 feet. Commissioner Gauer noted there were 31 feet for a turn-around area. , *.` . : ? .+kt ; ,, , a •~ C ~ ~...o~ ~.__~-'~.~' . ~ i ~::.~. -. - --,-~-~',,,~.: ~ ~.:r:~ ~' _ . , _, , ;, - J ,i + - _ - -.__ - ~ - ~ Ei~ U '~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 ~ 71-474 VARIANCE NO. 2282 - Mr. Truxaw noted that the distance between the two garages (Continued) was about 30 feet, which would mean two movements of the "` truck to turn around, and it would not be necessary to ' back out. ( Chairman Farano noted he did not disagree with the fact that this was R-3 ~ ~ property, but just because it was R-3 did not mean it gave permission to build two-story apartments within 150 feet of R-1; that just because the one protest that had been made was from other than R-1 had nothing to do with waiving this ~ _ requirement, and if he were a resident of any R-1 in this area, he would assume __,-; there would be no need to come in and protest since the Planning Commission and City Council had consistently denied this waiver in the past, therefore, he '~ r? could see no reason for granting this waiver without better reasons than had been presented; that development of Midway Drive was with all R-1 homes, and ~, although Lemon Street might be different, this still did not appl to sub' ; property; that the fact that the petitioner resided in the R-1 property toethe north also made no difference since this still was R-1 property, and the ~ ti~ ? property could be sold. Commissioner Gauer noted that it was his opinion that one-story construction ~ should be required along the north; thus if the s3n31e-family zoned property owned by the petitioner were sold, there would be no problem to this property owner as to inv~sion of privacy. v` Commissioner Seymour noted that he was inclined to agree with Commissioner 1' ,~ Herbst in that it could be dangerous to set a precedent, but this entire ; deser:°red special consideration, and area ; story requirement could be done; howeveraPhisvmainaconcern was the trash one- ~~ storage situation, and if it were possa,ble for the petitioner to redesign the trash storage area so that it would be less difficult for trash pick-up, `r~ he would be interested in knowing whether the ~~ continuance =n order to resolve these problemsPetitioner wonld desire a ' ~ Mr. Truxaw advised the Commission that the trash storage problems could be ' ,~. resolved, but he was interested in having an answer to whether one-story or ~~ $q ' two-story was to be permitted if revised plans were to be submitted since it y~ was a matter of economics, and they preferred to have eight units since the more units that were out of a parcel, the more income they would derive. -`a ;, ~j Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the request ~f ! { of the petitioner regardinq one-sory and two-story requirement, and upon its ` ,.. conclusion, Chairman Farano noted that there appeared tc be a two-to-two tie ± ~ '" as to whether or not it should be one-story or two-stor ''.~ Kaywood stated that she would be o Y~ whereupon Commissioner~ pposed to two-story on the north and there !`5ti should be only one-story as Commissioner Gauer had indicated. Mr. Thompson then discussed with the Commission the possibility of revised plans and what could be done, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Herbst withdrew his motion for approval. ,~" 'f ~ Commissioner Seymaur offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue ~ ; Petition for Variance No. 2282 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, in order to ~ allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans, as discussed with the i , Commission, incorporating one-story along tlie north property line and providing ~ ,•. adequate trash storage areas. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. ~ ! MOTION CARRIED. ~ .` RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD R. AND BEVERLY A. TAYLOR, 6161 '- NO. 71-72-6 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; " requesting that property described as: A rectangularly- '~ shaped parcel of land consisting oE three lots and having '? a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, having ~: a maximum depth of approximately 275 feet and being located approximately 550 '. feet north of the centerline of Sall Road and further described as 850 South Western Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, ~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. * .kc ~. , ~~., ' . -- _ _ _ ~ - ~.~'~ . . . . ~~ - - - _ - `.~. 'i . _ . . , ~ , _ , ~ ` . _a _ L _ . , , f _ i : ',- , ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 ~ 71-475 RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the NO. 71-72-6 location of subject propexty, uses established in close (Continued) proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to reclassify the property to the R-3 Zone, however, development plans had not been submitted indicat- ing the type or style of multiple-family complex proposed; that the petitioner had been advised the Commission usually required submission of development plans; that the area was indicated on the General Plan for medium-density residential use, therefore, the requested zoning would be one of the zones that would implement this desiqnation; that this was the first of a series of zoning applications in this area requesting zoning to medium density for large R-A parcels, however, since this property was divided into three indi- vidual parcels, the Commission might wish to require a general plan of develop- ment over the entire property rather than each individual parcel priar to any development taking place. Mrs. Beverly Taylor, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had purchased this property to build a rather large home, however, mhen they applied for a loan, they were told they were overdeveloping the prope,•rtyj that they knew they would have to provide one-story units; and that they were anxious to find out whether or not the zoning would be approved before submittinq any development plans since development plans were rather expensive. The Commission indicated they preferred to see development plans prior to consideration of subject petition; whereupon Mrs. Taylor stated that they would request a rather lengthy continuance since they would be out of the city for a whole month. A showing of hands indicated five persons present in opposition. Mr. Carl Herman, 3109 Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that to recommend approval of subject petition would be a breach of faith since the City :,ouncil had agreed to single-family homes on other property in the area covered by tliirteen acres originally owned by the Etchandy family when they also requested multiple-family residential development; however, the City Council determined that the area should remain for single-family residential land use and reclassified the property to the R-2-5000 2one; that this property was now being developed for single-family homes by the Ridgecrest Homes Curp., and these homes would not sell for less than $30,000. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the oppos,ition was against any kind of multiple-family residential development, to which he received an affirmative reply. ~~ Mr. Herman noted that approval of subject petition would be setting a precedent • " ,,y~ since the City Council had decided single-family use would be appropriate for this area. Furthermore, the residents of the area were desirous of having an F t~ ~ , evening meeting so that more could be present to voice their arguments. ' ;~: : +.-.: y ' '. '~" r~ Mr. Mel McGaughy, 910 South Western Avenue a ~ , ppeared before the Commission in ' ~~ ~ opposition, noting he had resided there for fifteen years and was immediately ~° ` ; ,"f . adjacent to subject property; that he was against any form of apartments low- , :, ` , , medium or high density, and suggested that nothing but homes be developed for ~ this area; and that if the petitioners had trouble in financing their property `; ; _ , they might try again with the financial institutions. . ``f Mrs. Mary McGaughy, 910 South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission ;r•,. , ' and noted that she had a petition signed by residents in the area, all in ~::' :;; , opposition to any apartment development. h ~~ ' Chairman Farano noted that the Commission later in the day would consider the : •; policy on continuances and inquired approximately what date would the peti- tioners be ready with any plans. ;~~; ' Mrs. Taylor replied that Mr. McGaughy had stated that they could apply for _ another home loan, however, they had recently purchased a$50,000 home in the ;~ Santa Ana Canyon and, therefore, they were not in a position to apply for another loan, and that perhaps the first part of November would be sufficient t~:;. time for a continuance. ;: .~c : ~c i i ~ ICi~.~ . ' . ,< , , ..; .;., ... _ : , . . : - . ~, . -j ~ ,°;~~4 l _ .... . .. . :. ..~....e.. .._ , - . j~ . ' . . ~ . .~ . - . . .. ,_ ,. ~ . . . . . ~ _ _r . _ . I ~ ~ _, ,. . ~, ~. r; , ~ i~ , `. ~: t _ ~" -rl t'~F,r, - - ~ ~ ~ ~.J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 71-976 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst noted t.hat although the General Plan N0.,71-72-6 indicated this area for medium density, the ~'' (Continued) might consider R-2-5000 since from what he couldtgather W p from statements made, the petitioner would be creating considerable opposition by proposing apartment development. ~ Commissioner Seymour concurred with Commissioner Herbst's statements and ~ suggested that perhaps the petitioner, itt presenting development plans, r~ consider filing for the R-2-5000 Zone which permitted single-family homes on 5000-square foot lots, and then inquired whether the Commission would ,c. . '° ` consider an evening meeting when the actual date was determined. ' i ~~~ i The Commission was of the opiaio» that to continue this to an ever.ing meeting 3; kould be unfair to other petitioners; howevex, it could be scheduled as the first item on the afternoon agenda. t~: ~: ~,`° ' Commi~sioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consiazrat.ion of Petition ~ ~ for Reclassification No. 71-72-6 to the meeting of NovembQ:: 1, 1971, scheduling it as the first item on the afternoon agenda, to allow .~hr... petitioner time to ~ submit development plans incorporating the suggestions .narie by the Commission. 3'.~` Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 4... .R ~ ,: : ~`. K,-,? ADJO~NT - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the ~~ meeting. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ~~;;r i`~~ MOTION CARRIED. _ T ~ `" The meeting adjourned at 11:55 A.M. # ;$x'~ ' ~ ~~ ~.`,._; z4 ~'','' ?;'~ n; ~,`~`.r~~ ~. ~~;';~ ~'",~L,. +,s,: a~ y~,T ~~4 Y.~,'~'~-`, s ~~ ~,t. ~4' :~Si'F~,.'~;.y ; ~ ;? C:':",; ~:s - ~r, ,. ~ ~ t~~~ ~ ' r~'n::.;~.~y:~ ' . ~F ~~ ~~. ~ . .. _ -. ..~'„ ' "~..~;5; e:'^,C ~~ ~` ~ ^ § , - , f