Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/08/23 ~ , , " ,.. , _ . , . . , ~ . . . _.~.. ~.. , , : , , , , . , , .: ~ ~ - . . i ~: _ - ~ ,- - 0 ------- Q ` .-_~~ >~ City Hall Anaheim, California August 23, 1971 -" ~i A REGULAR MEETTNG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - MEETING A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission was called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum bein r t g p esen . ~~ sw;~;,~F~,s PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. ~ '' r~ "" - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. , '' ~ yr~- . '~~+: 1 ~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. . : ~: 1 PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson 2 ' oning Supervisor: s Deputy City Attorney: Charles Roberts Office Engineer: Frank Lowry ,: ~" ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Jay Titus pon M t:' .;. ,,~; ; : .~r . cDaniel Commission Secretar y pro tem: Lee Burgess . ~ ~ PLEDGE OF - ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the , ;i \ Flag. _ ,. ? +~ ' APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to ~ THE MSNUTES approve the minutes of the July 26, 1971 meetin g, seconded b Co i ~ ~ y mm ssioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the followin corr ti r~~ g ec ons: P4- 71-482, para. 5, line 2: separation of the bar.... +° ~ ;~.;~ P (not operation). g. 71-487, para. 7, line 1: Comm. Herbst noted (not K " t.~~ r aywood). 2: He would like (not she) ~,z ~ Pg. 71-492, para. 5, line 2: 45 to 55 (not 50) _. iy ~ . P9. 71-494, para. 4, line 3: one of the two uses (not or). Pg. 71-505 8 t , <~ " "" , para. , line 7: too far a art in the setbacks ` f.i-~ : t,,i (not at ends). ~ ~: ~~ Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes ~ f t, '~ti •x' o the August 9, 1971 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Seymour a d MOTI ~.' n ON CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: ' Pg. 71-532 para 4 li '- 4 , . , ne.3: add word: serving only. P9. 71-538 a 3 ,,. ~ , p ra. , line 7: add words: two-bedroom, two-bath ~. ;~ , ~ units for $175. Pg. 71-540, para. 6, line 6: delete "only older people" ` ~_,; ' ' substitute also married couples. ' k:', ' line 9; add word: developed there. ~' ~ ,~ Thev had. - Pg. 71-541, para. 3, line 5: 10 acres for park purposes ` n (not parkin~). `-_'? c`~ 9, line 2: reverse votes of Commissioners ,- ~ ! . Kaywood (no) and Rowland (aye). Pg. 71-542, para. 2, lines 1& 2: rev "` "~ erse votes (same correction) ~ ~ Rowland no; Kaywood aye. ~;' ;,I ~` ~ TENTATIVE MAP O TRACT NO 7471 F - DEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES 4570 Campus Drive, Newport ' f~ . Beach, California. ENGINEER: Toups Engineering, 17291 i , ?+ ~~ ' Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. Subject tract ~ , consisting of approximately 38 acres, is located east of I , ? Imperial Highway between the future extension of La Palma ~~: ~% Avenue and Esperanza and is proposed for subdivision into ) y . 206 R-2-5000 zoned lots. i }.'? , ' •t' Subject tract was continued from the meetings of June 28, July 26, and ~ ~ August 9 1971 ` ' ~ , , at the re uest of the 4 petitioner. . . i ; *~:i: ~~ .;:~: a _ 71-549 _ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ .. . . i: ~ .,~ ~ .: ,. • ~*- . ~ .p .. ,, ':'.- . . ~' ... .• ~ . . . .., ~ . . _. .. : ,... . . /~ :~ - . ~ . . ~: . .. _. ~_ ,. ~ ~^' ~' "' . - - .. .. ~ , ~ . : ., '; . . . . . ~~ ' .. ~..... . ..::i ' _ . ;'3. . :.. . '. ' - ~ ~ .. . . '~• ~~:. _~ .. ' ~ ' ~ ~ ' . . . . .. .' . . . . .. . . _ . . ~~. . . . . .._. . . ._ . .. . . . . ,_, . ~. . . - . _ ' . ~ ~~ ~ .. ~ . . . . . ~Y . . . _ . . L . .. . .. . . . f . l ; .~ ----- - - ;- _ ` ~ ~ r -- -- ~ _ , I ~ ~j cj ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 71-550 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted the TRACT NO. 7471 location of the property, the pr~posed subdivision, and (Continued) advised the Commission the applicant had requested a continuance for two weeks, to September 8, 1971, in order - that the County of Orange could determined the alignment of La Palma Avenue. i The Commission dlscussed the advisability of removing Tentative Map of Tract No. 7471 from the agenda until such time as the alignment is established, and were advised that in all probabil~.ty the matter should be decided in four weeks. ;f ~ti:~,.,'.~ =: ?~~: ~';t Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative ;~ ~'' Map of Tract No. 7471 to the meeting of September 20, 1971, as requested by :,~; the developer. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ;.,F~~.. ~'~s ~ VARIANCE NO. 2274 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM T. PHILLIPS & DARWIN STANLEY, 246 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, ~ Owners; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT A WAREHOUSE IN THE C-2 ZONE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 54 feet on the northeast side of Manchester Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- > mately 187 feet, and being located approximately 500 feet northwest of the ~" centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 240 North Manchester r~. ,;.,,,,; Avenue. '; Subject petition has been continued from the meetings of July 12 and July 26r xj 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans, '"~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ;Y2' property, the request, and the reasons for the previous continuances. ' :ti The Commission discussed the number of previous requested continuances and ,.;~;,,~~;..,~ the fact that several attempts had been made L•y the Development Services ~• ~~ Department staff to secure new plans from the petitioner; however, none had J;, ~`;~j been submitted to date. ~.: i , ~~,~ 7;:: Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to remove Variance No. 2274 from the :~ yy agenda until such *.ime as the petitioner submits revised plans, and that anp >.,,~ readvertising costs in connection with the rescheduling of this variance be paid by the applicant. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION ...,,::~~ CARRIED. ~ i .;_~ ~ / ~ ~. , .. . _ , . . . . ~ I . ~ MxNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 .~ 71-551 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HERRING. LA SALLE HOTEL COMPANY, 8370 PERMIT NO. 1248 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; N. P. BARLETTA, National Sierra Pictures Corp., 105 South Prospect Avenue, Tustin, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MOTION PICTURE STUDIO AND RELATED TOURIST- ORIENTED ATTRACTIONS, INCLUDING :tESTAURANT AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE FACILITIES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 18 acres, having a frontage of approximately 649 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,058 feet, and being located approximatepy 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Kraemar Boulevard. Property ~resently classified COUNTY OF ORANGE 100-M1- 20,000. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 26, 1971, to allow time for further study. Commissioner Farano advised the Commission that the public hearing on Condi- tional use Permit No. 1248 was clo~ed from the meeting of July 26, 1971, with the proviso that it could be reopened to hear any property owner and industrial- ist who had not appeared at the previous meeting and if he would care i:o make any statements not made at the July.26th meeting. Since a full Commission had heard the matter on July 26th, there was no need to go into a full scale hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Mr. Jerry Ward, 4332 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, representing Industrial Properties, appeared in opposition. He stated that tlie northeast Anaheim area is the only industrial area in orange County other than Irvine properties. The restrictions in the Irvine area are high, and even so Irvine is getting j the "cream of the crop" in industries. Anaheim's northeast area is a good ~ area and to compete :rith Irvine, it must be kept strictly for iadustry. If a ~ movie studio is allowed for strictly that purpose, making of movies, the use ~ could be allowed, but as a tourist attraction, industrial business would be f run ou~ of the area. Mr. Ward cited Santa Ana and Garden Grove areas as ? examples of poor planning and hodgepodge in their industrial parks planning. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts read two letters ~ (one from North American Rockwell, and a resolution from the Anaheim Cham~~er of Commerce) in opposition requesting that the Northeast Industrial Area be maintained for industry. Mr. Nicholas Barletta, National Sierra Pictures Corp., 105 South Prospect ~ Avenue, Tustin, agent for the petitioner, advised that the continuance was primarily for the benefit of the Planninq Commission and staff, and that spontaneous objections were easier to deal with than a letter from such people as the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and Autonetics. Ch~~.rman Farano read from the minutes of July 26, 1971, the motion to continue this hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 1248 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, to allow time for surrounding industries to establish a position on the proposal. Mr. Barletta expressed the opinion and wished to go on record as stating copies of the letters (Autonetics and Chamber of Commerce) should have been given to him prior to tkte current meeting so that he would have been informed of the apposition. The agent indicated that the proposed development belongs in an M-1 Zone since it is a manufacturing of film facility, there is an educational quality attach~d to the manufactur3.ng end of the business. Relative to the opposition due to a tourist attraction, this operation would not be too d?a- simtlar to motton picture studios such as Universal; far more attachment t;~ been put to the tourist end of the business rather than the studio part ~•f tha bus;~ness, rou must take into account the quality of business that is nece~sary to make motion pictures. Mr. Barletta advised he has developed many industrial properties in Anaheim and feels that this type of £acility would not detract from the industrial area. To compare :Anaheim with Irvine is a mistake, irvine Company has been able to develop from raw land. Relative to traffic as alluded to in the letter from Autonetics, cars visiting this operation will carry from 3-3~ persons per car, whereas the average auto driving to work at Autonetics carries one person - one car. I .... 'i°' - .:Y . . ~~ . . . . . . . ^ . . . ~ ~ . ~ .. . ~:.~~~-.~:.~....~iw'~., 1 :s~t. ~ . ' . . . _ ~ . . _ ' ' ~ ~ 5 .' . , C ` ~ _ . _ . ,.. _ ~ ~~ , ~l ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 t~ 71-552 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Barletta stated he was unable to understand why the PERMIT NO. 1248 Anaheim Chamber of Commerce would be against this motion (Continued) picture studio, that perhaps it was due to a lack of understanding as to what was being proposed. The project would certainly bring a certain amount of additional tourist traffic into the area, it would open a completely new industry in the County. The studio would be situated near the freeway and on the periphery of the industrially zoned property. He further noted that a park or recreation area was being considered close to the Santa Ana River bed, that there was already a miniature golf course in the industrial area. Mr. Barletta was of the opinion that space oriented industry is on the decrease and there were some areas of disagreement with the letter from North American Rockwell. The proposed facility is allowed in the M-1 Zone and certain satellite uses per- mitted as long as they are oriented toward the pattern being developed. Commissioner Farano inquired as to the activities that would be taking place at the studios, such as Roaring 20's type bank robberies, musicals, stage plays, etc., if these would be per.formed in the amphitheater and was advised by Mr. Barletta that many of the performances would be on film. ;. ~ ~ I Mr. Barletta advised that there would be approximately 45-55 employees, the staff would be both technicians and administrative personnel. The total number of employees for the concessionaires would be between 40 and 70 employees. ,~. Mr. Barletta read a letter from Architect R. N. Thomss and Associates relative %~= to parking capacity, lndicating 70 spaces for employees and the remainder for tourists. At 3~S persons per car, parking could be provided for 5,000 people ? per day, with a turnover of cars and tourists anticipated. The operating hours ;ul would be 6:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. for the sound stage; 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for ~~ the public oriented areas; and 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M. for the restaurant and ' ~{ cof£ee shops. The heaviest tourist traffic would be June through September, ~~'' with July and August taking about 90~ of the total annual traffic. Mr. Barletta ,i ;~• further stated that he had checked with Universal studios who have 420 acres under roof with 1,000 parking spaces; Magic Mountain has 200 acres with 5,000 _ parking spaces. There would be no driving type tour, a"walking type tour" through the studios. Commissioner Allred inquired if the area could take care of all anticipated j .~_ needs or r~ould the petitioner have to use more industrial land should they outgrow th:ir present proposed development. He was advised that this proposal ~ - :~ is for a mini-studio, primarily for the low budget picture as opposed to the ' ;.Li epic picture, such as Ben Hur. t ~~ Mr. Barletta stated that in his opinion the value of the surrounding property would increase if this proposal were approved, that as matters stand at present, the property owners in the area have not been able to sell their property, . that buildings are being constructed on a"spot" basis rather than large devel- opments, that any good development that has some relationship to M-1 and C-1 could increase the value of the property and aid the properties in beinq leased and sold. ;~, Commissioner Farano advised the public hearing was allowed to remain open for the purpose of soliciting comments from the opponents in the area and pro- ponents of this proposal. Mr. Jerry Steinbaum, President, La Salle Hotel Ccimpany, appeared for the applicant, advising he has been the owner of the property on which the proposed use will be located; that during the last eight years the property was offered to whomever approached him for development, however, he was never able to '; develop it. First,, it was because of the Riverside Freeway, then competition ~ from the Irvine Company, the valuation has not risen five cents in the eight ' years it has been owned by Mr. SteinSaum. He further stated that North American "" ' Rockwell had opposecl him before on anticipated developments. Regarding traffic, at any time of the day except when employees are going to and from work, the traffic is extremely light, that there should be no traffic problems whatsoever ,_ .. :, either on Kraemer or La Palma when this movie studio is developed. The property is bound~d on one side by the Riverside Freeway, an onramp on another side; a total 40-acre piece is completely surrounded and this project could really not grow any further because it would be stopped by streets. ~'`. However, this would not be a problem because there has been no demand for ~,„t~ industrial property in the area concerned. ~ ~ i-'-~ ~ .~~. . ....... . ..._ _ . ' ' ~ ~ ^ (~~ ' ' ='. ' t •.t.. ... ... ~ . ' , C - . ~ . ' ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ . ~ . . ~,. ~ MINUTES~ CI"`~ ~~,~NN~NG COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 ~~ 91-553 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Farano inquired why there is no need for ~ PERMIT NO. 1248 property, that the pxoposed development is 50~ commercial- ':~.-f"i ~ . (Continued) recreation oriented and 508 industrially oriented, by approving this proposal the Commissian would be placing other property owners in the same position. Mr. Steinbaum stated that the property was not worth any more than it was eight years ago, which statement was questioned by Commissioner Seymour. Mr. Steinbaum stated that property owners were not being offered any more than ' they were eight years ago, that two years agc they were offered less The I I I ~ `~~°~ owners are trying to do something to qet the property developed, that it was :r, ; '`~ I~~ a burden. Further, that they have been unable to sell the property for industry ,i 1, because the Irvine Company is putting in key industries and satellite uses all ,~, a.cound them, all demand for indnstrial property in A:zaheim was grabbed by Irvine, and atated he felt that the owner in the community should be helped , to dispo~e of his property. r THE PUBLIC f1EARING WAS CLOSED. ` 1y A summary of the Commissioners' comments is as follows: :,~ ! Commissioner Gauer: This is on the periphery of the in3ustrial area; a motion :1- picture studio and restaurant can go into the industrial area automatically; r;,~ as far as the number of people going out there, this business is not going into ~~ the center of the area, it is going on the edge. Anaheim Lake is out there, we have North American with its golf course, we have this other little golf '_;:'•~ course there in the industrial area; we have talked about the integrity of the M-1 area, and I am certainly for it; I cannot see where this is going to hurt the industrial area because it is on the edge of it; we have to have some kind i~~ of a catalyst to start with some kind of movements; this will bring employment, will bring development even if they have a certain amount of commercial-recrea- i tion out there; will bring sales tax; would rather see some form of development „!.:;q,j than a vacant piece of property. ,j The Commission discussed whether opening up the industrial area to other than ; ~ industrial development would affect other industrial users in the area. ! Mr. Roberts pointed out on the General Plan map the location of the proposed ~ ?1 develop~ent. Mr. Gauer indicated no other development other than industrial ~ 1 should be allowed in the area and should not "suppose" any would be received, since none were on hand. ; ,;is j Commissioner Herbst: Tr~ so-called Orient, which is commercial-recreation ; ~ oriented, went into the Southeast Industrial Area, it had signs up around the ,°~1 area, it appears that every place they put their sign, the industrial growth stopped. Industry would not develop in the area because of this supposedly approved business which was tourist oriented. I have no objections at all to " the studio, but when it says right here in their own advertising that it will `'`: become a major tourist attraction to the City of Anaheim; we have a zone that i~ would be far be:ter for this use than in our industrial area, we took industrial :? property and rezoned it contiguor; to our commercial-recreation area, business can go in there right now and without any variances whatsoever, they might even "~ have a better chance to survive as long as they stay within the intent of the zone. They would attract a lot more people, they would be a lot more success- ful, they would have room to expand, they would be able to supply the necessary parking if they 3id have to expand, here they would be going into a pocket where it is the prime interest to our industrial zone. Sure we have a lot of indus- trial property out there, but if you look at the property along side of it. We have thousands of acres of undeveloped residential ground. We have several s ~ hundred acres of undeveloped commercial ground. We can't develop all of Anaheim 'r '' overnight, it is goin to take several g years. We must hang onto this industrial j? ' zone which is surrounded by freeways. The best thing that we have separating b~- ~! any commercial area or residential area is space and the freeways surrounding ~i this area is the space that we need to protect it from not only itself but from the residential and commercial areas also. Sure, we ne~? a certain amount of commercial business in the industrial area, but_ not tourism. Tourism is in- f,t compatible, it doesn't fit, and we have a place for it. We ~~lanned the city ' thi.s way and here we are going to take a prime piece of industrial ground which is freeway exposed and convert it to tourism. There is no question in my mind '' that it will affect the whole area because it is to the interest of the indus- ~' trial areas and the City will have adverse effects on it because we have had ~+~ i proof in the past of this. There is no question in my mind that the industrial " people will start backing away from Anaheim further, and then we will be creat- ing a large volume or large acreage of additional commercial-recreation area .... ~:~y~~. ~•~,.. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . . ~~ _ ~ ' ' . ~ . . . ' ' . . . ~ ~; . 1 .'~ ~~' ~, ' .~ ~ ~ ~ /VJ ~t 4~~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN~G COMMISSION Au ust 23 i _ - . a__ . I ~ g ' 197~ 91-554 CONDITIONAL USE - in Anaheim when we already have a few hundred acres that PERMIT NO. 1248 is not being used. T don't think this is (Continued) and it is going to take a few 4ood planning, going to take a few Yezrs to develop, it is area, that Years to develop that whole canyon particular industrial area up there is going to supply thousands of jobs for this community to help the rest of the com- munity grow and it has got to be done through loiig-range planning. I fee3 that once we open it for tourism, it is going to be gone, other areas we have had have gone the same way, Commissioner Herbst offerea Resolution No. PC71-164 and moved for its passaae and adoption to deny Peti ~n far Conditional Use Permit No. 1248 based upon the above reasons, feeling that the use is more commercial-recreation oriented; tourism is going to far e::,;eed the industrial, making of pictures; in the long range, it could go 75-808 with restaurants, shops, other commercial-recreation attractions. (See Resoistion Book) Prior to roll call, the Commission voiced the following comments: Commissioner Rowland: It is my understanding that the planning process involves c~onsiderably more than putting color on an expensive piece of paper on the wall; it involves circulation element; electrical service, water, sewer; that these de~mands on different land uses are entirelp different; it :s all well and good far us to sit here and react to the economic pressures that are very, very real to all of us but I am not so sure it is that simple. i am not so sure that as part of the plan we haven't, over a long period of time, committed this land to a specific use. Now I can be real wrong, but we say that this specific piece of property is on the border, it is on that map, it shares in common with every other laad use in that vicinity, access by circulation elements that are speci- fic no matter what color you paint it, these are real conditions. I think that the reaction if we change the zone on this, I think it is a fine project, I agree with Commissioner Herbst that there is probably a better spot in the community for it, however, it is not proposed for a better spot, it is speci- fica~o o for here. 2 think the Council committed themselves to the ~~ia went in there east of this property. maybe the Council wants to react to hese pos3tions and change the zone out there, 2 think we are pretty far down the road planning-wise to change it without a serious study of the services that are available for land change. If the City wants to move in another direction after these ten years, maybe it is long enough to give it a chance, but I think that a study would have to be more in depth than the color change that we are discussing here. I don't think that it is our prerogative to change as far as the studio and restaurant are concerned, if you believe in the legality in what you are doing here and showings required by State law for a variance, under a Request £or Variance it says to indicate how said variance is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same viciiiity and the same zone which is denic:d to the property in question, if you feel that tourism is an asset to this pa,rticular site, then the next property owner who wants to avail himself of the same right has a right to do so under the variance pro- cedure; which should be encouraged; I don't think that the property should be developed under a variance, it should be developed by zone chan3e, by develop- ment standards of the zone that is available. if we want to change this thing, let's change it en masse. Commissioner Seymour: I would like to make a few comments here. This thing is about the best looking hot fudge sundae that I have seen in a long time. It makes my mouth water; I would like to go with it so badly. With the economic situation of the City, there is no doubt that we could use it, for the admission tax generated; what few jobs it would create we could use; there is no doubt in my mind that the landowners and Mr. Steinbaum in his presentation made it clear, that the landowners are in a difficult position. When we are faced with a crisis iike this, we take another look. I think, Commissioner Herbst, you put it very well at the last meeting when you accused me of p3nic a' then 2 further defined how i felt about the thing. I feel that we have ~ to take a courageous, forthright, positive stand on this, we have got to g~ ~ut and create and encourage and sell and promote industry to come in here. We have to sell aur place. Irvine has a fine development. There is no doubt about it that they don't wait for the client to come to them, they go get the client, and Z think this is the aoproach we have gut to take. If we can take that approach, then I think we can maintain the commitm%nts we have made to industry, and we have made commitments. When they have come to us we have said yes, go in there, we are going to protect this area, we are not going to let the other uses encroach into this area, and I think we have to live with those commitments. I also fePl that if we go with this particular use it is poor economics, although we are not supposeci to consider eccnomics on this body, ~ ~ i fs: ~ ~ ~ .... .,: -. .;.. . . .. ' '. . ~.. I :,;; :.~.. . . 1 ~: ~ . . 1 . . ' . .. ,., - ':.. I t ~ ,:' '_. . . . . . . i . . ' ...... ... \ ~. : . . .. . . . . . ..: ' .. ~. , `` C~ fp ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS'ION, August 23, 1971 91-555 GONDITIONAL USE - I can't help but feel that a zone of this type will reflect ~ PERMIT N0. 1248 in the adjacent properties then wanting higher valued use, (Continued) and I think this t ~ ~ ype of planning results in R-1 to R-3; Q,-Ox to C-l, and M-1 to C-R, and that becomes a hodgepodge, and .the net effect of that is that as Mr. Barletta in his ';;" comments said, you do get spot zoning. I think that is the path we would be ' led down. So althoug2i this looks extremely good, and it is a ver we can rationalize and say, "well, the existin y~aSY change, ~ Commission denied it because we didn't want itgto~intrudesupon thoseeindustrial uses. I think we have to consider some of the criteria that _ - considered th t ~. , i, ` ~,~: ' !~ ': s i `~ - ~:.`: ;".Ikl. ;,. I ~_ + ~1k1 a golf course, and I recall the question we wereeaskingdourselves "how much or industry in the area is going to make use of this?" If we can see in our own minds that a large percentage of the industrial labor or person- nel in that area is going to use it, fine, it serves them. But I used that same thinking on thia project, i came up with a zero and, therefore, I am in strong support of C~mmissioner Herbst's motion although that is a fine looking hot fudge sundae. On roll call the f.oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMI;;SIONERS; Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. r ~ G . ._~ 5:~:°~.,',:-r':Y' . . f~~~ ` `:-~,,....~w,,. . ~ - ; ~. . .. ; _. ~ . . . ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 23, 1971 `~T 71-556 VARIANCE NO. 2272 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM KUGEL, c/o Summit Mortgage Investors, 555 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Owner; COLDWELL, BANKER & CO., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND A NONCONFORM- ING, FREE-STANDING SIGN on property desaribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres located at the northwest . corner of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue, having frontages o£ approximately 620 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and approximately 739 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue, and further described as Euclid-Crescent Square. -,_;'~ Prop~er+p presently classified C-1 and C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NES. Subject petition w3s continued from the meetings of June 28 and July 12, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans, and from the meeting of ,7uly 26, 1971, at the request of the petitioner to resolve the signing proY,.lems . Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel edvised the Commission that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting that the petition be with- drawn due to their inability to resolve the signing problems on this property. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to withdraw Variance No. 2272, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2282 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH C. TRUXAW, 888 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM IiEIGHT 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 a~: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land at the northeast corner of Lemon Street and Vermont Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 136 feet on Lemon Street and having approximately 122 feet of frontage on Vermont Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 26, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed subject property, surrounding ' uses and zoning, advising the Commission that revised plans had been submitted, and the petitioner was now proposing to construct one two-story fourplex and I one one-story triplex; that sufficient open and covered parking stalls are ' provided with access Erom Lemon Street. The petitioner further indica~ted that at some future time he may wish to file a parcel map to split the property, each building being on a separate parcei; the proposed property line splitting the driveway in half and requiring a reciprocal parking and access agreement at such time as the parcel map is approved. ~ Mr. Joseph C. Truxaw, 888 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, owner, appeared before f the Commission to answer any questions. He advised the Commission there would ~ be 150 feet from the adjoining R-1 use; further, that there was sufficient turning radius and sufficient parking provided, and a car would not have to back 80 to 90 feet into the street from a parking stall. Mr. Truxaw further advised that 3f and wh~r~~ the pr.operty is sold, and a lot split is filed, it I would be his intentio,, t_~ have a mutual zrrangement for driveway and trash pickup. : THE HEAI2ING WAS CLOSED. a .' .~t „ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-165 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2282, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, , Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. d ...b r ~ ~ _ ~ > ~: _ i :. : ;~ : . , _ . , . , `_ - = _~ ._._ -,: . : ~~ ~~ f:~ MTNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 23, 1971 71-557 VARIANCE NO. 2282 - Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-166 an~l (Conti nued) moved for its passage and adoption to terminate Petition ~ for Variance No. 1892 since Variance No. 1892 approved ~;', rezoned various waivers of the R-3 2one at the time prope-rty was to R-3 in 1967 under Reclassificati N 7 F y~~ on o. 6 -68-2, Variance No. 1892 has not been exercised to date and nei.ther of the two waiver Variance s requested in No. 2282 were included in V:.r.s.ance No. 1892. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,'- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Far~no, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ^~u Seymour. ~ "''~~~;n«, ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. z ;:~~`~?~+ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ? ;' c' ±' -~ ~ .~, t: "' :: . ,+ ~. ;:; t '~ A'. ~ ,." RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHVRCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF NO. 70-71-56 LATTER DAY SAINTS, 10 South Main, Room 214, Salt Lake City, Utah, Owner; SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard, CONDITIONAI, USE Suite W, Westminster, California, Agent; property described PERMIT NO. 1244 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.4 acres having a frontage of approximately TENTATIVE MAP OF 245 feet on the east sida of Euclid Street, having a TRACT NO. 7439 maximum depth of approximately 491 feet, and being located approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orange- wood Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONAITIONAL USE ESTABLISH A 47-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT SIZE, (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE STREET FRONTAGE, AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: WM. J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite K, Westminster, California. ENGINEER: RAAB & BOXER ENGINEERING CQMPANY, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into 49 R-3 zoned lots. ~y Said petitions were contintted from the meetings of June 14, July 12 and July 26, 'i 1971, at the request of the petitioner and to resolve the illegal lot split i problem with the owner of the adjoining R-A parcel. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the ,:ommission that the applicant had requested an additional eight-week continuance since the problems had not yet been resolved. The Commission discussed the number of requested continuances, noting that if one more continuance. until October 18, 1971, could not resolve the petitioner's : problems, that the reclassification, conditional use permit and tentative tract map should be removed from the agenda. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Reclassification No. 70-71-56, Conditional Use Permit No. 1244, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7439 to the meeting of October 18, 1971, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION ~ CARRIED. I ~ RECLASSIFICATIOD: - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. cTHEL POTTBERG, c/o Rimel, NO. 71-72-8 Harvey & Logan, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; STANDARD PACIFIC CORP., 156~ West VARIANCE NO. 22f34 MacArthur Soulevard, Costa Mesa, California, ~gent; property Zescribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximateZy 7.5 acres lying southwest of the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately 474 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and 314 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified ;,-1, GENERAL C7MMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ ; ~ ~~~ ~ .. .:_ ~~` ~ e;r: L. . i ' ~,.~;:.x aFll ~ . .,v., .. . .. ~ ' ~~ i `~' ....'.;3 ~ ~ :;.. _ , _ . ... < .. ~ „ ~, ... . : , . _ ~ ( . i' ~ --------~ ' 1; V ~ l~ i~_ 4~' ' :`: . ~, i ~:; '. t~ .3 ':i S s;', :~ ~ ~'~ s;: _ s, - `:a ~ . '~~~ *" .L`e ' ( MzNUTES~ CITY PLAr:NING COMMISSTON, August 23, 1971 71-558 ' i RECLASSIFTCATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY I NO. 71-72-8 RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~..:~ VARIANCE NO. 2284 REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FLQOR (Continued) AREA, (2) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF' A SxNGLE-FAMILY 20NE, AND (3) MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 201-UNIT, TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. ' Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 9, 1971, to resolve the tie vote. Assistant Zoning Supprvisor pon McAaniel briefed the Commission on surrounding lahd uses which include a convalescent hospital to the north; vacant property across Beach Boulevard to the east; single-family units and vacant property to the south; and vacant agricultural property to the west. The subject property was zoned C-1 in 1965 under Reclassification No. 64-65-133 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1097 was approved in 1969 to permit construction of a billboard on subject property. Chairman Farano advised the Commission that the hearing was closed at the meeting of August 9, 1971, and remains closed. Commissioner Allred, who was not present at the August 9th meeting, advised that he had read the minutes of that meeting and had gone over the plans of development and now felt qualified to vote on the matter. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-167 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommer_d to the City Council approval of Reclassification No• 71-72-8. (See Resolution Book) In discussion, rommissioner Seymour reiterated his position on the previous vote, ~ndicating that if the subject parcel were zoned R-3, the parcel to the west should also be zoned R-3, unless an adequate buffer would be provided to the adjacent property. Commissioner Farano stated that durinq the last public hearing there was some discussion to the effect that the property fronting on Beach Boulevard was suitable for reclassification, some property was not desirable as R-1; that if this motion were passed that the Commission should re-examine the entire City of Anaheim to determine what other pieces of property are in a similar situation, that it would place the individual property owner in a better position if they knew how the Commission feels. Commissioner Herbst stated he felt commercial property and R-3 are as compatible as any property; and that maybe there is too much C-1. The area along all of the arterial highways cannot all be commercial, there must be some residential. Commissioner Rowland indicated since voting on August 9, he was changing his vote; the fact that this piece of property shared two types of uses was no big ~ deal; he was most concerned before about the continuous density westward but was pretty well convinced that the density will increase. Fie further indicated that the Anaheim General Plan is not a zoniny plan, the Commission cun make this property go any way; rhat he was going to vote for this project, it is a reasonable development. Commissioner Herbst stipulated that one condition should be that the owner shall install a landscaped screen which shall consist of trees planted on 20-foot centers along the entire westerly boundazy of subject property. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Rowland, Gauer, Allred, Herbst. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour, Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. . -. .. . .. , ~ . . . ~ ~t t'~.:.~ .r~ ..~.~~ _- . .r~:iCC.~~ f . .. M1~ . . . ..~ _ .• . ,,;,. _ . ; .: : ::... ,. ;~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ _ , Y . . ...~ - . . ' ~. ~. .. ~. U L} ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 71-559 - RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-168 and NO. 71-72-8 moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2284. (See Resolution Book) VARIrNCE N0..2284 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Rowla~:d, Gauer, Allred, Herbst. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Sevmour, Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. s,s - ;~ Commissioner Rowland left L'nE Council Chamber at 4:00 P.M. , ~` RECESS - Commissioner Kaywood made a motion, seconded by Cnmmissioner .a Seymour, to recess the meeting for ten minutes. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:00 P.M. ' RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:10 P.M., all ~' Commissioners being present except Commissioner Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLTC HEARING. LA PALMA VILLAGE, 2617 North Western PERMIT NO. 1255 Avenue, Los Angeles, California, Owner; MARVIN f. WEISS, ESQ., 9171 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH ON-SALE BEER AND ; WINE IN A BILLIARD ROOM on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped ~; parcel of land located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Acacia ~ Street, having frontages of approximately 30fl feet on La Palma Avenue and ; approximately 122 feet on Acacia.Street, and further de~cribed as 1513 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. ~ ~~ Assistant 2oninq Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the subject petition, noting the property is bonnded by multiple-family dwellings on the nos~h and east and to the south across La Palma Avenue; and medical offices to the west across Acacia Street. The property was zoned C-1 in 1966 under Reclassification No. 65-66-118. The applicant's plans indicate a large bar area, two pool tables, - and a table-type shuffleboard. The plans indicate na tables or booths for food consumption. , ~~ ' ~ `,;; *: ~ ': Mr. Marvin H. Weiss, 9171 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, attorney and i agent for the petitioner, advised the Commission the proposed use was for ~ on-sale of beer only, no n ~ ~r~f~~ie ~alcoholic beverages; that the ~.se ~:~u3d ,be fami~ly-type billiards~e p""r~Ssa1 was to use frozen sandwiches and use ea ng units to heat them; there would be no necessity for a large kitch2n area. The center in which the proposed use would be located was built approximately two years ago; that at that time it complied with landscaping, etc. The beer bar was to be located in the center of an eleven-store complex. Mr. Weiss advised the Commission that the residential units to the north were approxi- mately 100 feet from the proposed use, other residential uses to the east about 250 feet, while to the west it was about 350 feet. The lease specifically provides a clause that there would be no go-go, topless or undesirable type of pezson permitted on the premises, so there would be no problem of the beer parlor turning into some place where undesirables would congregate. Mr. Weiss introduced Mr. Gaines, who would be the operator, noting that Mr. Gaines is a resident of Orange Couaty; a former employee of Autonetics for thirteen years before he was laid off. Mr. Weiss indicated the hours of operation to be 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M., that no children would be allowed, they would cater to family-type use, pool tables and shuffleboard only, beer would be the only beverage served. Commissioner Herbst advised Mr. Weiss that in this particular area there is a large concentration of students within a one-block radius - a junior hiqh school, Catholic Church school, and a good percentage of these children pass the corner where the use would be located; that this particular operation is not the environment wanted. ~ .,._-'Wr.~L==wa±-~::!.s° ~i - , - .. ,~„ ,. :~..,~ #~ . . . ~ , ~ .. . ~ . ' ~ ' ^a. . . i _ ~ f `~ _~ ~ _> ~ ~ ~/ ~ ) y MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, August 23, 1971 71-560 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Weiss advised the Commissiun that the beer bar wouid , PERMIT NO. 1255 not aater to junior high school students, and quot~ng ~._~;.,~ . (Continued) Section 18.40.040 that this was allowed as a use. •, Chairman Farano advised the applicant that only after reguired ahowi.ngs py a ~ petitioner, quoting Section 11i.4d.040, could a use be granted, that this use was not a "right". : Commissioner Seymour questioned T4r. Weiss f.~rther as to the "family-type use" and stated that since no children would be allowed - and children are "famil ~~ '""~"=' this could hardly be considered a"famil t ,~. :..,, Y YPe" place. Y.,' 1 ,I ';~ , ,: r {, 5 i i ::~ ~ .4 l:. Y ; .± r s'" ~ ' *: .,~x ` THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. John Fedor, 1021 Acacia Street, Anaheim, appeared in oppocqtion, r.epresent- ing neighbors in the audience, Mr. and Mr;s. Clasen, advisin3 that the rear area was unlighted and unsightly, that the area for the ~roposed use was very small. He was not opposed to billiards, but to having beer on the premises. Father Joseph Sartorius, Associate Pastor of St. Anthony~s •-•arish, ;vas also in opposition, advising he represented 3,000 families in the area. .SL. Anthony's Church has a seven-day week church, over 600 students in ;chool, plu;• n>ght classes. He felt there was sufficient family recreation in the area; that the close proximity of the schools was not tlie location for s;ich a use; he stated he was opposed to the location of the use. In rebuttal, Mr. Weiss advised the Commission the applicant was proposing a local beer bar to cater to the local community, not to the transient. There has been no opposition expressed by other businesses in the center. Commzssioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-169 and mov~ci f^r its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1255 on cha basis that this use was obviously not a famil}•-type ust as it was advertised to be; the very small area of the operation and tk:at a beer parlor would be the major portion of the operation; the hours of operation; children passing every c7ay; and would definitely be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community and injurious to the adjacent land owners. (See Resolutic~n Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano NOES: COMMISSIONERS: . Gauer, Herbst, ::aywoo3, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATZUN - PUBLIC HEARING. DALE W. GRIVEY, ET AL, 20441 San'3 ~na N0. 71-72-5 Canyon Road, Anaheim 4570 Campus Drzve, Suite110~rNewpo~rtnBeachONCaliforniaES, TENTATIVE MAP OF Agent. Property described as: An irregularly-shape3 parcel TRACT NO. 7485, of land consisting of approximately 36 acres having a REVISION NO. 1 frontage of approximately 1,000 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approxi- feet east of the centerlinelof37nperialaHighwayg lprotertaPProximately 2,200 R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. P Y presently classified REQUFSTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAI~IILY, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 272 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the staff report, indicating subject property extends from the south side of the Riverside Freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Road, the westerly boundary r,~ing located north of the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road; surrounding land uses include the Riverside Freeway to the north; agricultural land to the east and west, with Santa Ana Canyon Road to the sauth. Subject property is an area designed for low density residential land use on the General Plan. In 1970, the Planning Commission and City Council considered General Plan Amendment No. 122 with two ~ ..-.~:. r u ~ ;r• ~ _, z~ 1 ~~ ~ F " .~ ''' i _ ~ ~ ~. ~,;<: : ~ - -- _._^_ -- - -- _ -- ----- ~ ~ ' _~ ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 2?, 19'J1 71-561 RECLASSIFICATION - alternative proposals: one to retain the present low- " N0. 71-72-5 density designation a.~ sY,,an on the Gencral Plin, or twr,, `. changing the density r:; ~r~:••-,nedium density re~ldential. y" TENTATIVE MAP OF Both the Commicsic:~ and. ~~r,7ci1 have reaf=irmed the low- TRACT NO. 7485, densit:y resi.denti:s:i d~~s~gnation for this area. REVISION NO. 1 (Continvcd'; Mr. Larry Matzi•.k, P~h:3~rosa Homes, 4570 Campus Drive, Suite 10, „ev~por•c Beach, agent £or the petitioner, appeared to answer an.y ~.e~•~a:i.ssion questions. He indicated that -, because of ttie decision on the S:orba Fegional Park, that R-2-5000 zoning could .v:* .1;,,~;._ be appropriate: for this are:a. He in3icated the owr.er hope~ h:o offer the buyer ,~:} a complete package of drapes, carpe•ts, landscaping - a pac;a~Ye deal - sa that ~~ y! wh~a a new owner moves in the home ~ao~aZd be complete and have a"lived ja" !' look. He also indicates the homes to be 140C square feet, three and foa.-- ~. , bedroom, two and three-batra ,iiomec. In answes to a q_,:stion from Comm~ ~~ioner Herbst, he indicated thr~t this was not a specula~ice development, ~nat as ~SOOn ~"~ ;_- aa maps ar.d zoning were appraved, t:he buildin co:sld be in. 4 g' Questioned as tu t t the parce:ls marked "not a part", h? indicated the: larger cont=~ined a pri~•ate ~. residence, and the own~r was n.t willing to sell, i.t was ;n asset to th! area, ~. ~, ^' and the smaller parcel is a well raite and at present a L:itle report wa~ ~eing ~ ~~ prepared on it~ ~~ '~ ~ `~ : ~ 'fhe Commission advised the a~pli.cant that this area had been cleterm±ned to ''~~ remain low density and it wau:i.d. seem they must continue to c?en}• R-2-5000 zoning \'` to developers, and that if the developers did not mish to submit plans for ,.~j R-1 zoning, there would not ba any developments in the canyou. '~ Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-170 and moved far its passage ,(~ and adoption to recommend to tke Cit; `~~uncil that Petition for ^ecZassificatic,n ~ No. 71-72-5 be denied for_• R-2-5000 zc.ning on the 'Sasis that General Pla,. Amend•- .NI ment No. 122, passed by the City Cou. ;il and Pl~nni.ag CemTMission, designa~.ed ,~ the area. in which subjf~Ct property was located fo: low-density resicient~~.l us:s; furthermure, the Plann.ing Com::i:ission rec.mmended tc the City Cov;.-:i1 that ~~he '~~ R-1, C~ne~Family Resid~antial , Zone be approved for property under Pet:ition .Eor r~ Reclassi~ication No, 71-72-5, subiect to the condit:ons set forth in *_.~e R.epoz~t to the Commis:c.'~on. (Secc Resolution Book) ~~ On ral', . e':~t the foregoii:r,~ resolution aas passed by the fallowir.g vote: ~ AYES: COMMT_SSIONSRS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Faywood, Seymour, ~111ted. ;~ NOES: COMMSSSIONERS: None. ~ `f~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONE;RS: Rowland. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to deny Tentati~le Map of Tr.act No. 7485, I !?evision No. 1, on the basis thac the Commission recommended R-~ zoning for subject property, and the tract would not confor:n with sai.d zoning. Commissioner~ '~d ~cconded the motiun. MOTION CARRIED. e. o d-~h~aQ_/ ~I~ ~• i ~:i~ ~ :~ ~ : ~~ M` ~! '"e :,j:` ! ~:,~ 71-562 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLSC HEARING. LOIS DEE COOK AND NOXIE L. STEARNS, NO. 71-72-12 c/o Coldwell Banker (~erry Reynold), 2333 North Broadway, " Santa Ana, California, Owner; STANLEY BELL, 9776 Katella ~ VARIANCE NO. 2288 Aveaue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ;p approximately 2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 270 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of ~ approximately 316 feet, and being iacated approximately 846 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, _ ZONE. ~"'~,"` kEQUESTED CLASSTFICATION: R-3~ MOLTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. i :Z~Q'UESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ~4. AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUZLDINGS TO PERMIT 'rj CONSTRUCTION OF A 56-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. , Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviev~ed subject location, surrounding -'r~ land uses which include vacant industrial property to the north, single-family ~~ units to the east, a church to the south and a church to the west; advising ; tt~at the ap,vlicant proposes to construct a 56-unit, t~.ro-story apartment ccmplex, ~; including all recreational and parking facilities required by Code. ~; Mr. Stanley bell, 9776 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, agent for the petitioner was ~ , available to answer questions of the Commi°-iun, ad~•ising the petitioner was ar~are of the conditions that have been suggested by staff and familiarity with building a number of units in the city. In answer to a query from Commissioner ~; Allred, he advised that only that day had the owner of the property to the east }~ been contacte8. ~ ~ Mrs. islbert Umino, 1420 west Broadway, Anahaim, owner of the property to the - ~ east, advised that they have three rental units on the property and was unaware f th - ; o e proposed 3evelopme~t until centacted by Mr. Bell, and in all probability ;J '~ they would be interested i,: selling the proper.ty to Mr. Sell for development. ~~' • ~:;~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. r ` ~ 1 1 Mr. Bell advised that since Mr. and :~rs. Umino had indicated a desire to sell ' ` the property, he wou].d oet together with them; however, :~e would liice approval ; -" , >.;i`, of the plan as submitted. ,, i! ; Y ' The Commissior ~3iscussed development of the parcels to the east, in3icating ` ~ that the R-A pa;.::1s wex~e in a prr,g~sed area to b~ zoned R-3; however, as they ;;~ ' are preser.tly, chey would nnt develog as R-3 without many variances, and it "' ~ ~. :;„` was ~::ggested that iand assembly mi.ynt bF a so'~.ition. :; i Commissioner Seymour asked Ec~r rtaff comments a~ to the possibility of develop- ing these parcels to single story and wss advised by Mr. Roberts that it would ~ i be within the realm of possibilit~~ to develop that property without waivers. ,i k ,F Gommi,ssioner Herbst indicated he would like to see somp thought given to = '/"" incorporating the small R-A parcF'~ with the property p~r.esently proposed for - r, develapment by the applicant. F: T . ` ~~ Commissioner Kaywocd suggested a four-week continua~ce so that Mr. and Mrs . Umino and M~. Bell could get together for land assembly and that staff might work with them. Commissic~er Allred noted there was r~o buffered landscaping area adjacent t~ the R-~ prol~erty; plans must be revised unless land assembly ~', ; is obtained; Chairman Farano indicated the applicant was not entitled to the _;~~,; :.,'p~ technical waiver of 150 feet. ~- ;;s Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue Reclassification No. 71-72-12 x~` and Variance No. 2288 to tise meeting of September 20, 1971, for the applicant to work out plans fpr development. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION ,^,ARRIED. 'Z ' ~j. ~, , ~ '~ I .._.__ - =~' ~ ,"°""~ /" '~ ti ^~ . t ;~i :~,.~~; . ~ - t. ; ~ ~~ 1«~ MiNL'TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 r!~ 71-56~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. BILL ASAWA, A.S.A.W.A. CORPORATION, N0. 71-72-13 806 South Beach Boulevard, An=.heim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of VARIANCE NO. 2289 land located at the northeast corner of Beach Botilevard and R~me Avenue, having frontages of approximately 120 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and 127 feet on the north side of Rome Avenue, and further described as 2973 West Rome Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION; C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED PARKING TO REAR OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, (2) 6-POOT MASONRY WALL WiiEFtE PROPQSED C-3 ZONE ABUTS RESInENTIAL ZONE, AND (3) M'AXIMUM SIGN AREA TO PERMIT GENERAL OFFICE;S IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. Assistant Eoning Supervisor.DOn McD:aniel reviewed subject petition, indicating the surrounding land uses include_..commercial to the north; ~inale-family tract to the east and south; and a motel across Beach Boulevard to the west. The property was zoned R-1 when it was subdivided in tfie County and subsequently annexed into the City of'Anaheim.- The applicant proposes to utilize an exist- ing residential structure for an office-t_ro'fessional building; to abandon the frontage road along Beach Boulevard and-uti:.ize this area and the driveway to the :esidence as the parking areas for the urae; he is further proposing to construct an 8-foot high, two-faced, "V" sign containing 32 square feet per face, to be located in the front yard of the existing single-family residence. The Ananeim General P1.3n indicates the subj~ot property to be appropriate for single-family residential development. Mr. Bill Asawa, A.S.A.W.A. Corporation, 806 South Heach Boulevard, Anaheim, owner, appeared to answer questions. He advised the Commission he owned the adjacent property to the north, had originally owned the property where the service station is located, also the "not a part" was recently owned by his corporation. Eventually, they hope to take down the building to the north (stereo tape sales) and put in a new building; a time limit will be put on use for the c-xisting residential structure. The type of use would be profes- sional, insurance or medical. Mr. Stanley Jensen, 2950 West Rome Avenup, Anaheim, appeared in opposition, submitted a petition with 88 signatures representing all the homeowners in the vicinity. He advised the Commissioners they were not in opposition to devel- oping of the ar.ea, not against progress, but do object whan it comes right to their front door; they would have preferred to retain the rural atmosphere. This proposed development is just a commercia'1 venture for Mr. Asawa, they are concernecl for the safety of the children since there are no sidewalks and the children must travel to and from school in the streets; the residence he wishes to convert faces Rome Avenue. Mrs. Shirley Swider, 2955 West Rome Avenue, Anaheim, appeared in opposition advising that Rome Aveaue is the only east-west street that is completely cut thraugh from Beach to Dale between Ball and Orange. Mr. Asawa stated that his corporation owned the service road and was advised by Office Engineer Titus that the service road is dedicated to the Cit; of Anaheim. in discussion, the Commission questioned Mr. Asawa as to his intentions since the residence in question is an attractive home; that one of the drives proposed for use is on Rome Avenue, the structure fronting on Rome Avenue. .a..._...... -_ ,~- Commissioner ;Kaywood asked(.the~"app],ican`ti'iv]iethei'~he'was'presently"xes'iding in °'"' subject property, a: rmer model of the Cinderella Homes. Mr. Asawa stated that he had never l~ved in this house and offered to prove it, contrary to his original statements at the time he was granted rezoning on the Seach Boulevard property .to.the•north,.from,.R-A,to.,C-1, that he did own and reside in the house ;at:~2,9_7,3. W.est..•Rome .b,venue ~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-171 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Reclassification No. 71-72-1's on the basis that since there was an over-abundance of C-1 property in the area, to spot zone tvould be a mistake; that the structure was in one of the prime residential areas in Anaheim; that the applicant has dis- played no hardship; that one of the driveways the applicant proposes to use fronts on Rome Avenue, which is strictly a residential street; and that if zoned C-1, it would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the p~tizens of tha r;r.. ..a „__L_s_ ._ _ _ ~ - ro ~.;-;, . .ti~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ' - ~ "~ .. ., , . _ ' ', . . . ' ` ' ^~ , ,, _ , . _ , _ . _. f _ I / _.._ - - f .' ' i ~ ~ ~,~ " I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 71-564 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - On roll cali the~foregoing resolution was passed ~y the NO. 7i-72-13 foll~wing vote: VARIANCE N0. 2289 AYES: COMMISSiONERS: Alired, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, (Continued) Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: CObIMISSIONEFS: None. ABSENT: COMtdISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Seymour affered Resolution No. PC71-172 and moved for its passage _..' and adoption to deny Petition for variance No. 2289. (See Resolution Book) :. .... -. }:':~ t ~`~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, carano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ' 4S ~` ~ SiOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 ~ RECOMMENDATYONS VARIANCE NO. 2242 (C. M. Brouks, et al) - Property 1 located on the west side of West Street approximately 941 feet north of 25orth Street - Request for aFproval of revised plans. Assi,tant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed Variance No. 2242, stating the subject property consisted of five Farcels of land, comprising approxi- ~ mately 2.8 acres of iand, and is located on the west side of West Street, _~,;i approximately 940 feet north of North Street and cs zoned R-O. Variance ':.~ rro. 2242 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5, 1971. ~ The petitioner was requesting approval of revised plans which would show a ~ reduction of rear yards on Lots 1 and 12 from 2'l feet down to 15 feet; a reduction in th~ side yard setbacks from the 7 to 9 feet approved down to t?, `~'~~ 5 feet for Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8. Mr. McDaniel advised that rsubsequent to tne writiny of the staff report, r,: revised plans had been reccived by the petitionez indicating blank walls ~~_i where the setbacks have been reduced. On all six lots where the setbacks ~'^~ have been reduced, the size of the house floor area has been increased, which ,:. ' probably contributed to the need to reduce the yard setback. Commissioner Harbst offered a motion to approve revised plans submitted in _ connection with Variance No. 2242. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. - ':,'~ ~ MOTION CARRIED. ~~ "': :; ;;,;s -.. ~ ,a ~i :.; ( ~: : ~ ~~.. `','I. . , s~ i I v~ ' q,~'., . ,~ . *^. :.f:~ ,; Commissioner Kaywood left the Council Chamber at 5:40 P.M. ITEM NO. 2 TR7.VEL TRAILER SALES FACILITY at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Midway Drive. Mr. Roberts: An item has come to the attention of the staff concerning the proposal for. a travel trailer sales facility at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Midway Drive. You will recall that you approved C-1 zoning along with a variance for the property several weeks ago, and that the Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the Commission meeting one of rhe conditions chat was imgosed pertained to the number of sewer hookups that could be provided to service the vehicles that would be braught onto the property for sale. The plan has been submitted for seNer and e7.ectrical and indicates that there will be 12 ~~ervice bays and that ~ two of thes~: bays would have sewer connections, and that particular p:lan ~ indicates that Y connections will be provided along the sewer line to the other ! 10 service ~paces. Ir, addition to those spaces there are other spaces un the lot that would be display spaces and that particu?.ar plan indicates there ~ would be an electrical and water hookup to each -~f those spaces. A question arose in the mind of the staff concerning whethcr or not this particular plan would meet the intent of the Planning Commission's action for approval. We ' . '~ ,,., .,,., n ,,.. - *,:;:r,, - . ~ . . i ~a , ' ~ ~ 9 , i _ , 0 ~~ ~ MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 71-565 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 2(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS have had discussions with Mr. Randolph, who is the operator tion proposal. Mr. Randolphahasiindicatedathateitgwouldnberhiseintentssorlhe would be agreeable to eliminating all of the water connections at the display spaces, that is out in the front, and th<,:t he would be agreeable to having just two sewer ec.,nections within the service area. I believe he does have some question about the wash area which is noted o:n that plan and also the service pit which is on the plan. _:, : ~ i I Mr. GaL~r: He's not proposing to rent spaces, is he? Mr. Roberts: No, sir, he has indicated that it is not his intent to rent these as overnight spaces; they would simply be for servicing and display of vehicles. Mr. Farano: Service and display of whose vehicles? He might display his own vehicles, but is there any kind of int~nt in regard to other vehicles? Mr. Roberts: Mr. Randalph is present --- Mr. Randulph: Yes, sir, we have no desire or intent to display any other vehicle. ~: ' ~`. ;t: .`: '~ ~, .+i3e R ~ I i.. ::. ;<.,; : Mr. Farano: Mr. Randolph, then why have you brought Y connections into 12 spaces even though you don't have the sewer connections, and further, I under- stand t.he plan shows a 4-inch drain for the two spaces permitted. Mr. Rsndolph: No, sir, that isn't....to take them separately. Sy the way, if there !.s any fault about this drawing, it is mine because I did it and my intentian was good. I told Mr. Roberts that if there was anything he faulted about it, if he would point it out to me I would change it. But my thought in making those Y's along there, we are going to put more than $200,000 in there, and if the day comes when we need another sewer, we would come ask you for permission to have it, and if we got it, we wouldn't have to tear up, but Mr. Ruberts thought there was something dubious about that, and I said well, we'l1 just put the two sewers, the first two, and cut of£ the rest. It will save us a lot of money now. Mr. Allred: Why do you have - need - all the electrical in your display area? You show electrical and water. I know some of them should be lighted, but for each one that you display you show an electrical and water. Mr. Randolph: i'll tell you why I did that, sir, and I may have been wrong and it is easy to change. My thought -~+as that we do have the intention of having a very beautiful thing there, done the finest we know how to do, and so many of these other places that have a similar business, you see hose running across here where they need them, and they have wires running over there and they look so shabby and disreputable. Now as a matter of fact, when I got throuqh with that the electrician man said it would cost us more than $7,000 to have it that wap, but I did it with the thought we'd have something neat and very high class and very pretty. Mr. Farano: Mr. Randolph., 2 can't argue, i think that suggestion is an excellent one and I concur - some of the other sales yards do have wires running over them so i wouldn't object to that, but 2 do object, and I definitely would not concur in running water lines to each one of those spaces. If you want to wire that trailer for display purposes, fine, but I would not concur in the water hookup. Mr. Randolph: Now I told Mr. Roberts that so far as the water hookups, I would take away any and all of them except to leave enough where we oould have a hydrant where we could wash down the blacktop, and we wiii strike out all the water except for some hydrants. That is a big parc~i. ~ i Mr. e111red: I think it could be administered by staff. Mr: Randolph: And I told him if he would take his pencil and tell us where he wanted them, we would do it. ~ :~ ' ,~~Q'~;'.~'{~ . . ;- : ~ , ~'_~ ,. ' ~ r - : . ~. :. , ._ ~ . . . ~ _ ~ . ~ '' _ I , . ~ ~ ~~ ' `_~~+~a ~ ~ ~: ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNI?:G COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 71-566 REPORTS AND - 2_TEM NO. ~(~ontinueA) ~ RECOMMENDATIONS ! Mr. Farano: How soon do you anticinate a mobilehome ' now that you are usinqionemofethentravelttrailersrthemselves forcan officezce i Mr. ~~.:,:,~dolph: No, that isn't quite true, sir. We don't have an office space. ~ Mr. Farano: There is one parked right out in the middle of it - if you move it further back in zelationship to the mobilehome office on the plans --- Mr. Randol.ph: We have to take so many of those so the deliver it and we ~ set it somewhere and there it is, it's locked up tiqhty there's nothing theret it's just sitting there. Mr. Farano: How soon do you expect mobilehomes being delivered. ~ Mr. Randolph: This is our thought on that mobilehome. As soon as we can get t 7 the permission of the Bui,lding Department, and get the permit that we need so ~ that we can have sewer, etc. there, we want to move forward. This is really, ~{ sir, the thought about that mobilehome. We expect to spend very near $18,000 i to have the finest, most beautiful mobilehome which you can buy, it will be a Golden West, with nice ,skirting and it will be, all in all, it will represent ~ probably close to $25,000 before it --- Mr. Farano: Awnings --- ~ Mr. Randolph: Awnings, oh yes, you see these itea~s we are selling run upward of $7,000 and so we've got to have something nice. And it isn't - we could build a buildinq there. a nice building that could comply, 2 believe, with all the regulations of the City for much less money than we intend to put into this, , and it is my sincere hope that if we perform as I expect we will, that a year from now I'm coming bacA: and say to you gentlemen, I want you to look a~ what we h~ve there, and see if you think merely because, as one gentleman pointed ~ out, it could be a tax tartar if it was a building, and see if you say you really want us to take down a$25,000 building to put up something that will not be as fine. And I expect to be here a year from now to ask what yaur will ~ is on that. Mr. Farano: Do you have any more questions on this. Mr. Randolph is going to leave the electric here which I think is a good idea, but he will remove the water except for enough bibbs to use as a wash-down program and to water the i flowers -- hose bibbs in the planters anyway, have the Y connections discon- nected along the back, have two spots that are for sewer outlets at the end of the property. Mr. Rand~lph: There is one other thing that I would like to have you tell me what your will is. We are going to have to occasionally wash down a trailer - they get dirty - with dust. Mr. Allred: Makes no difference than the guy who does car wash jobs. I Mr. Randolph: And it was mp thought that we could have a place back there that had a little place where _c would dxain and yet go away into the dr,ain instead of having it go over the place, it looks so ugly and trashy and I hope that is permissible, because I w~uld like to ac~ it. Mr. Allred: As far as I'm concerned, you could put a drain out in your parkinq lot where you could wash them down possibly from out there also. Mr. Randolph: 2 don't know if they would let us have a drain. Mr. Herbst: I don't feel allowing the gentleman a drain for something like this is not like having two sewer outlets for two trailers. ; Mr. Farano: An outside drain for him to wash down his trailers. ~ Mr. Allred: Keep it off the streets, drain the property. As a matter of fact, looking at this I don't know whether you intend to wash your trailers off outside in the di5~lay area at all, like they do with automobiles, for instance, the display areas in these auto rark;n~ are~~ ~..-,-_ +.'.~'"^~"~~ ~r'u : - _ -- - ~ ~ ~ - ~ . K~ ~ _. , ~ a ~~s-'~ ~ . . . ' . ' .1 . ' . . ~ ... . . '. '1 i. . . .. / . . . . .- .. . _.,'.. 1 . .~{' '`:~'i I',. ~ ~ ,3 `~',' - r; ~~..; : ~ ~,...,~ ,~~~j= `ie :' :, ~t _ `~I ti''. ~~.. ~ ~ .~~` ~~ ~ ~'"~ ~ `' `.l ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Augv~*_ 23, 1971 71-567 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 2(Continued) I RECOMMENDATIONS ~ Mr. Randolph: We weze hoping to move in the back there and ~ have a man who would wash - but I would like if I might have ; the privilege of having a couple of drains there because you take hard rains when they come, that's a long piece of ground, 337 feet, 175 feet deep, and if ~ I could have a couple of drains, I'd love to have them. ( I Mr. Farano: Well, I'll tell you as far as I'm concerned, I have no objection ? to drains as long as the flood drain with :: grade on it, that it's not a sewer i connection to be used in connection with a mobilehome or travel ~trailer. I ~ have no objections, simply a flat drain with a grade on it. But the minute anything else comes up off the ground or goes into it, as far as i'm concerned, ~ that is not what we're talking about. Mr. Randolph: That's not what I'm talking about. Mr. Roberts: would it be the Commission's intent to allow the service pit - is that correct, Mr. Randolph? Mr. Randolph has indicated that there may be occasions when it might be necessary for one of his men to get beneath a trailer and he would like to have a pit where they could drive a vehicle over the top of it and the man could get down inside the pit --- Mr. Randolph: We'll have it covered at all times. ~„_ Mr. Farano: I think that is all right as long as it is confine~d ~o his own ~ sales. Now here is the problem. I don't knoau whether this is true as far as ~ these trailers is concerned, but take the trailer repair agenr;ies and companies ~ around here, sometimes they won't take an Avion oz they won't take a Silver Streak or an AirStream because of the aircraft type construction, so it almost ' has to go back to a sales and servicing aqent who sells and services that trailer. Now as far as the sales and service of that trailer, then I have no ! objection, but I don't want to see a trailer repair yard because I don't think this is the pZace for it. ~ ~ Mr. Randolph: No, sir, we don't either. 3 i Mr. Farano: Taking off the sides and replacing and all that. ~ 4 i .ir. Randolph: No, sir. j ~ Mr. Herbst: If this would happen, inside of one year this could be revoked ~ unless you ~ut it all inside the building. ~ Mr. Randolph: That is t.he provision of it already. Mr. Herbst: If you are going to go that route, if we find out it goes that route, then the provision would be that you'd have to close the operation. Mr. Randolph: Yes, sir, that is already provided. We have no intention of doing that. Mr. Herbst: That is the intent of the Commission. Mr. Roberts: The only other question that the staff would have then would be concerning the connections - the two sewer connections for the servicinq activities. We have been informed by the Building Department that there would be no way of providing a standard sewer connection on the ground and then choke down the piping.below that, that would preclude the use for residential purposes and still be able to demonstrate all the water facilities that are ~ inside the trailer. So the Building Department has advised me that the only way this could be accompl.ished would be through the installat3on of a dump station - or dump stations. , Mr. Randolph: In connnectfon with that --- Mr. Roberts: He shows one, it may be desirable to have more than one. Mr. Farano: I don't see how he can use ;aore than one. ~ ~_ ~ ~~~ . ~ . . . , . . ' ~ .. ~ .._. , /i ~ . ~ -= ~::. ~'- `- . .'.Y' ~ . ' _ . . .. . .. ~ . . ; .w ~ .. . ~ . _ . . . . _ _.. . ...._ . , ~ . . , . ~ _ M1 . _ .i , ~ • ~ . ' I ~ ~~ -, ` ' V ~ ~~ ' MINUTES, C21.'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, August 23, 1971 71-568 REPORTS AND - iTEM NO. 2(Continued) ;~:. RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Randolph: We only wanted one, sir. We only wanted one and what we wanted with these two sewer testing stations, Commissioner Rowland stated that within the framework of the resolution the petitioner could have his sewer testing hookups, that this - could be of less than standard size, it was just a matter of telling the plumber what was required therefore, the condition as set forth could be met such as a 4-inch trap with a 3-inch line which would be adequate for testing and so that is what I put on the paper to tell. ,J~`i':",',~~ Mr. Roberts: I think Mr. Rowland was probably providing an illustration. ti Whether or not his figures are accurate or not, 2 don't know. The people - ;M1 Mr. Farano: You can't do it, it's gotta be 4-inch all the way, right? Mr. Roberts: The Suilding Department --- Mr. Farano: It's gotta be a qualified dump station if he is going to test '~- the holdinq tanks, right? Mr. Roberts: This is whai: I am told, yes. -,F; Mr. Farano: I still think it ought to be restricted to one. I don't see any ~; sense in two. r~ Mr. Allred: He shows one here on his plan. : ~`' -,w Mr. Roberts: You did approve two sewer connections under the original ~~ application or two sewer service connections or something like that. ;'' ;i~ ;F ;~i Mr. Herbst: I think as long as it's qualified with the Building Department, :~~;,?:.1 2 don't see why we can't change it from ene to two. Y ~ Mr. Farano: Are you going to have propane on the premises? z",: ,.;;,i ~; i~ x Mr. Randolph: No, sir. Y 'y Mr. Herbst: I'll offer a resolution - or motion - that we approve revised ,;:i; plans subject to the discussion we have had, and with the recommendation that ~ whatever sewer hookups are necessary to pass the Building Department, that ~! the gentleman will meet. ,•. ~ .~i :~ Mr. Farano: And the staff. ~ :t Mr. Herbst: And the staff administer the water hookups and whatever is done ;,:;~: there. `°'k Mr. Farano: Is there a second? _ _~ Mr. Allred: Second. -:y~~ MOTION CARRIED (all ayes; none opposed). ;.~ ~. ~. ~:ic "*"' ' ITEM NO. 3 t,, WORK SESSION. ~ ; The Commission discussed the future work session with the City Council, •t''r ~ indicating that one item for consideration would be the underground channeling '`' "~` of the electrical system, without limiting this undergrounding to the Canyon ~;,',,-~ area, and r~questec Development Services Department staff to do preparatory '`•;'::-:;~~y work in regard to 4 study of this problem. The Commission work session would ~`~< be September 15, 1971, and a joint meetinq between the Council and Commission i~-',`-'.` should be as soon as possible after that date. A list of priorities should be „, 'j :, = prepared. _;~ ,, - ....... ~ .s .x _ , - ~~ a~,,. .. - . . ~ ' l . . A f~~~.. . . ' ~ . ... . . .: ~ . . ~ ~ . ^•~"'•._.... -,n,S:: s'~w^14.~ ~ ~~.. :T~ . ' :. . . . • , '. _ . . ~ . . . ' . ~ :,_ . . . . ~ ^ . . . . . .. ~ . . . ~ . . _~ ' Y~ ~,:~ ~;_..: ~: .~ ,~ ,x~.i - ~.,: ... „, ,., t~ r . . . ,:: ;. _ - • ~z- -, ,,:, _ - " .`:~~ --" ` . ~ '~~'n ~ 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .., . . _.._ . , , _.. . __ _ _ ` _ . 'i ..l . .~- ~^~~ ~`'~'3 ~ ~~.~. -. i ~ ~; : ~;: ;,` _