Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/09/08+ ' ~ .,..---_r. ~~ ~C'z; i , l ~ , ~ ^ r~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California September 8, 1971 i -• A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGVLAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. :~ ` ~ ~, " - COMMiSSi0NER5: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ~'. Seymour. ~, ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS; None. ' PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts . Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry ` '~ Office Engineer: Jay Titus Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McAaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs '"s' s: ` DLEDGE OF - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Alleqiance to the ~s ALLEGIANCE Flag. 5. ";~.; ~; APPROVAL OF THE MINU - Approval of the minutes of the August 23, 1971 meeting was ~ t . ' ~-~: ~~i . TES deferred to September 20, 1971. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUSLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORP., 1665 NO. 70-71-64 _ South Srookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of CONDITIONAL USE land consistinq of approximately 15.2 acres, having a '; PERMiT NO. 1247 frontage of approximately 1,526 feet on the north side ' of Walnut Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approxi- '.~ TENTATIVE MAP OF inately 600 feet, and being located approximately 6,000 TRACT NO. 7444 feet southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property ~' ? presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, }'~ ',~ DISTRICT, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE. - ~ 5~ ;i;~ REQIIESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. r' ~~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: SUBAIVISION OF SUHJECT PROPERTY INTO 25 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND 51 CONDOMINIUM LOTS. Subject petitions aad tract were continued from the meetings of June 28 and ~° July 12, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner and staff to present alternate ~~ plans for the realignment of Walnut Canyon Road and for the submission of ~ revised plans. Assistant Zoninq Supervisor pon McDaniel arlyised the Commission that the ~ staff had received a letter from the petitioner requesting a continuance `' to October 18, 1971; and that of this date, no revised plans had been sub- mitted incor oratin an of t P 4 y he recommendations mxd e b t - Division, y he Engineering ~';; . '. ( ~, ,' Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions ~- for Reclassification No. 70-71-64 and Conditio~al Use Permit No. 1247, as ~~ z well. as Tentative Map of Tract No. 7444, to the meeting of October 18, 1~71, ~,, ,;~ as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. `'~'"""' MOTION CARRTED. ;'~ ~ 71-570 ,./lt ~ ~ . ~_ k.~~ . _ ~~ - _ .. .s- ,, `~ 1_ . ~ i ~ _~ ~ ;ti~ _ { ~ 1 ~ ~/ f~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 71-571 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PELTZER, SPRAGUE, SKELTON, PELTZER, ROSSETTO & PELTZER, c/o Mrs. Urban C. Peltzer, 5138 Serrano Street, Orange, California, Owner; R& T INVESTMENT, c/o Lynn Thomsen, 710 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 4.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 575 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 552 feet, and being located approximately 136 feet west of the centerliae of Westmont Drive. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. • -E , , REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION 1- R-3, MULTIPLE-^AMILY RESID£NTIAL, ;; ZONE; PORTInN ~- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE; PORTION 1- WAIVERS OF (1j MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 'j FEET OF SINGI,E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND (2) MINIMIIM :; REQUIRED DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO PERMIT ~ CONSTRUCTION OF A 98-UNIT, TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. REQVESTED CONpITIONAL USE: PORTION 2- PEI2MIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTOMOBIZ,E (:x ~ SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAi, ;;y; 20NE . *~, Subject petitions were continued £rom the meeting of August 9, T971, to „ readvertise Portion 2 for R-3 zoning and for the petitioner to submit plans +; encompassing Portion 2 as a part of the overall apartment developmen't. ~~ Assistant Zoaing Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject f~ property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that t' the petitions had been continued to this date to allow the petitioner time ~~ to have the reclassification readvertised for Portion 2 to be considered for R-3 as well, and for the petitioner to submit revised plans incorporating consideration of the effects the Crescent Avenue overcrossing and possible 4e y ~ closing of the off-ramps would have on the proposed service station. i~ G Mr, aohn 211stra, developer of the property and representing the agent for -; the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioner ~~! felt at this time that the would Y pref;:r to devel~p as originally planned, r with a service station at the off-ramp of the Santa Ana Freeway and Crescent ;! Avenue, and then in res onse to ~v P questioning by the Commission, stated that ••.~ the service station would be the highest and best use for that portion of the `'~;,; property since it was almost completely encompassed by the Santa Ana Freeway , and the off-ramp; and that although there was a potential problem, namely the "a~;~ Crescent Avenue overcrossing, the Public Works Director advised him that the ;: ~ State was studying this proposal, but there was nothing specific at this time. r ' i Mr. ~ames L. Morris, 454 South Anaheim Boulevard a sion q . ppeared before the Commis- ,~ , statin he was representing the Peltzer family who were desirous of ,. having a service station at the proposed location; that he had discussed the ;# Crescent Avenue overpass with the City Engineer, who had stated the overpass ~ had been approved by the State, but due to priorities, it was problematical that the overpass wou16 be built and certainly not within the next ei.ght years since there were cther overcrossings and off-ramps in the city that needed attention, and the Crescent Avenue overpass was only a minor problem; and ;' that in addition to the statement made by Mr. 211stra that the service station would be the highest and best use, it was also his feel~nq since they were ' also proposing the R-3 adjacent to the service station. Then, in response to questioning by the Comm,ission, Mr. Morris stated there was an off and on-ramp to and from the Santa Ana Freaway at this location, which could mean consider- ` able sales in gasoline. ~,.; ~^ Commissioner Seymour noted that ir, a report from the City Engineer, it was ~ , stated that the modification for thQ Crescent Avenue overcrossing would occur : within the next five years; whereupen Mr. Morris replied that he could only , t- r make his statement based upon what the City Engineer informed him, because ~ there were more intercranges and off-ramps that were critical to the traffic ~ pattern of the City of Anaheim, such as Katella Avenue, Euclid Street, and Brookhurst Street. ` . *::~ . n~ _ .. ~ _L . .. . : , r V V ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 71-572 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst noted that he could not agree with NO. 71-72-11 that statement since the Commission would be considering another item later in the meeting that could affect the VARIANCE tv'O. 2287 priority if proper access and traffic flow were not provided for - therefore, Crescent Avenue would, of CONDITIONAL USE necessity, be extended over the freeway in order to PERMIT NO. 1253 open up a virtually landlocked street and property. (Continued) Mr. Morris reiterated the statement that the City Engineer stated there were more important overcrossinqs thar_ • ~ Crescent Avenue. Commissioner Seymour stated he would agree with Commissioner Herbst's state< ment because i£ the university planned for the we~t side of the Santa Ana Freeway south of Crescent Avenue was approved and developed, the priority could change. Fittthermore, there appeared to be some question as to the need for a service station as being the highest and best use when one considered the 15~ vacancy factor of service stations in Anaheim, together with the possibility that within five to six years, access to the service station could be cut off, depending upon the design of the overcrossing and whether or not the on and uff-ramps were eliminated. Mr. Morris then stated that as of this date, a service station was the highest and best use; whereupon Commissioner Seymour noted that the City and the Commission had to plan for the future development as well, and with the possibility of the university being established, the need for access was very important if the university developed in a year or more, even though the City Engineer indicated that the overcrossiag was eight to ~en years away - this could change long before that if the need was imperative. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that whether or not the overcrossing was constructed over the £reeway, it would not affect the on and off-ramps because they may or may not be constructed, depending upon what was proposed and developed for the Euclid Street inteschange with the freeway which would determine this, and that the Euclid Street project had a very high priority, however, there might be traffic conflicts at Crescent Avenue and the on and off-ramps. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS C:,OSED. Commissioner Seymour noted that even in light of the discussion by the applicant's representative and agent, good planning would preclude any consideration of a service station for Portion 2; that it was very clear that the entire two parcels could be developed for an apartment complex, and it was unfortunate that the d.eveloper was unable to incorporate Portion 2 into the apartment complex plans proposed for Portion 1; and that in view of the fact that there already was a 15~ vacancy factor of se~vice stations, for the Commission to approve another service station with such marginal chances for success, this would be doing a disservice to the proposed operat.or and to the City. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-173 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-i1 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed reclassifica- tion for the multiple-family residential zoning was in conformance with the General Plan, however, the proposed for commercial zoning was not in conform- ance with the land use statement of the General Plan for this area; tlxat it was the Planning Commission's opinion that the entire property was appropriate for multiple-family residential use, however, the recommendation for denial was based upon the fact that the petitioner was not willing to include Portion 2 as a part o: the multiple-family complex, claiming tnat the parcel was an ideal site for a service station Lecause of its proximity to the on and off- ramps oE the freeway; that the proposed Crescent Avenue overcrossing would severely limit access to the proposed service station site, and other freeway changes proposed by the Division of Highways in this area may compound access problems for this property; that the current vacancy factor for service stat3,ons in the city was quite high, and approval of a service station at a location that already had access limitations with additional limitations propo:~ed could be creating a hardship situatien, particularly if the service .. .-.~_ ~"j.~ i;'` -~ - , - ' , .,,,~„„~,,,, . . ' S 0 _ ` } - i ~ - I . '~ ' ~' -- ` ----._ ___ __.- ~ ~~ O ` ~ ,~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 - 71-573 •~ RECLASSIFICATION - were removed and apartments were proposed at a later date; NO. 71-72-11 that the proposed reclassification to the C-1 2one for --> Portion 2 of subject property was not necessary and/or . VARIANCE NO. 2287 desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. ' • CONDITIONAL USE , ~ PERMIT NO. 1253 Prior to roll call, Commissioner Herbst requested that a ~ ~ (Continued) further finding be added, namely, that although the property was ideally suited f.or multiple-family residen- tial development, the petitioner was desirous of develop- ~°~+- ing a portion for commercial uses, even after the Planninq Commission had ~- continued consideration of this matter in order to readvertise the entire ~`~ ` property for the R-3 Zone, and for the petitioner to submit plans for apart- ;~': ments on that portion originally requesting C-1 zoning. < Commissioner Seymour accepted the additional finding to his motion. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ' Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner A11red offered Resolution No. PC71-174 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1253 on the basis that the Planning Commission had recommended disapproval of the proposed reclassif:lcation of subject propert~, therefore, the use requeste3 under subject petition would not be permitted in the existing zone; that the pro- posed uae would adversely afEect the adjoining land uses; and that the proposed Crescent Avenue overcrossing would severely limit access to the proposed service station site, and other freeway changes progosed by the Dtvtsion of Hiqhways }.n th~.s area may compound the access problUms. (See Resolutton Book) On zo11 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allzed, ~arano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-175 and moved for its passage and ad.rption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2287 on the basis that the Planning Commission had recommended disapproval of the reclassification of subject property, therefore, the waivers requested wou.ld not be applicable to the existing zona. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolut•ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allreu, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EMPIRE FINANCIAL CORP., P, O. Box 3095, PERMIT NO. 1256 Van Nuys, California Owner; IPS, 1095 North Main Street, Suite D, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaFed parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Delano Street, having frontages of approximatelp 134 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 162 feet on Delano Street. Propert.y presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commis- sion, noting that the petitioner was proposing a drive-through restaurant having a 430-square foot, fully enclosed eating area; that parking was in ~ , ~ x:: - ;; . . . . . , . . ,_, ...,. . . _ - - s . - !~ ^ ~ . - ~. . _ I ._ __- - _ __-----~.. ~ - ~ ~`~ ~U c ~' ~ ~ , , MINL'TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIpN, September 8 ~ . 1971 71-574 CONDITIONAL USE - excess of the minimum requirement; that the primary ! PERMIT NO. 1~56 entrance and exit would be located on Lir.coln Avenue; • (Continued) ; -" ~--~°~; and that an operation of this t i and traffic circulation yPe usually had signing I proplems, however, the petitioner ~ the project to alleviateathemt~and stated~thatethePsigning wouldabedinicona f formance with the Code requirements. Therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether this use would be appropriate at this location. ~ ,. ;' ' , . ~ _ Mr, David Jamison, 1821 Sabrina, Torrance, representing the Del Taco Company, ~ - proposed operators of the facility, indicated his presence to answer questions. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to comply ~ with the Sign Ordinance requirements; whereupon Mr. Jamison replied that ' y ~~ was their intent to com 1 •B P Y with the Sign Ordinance, however, there would be y ._ another building on the prope~ty, and a lot split would have to be required. _ 9 P i 2onin Su ervisor Charles Roberts indicated there a problem in that signs were Froposed on the buildin Ppeared to be another .~; replied it was not their intent to have facia signs, onlyeaPfreerstandingnsign in the front and a speaker box which would be located at the rear and would not be an advertising sign. Commissioner Herbst inquired how the proposed operators determined a need for ~ such a facility at any given location; whereupon Mr. Jamison replied that they were askinq for a drive-through restaurant, and studies indicated the proposed ~ site would be appropriate. '' Commissioner Herbst then observed that drive-through restaurants were startin ? to become us numerous as service stations, and if they closed up because theyg were not successful, this would be an eyesore for the city. Mr. Jamison noted that their company did not build these facilities at random '~ but only where there a ~ I ~~ successful; that they hadatwelve restaurantsninaoperationlin Southernld be t , ;~' California, with five being located in Orange County; that their facilities f-; r had very close supervision, and the quality of service and I food were the key to their success. Then, in response to aqcomment~bythe r~ Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Jamsion stated that Orange County was a very diffi- ', cult area in which to have a successful drive-through restaurant; that the I >~ success of such an operation was also dependent uoon good service and food, -: and since they provided both, they appeared to be successful. ~:i i Commissioner Seymour noted that the flow of traffic from Lincoln Avenue would '` be in a southerly direction, and lights would be shining ini.o the apartment development to the south - therefore, he would suggest that the petitioner construct a wall along the south property line to alleviate this problem, and inquired whether or not the petitioner would be willing to construct this wall. ; Mr. Jamison replied that the apartments faced an alleyj that they were proposing ' tree-screening to break up the appearance of this alle ~ proposing down-lightinq of a maximum of six feet and thisalightingtshouldrnot ' harm these apartments. ;~ Commissioner Seymour noted he was more concerned with the lights from auto- ~ southes entering the property, and that in an expanse of 130 feet along the i; property line the petitioner was proposing only four trees, which would z;: ; appear to be inadequate to block lights, however, if the pe~;itioner was pro- ~ r Posing additional landscaping, this might solve the problem since some land- ^~ scaping was needed to screen vehicular lights from this operation shining into , ?r„ this residential use to the south. Commissioner Gauer noted that trees did not prevent debris from blowing from subject property to the residential uses to the south; therefore, a 42-inch I ; wall should also be required. Commissioner Allred concurred, noting that the Commission in the past had : required a 42-inch wall to alleviate lights shining into windows of the ~ adjacent properties. ~ j _ ~ 9 ,; ~. ~} ~ t:;~:.', ~ :~' :.c...~,. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . _ . . , . ~ ~ ~f. . . r °~' : _ - _ .. ~y.a ~s >. .E _ '' C . . . , ' ~ : , i. ~ -" i - ~~~.F - ~: _ , ,~ -- ~ ~ ~_I/ MTNUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 ~ ~~ 71-575 CONDITIONAL Li:E - Mr. Jamison then stipulated to providing the 42-inch wall PERMIT NO. 1256 suggested by the Commission. (Continued) Mr. :toberts, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that when plans for the sign were sub- mitted to the Building Division, staff would have an opportunity to review these, aad i.f the plans did not meet Code requirements, this would be pointed out to the petitioner. Commissioner Kaywood replied she was more concerned with the appearance of the siqn, Mrs. Justin Mostell, 1624 Via Mirada, Fullerton, appeared before the Commission ~~ i in oppasition, stating ~he owned apartment units on Delano Street; that there ,i : was a traffic problem in rcuting traffic since Delano was a cul-de-sac street and all traffic had to exit and enter on Lincoln Avenue; tha". all these ~-~ properties were very well maintained, therefore, she did not feel the commercial use would be desirable; and that there were many other eatinqoposed E establishments already located in this general area, one facility on Beach ~; Boulevard presently not in operation since it had been boarded up for two - years. Commissioner Seymour noted that the property already was zoned C-1, and there : were many C-1 uses that would be considerably less desirable than that being proposed, however, because this use was required to file a conditional use 4' permit, this was the only reason a ; other public hearing was being held, while all permitted uses in the C-1 Zone could be developed by right, many of r:r which would be very undesirable. "i '~ Mrs. Mostell replied tha~t when informed that the c the e s t n t d ,~ ommercial us office, and that this use, with es would be for noises d either a dentist or doctor's <e most undesirable. Furthermore, , o ors, there would b lights, and traffic, would be ^j 1 night than regulation C-1 uses e considerably more traffic at which would hav e regular store hours. f :} ~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :~ , , P ; ~: ,':.~,c ;: Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, pC71-176 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Condi,tional Use Permit No. 1256, subject to conditions set forth in the Report to the Commission and the additional conditions that a 42-inch high, slumpstone wall be constructed along the south property line and that in addition to the trees proposed, that other dense landscaping be provided to adequately shield the proposed use from the adjacent residential use, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herb~t, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIG HEARING. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPAN`.!~ 445 South PERMIT NO. 1257 Figu~eroa Street, Los An eles HERITAGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, 227aNorthnMagnoliarAvenue, ESTABLISH A PRIVATE,AFOURiYEARa1L2BERAL,ARTSnCOLLEGEeonipropertysdescribed as: A rectangularly-shape~ parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Muller Street, havinq frontages of approximately 660 feet on Crescent Avenue and approximately 764 feet on Muller Street, and further described as 1900 West Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTFtIAL and R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONES. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a private, four-year, liberal arts college and related facilities in the M-1 Zone, using an existing industrial facility; that the initial enrollment would be approximately 750 students with an ultimate enrollment of 5,000 students by 1980; that the additional facilities, such as a gymnasium, girls and boys dormitories, classroom structures, libraries, cafeterias, auditorium, and ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ` ~ J \ .,~~ r- F ,,` ::' -i ~ ., i,~1 ;,.1 ` !~ k'~ N,.. A;;?., ~: ~ ~ : .' , . ,'~ ~ ~`.l *: ; .,Rc ; .. i '` _ r . ~ ~~ ~~ MINUTESR C~Tx.~I,ANNING COMMISSION, Sepi:ember 8, 1971 71~576 CONDITIONAL USE - athletic field, would be established within that time span; PERMIT NO. 1257 that the establishment of the proposed facility would (Continued) appear to be appropriate from the standpoint of compati- bility of land uses, however, there were associated traffic and circulation problems that appeared to be of significant magnitude to require further consideration since the entire quadrant bounded by Brookhurst Street on the west, Crescent Avenue on the north, Muller Street on the east and Lincoln Avenue on the south wss virtually void of east-west and north-south circulation. Furthermore, at such time as Crescent Avenue was extended over the Santa Ana Freeway, it was proposed that a one-way link from Crescent co Muller would border a portion of subject property, which could severely limit access to the proposed parking areas along Crescent Avenue. In ceasideration of these facts, the Engineering Division was currently studying the possibility of extending Alameda Street through subject property to Muller Drive, thereby providing east-west circula- tion in the quadrant, as well as providing more adequate access to the major parking area and to the athletic facilities of the proposed college, and the report presented to the Commission earlier in the day, the recommendation by the Traffic Engineer indicated it would be necessary to have Alameda Street extend to Muller Street and a future north-south street also be provided to relieve Muller Street from an excessive amount of traffic since existing streets and intersections would be unable to handle a maximum load from the 5,000 plus students. Mr. Mcnaniel, in conclusion, noted that the applicant should be informed that access rights to Alameda Street had been dedicated to the City of Anaheim by the previous property owner, but it might be possible for ~he applicant to request and obtain access to the street from the Public Works Department. Mr. Paul Liefeld, representing the agent Eor the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had reviewed the Report to the Commission and were basically in agreement with the report except for the recommendation that Alameda Street extend through the property. Commissioner Rowland interrupted Mr. Liefeld's presentation, advising him that the Commission was very familiar with the plan, and before the petitioner's agent started a very lengthy discourse on the proposal, he was prepared to make a motion to approve the land use proposal for a max3mum of 750 students as indicated, but under no circumstances would he entertain the thought of 5,000 students at this particular site without some thought to a complete circulation systsm of some kind because the proposed maximum enrollment would not be able to operate under the present circulation pattern from a traffic standpoint, and t:his problem would have to be resolved, either now or later when enrollment increased and more buildings were proposed to be built, since this increase could not be accommodated by the existing circulation. Commissioner :;eymour, in r~sponse to a question by Mr. Liefeld, stated that if the enroll:nent wer~~ limited to 750 students, there would be no circulation problem, but when the Commissi~n and City were faced with the possibility of 5,000 students, there would be no way to take care of the traffic circulation for that number of students - therefore, either now or some time in the near future this traffic problem would have to be resolved. Mr. Liefeld then stated that he did not like to be limited to 750 students without discussing this problem with other representatives of the proposed facilities, Chairman Farano sr.ggested that the representatives take a few m~ments to discuss this problem. Commissioner Rawland noted that a circulation pattern was needed for the students attending this school, and then inquired of Traffic Engineer Ed Granzow ' whether or not an interim use would be satisfactory from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Granzow stated his concern was not with the initial proposal since the present street pattern could take care of up to 1,000 students, but he was concerned with the ultimate development to 5,000 students since the inter- sections of Brookhurst and Crescent, Lincoln and Muller, and even if Crescent Avenue would cross over the freeway and the Crescent-EUClid intersection could not handle the traffic movement of 5,000 students to these streets since one street could handle up to 18,000 or 19,000 vehicles, but the intersections would not be able to handle this increase, particularly since Hrookhurst ''~ ~; ~ . - - ~. _ ..: _ ` C _a , r ~ C~~ ~~ MINUTES~ CZTY P~ANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 197~ ~ .) 71-577 CONDITIONAL USE - Street was now handling 35,000 vehicles and Euclid Street PERMZT NO. 1257 was now handling over 40,000 vehicles per day. (Continued) Commissioner Allred inquired whether having Crescent Avenue overcross the freeway and any interchanges that were proposed for the freeway would substantially aid in handling this increase. Mr. Granzow replied this would have no bearing since the intersecti_ons could not handle this increase of trips; furthermore, there wuuld also be some problem for entrance to the parking area from Crescent Avenue. Chairman Farano then inquired as to the number of students planned immediately; whereupon Mr, Liefeld replied that they planned 500-750 to begin with and within two years 1,OG0, but that they c~uld not determine what the enrollment would be in five years. ;; ~ f ~ I 1 ~ __.. 0 1 Chairman Farano then noted that based upon the petitioner's own projections `. with 1,000 students projected within two years, tHis would last for approxi- ~:. mately five years before traffic problems could be experienced and other buildings were proposed to be built. Commissioner Seymour s,tated that the Commission could limit the number of students to 1,000, and if enrollment increased beyond that number, then the }.: Commission would have to reconsider this request for an increase as it pertained to a3equate circulation. Mr. Liefeld requested a few minutes to discuss this with other representatives _ of the school, which was granted by Chairman Farano, and then stated the ~ Commission would continue with the next petition at public hearing. (See .~a Page No. 71-579) _ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM S. FUKUDA, 332 East Peralta Hills PERMIT NO. 1260 Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROGER L. NELSON, 937 ~ ~' East Palmyra Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; requesting ' ' permission to ESTABLISH A CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YbRD WITH k :~ WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED MASONRY WALL on property described as: A rectangularly- ;~ shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the south ;;:f side of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 285 feet, and being located approximately 400 feet east of. the ~centerline of Blue Gum Street. Propexty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ` Assi~tant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed ihe location of subject v. property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a contractor's storage yard with waiver of the required masonry wall; that the • plans indicated 12 parking stalls within the front setback behind a 10-foot, landscape buffer strip; that a 30-foot driveway was proposed a.long the easterly boundary of the property, which would serve the primary storage area which would ' ; be located behind the 6-foot high, concrete masonry wall, and the remainder of " the property would be surrounded with a 6-foot high, view-obscuring, chainlink fence. Therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether the proposed ~ use would be appropriate at this location and whether the proposed screening ~ technique would meet the purpose and intent of the M-1 site development ~ standard requiring a 6-foot hiqh masonry wall. -`..'~ Mrs. Joyce Arneson, realtor representing the petitioner and the proposed ~, iessee, Mr. Nelson, indicated her presence to answer questions. ;~- Chairman Farano advised the representative that assuming there was no problem ,~ as to the land use, the Commission had, in an orientation meeting, discussed y some alternative methods of screening the property without an expensive masonry wall, one being a chainlink fence w3.th redwood slats done in good taste and more ' heavily landscaped to break up the solid fencing, and by proposing this, the `,:' Commission was attempting to provide an alternative rather than a plain ' "~~ con::rete wall, would this meet the intent of the propose3 company as to the Z material used in the wall, and if so, then the Commission would require more ~~; denae landscaping. ~ ", .~ ",;. ~• ~:~ ~ ~ , - e ,..,. a ~c_ .w..... ` ~ ~ I ~~. -, ,;,r; .. , _ f ~ U i: `i -.i ~~ s~ '',~ ~4~ ~;~ ;i `i ':r's ~ , I?; , ,,. ~; ?:,' r I: ,;, + ,r ~ ~i ; .,~c ; r~ ;.:~ MTNUTES, CZTY PT~ANNING COMMISSION, September 8, Z:71 71-578 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. Arneson replied that this would be in keeping with PERMIT NO. 1260 Mr. Nelson's proposal. (Continued) Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the type of storage that was proposed; whereupon Mrs. Arneson replied that light roofiny material was planned to be stored. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether these ~nould be stored in the open on skids, and would the petitioner stipulate to stacking below the 6-foot high fence; whereupon Mrs. Arneson stipulated that stacking would be maintained below the 6-foot height. Commissioner Herl~st noted that many industries were storing thinqs at the rear of their buildinqs which would not be visible from the street; however, the petitioner was proposing stcrage without any building, and, therefore, more dense screening of the sto~age of the materials should be required. Mrs. Arneson, in response to a question by Commissioner Allred, stated there would be storage onlg of their materials and nothing else. Commissioner Herbst then inquired as to the manner in which the storage area would be finished off - would it blacktopped or what? Mrs. Arneson replied that she did not know, but the proposed owner would need some driveway to havr_ Y.is trucks enter the facility. Commissioner Herbst then noted he did not want ttie adjacent industrial develop- ments to be subject to dust from this operatior.. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' Discussion was held by the Commissioa regarding the dust, noise, etc., and upon its conclusion, it was determined that the Commission could, as a safety factor, make a finding and a condition regarding the size and types of trees that would be required in the event the waiver of the required masonry wall was approved, as well as requiring chemical treatment to keep the dust down. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-177 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1260, subject to the outdoor =torage area being chemically treated or otherwise surfaced in a manner that would preclude dust emanatinq from or polluting this area; that the property be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifica- tions on file, provided, however, that the slat material in the chainlink fence be limited to unfir.ished redwood, a~id further provided that landscaping in the form of 15-gallon trees of the variety set fortli in the tree listing c+f the SC Zone shall be planted at the equivalent of 20-foot intervals along the east, south and west boundaries, irrigation facilities provided, and the trees perma- nently maintained; and a finding that the petitioner stipulated no outdoor storage would project above the 6-foot high fence. (See Resolution 3ook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, HerbSL, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,,~ ; ; Commissioner Rowland requested that staff incorporate the discussion held by the Commission relative to alternates for the 6-foot masonry wall in the M- 1 2one, said alteraates in a form of Code amendment be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Seymour noted that more than dense landscaping should be provided, and a broad spectrum of the laridscaping should be considered. ~ - '..=~ .- . . ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ 4 C S ::.~..J~ ~. ~ ., y ,, , , I ~. i, ~ ~ ~ ; i,.. ~". .. ` ' .w; ~ - . . . _:.~ ~, . ~) ~ - ~ - MINUTES~ CZTX.PLANNING COMMISSION, September E 1971 , 71-579 ~ Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the developer should be alternate as to dense l ive I d g n an an scaping, a c3~ainlink fence with slatted material, ~ or a solid masonry wall. ~'" Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that it would be sever landscapin w l ! l , g a ou d take hold so that an ordinary chainlink fence wouldsnotf in the interim; therefore l ~ , s suffice ats should be required to begin with. ~ ;- CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Liefeld advised the Commission that after discussing PERMZT NO. 1257 the limitations ` proposed by the Commission, it was (Continaed) determined that sin ~ ce the were Y planning to have night classes, there would be at lcast 1 000 ~ , or more students - equest that subject petition b in or.der to resolvetth e e >~i- e traffic e continued problems presented by staff. ?~ . Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of C Use Permit No 1257 ,= . onditional to the meeting of October 4, 1971, trafEic problems presented b staff i e V 1 y n the event the ultimate enrollment reached. Commissioner Kaywood seconded th was e motion. MOTION CARRIED. ' ~ ' a CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STATE OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT PERMIT NO. 1261 120 So th S I ~ , u pring Street, Los Angeles, California, and DECON CORP 1 Co ' ~~ ' ., ronado Cays Boulevard, Coronado, Cali- TENTATIVE MAP OF fornia, Owners; LONG B ~ ~ EACH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, P, p, TRACT NO. 5222 Box 5649, Long Beach C l ' ie; :t ~ ' , a ifornia, Agent; described as: An irre ularl Property 4 y-shaped a ~.,;: = ~ Y' p rcel of land consisting of approximately 12.7 acres bounded by Tustin Avenue on the west, Riverdal A ; ; 5 e venue on the north, and the Riverside Freeway on the east. Pro ert P y presently classified ~ ` FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND R-2, MULTIPLE- ; ~ . ~ ; ~? CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: ESTABLISH A 94-UNIT CONDOMINIUM D ~ ' ~ EVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MIt7IMUM LOT AREA {2) MINI ~ ' °z Y , MUM LOT . WIDTH, (3j REQp=ggMENT THAT A LOT HAVE STREET ~ s~'"` ~ ~ >"''• FRONTAGE, AND (4) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM AN ARTERIA ~I L HIGHWAY. ~ ; 5 ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: LONG BEACH CONSTRUCTION i ;. ;!~~', " COMPANY, p, p, Hox 5649, Long Seach, California. ENGINEER y : Lander Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue Suit H _ ~`~ ':~` ~ , e , Anaheim, California. Subject tract is proposed for subdivi i ~ s on into 94 R-2 zoned lots. > ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established i " E n close proximity, the waivers requested, and the proposal to subdivide subject property into 94 l ir i ots and construct a 94-unit, one-story condominium project; that the project w .~ E as to be served by a public street which would extend from the present terminus f l ~ y ~~ o a Santa Ana Canyon Road ong the easterly boundary of the property and return t the northerl o Tustin Avenue along y portion of the project; that in additi Y • on to the common open areas, each unit would be provided with a private atio gara th d _ ; ~ p ge an private two-car at would be served by private accessways; and that th ~ndtcates th ~ e Genezal Plan e general area involved as being appropriate for low-medium density residential - therefore th , e existing zonzng R-2 would be implemented his designation. However the R-2 2 ~ ? , of a one would provide for a maximum density pproximately 18 units to the acr ~ E? e, and the proposed project was proposing a density of 9.5 units per acre. ;;: ~ Chairman Farano requested a showing of hands of those in o proposal ositi d '~+' ~ , an on to the four persons indicated their o PP o iti . a :; pp s on. , x ~~ Mr. Gary Gregson, representing the developer, appeared before the Commissio and stated that because f ~: n o the site and location abutting a freeway, the proposal was the best use for the ,~ ~ property, and rather than having Santa Ana Canyon Road extend through the development i , t was proposed to have it abutting the freeway, giving additional buffering from th i ;; - e no ses from the freeway; that they were proposing a cluster-type development with 3 to 6 the develo m t i ` *: p en un ts; that would have adequate recreational facilities, and the density was reduced by proposing single-stor th ..[~t - ~ y; at if R-2-5000 were developed, they . . i. ~ '1 _ ~= ,. _ ~. . _ , ,. _ . _... .. -.. , .~; . . , . . ,. - _. ~.=~ ~ ~, -.. . . ' . ~ ; ,. ~. ~ . e~ ' _ _, '> . . ~ _ , . . _, . . - - - - - . ~ , _ ,, , _ I 1 '~ _ L~ , _ 0 p ~ `'~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 I 71-580 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - would be permitted to have 70 uni± ~ PERMIT NO. 1261 s adjacent to this small ~ R-1 area, whereas they were proposing only 24 additional units; that they had more than 50~ open green belt area; ~ •r'-"",~ ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF that they attempted to keep the traffic pattern to a TRACT NO. 5222 minimum with cluster drives which ;~Continued) and turning radiLo; that they werePalsodattempt;nqetoSblend these units with the R-1, facing into the green belt rather than to the R-1 or to the freeway; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Alired, stated that all of their open areas faced inwards racher than to the freeway of~-ramp. Y '."F Commissioner Allred then inquired how far the residential uses were from the ;:: travel lane of the off-ramp since his concern was the closeness o£ the develop- ;;.`.~s ment to the £reeway; whereupon Mr. Gr,-yson replied that there was a distance Y•• of over lOG feet. :~~ Commissi~ner Allred indicated that the plans showed a distance of only 57 feet t~ ~ from the property line to the building. ;` Mr. Terry Jones, representing the developer, in response to Commissioner ~; ~ Allred's question, stated that they had run some intensity studies regarding freeway noises, and although they had not measured the distance to these freeway "~ lanes, they had related it to the other freeway sites, and there was considerably~ more distance on tnis property than on others. d4 ~} , ?'~ ,~~; Commissioner Seymour expressed concern regarding the continuity of the home- ' owners association which would be established to insure monthly maintenance, fees collected, and property maintained; what type of financing was proposed; `r and was it FHA. ~'*::'. ; Mr. Jones, in reply, stated that this was a canventional loan, and the CC&Rs °~~ required by the Department of Real Estate, which went along with the property; ;~ ~a that there would be very little recourse since consent of the entire ownership .~^ of the property would be required, and since there would be 94 people involved, ;;.c,._,~;~ one unit could not withdraw. ~ ~°F, }~ Commissioner Seymour stated that experience within the City and ot ~:t~Y~r has been excellent wherein the financin her cities ~ ~~~ g placed on a up by FHA, the CC&Rs appeared to be adhered to; however~PtheyCityChadahadacked i ~ ~ rather unfavorable experience when conventional financing was pro osed, s~ a ing as an example Gramercy Park at Euclid Street and Crescent, where convennt- ~ ~~ tional financing was obtained, and when the homeowners association was unable ~~~j to collect these monthly fees, it was not long before this development deteri- `~' orated very rapidly; therefore, this was the reason why he was rather skeptical i~ .i.f the financing were not FHA. H ~;,;;:v ' ~ Mr. Jones replied that FHA onl could do the same, and they wouldunotnagreetto maintaining thedlandinsHOweverns ' Y he was sure that the loanee, because of the size and nature of the loan, would ; ~ be very interested in the CC&Rs. ;_as j~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not within the proposed CC&Rs 'a was there anything that would cover persons who did not take care of their -- _=~ payments. ~,~.: ;.~.: P ;~ ~ Mr. Jones re lied that the other membershi would have to k did not pay, p pay for those who ~~.' ~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired what would ha ~ x? paying was reduced to less than 508; whereupon MrpeJonestrepliedethat these ;+,,. ~ lender would foreclose ber,ause they were not being maintained in accordance with the CC&Rs. ~~ ~ ~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired who would be responsible for the maintenance ~ of the land and buildings if the homeawners association failed - who would back this up? ;~. Y.' Mr. Jones replied that the lender would assume this responsibilit would be within the regulations of the CC&Rs. Y. and it ;~~ ; .~l,:..; i' ~ ;i t ~ . , _ 1~ ~ ..., ~~. :.;. _,,... , _ :. . . _, `+y f t;:v, . . ~ . ~} . ,r: z A ..,. ~ ~, , '~ L_ -r . . ; ~ ~~ i ~ ~ 0 ~ ~J I ; 71-581 I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septemher 8, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1261 _ TENTATIV~ MAP OF +~ TRACT NO. 5222 r (Continued) - Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the price proposed for each unit; wh~x~upon Mr. Jones replied that these units would ,r.~~uy~ :•;, arice between $25,500 and $31,000. Mr. Jones t, ~t~ ,.;:e ~.a-:° ^:he Commission that after ::cmpletion of the disr;i,r.:n•~ ~,: ~~.lZd like to review several of the recommended ~-.r2s >:..~ c,x approval. Chairman Farano informed Mr, Jon~K ;~~ >~ ;~~ ~ould only rebut statements made by the opposition, and that he should*present his entire case now. `"'`''= Mr. Jones then noted that Condition No. 3 required a wall, and although they .;_;.r:,~.;^~ would agree a wall was necessary, it was his understanding that the subdivider rF of the property to the south of the alley had been required to construct a wall ~~ which was not constructed as yet, and they wanted to match the c~lor scheme of ;;; -1; said wall - therefore would it be „a , possible to cost a bond so that the walls ,;: `i would match when the adjacent R-3 installed their wall? 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that without research- ing the reclassification file, he could not give a definite answer; however, the R-3 regulations did not require a masonry wall adjacent to R-2 or similar R-3 unless a special condition had been attached. Furthermore, the condition set forth in the Report to the Commission was to provide a wall adjacent to the R-1 property only, Chairman Farano then requested staff to investigate the wall requirement on the adjacent R-3 property and require that it be I~,'.t if this still was a requirement, and suggested that the petitioner coc~.rainate his efforts with staff regarding the color scheme. } ~'` - ~5::~.. ~, ~'.A s,^ ;..,' ~; ! *~:. ' ~3e. .;' Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not additional sound bufferinq was proposed because of the proximity of the freeway. Mr. Jones replied that where the sound level reached 80 d.b.a. in R-1 sub- divisions, additional sound bufferinq then paid of°; however, the study they made on sound levels for this property indicated a 50 to 60 d.b.a., and where homes backed to the freeway, the sound level reached 80 d.b.a.; and that since subject property was below the freeway, this noise would be noises people were exposed to every day, Mr. Jones then referred to Condition IJo. 7 under the tentative tract recommenda- tions requiring park and recreation fees - since they were providing more than 50$ of their property with open space, thereby creating their own park-like area with all the necessities for recreation, there would be no reasoi, for residents of this complex to go to public park.s since there was everyt.".;,ing available at this location, something which sing].~-famil,y homes and many other apartments did not have, and could this fee be eliminated or possibly come under the headinq of apartments. Mr. Roberts stated that condominiums were classified as multiple-family and as such, would be assessed a fee for each unit at the multiple-family rate. Mr. Jones then noted that he had met with the City Engineer earlier in the day regarding drainaqe since water from subject property drained into the drainage structure which, in turn~ drained through an easement to the flood control channel, and after discussion with the City Engineer, he had agreed to pay for the right to use these faci~ities in the amount of $4,000 for the water to be accepted from subject prope,•rty to discharge at Riverdale and Tustin; whereupon Mr. Roberts noted that Corzdition No. 11 could read, "That the drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer" - thus meeting with the desires of the petitioner as well as the requirements of the City of Anaheim. Mrs. Catherine Baldus, 238 South Park Street, Orange, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting she owned an apartment house at_ 101 North ~ Merrimac; that she had availed herself of the plot plan and felt the density proposed would be very high since there were many units with two and three bedrooms - this would mean many families with children; and then told of the problems that they had had in their apartments with children - because there was no place to play, they had experienced all kinds of damage to the anartments, and there appeared to be no recreation area for the children on the plans {::1a+~~a:'w1Fa.'_^,'*~..~~+.1.... . ..., ,. . .. ._ . _. . . "__..___~T-~ ~ .. ~ ' . ' . . . . .. ' . . . . . ~ . ~ ~ , . . ~ .. . . .. ,. . . . . . ._ - . .. . ~ ~ \ ~ - . .. ~~ .. i''} . ~ ; ~ ~ ~ . ---~_ U ~J ~.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 71-582 CONDITIONAL.USE - proposed except for a swimming pool; and that they had no PERMIT NO. 1261 recreational facilities in their own development. TENTATIVE MAP OF Comnissioner Herbst noted for the opposition that the TRACT NO. 5222 petitioner was proposing more than 50$ open space, and (Continued) the dens?ty would be considerably less than the apartment complex in which the opposition had units since they were proposing only 9,5 units per acre, while the zoning would permit 18 units per acre. Mr. Baldus then inquired why the California State Division of Highways was listed as one of the petitioners; whereupon Chairman Farano noted that the State was in the process of selling a portion of the excess freeway property, and since, by law, the City had to advertise the legal owner, this was the reason £or the Division of Highways being one of the petitioners. _ Mrs. Haldus further stated that it was her opinion that additional soundproof- ing should be required in these units since the units on their property experienced considerable noise. In addition, this development would increase the traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road, and then indicated her property was on ' _ 1 the west side of Merrimac Drive at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road. She further stated that when the Riverside and Newport Freeways were widened, the noise level increased to twice that experienced before, even though thea.r homes were well insulated, there still was considerable noise. ~ .v 1 '` Mr. Henry Hartman, 3939 Rogue Drive, a " tion and stated this was the third timePherwasbappearing inmopposition,~andsi- ' each time the petitioner was requesting waivers from the site development 1 ~ standards of the zone; that at the second public hearing one of the Commis- %=r sioners suggested having an R-1 buffer strip; that when they purchased their '--=+ home, the property was in the County - however, they had been assured that { ' this area would re~nain R-1, and now the petitioner was 3 proposing apartments i 1 adjacent to his property; that he was sure that the City had spent many hours t ' in work sessions and at public hearings before the site development standards i "'~ had been adopted, and there must have been some basis for establishing these 1 .~ requirements, but each time the prospective developer would make additional ~ ;;~ waiver requests; that his property would be faced with having a dedicated ' street both at the front and rear of the ~ '~ property; thz~L subject property could ~ `;,~ be developed within the R-2 Zone w~.thout all these requests for waivers from ~ the Code; that ~.f the Commiss~on wanted to see what density had done to the I ~.;;, a~ea, one could view the number of vehicles parked on the street for a consider- ' ~ able distance; that access problems to and from Tustin Avenue would be increased ' •~ iP vehicles from these 94 additional units were added to the already difficult , ~~~; traffic problem, particularly between 7:30 and 8;00 A.M. when traffic backed ;r~l. up all the way to Riverdale Avenue; and that one of the concerns expressed at a previous public hearing was ingress and egress for fire equipment to a dead- end street. The Commission noted that if this development were constructed, this would not ~' be a dead-end street; that subject property could be developed with 18 units ~ per acre, or almost twice that presently proposed, and the plan further provided a 20-foot buffer strip, as well as being only one-story, whereas if this were ,.j developed with single-family homes or R-2-5000 homes, two-story homes could be II~';:` developed within 5 feet of the rear property line. I + Mr. Hartman noted that his property sat on a 10-foot rise and with this plan, ~ he would be looking down into a street when he sat on his patio - therefore, he felt this should be deve.loped with no waivers. : ~': 't The Commission noted that the waivers requested were rather minor in nature A__ as to setback, and the development was proposed with almost one-half the }#•:."- density which the zone permitted. ~..: Mrs. Ray Weller, 3955 Rogue Drive, appeared before the Commission and inquired : whether any study had been made as to the number of s~hool children that would be residing in this condominium since the existing elementary school was such .t• that it could not be enlarged to handle additional children, although the schoal district was now planning to use Riverdale School which was formerly used for mentally kiandicapped children - how~ver, the children who would be attending that school would be coming from the other side uf the Newport * Freewa ~~ ; y, and with the amount of housing now occurring in that area, these ~ 3~~*! `_---~ J.L'.-. r.'ivr_~'"Y ~ . . .. .. . . . . \ Y ~~ 1 i'. \ : ;`'_ . r ~ t. ,= _ _~r. ---- ~ ~ ~.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMN!ISSTON, September 8, 1971 71-583 CONDITIONAL USE - schools would be able to handle only children from that PERMIT NO. 1261 area on the other side of the Newport Freeway, and in the Villa Park High School where her daughters attended, TENTATIVE MAP OE~ some of the subjects were being eliminated because of the TRACT N0. 5222 vast increase in school children. (Continued) The Commission noted that they could not consider develop- ment of schools in zoning actions since it was the Commission's duty to decide land use only, and the school district had a policy that they would take care of school needs if the Commission would take care of land planning. Furthermore, from statistics presented to the Commis- sion, it app~ared that R-1 or single-family homes generated more children for schools than multiple-family units, although this appeared to be difEicult to believe, these were facts - perhaps children in apartment complexes were of a younger age, and when they grew older, their families movefi to single-familv homes. In addition, the school district would be pleased with this development since the zoning on the property would permit 18 dwelling units per acre while the petitioner was proposing only 9 units, or one-half that permitted, thereby reducing the number of children that might be anticipated. Mr. Jones, 3n rebuttal, stated he was in hopes that the opposition would review the plans and be impressed with the type of homeowner who would be purchasing these units which he felt would be an asset to the area since a. much better environment was being presented in this development, thus residents would not be finding the need to go onto adjoining properties into this area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-178 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1261, aubject to conditions, with the addition of requiring covenants, conditions, and restrictions to be submitted to the City Attorney and prior to filing of a final tract map, a complete synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation was to be submitted for approval or denial; and that Condition No. 1 be amended to require a 6-foot masonry wall along the southerly and westerly property lines where subject property abutted the existing R-1 subdivision. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~7 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONzR5: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: None. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5222, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5222 is granted sub;ect to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1261. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. -,~,. -< .. . _ ... - ~, , , . ~fs:_....:-.: . . ~ .~. ~ .,,, . ,_- . .: .. _ . °"1u , ~ ' ... . '. 7' , ~ .. . .. . ' ~ , _ ~t _ _~' _ . 1 ' ~ . 1 '~ . iJ ~ ~.~ MTNUTES, CTTY PT,ANNING COMMISSTON, September 8, 1971 71-584 CONDITTONAL USE PERMTT NO. 1261 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 5222 (Continued) 7- That the owner(s) of subject property shall a sum per unit as established by the City Council to beeusedyfor parkeanda ~. recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. ~ 8• That "A" Street where adjacent to the Riverside Freeway shall be improved ( with a 40-foot travelway, a standard 12-foot parkway on the west side of ~ the street, and a 5-foot landscaped parkway on the east side of the street. The remainder of "A" Street shall be improved as a standard 64-foot ~ residential collector street. 9• That landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the "A" Street parkway adjacent to the Riverside Freeway as required by the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Maintenance of this landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 10. The alignment of the easterly property line of subject de•~elopment shall be approved by the California Division of Highways. 11. That drainage of subject progerty shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. ; 12. Prior to the filing of a final tract map, the applicant shall submit to y; the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the `! proposed functioning of the operating corporation, including but not :; limited to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, proposed rules and ; regulations, methods of operation, funding, assessment, methods of ~^' management, and bonding to insure maintenance of common property and f`~ buildings, and such other inf- ,ation as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its cit_ ,ns, and the purchasers of the project. __:i .,, '~ ; 1 .. '~' ~ ~i) w7i .~;! ~~'~~~. REPORT REGARDING - Commir„~ioner Seymour inquired of Deputy City Attorney CC~RS RECOMMENDATIONS Frank Lowry whether in the study being conducted by the City Attorney's office did research indicate that the government financed type of development appear to be more desirable2 Mr. Lowry replied that the City Attorney's office had this matter under study, and it was hoped t~ey would be able to give the Planning Commission a report on the two forms of condominiums - the one just considered by the Commission was a non-statutory condominium. Chairman Farano then requested that since the City Attorney's office was still studying this when the report was presented to the Commission, he would like to know what could be done on a legal aspect after foreclosure since nothing had been tested in courts to date and he did not want to leave it up to the CC&Rs because a lien on the property did not cause the property owner to be evicted - he still held ownership in his unit. Mr. Lowry noted that the Commission requested the City Attorney's office to investigate this matter, therefore, this office could made a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council one way or the other. Commissioner Seymour requested that this recommendation be presented to the Planning Commission before Conditional Use Permit No. 1261 was considered by the Citf Council. RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-mii~ute recess at 4:02 P.M. RECONDENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:15 P,M,, Commissioner Rowland being absent. .~.~_ .~'.,~ '~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . . -. . _~:... ...~ .. , ~ , ~ ~ ~- . . ~a , d •~a : 't ~ _ ,t ; ~ , , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 ` J -- ~ ~ i 71-585 ~ . VARIANCE NO. 2290 - PUBLIC HEARING. VIOLET STEVENS VOSBURG, 544 Concord Place, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT TO PERMIT A SWIMMING POOL AND A 6-FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL IN THE FRONT SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a i:,::ntage of approximately 75 feet on the east side of Concord Place, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet, and being located approximately 331 feet south • of the centerline of Charleston Drive, and further described as 544 Concord Place. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. __ Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel i t. ~ ; ~'+ , ':~ ';j ~l .'! ,~ ,y j ~ bi .:::. : ;i: ~:~. :i ~. ~ ;: ~ .fie `:; rev ewed the location of sub7ect property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct a swimming pool in a portion of the required front yard area, surrounding it with a 6-foot high, concrete wall that would abut 22 fee' af the front property 'line; that similar variance applications in the immedia ., area had been granted in the past; that the 22-foot frontage which the wall would abut was in the center of the property, but the line of sight from the applicant's driveway and from the driveway of the adjacent property would not be impaired by the proposed wall; and that the Planning Commission wou.ld wish to determine whether or not the waiver as requested in this particular circumstance was warranted. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-179 and moved for its passage and adoption to qrant Petition for Variance No. 2291, subject to conditions, and the finding that this type of waiver had been granted in the past in thi_s neighborhood, and that the proposed wall would not block the view of subjec: property or the adjoining property from oncoming traffic. (See Resolution z~ok) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. VARTANCE NO, 2291 - PUBLIC HEARING. KENNETH K, KIMES, 2323 North Broadway, Suite 420, Santa Ana, California, Owner; WALTER L. BROOKS, 2312 South Susan Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A FREE-STANDING SIGN WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN SIGNS, AND (3) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS on property described as: A rectangu- larly-shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approximately 170 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 660 feet, and being located approximately 870 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Way, and further described as 1550 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Superviscz Don McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to relocate two of the existing signs to more closely relate to the existing free-standing, identification sign, namely, the "Best Western Motel" and the "AAA Approved" signs would be attached to a single pole and located adjacent to the existing identification sign; that consolidating several existing free-standing signs into what would resemble one large free-standing sign would appear to be an improvement over the present signing of the property; and that in light of recent concern over sigr,ing in the Disneyland area, the Commission might wish to determine the appropriateness of all of the proposed signs, whether inte- grated into one structure or not. Mr. Walter Brooks, representing the sign company and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the Commission was well aware of the signs in the Commercial-Recreation Area when most signs were approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance - Chairman Farano interrupted and requested that Mr. Brooks spare the Commission reiterat- ing the history of the Sign Ordinance and deviation therefrom since it was an unpleasant reminder, therefore, would he direct his attention to the request . ~ , ~ \ 'Fy ~ ' ~~::-., ~.: . , ~, j~ ~ , e . ' ~ ' . wwM . . _ . ..~ _ . . ~ 1 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 19~1 71-586 VARIANCE NO. 2291 - at hand, keeping in mind that within the past four to (Continued) five years the Commission approved a new sign on subject property, at which time the Commission requested that the "Best Westeri:" siyn be attached to the face of the new sign; therefore, he would like to know why a new sign was now being requested. Mr. Brooks advised the Commission that there was no legal grounds to grant the variance request, however, there were some nonconforming things on this sign which requested the filing of a variance. ~ Chairman Farano noted that the Commission was very familiar with all this ~ ~=. property; that it was his opinion the existing sign was far better than the ;':<''~`s."''~ sign proposed under this _ petition; and that unless the petitioner could give a valid reason for the request, he would vote against it. ~:~` , ' Mr. Brooks replied that tha situation presently existed, and the variance was a to bring the signing closer to the Sign Ordinance, if approved, and if not `f. approved, they would be in an economic bind because of the existing signs approved in the area; that they planned to relocate two existiag ground signs _ into one existing pole sign. ~,d~ c.l . ;a ~;~, 4~ '€: :. Y~~ M Chairman Farano asked for clarificat~~n as to the reason why Mr. Brooks felt that bringing these two ground signs was more in conformance with Code by just relocating these signs. Mr. Brooks replied that the staff indicated they were proposing to integrate the "Best western" sign with the "Mecca" identification sign; that since the sign was proposed to be within the area of one free-standing sign, they would be allowed more than one support, although the size of the sign would be greater than permitted by Code; and that although staff had indicated there would be a space of 7 feet between the two signs, there would be no space between the signs. Furthermore, he realized that the economic hardship did not warrant consideration by the Commission as it would affect this facility. Commissioner Herbst noted that when the original "Mecca" sign was granted in 1967, it was supposed to be one sign with the "Best western" sign being in- corporated at the base of the free-standing sign, therefore, there was no hardship since this relief was granted when the other sign was approved in 1967. Mr. Brooks then presented photographs of similar situations in the area, noting that their only recourse was to file the variance, however, they also felt that they were improving their existing situation by the proposal of integrating the sign; and that they would remove any directional signs determined to be illegal. Commissioner Seymour noted that a very important consideration he wished to be clarified so that the record would indicate that the petitioner was made aware of the =act in the redesign of the sign there was a program being presently studied which would bring all the nonconforming signs and the Commercial- Recreation Area into conformance with an amortization program for those existing ; signs. Commissioner Kaywood noted that if this sign were approved and was coastructed, it would be such a"mess" that no one could make any sense out of it, and it would appear that the petitioner would be coming in later asking for a larger "Mecca" sign. Mr. Brooks noted that motels derived approximately 30~ of their business from referrals of previous customers, and adequate signing was necessary. Commissioner Herbst then requested that Mr. Roberts read the motion approving the previous sign in 1967; whereupon Mr. Roberts complied. Mr. Ken Kimes, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he felt the proposed signing would be an improvement to the signs on Harbor Boulevard by placing them all on one pylon, and ~21 that was intended was to incorporate the existing signs in one location. Commissioner Herbst noted that if the petitioner had met the requirements of the original variance as approved, by placing the"Best Western"sign at the base of the "Mecca" pylon sign, he would not need this variance. -. ~ ~~~*`°r"!~ . . - - -- . . . . . . , . . ~e. . . - . . . . . . - _.~.,.. ~..i. t1. ; ..~ ... . . .. . ~ . ~ G . . ~ ' . . _ . ` ^y i ~ ~ L~ ~~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 <~ 71-587 VARIANCE NO. 2291 - Mr. Brooks advised the Commission that if this were done, (Continued) they would be projecting into the r~ght-of-way. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner was in violation of the conditional use permit previously approved. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission regarding the previous petition approved and the violation of same. THE HEARING WAS CLOSRD, Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion to approve this would be creating a problem if the Commission and Council were going to adopt the amortization of sigr.s in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and as he had stated before, there were sa many signs in this area that one could not see the signs or identify the sign they were looking for, and the large "Best Western" sign was there because the petitioner pleaded a need for this size sign, however, he chose to leave it in the existing location. Commissioner Seymour noted that there was only one of two choices the Commission had - ugliness all over the place or placing all the ugliness together. Commissioner Herbst offer.ed Resolution No. PC71-180 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for variance No. 2291 on the basis that no hard- ship had been proven by the petitioner that he was being denied a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the area; that the petitioner in a previous request had been required to incorporate the "Best Western Mot~el" sign at the base of the Mecca Motel siyn, however, he elected to retain the sign in its original position, stating that the pole was not of sufficient strength to allow attachment of the sign which was rather lar.ge and cumbersome; that if the pro- posed signing were approved and the program presently under study for amortiza- tion of large, nonconforming signs, particularly in the Commercial-Recreation Area, were adopted, the petitioner could claim a hardship existed because of the considerable amount of money that would be expended on the proposed siqn; and that the present signing situation on this prope•rty was better than that proposed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. VARIANCE NO. 2292 - PUBLIC HEARING. LASCO INDUSTRIES, INC., F. A. Behrens, Chief Engineer, 1561 Chapin Road, Montebello, Cal,ifornia, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIRED 6-FOOT HIGH N.ASONRY WALL AROUND AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA on property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 13:2 acres, having a frontage of approximate'ly 660 feet on the north side of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximLm depth of approximately 1,063 feet, and being located approximately 1,650 feet east of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct an industrial building with outdoor storage to the rear, or north, of the building; that plans indicated a 6-foot high masonry wall along the easterly and northerly property lines and a 6-foot high, slatted chainlink fence along the westerly property line which abutted the Orange County Flood Control channel; that the primary purpose for the Code requirement that outdoor storage areas be enclosed with a 6-foot high masonry wall was to obscure the view of the property from surrounding land uses, and by inserting the slats in the proposed chainlink fence, the applicant was attempting to obtain the same results - therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether or not this proposal would meet the intent of the M-1 site development standards as it pertained to requiring a 6-foot high masonry wall. ~ ~• _ ;. .'-.~-` .. ' . . . . ~ - ~ ' .:.'_ ~r'a ""~ s, +;:~ L 7.C`.,.~.• , „(. . . . ._.. ~ al l~+. ~ ~ . . ` . ' ~~ . . . ..~'1 , ... ~ ~ . ~ ~.~I ``~ l ) ~~ MINU~ES~ CZTY RLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 197Z VARIANCE NO. 2292 - Mr. Fred Behrens, 1561 Chapin Road, Montebello, appeared (Continued) before the Commission representing the petitioner and noted it was their intent to substitute the chainlink fence only on the west property line in order to save thousands of dollars; and that they manufactured fiberglass products having a height of 78 inches, and this storage area would be only 2 acres of the entire 13-acre parcel. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the representative was present when the Commission considered a similar request regarding landscaping of the chainlink fence with slatted area. i Mr. Eehrens replied that he would prefer to eliminate the landscaping because of maintenance. ' Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission could recall a situation almost similar to this in which the Commission required the planting of oleanders ' adjacent to a gravel pit and inquired whether the petitioner would reconsider planting oleanders; whereupon Mr. Behrens replied that if he brought this „ requirement back to his employer, he would be informed to construct the masonry wall. ; :~; ~ _ ',:i *'::' . .i:t .; ~,, i~ ~ ~~:!.`,~i:i t.. ,, . Commissioner Herbst then noted that the Commission could not impose restric- tions on one parcel of the property in the industrial area and not require it of this petitianer. Mr. Behrens reiterated the fact that they would preier having aluminum slats. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not these slats would be of the same color or would they be various colors; whereupon Mr. Behrens replied they would be all one color and would blend in with the coloring proposed for the building. Zoninq Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that outdoor storage in the industrial area required only a 6-foot masozry wall; whereupon Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner wanted only to erect a chainlink fence with slats and not provide any landscaping as had been required of other develop- ments in the industrial area in the past, and if one had driven in the City of Orange along Katella Avenue where their industrial area was located, many areas had chainlink fences or none at all and stacking was very unsightly when one viewed these developments. Commissioner Herbst then inquired as to the maximum height the stacking would be, and would they be placed on pallets. Mr. Behrens replied that at their present facility they stored these units on the pavement. Chairman Farano then inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate to the storage not being more than 6 inches above the fence, if approved; whereupon Mr. Behrens stipulated to that. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-181 and moved for its passage and adoption to qrant Petition for Variance No. 2292, giving the petitioner the alternative of providing either a 6-foot masonry wall or a 6-foot chainlink fence with dense landscaping that will grow to cover said fence within one year, or a chainlink fence with colored aluminum slats and 15-qallon trees selected from the list established in the SC 2one planted at 20-foot intervals, and that any landscaping proposed shall include irrigation facilities; furthermore, that this condition shall be complied with prior to the ~ommencement of any outdoor storage activity; and that storage products or materials shall not project more than 6 inches above the 6-foot high fence, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) \ ! 71-588 On roll call the foregoinq resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. .T . ..._. . .: . . - ... ~ ~ ^ r ~ ~~ a I, / ~ U ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 `, 1 --- ~ J ~ 71-589 ; CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK B. AND EVELYN GOLEMBA, 715 North PERMIT NO. 1258 Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHILD NURSERY on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 52 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 114.75 feet, and being located approximately 208 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further described as 719 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COt4MERCIAL, ZON~. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previour; zoning action on the property to the south on which a nursery school was located and which would be expanded to subject property; that the proposed expansion would accommodate 15 additional children but would require no additional instructors; that the proposed expansion would occupy only a portion of the rear of the property, and the existing dance school on the property would remain; that the Anaheim Municipal Code had no provision for parking requirements for a child nursery, although it had been customary to require one parking stall for each instructor in addition to a large circular drive or drop-off area on the site of a proposed nursery school; that the applicant had obtained permission from the State Division of Highways for loading and unloading on Anaheim Boulevard for the existing nursery school and had provided off-street parking on the site for the instructors; that the loading and unloading zone on Anaheim Bouelvard appeared to be adequate for the existing nursary school, however, the Commission might wish to question the applicant as to its adequacy after adding 15 additiunal students - otherwise, the Commission might wish to consider the expansion of the nursery school to be appropriate at this location. Mrs. Evelyn Golemba, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted she was licensed to h:ve 35 children, and with the number of instructors, she could handle 50 persons, however, in her present facility she 3id not have room for the additional 15 children; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, noted that these children were transported to school; that she would need 75 square feet per ahild for outdoor play area for these additional 15 students. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner had received complaints from any of the neighbors to the west for the existing facility and received a negative reply. Mrs. Golemba, in response to a question by Chairman Farano, stated that there would be adequate room for loading and unloading since there would be a double garage and a driveway on the property to the north; and that the State allowed 12 children per. teacher, however, she presently had only 7;children per teacher. • , Chairman Farano noted that if parents were delivering their children to this facility and used the driveway for loading and unloading, they would have to back into traffic on Anaheim Boulevard if. the driveway were used, which could Yie hazardous. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood inquired of the petitioner where the instructors presently parked; whereupon Mrs. Golemba indicated that there were two parking spaces in the existing driveway, while others parked on Wilhelmina Street, and the dance studio would have two spaces, however, the yellow zone was only for loading and '' unloading of the children. Furthermore, parking woul.d be permitted behind their garage adjacent to thc alley, and with the additional double garage and driveway, this would give them five parking spaces. Chairman Farano inquired what the parking requirements were for this type of use; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that there were no parking requirements in the Code for this type of use; and that the major portion of the school was on the parcel to the south which had a driveway for parking. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired where the instructors for the dance studio parked; whereupon Mrs. Golemba stated that they operated their dance school at night after the nursery school closed, and the parents dropped off their children, but she did not know where the instructors parked. i Ili1~.~~~4r'T - . ~ : . .. . _. ., ~f. , . . ~~ . . . . . . . . ~ ~ _.:~~ r M~..Y~" - t . _. ...' ~ f ~J O c~,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, September 8, 1971 71-590 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-182 and PERMIT NO. 1258 moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for (Continued) Conditional Use Permit No. 1258, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resoZution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Aerbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, ~, ~. CONDiTIONAL USE - PUBLZC HEARING. Greenleaf Investments, c/o F. L. Parker, PERMIT NO. 1259 Administrator, 1027 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, ~ ! California, Owner• re ues ' ~ , q ting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL on property described as: - An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 285 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 238 feet, and being located approximately 395 feet north of the centerline of ~; Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2050 South Euclid Street. Property • presently classified C-O, COMMERCIAL-OFFICE, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to expand an _ existinq convalescent hospital with a 9400-square foot addition that would - require an additional 9 parking stalls; that a perimeter drive would be provided for complete circulation and to accommodate fire and trash vehicles; that it would appear the proposed expansion would be appropriate; that the -' proposed addition met all Code requirements, however, it should be noted that , `' the existing facilities also met Code requirements, but there had been a '~i substantial parking problem; and that field inspections indicated that in _'~ addition to a full parking lot, it was not uncommon to find 5 ta 10 vehicles :~ parked on the street adjacent to the fa~~ility. -~ Mr. Frank Parker, reur~sentinq the petitioner aad administrator of the facility, ,.I appeared before the Commission and noted this was a natural expansion of an _ -( existing convalescent hospital which had been owned by the petitioner since its 1 construction; and that although it was originally planned for 133 patients, `~ they had elected to develop only a 94-bed facility. ,-;j Commissioner Herbst inquired of the representative what he attributed the park- _ "' ing problem to since it would appear there was more on-street parking at this `` facility than at any other similar facility in the city. , _` Mr. Parker replied that they had an extremely active program for rehabilitation and had a continuous flow of physicians, however, they had no outpatient service; that they had considerably more specialized equipment than any other hospital in Orange County, and the patients' stay was approximately 23 days; that they had a total of 41 employees, however, the maximum number at any one time was 23 on the day shift from 7:00 A.M, to 3:00 P.M., then it dropped to 16 employees, and more on-street parking might be observed for no more than . five minutes during the change of shifts, particularly in the nursing facility - this maximum figure included all management and nursing employees; and that ::~ the plan indicated there would be parking £or 26 vehicles. .`' Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the number of new employees who would be added to the roster with this expansion; whereupon Mr. Parker replied there would be five more employees. ' ~~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired as to visiting hours; whereupon Mr. Parker F'" ~~ replied the hours were from 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Seymour then observed this could account for the overflow parking. Mr. Parker noted that only 16 of the 23 day shift employees drove to work, and ? 2 of the nurses resided across the street. ' • Commissioner Seymour then ?n3uired that with all the visting hours, what would ~.~' the total number of patients be with the proposed addition. .... .~..~~~ ~r "1., '..... „.- ,... :~. ; ...~.:4-. .,. ._. t. . . . ,, , I ~ - _ i _ l~ ~ ---- -- t.~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMbITSSION, September 8, 1971 71-591 CONDTTIONAL USE - Mr, Parker replied there would be 133 beds for patients. PERMIT NO. 1259 Furthermore, they had made a survey of the parking on a (Continued) Saturday when the majority of the visitors came to visit the older patients and found only 3 cars parked on Euclid Street. ~ Commissioner Seymour noted that photographs by staff indicated there was a parking problem. Considerable discussion was then held regarding the parking situation between _ the Commission and the representative for the petitioner. ~ ,;~ Mr. Parker noted that the expansion was being requested by them, but a private hospital plan from Long Beach tuad made a survey of their facility and ~sked them to set aside 40 beds for this private plan's patients - however, tk~ey ~- could not do this under their present system, therefore, the request for the expansion, which would also delete 9 beds from the existing £acility, would `; result in a net increase of 39 beds; that they had tried to work out a plan ti;` that would meet the Department of Health code standards, but in order to - , accommodate the group health plan and still meet parking standards, there had ~~ to ae a reduction. ; Commissioner Seymour noted that a parking problem existed with the present facilities, and if expansion was being requested for approval, then the ~ situationn should give careful consideration to the existinq inadequate parking ;~. ~r._ ~ x:~'..: ~: .. ~;-.., . : ;; ~ +~ 'I 1.'~ , ~kc "; Mr. Parker indicated that he was at this facility every day and had never been aware of a parking problem - no one had told him there were no parking spaces available; and that they encouraged certain employees not to park in front of the lsuilding or use the off-street parking facilities - one emp:.oyee even parked on Orangewood Avenue to the north on a residentia~ street. Chairman Farano noted that whether or not he had been informed about this parking problem, it would appear that the petitioner did not want to controvert this situation since there was a parking problem - the Planning Commission received requests continuously from developers, requesting waivers of the parking standards, stating that the City standards were excessive, and permis- sion should be granted to deviate from them. Therefore, the Commission should reverse this by requiriny more ~ there appeared to be a Parking in this particular instance 1 parkinq problem, and since the petitioner was not ~ providing for the existing parkinq needs on the property, a basic requirement ~ of the Code, he would suggest that the petitioner meet with staff to try to resolve this, at least by providing employee parking on the y~remises. Mr. Parker replied that the plan was the result of considerable effort to satisEy their requirements onto the property. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether or not the Co~.zmission could require more parking than Code set forth; whereupon Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that sinr.e this was a conditional use permit, the Commission could request more parking, although the ordinance did not require this - that he had never heard of requiring more parking without considering amending the Code, and the only reason the Commission could require additional parking was the Eact that this was a special use permit under a conditional use permit. Chairman Farano noted that since existing conditions indicated that automobiles were parking on the street, even though Code parking was being met, it did not meet the spirit of the ordinance since employees' parking was not provided in accordance with Code. Therefore, could the Commission make a finding, setting forth reasons for requiring more parking than Code required; whereupon Mr. Lowry replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Gauer inquired when staff viewed or inspected the property and how long did this situation exist since he found in most areas where the City was requiring a given number of parking spaces, it was more than adequate; and that there may have been extenuating circumstances, such as a special program. Therefore, he would not want to penalize this petitioner because of one field inspection, and requested that further field inspections be made on a daily basis. ,. ~ ~: , i:5 1w.. ~~ i ' ~ , .___ ~ I I , ~~.;,, , ~ . ._. . :.1'~ \ ,. . h r . ~. :F _ . ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 71-592 CONDITIONAL USE -1Chairman Farano noted that by the number of persons PERMIT NO. 1259 employed, as menticaed by Mr. Parker, it was physically (Continued) imp~~~~yie ior all of the employees to ~~' park on this ~~.` p.roperty today. :, Commissioner Seymour stated that since both Commissioners Gauer and Herbst had asked how many employees had been considered in other similar petitions, he would agree that if this were not the number of employees even when consider- ing the increase, making it 28 employees, this would not include physicians or ti` ~ surgeons, nor take into consideration the visitors. , ~ z_'~_. ~::~ s.':,; . ~w ~ ;.~ ; ; Commissioner Herbst stated that he was not questioning the right of the Commission to impose certain requirements which would have been imposed on others having the same use - what he was concerned with was whether or not the Commission had the legal right to impose this. Chairman Farano was of the opinion that the Commission should take due con- sideration of the circumstances that had been outlined. Commissioner Kaywood inquired of Mr. Parker whether or not he presently had 133 beds; whereupon Mr. Parker replied there were oaly 94, and then inquired of Commissioner Seymour how many parking spaces he felt was sufficient. Commission~r Seymour replied that the number was more than the 26 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Parker then noted that when the City granted the Anaheim Memorial Hospital tower, no one questioned employee parking, and nurses parked on La Palma Avenue; and that he, in •turn, had to park on Leisure Court. Commissioner Seymour noted that a conditional use was a special use which permitted the Commission to analyze the operation which could warrant sperial requirements; therefore, he would suggest a two-week continuance to obtain a legal opinion from the Cit,y Attorney regarding the legality of the Commission imposing additional parking requirements and for staff to make further field inspections on a daily basis as Commissioner Gauer suggested. Commissioner Kaywood noted that she had visited the place on Tuesday, and there were at least 10 cars parked on Euclid Street, and tc+ have the nurses park in i the R-1 area was unfair to the residential neighborhood to inject commercial I parking into the residential area. i Mr. Lowry then noted tliat in view of the possible legal ramifications of the expansion of Code requirements, he would su ~ the continuance in order to allow time for himStotreviewethisiwithethegCityto ~ Attorney and for him to advise the Commission properly. Mr. Fred Foster, 1680 Tonia Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that he was directly to the east of the property, and he was quite con- cerned about the wa1Z or barrier since the present 6-foot wall stopped at the corner of his property line, and he would request consideration of an 8-foot high wall on the property, and he would be willing to pay for the extra 2 feet for the 100 feet; and that this was an extreme fire hazard, having had two fires:: in the last year, and if this property were left open, he wou13 have a security problem since people had scaled a 6-foot wall going across his property~ and the same problem applied to other property owners in the area. Mr. Parker, in rebuttal, stated that if Mr. Foster was willing to pay for the difference of 2 feet for an 8-foot wall, they would be willing to cooperate with him if he would deposit a cash bond with the contract. Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Mr. Foster, since he was a resident in the area, whether or not there were a large number of cars in front o£ the hospital. Mr. Foster replied that he had never seen many since there was a large vacant lot adjacent to the hospital, and he had seen no cars parked there. Mr. Parker noted that they had never permitted employees to park on the vacant property to the south, stating they would either park in the hospital parking lot or ~n the street, and if there were any cars parked in that vacant lot, it was not his empluyees. Furthermore, the owners of the property were planning ~' ,': ~. 4~ f: ~ . . ' . ~ ... ~. , ., . . ~ f1. _ .__- £ ~ .. ".'f.'i=., ' . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ . ' .~ . _~ ,.C~_._.,_. \ _ ~ _ 'a~ l . ; t - ~ ~ `~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 ) -----------^. ~J 71-593 CONDITIONAL USE - to build a small neighborhood shopping center, although PERMIT NO. 1259 he had attempted to (Continued) purchase the property from them. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue considera- tion of Conditional Use Permit No. 1259 to the meeting of September 20, 1971, in order to allow time for the City Attorney to give an opinion on the legality of the Commission requiring additional parking ov~r and above Code requirements, and for staff to do a daily survey to determine the shortage of parking in this particular facility. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (This item to be scheduled for the first item on the agenda.) CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIYG. WARREN J. TER BEEST AND ELWOOD D. TER PERMIT NO. 1262 BEEST, 12132 Blackmer Street, Garden Grove, California, Owners; THOMAS E. SHELTON, Alpine Ciqil Engineers, Inc., requestin g permission7toZESTABL2SHuAe242aSPACEtTRAVEL TRAILE~tCpARKoFORa~ Agent; RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITH A MANAGER'S APARTMENT on propertw described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appro:~imately 8 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Ball Road and West Street, having frontages of approximately 405 ~eet on Ball Road and approximately 397 f~eet on West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURA'~, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 242-space travel trailer park £or recreational vehicles having a manager's apartment; that the main entrance to the trav~l trailer park would be on West Street and emergency access would be provided to Ball Road; that the recrea- tional area and buildirig with a manager's apartment above it would be located along the West Street frontage; that a 20-foot wide, landscaped setback would be provided along West Street and along Ball Road; that an area 50 feet by 50 feet was proposed in the center of the project for showers and restroom facilities; and that in addition to the common recreation area, each ir;dividual site would be provided with approximately 175 square feet of green area. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the project, noted that the Commission could recall a similar request for a travel trailer park immediately to the south of this proposal, at wh;ch time the Commission recommended a 15-year time limitation which would be subject to review, granting either an extension of time at said review or termination of the use since the Commission's reasoning at that time was that the proposed use was needed in the Anaheim area due to the many thousands of people who arrived in travel trailers and campers to enjoy the available recreationax facilities and who at the present time were limited to their selection of overnight or short-stay accommodatians. The Commission further, in their findings, indicated that such developments could be an excellent interim use of the land in this area so long as they did not develop into a fona fide mobilehome park with a consequent state of permanency; and that the proposal was essentially the same in nature as that previously described and has located in the Commercial-Recreation Area - therefore, it would appear that the same reasoning and same stipulations could apply to this proposal, namely, a 15-year time limitation for the travel trailer park. Mr. Thomas Shelton, 17612 Beach Soulevard, Huntington Beach, appeared before the Commission and noted he represented the Ter Beest family; that their objective was to rent travel trailer parking spaces; that the petitioners had owned subject property since 1923; that the property was completely vacant, and the service station was not a part of this petition; that the family did not derive any income from this property, even though their taxes for the past yeaz were $13,000; that they proposed to construct a travel trailer park that would be an asset to the city and the area; that the owners planned to retain ownership of the prope.rty, as well as management of the facility, having considered various alternatives for the use of their property on an interim basis; that the growth of the recreational vehicle industry during the past few years had been fantasti.c; and that there was a definite ueed for this type of facility in this ~rea. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether Mr. Shelton was familiar with the Travel Trailer Ordinance which the Plannirig Commission hed recommended to the City Council for adoption since it would appear, after reviewing the plans earlier, that the plans did not meet these requirements. ` ~ ~ . a .. _ , ..~., . . . . . . _. .. . ... . . .. . . . ~ - . . ~_ . ~ .- : ~ ~ . +~ . . ... ... . ~ ~ ; . , ~i : ~ ~ ~~~ MINUTES, C~Tx PT,ANNTNG COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 ~ 71-594 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Shelton replied that the demands for different vehicles PERMIT NO. 1262 was a considerable variation, and the proposed ordinance (Continued) did not take this into consideration. Chairman Farano inquired of staff what the proposed ordinance dictated as to length of vehicles since these spaces indicated spaces 43 feet in length. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the proposed ordinance did not refer to the length of spaces, but to the width and square footage of the space. Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that the size of the spaces would not be able to take care of an automobile pulling a trailer on one space. Chairman Farano noted that in viewing the occupants of the travel trailer park to the south, it would appear there were a larger number of trailers and campers than the smaller trailersj therefore, this proposal appeared as though it could not accommodate more than 20-foot trailers since cars were approxi- mately 20 feet long. Mr. Shelton replied that they provided for a 20-foot long standard car. Commissioner Herbst noted that if trailers larger than 20 feet were to come in, both car and trailer could not be accommodated on one space; therefore, it would appear that this park should provide for some larger spa~es than 43 feet. Furthermore, the Travel Trailer Ordinance was still being reviewed, and if this development were tied into a camper facility only, then the petitioner would be unable to take care of larger trailers and motor homes. Mr. Shelton noted that they planned to have the campers park on the perimeter of the park since they could be backed in or parked more easily and would not require a pull-through space. Commissioner Herbst observed that having campers around the periphery of a travel trailer park was most objectionable, and it was his opinion that the new ordinance required a given setback along the wall, and then inquired of Mr. Roberts what the proposed ordinance required in the form af a setback. Mr. Roberts stated a 5-foot setback from the wall was required in the proposed ordinance, while the petitioner proposed a 5-foot berm for landscaping - in addition to 20-foot landscaped setback. The Commission expressed the feelin3 that the petitioner should provide spaces for trailers and cars with at least 50-foot depths for a portion of the spaces. Chairman Farano was of the opinion that the petitioner should also provide a 20-foot width; whereupon Mr. Shelton replied that this was provided in the camper area. Commissioner Herbst then stated that camper guests were entitled to as much ; space as regular trailers, therefore, they should be provided more open space; that a considerable in-depth study was made prior to the Planning Commission recommending adoption of the Travel Trailer Ordinance, therefore, he did not feel the City should deviate from the recommende.: urdinance which he felt was not as restrictive as it could be. Commissioner Seymour noted that the ordinance was not even adopted by the City Council as an ordinance, and that this property was a beautiful piece of property and no hardship had been proven, therefore, he felt the petitioner should meet the requireaents of the recommended ordinance. Commissioner Herbst noted that where only campers were proposed to be parked, the depth of the lot could be reduced. Mr. Shelton advised the Commission that he could provide for the wider spaces if required. Commissioner Allred observed that this would be to the advantage of the petitioner since by word of mouth people would recommend this park over i l~p~~~"~'~.s~nms' ~ ~ ~ ' ._i ~: -, !b~ r'" i . ' i ~ . ~J ~:.~ MiNUTES, CTTY pLANN2NG COMMZSSION, September 8, 1971 ;~ 71-595 CONDITIONAL USE - others which did not provide desira~le amenities; whereupon PERMIT N0. 1262 Mr, Shelton stated that it was their aim to have a better (Continued) trailer park than presently existed, with substantial improvements. Mrs. Marlin Hightower, owner of the Jack and Jill Motel at 1U42 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission ia opposition and inquired whether the Commis- sion had Eaken into consideration the impact this would have to place this number of trailers on subject property when the average trailer had three to four children, said children spreading over the entire area and then gave, for instance: children roamed into her facility, breaking the floodlights and steal- ing pop bottles, and stated this had happened particularly when trailers arrived in the city late in the afternoon, which was too late to go to Disneyland, and the children did not want to stay in the hot trailers; that when they had children ia their motels as guests, they would stay indoors becaus~ the motel was air conditioned; and that if this situation continued, they would have to require special security for this area. Commissianer Herbst noted t~~?~ the Commission would consider land use only, and whether this proposed use was good for the recreational area; that the proposed Trailer Park Ordinance recommended for apgroval by the Planning Commission attempted to overcome some of the problems presented by Mrs. Aightower; that the petitioners were paying taxes on their property - therefore, they should be given an opportunity to utilize their property, and if this trailer park were properly developed, it would be an asset to the area by providing a place to stay for the night within their recreational facility, however, the Commission could not require air conditioned facilities. Mrs. Hightower noted that providing additional trailer space also took business away from the existing motels since if there was no travel trailer facility, they would be staying at motels in the area, which gave the City a 6+t bed tax, while the trailer park gave them no return. Chairman Farano asked whether the petitioner would stipulate that this would be a travel trailer park only and no mobilehome park would be considered since it was being proposed in the Commercial-Recreation Area; whereupon Mr. Shelton so stipulated that this would be a travel trailer park only. Chairman Farano then reviewed all the conditions and desire for redesign of the proposed travel trailer park, noting the Commission was desirous of having these plans brought more nearly in conformance with the recommended Travel Trailer Park Ordinance. Mr. Shelton noted that :.ne of the Commission members had indicated that the depth of the space could be reduced but not the width, and inquired where this ~ could be provided. ' The Commission then was of the opinion that although spaces might be shortenend, the Commission was not desirous of amending the propose6 ordinance until the City had more experience in this type of facility. Commissioner Herbst noted that he had read the statistics on the number of recreational vehicles now being built and sold, particularly campers, and it was quite fantastic. Mr. Shelton noted that while driving to the meeting, he had counted 71 recrea- tional vehicles in three miles, and of that number, 6 were campers. Commissioner Herbst then stated he would agree with Mrs. Hightower's contention that the camFers or travel trailers were not paying a bed tax, which he felt was unjust because they, too, should be required t~ pay for the tax since spaces were being rented in the Commercial-Recreation Area. Therefore, the Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council that they consider establishing the bed tax on travel trailer parks as well as motels and hotels. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1262 to the meeting of October 4, 1971, in order that the petitioner might revise rZ~aa incorporating suggestions made by the Commission. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _.. k _-,. . .,.: - . _ „-., - -~ ~_--- --- _:.; ..:- _,. __,. , .-I. .~'._ _ __...~.. .. . , .. ~ . . . , . . . . r~ _ s.n E- - .._ ~ ~~ ~ ' _ ~ .~_ . ~~ ~ _. ~ ~ . ~ ~ , . r ~ .. . . . ^ ; ~J ' F' ;' ;s , ~.. .ke ~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1971 r;J 71-596 RECOMMENDAT20N TO - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the THE CITY COUNCIL City Council that consideration be given to imposing the 68 bed tax on trave~ trailer spaces as well as motels and hotels presently being assessed. Commicsioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 2267 - Travel trailer sales facility - Request for approval of revised plans - Property located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Midway Drive. 2oninq Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the ?lanning Commission revised plans for the development of the travel trailer sales facility proposed for the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Midway Drive, noting that at the last meeting it was staff's understanding that the Commission was going to permit two testing facilities to check out the sewer connections on the travel trailers; that it was also the Commission's intent to restrict the test facilities in such a manner that they could not be used for residential purposes; that information from the Building Division indicated they would recommend that these connections be in the form of dump stations rather than sewer hookup facilities; that it was also staff's under- standing that the Commissian intended to allow two such facilities while the petitioner was proposing prior to recess to have three, but had now changed his mind and proposed to have two, one located in the front of the wash area so that vehicles could drive in to be tested quickly, or in the case of someone picking up a vehicle for a last-minute checkup. Chairman Farano observed that it now appeared that the petitioner was going back to the original request of two dump stations - to which he was not opposed so long as the petitioner met the conditions that these would not be used for a public dump station but only for testinr~ purposes; that they would not advertise in the trailer book that these werE dump stations; and that these should only be for testing purposes. Mr. Paul Sostwick, 12801 Olive Street, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission and stated he would be the installer who would have to make this facility operate; that they did nat intend to use this as a public dumping station since there was one located on the adjacent trailer park property to the south where a drive-through area was located for both the outside public to us_, as well as overnight tenants; that the reason they wanted to move one of the dump stations near the driveway was because the sales vehicle was 40 feet in length and with a towing vehicle, this would be 50 feet long and if backed into the area, it could block other service ports, while that proposed would permit a pull up, test the vehicle, and they then could go around. Furthermore, they originally asked for three dump stations, which they still would like, but they could get along with one dump station outside and one inside. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the operation would still work if only two dump stations were permitted; whereupon Mr. Bostwick replied that they could, however, they were one of the best service companies in Southern California, and people came all the way from Canada because they did not have parts available or space, therefore, having the third dump station would allow them to permit these travelers to leave their vehicle for service to be picked up later - such as if a blowoLt occurred on the highway, the entire tank could be ripped open, and it might take several days to obtain the part to replace the torn item. Conmissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner was planning to service all vehicles or just those they were selling; whereupon Mr. Bostwick replied that they would only be servicinq the type they sold. Commissioner Herbst noted that statements made could have been interpreted that the petitioner was planninq to service all types of travel trailers; whereupon Mr. Bostwick stated they would only service the Highlander Trailer. '~,_ ' 4 ~ ~'~:5. ~ ~ • ,a ~ ~~ I -~ f ; ~,r _ ,. _ i ; ~ f t - I" ~ I ~ _ __- ~ _ , ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, September 8 1971 , 71-597 ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) Chairman Farano noted that he had had never see visited many trailer sales fa ciliti ,, n the number of dump was propos~,ng, and since there stations or hookups that the es and petitioner wer he could see no raason for having e so few Highlander Trailers thr on the road, number should be two dump stations ee stations; therefore, th e maximt~m in their resolution. as the Commission originally indicated ' Considerable discussion was then held by the Commis i d .;.,•~ ump stations that should be s on as to the number of _ Herbst offered a motion to a permitted, and at its conclusion, Commissioner `~'~~~: revised plans in order to meetrthe requirementstof1the BuildingtDivision, %~ Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Farano voted "no" and Commissioner Kaywood abstained. ITEM NO. 2 " °'; POLICY OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~' REGARDING CONTINUANCES. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED to establish the following policy: ' The Planning Commission may qrant one or more continuances for good ~' cause on zoning applications at the request of the a "•; may qrant two or more continuances at t.heir own requestiinnorderdto ,~ consider revised plans. Subsequent requests for continuances beyond , jz that time may result in the item being taken off the agenda and ~ readvertised at the applicant's expense. s~ ~_~ TEMPORARY ADJOURNEIENT - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to a work session at 7:00 P.M., September 15, 1971. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ~ The meeting adjourned at 6:30 P,M, '1 ,;~ Respectfully submitted, , '~ , ~ C~~~ ~~"'r~4J '- _.y:;~ ANN KREBS, Secretary f4 Anaheim City Planning Commission ,p. - . . .. ~ . . . ~ 1.- ~~k . , . - . . . ..... . I . ~. .. . ... .. ~ .. ~ . . . . `~ ~ . ' .~i . ~- ~•~~;~; '.'C> "~ ~ . s:: _ ~"'y;; : ... _ _ ,~1 .'~,~~ ~ ' . A ~i~" . . ~ . r . ~'t : - t - ? y~, Y ; .. JF';. : ~.~;- ?~ k