Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/11/15~ City Hall Anaheim, California November 15, 1971 ~ ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M, a _. be' . quorum ~ '~y `' ; r. 3'~~: a,. , : . ±.., , S!~j: I~ I:.i i~~ : _. ~, ,:.14! . : i : t t~ ing pr.esent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. - COMMISSYONERS: Allred, Gauer (who entered the Council Chamber at 2:09 P.M.), Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Geymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Rowland led ia the Pledge of Alle ALLEGIANCE Flag, giance to the APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTES of the November 1, 1971, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: Pq. 71-669, para. 4, line 23: delete the word "Ana" after "Orange". Pg. 71-670, para. 4, line 13: word should be "drafted". Pg. 71-672, para. 4, line 3: delete word "officials" and add "at large". Pg. 71-673, para. 6, line 2: add October 18, 1971, meeting. Pg. 71-673, para. 8, line 2: add July 12 and October 18, 1971, meetings. Pg. 71-676, para. 2, line 3: should read "opposition to it, provided it was a standard street." RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHiiRCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF NO. 70-71-56 LATTER DAY SAINTS, 10 South Main, Room 214, Salt Lake City, Utah, Owner; SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard, CONDITIONAL USE Suite W, Westminster, California, Agent; property desc~ibed PERMIT NO. 1244 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.4 acres having a frontage of approximately TENTATIVE MAP OF 245 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a TRACT NO. 7439 maximum depth of approximately 491 feet, and being located approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orange- wood Avenue. Pxoperty presently classified R-A, AGRS- CULTURAL, ZONE, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 47-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF (1~ MINIMUM LOT SI2E, ~Z) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE STREET FRONTAGE, AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: WM. J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite K, Westminster, Calif~rnia. ENGINEER: RAAB & BOYER ENGINEERING CON,PANY, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into 49 R-3 zoned lots. 71-694 ~.r^~i.~. ~'^~li*" ~^c _ . . . , ~ . ~ -. .. . . . . . ,. . ._ . ~ . . . .. . . .. . ~ . ` . ~~ ~ '""'°"".6."!~ ~~_ ::~4t 4-~: m5: F . .r ~ ~ . ',r ~ ' , ' `'wr~~ , . C _ 1 _ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-56., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1244, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7439 (~ontirnued) _ Subject petitions were continued from the June 14, July 12 and 26, August 23, and October 18, 1971, meetings to allow time for the petitioner to resolve the illegal lot split prob:i.~2m. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that a request had been received from the petitioners for additional time to resolve the illegal lot split problem which now appeared to be making headway, Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions •.;•;;:;,t,-~~" for Reclassification No. 70-71-56, Conditional Use Permit No. 1244, and ~ Tentative Map of Tract No. 7439 to the meeting of January 10, 1972, as 3',:_' '''';- ~ y~; requested by the petitioners. Comn~issioner Rowland seconded the motion. ,<,. MOTION CARRIED. (Commission Farano voting "no".) RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY AND LOUISE BOISSERANC, 7372 South :~ NO. 71-72-20 Dale Street, Buena Park, Califcr..^ia, Owners; JAMES E. ~` RODGERS, Westfield-Urban Company, 6151 West Century CONDITIONAL USE Boulevard, Suite 928, Los Angeles, California, Agent; PERMIT NO. 1277 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of ~~ land consisting of approximately 17.6 acres located at i'; TENTATIVE MAP OF the southeast corner of the Artesia Freeway and Dale Street TRACT NOS. 7657, and having frontages of approximately 1,300 feet on the ~ 7658, AND 7659 Artesia Freeway and 651 feet on Dale Street. Property ~..' presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND M-1, LIGHT ;.i~w I:QDUSTRIAL, ZORES. ^~r} REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED COND.ITIONAL USE: PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A 186-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM SITE AREA, (2) MINIMUM SITE WIDTH, (3) REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET, (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (5) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND (6) REQUIREMENT TO ENCLOSE STORAGE AREAS. '. ~ ti. ~ '.' ~~ ~~ ~:," '::~lt.' ,'. - ~ .~..~.~.i. 7~ ~ , TENTATIVE TRACT PROPOSALS: No. 7657 - 62 R-2 zoned lots; No. 7658 - 66 R-2 zoned lots; and No. 7659 - 61 R-2 2oned lots. Chairman Farano noted that there was a request before the Commission for ~ continuance of subject petitions and tracts and inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition to the proposal. Buena Park Director of Planning Taras Kozbur indicated his presence to present the City of Buena Park's position on the proposal. Chairman Farano noted that the petitionPr had requested a two-week continuance ' to try to resolve the opposition presented by the City of Buena Park, and that perhaps Buena Park's opposition might be changed if this could be resolved. Commissioner Allred noted that if the Commission were to request a new set of plans to meet both the City of Anaheim and City of Buena Park's requirements, then perhaps a two-week continuance would not be adequate. Chairman Farano then noted that if the Commission was of the opinion that the plans submitted with the petition should be analyzed, then the developer should j be present or be notified ahead of time, and that he should also advise the City when these plans could be submitted. , Commissioner Rowland inquired when the request for continuance~had been received; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the petitioner had called late Friday to state he was submitting a letter requesting a two-week continuance for the purpose of ineeting with representa- tives of the City of Buena Park. Therefore, he would attempt to contact the developer to determine if he would be present at this hearing. (See Page No. 71-722 ) _.__"_..__ .. . ._.. . ~ . .,,_... , . ~ - . . .. . .... .. . . . .. . . .. ~ ~ . . =: .. .. ., .~ :. ... .. . . .. . . ~'•~~ ,... . . . . ~ ~ '_. .. __ '".^y'.°+~' ~'.~'Y~"~' ' ~,~' ~~Z~][Ir"%`~p. ~:'~~1 V ' ~ ~ ~. R.~~aV a ~w'. , _ ~ .....~.~ ./ . ~ ~ . . i ~-_ ~ . / - . ~ .. . . I / ~ O MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 ~ 71-696 CONDIT_TONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. KOLL INCOME PROPF?T?ES, P, O. PERMIT NO. 1273 Box DK, Irvine, California, Owner; COLDW~~.;, k:~M,7~~R & CO. , P. O. Box 655, Santa Ana, California, ~:s}+~'~:• •~ "•.^?rting permission to OPEgp,TE A CLINIC FOR KSDi?:"'~? ;.;r.~~ :''".:;~, INCLUDING TREATMENT~ TRAINING~ RESEi9RCH AND DEVELOPMENT IDT Ci'i` ' ^.'1'. '/' BUILDING on property described as : A rectangularly-shapea ;: • Y~r..,I ,.? ;~.:,,;~d consisting of approximately 10 acres located at the northe,~~.. ~-.:;:::,:.~; af State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue and having apprc4i,~.:..z,>~ „:~.•7a.tages of 630 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 5§0 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, and further described as 2051 East Cerritos Avenue. Property presentZy classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the November 1, 1971, public hearing to allow time for a report to be presented by the Orange County Comprehensive Health Planning Council (OCCHPC). - + Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the Planning Commission was desirous of hearing Conditional Use Permit No. x273 since th,e information from the ;. OCCHPC had not been r.eceived, and a meeting would not be held until November 23, when information would be submitted that would be available for the next Plan- , ~ ning Commission meeting. ; Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that he would not like to hear the petition until said report was made available to the Commission because the City, in the past, had never taken action on a land use involving similar requests until this data was made available. Chairman Farano then noted for representatives of the petitianer that there ~ appeared to be some thoughts by the Commission that their decision should be = withheld until the added data from the OCCHPC was received, and then reviewed ~'~ the latest information submitted to the Planning Commission. .;t _ 4;:,'~y Mr. John Allen, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that subject petition had been continued from the last meeting for the same reason and inquired what the additional data con- .~",~ tained whicl~ was not read by Chairman Farano. 4~ ~~ Chairman Farano noted that there were about fifteen or twenty pages of detail.ed ~~ information regarding the proposal which could be read b the ~ .;`y Y petitioner later. ~'~' Commissioner Gauer noted that the report did indicate the number of hospitals '`;l~ that provided this type of service and facilities. ' '.r •.~3~ Mr. Allen then noted that they proposed out of hospital treatment, and it would ~ ~ . ~ :,:~ ! be the first of its kind in Orange County; that it was the intent of the `'~~ petitioner to operate the proposed facilit for rivate ~ Y P patients; that it was his understanding that the OCCHPC had jurisdiction if this facility wculd be :- receiving Medi-Cal funds, however, this would be a private use only, and no ~''' Medi-Cal funds were anticipated and requested that the Commission consider subject petition this date, with the petitioner stipulating it would be subject ~ to approval by the OCCHPC. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to open and operate regardless of the statements c.nat would be made by the OCCHPC. Mr. Allen replied that it was the intent of the petitioner to establish this facility and operate it in accordance with the requirements of the OCCHPC, except that it would be a private facility. :~:. Commissioner Gauer then inquired what wo+,1d happen if subject petition were approved by the Planning Commission and the OCCHPC did not give their approval; ~~;'^ : whereupon Mr. Allen replied that this would be the business risk the petitioner _ would take, and he was willing to take that risk. Furthermore, it was evident ~.• that the OCCHPC were somewhat concerned since they had set it for a hearing. Commissioner Rowland thern noted that the agent for the petitioner was request- = ing the Commission to ma'ke a land use decision without any plan or recommenda- tions from the OCCHPC, and even though the City Council granted the petitioner temporary approval to establish this, he did not feel he would care to vote on the propasal until sufficient data had been submitted by the OCCHPC because R. ' .~! ``,~ H ~ ^`~ ~..,i . ., . ~ ~~ , - . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ; x .- _ :. , i°5:_:~';. .. . . . . , . . ~ . . .. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - : ~ . . .. ~ . . . ~ . . ~ . . ~. .. . ~ . . ` ~ .'~ ~ I~ ~ . _.,.:.: J ~~ :..` - ; . f I ; ~ ~. H ...Y~. . ,~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, November 15, 1971 ~ ~ 71-697 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1273 (Continued) they were concerned with both quantity and qualiY.y in order that there would not be an insufficiency of trained nurses, etc., or to alleviate increase in costs for patients not requiring specialized treatment, such as was proposed. • Furthermore, the petitioner was within his legal rights to proceed without funding, which was his own business, but he personally wanted to hear the facts as presented by the Of:CHPC before he voted affirmatively on this pro- posal since he was not willing to take the risk of acting on the proposal. '"''~ Mr. Allen noted that the petitioner requested that the Commission consider ~.:,.Y:,:._, ' subject petition this date. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition ;_,• ~ for Conditional Use Permit No. 1273 to the meeting of November 29, 1971, to -+ allow time for the OCCHPC to submit their report. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion, stating that the Commission, as a lay body, did not have all the information that they needed, ~. Prior to voting on the motion, Chairman F3rano inquired as to what extent the oCCHPC had to qualify this other than Medi-Cal funds, and if that was the only reason, he would not be interested in their rQport since the petitioner was proposing to operate this facility as a private one, and from information presente~3 thus far, he could see no reason for not considering the petition. ~: Commissioner Seymour noted that the Planning Commission in the past had never t^ken action on similar types of requests unti~l after a report had been received from the OCCHPC. ~ On roll call the foregoing motion lost, Commissioners Allred, Kaywood, and ,:~ Rowland voting "aye" and Commissioners Herbst, Farano, Gauer, and Seymour ;~ voting "no". ~~ Chairman Farano then noted that this would be considered in its regularly "'j scheduled positisn on the agenda (See Page No. 71-711) ; `.t ;:'.i TENTATIVE MAP OF - D~VELOPER: WILLIAM LYON DEVELOPMEN`C COMPANY, INC., ~~!" „' TRACT N0. 4693, Shelter Division, 3163 Red Hill ,Avenue, Costa Mesa, 1`,-i~ REVISION h0. 3 Calx~ornia 92627. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, s; 2Z'2 Easg Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92803. - Prpperty located east of Kellogg Drive and southwest of ~`::` th~ Yorba Linda Freeway, consisting of approximately 7 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 39 R-2-5000 ` ; zoned lots. ~ Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract No. 7676. 1 "'~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, previous action establishing a resolution of intent to R-2-5000 -. -: zoning under Reclassification No. 68-69-32, the fact that the original Tract ~,; ;~ No. 4693 encompassed the entire 15 acre parcel, and that it had two time ~,:'; ': extensions, the last to expire December 3, 1971; that since two extensions *' of time is the maximum permitted by law, the revised tract was submitted encompassing a portion of the original tract map; that this proposal is +• 1 identical to that originally approved in 1968 except that it is now split !,; ;~ into two tract maps, but it would have no effect o~n the tract design or =;:'-~~: layout; and that the applicant had further indicated that a portion of the "_ street at the southeast end would be on State property, therefore, arranqe- „'.. • ment would have to be made with the State Division of Highways for the devel- ~^:, oper to acquire this property in order that full right-of-way would be pro- '' vided when the tract was developed. :~ Mr. Cal Queyrel, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission and reiterated statements made by staff, further noting that they had obtained an agreement with the Placentia School District on the 3edication of the < street; and that the school district further approved of the tract maps. R: ,~ ;• i 1 . _ ,. i ~, ;+,. .;..... ~. }~ ~x .: _ . ~~ . _ ~,_ , . ~ :. '_ . ~. _,, ~ ` '~~ ': ~ ~ ~ e ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November i5, 1971 71-698 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4693, REVISYON NO. 3(Continued) Commissioner Rowland o£fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Kaywood abstaining), to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4693, Revision No. 3, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4693, Revision No. 3, is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 68-69-32, now pending. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That drainage shall be discharged in a manner satisfactory to the City Enqineer. 6. That an agreement shall be reached between the developer and the Placentia School District concerning their respective responsi- bilities in the dedication and construction of Street "A". 7. That arrangements shall be made with the State Division of Highways to acquire sufficient right-of-way for the completion of the street at the southeast end of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4693, Revision No. 3. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: WILLIAM LYON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., TRACT N0. 7676 Shelter Division, 3163 Red Hill Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92627. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, consista.ng of approximately 8 acres and located east of Kellogg Drive an3 south of the Yorba Linda Freewap, is proposed for subdivision into 47 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract No. 4693, Revision No. 3. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7676, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Kaywood abstaining), subject to the following conditions: 1. That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7676 is granted sub- ject to the completion of Reclassification No. 68-69-32, now pending. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to Kellogg Drive shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 4. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 5. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the westerly property line separa- ting lot Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and Kellogg Drive, except that for corner lot No. 1, said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inches in t:~e required front yard setback. Reason- able landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be i~is~'~,..~"m';".'.~",'~..~~'' ~ . -" . . ~ . . - ~ a- . ~ ~ ~. - ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ . - •. 't ... ~.7'~' . ~ ~ .. _ ~ _ . _ .. . . . .~ . -- ~ . ~ . .. ,_ . , . . ~. _ . . _ . . ` . ~ . . . ~ _a . _ . 1 . ~ ~ ..,., ,~~ ,. . _ _ _ _ . : r : ~;. ~~ -- - _~ _ ~ _. ~ J , ~; „ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 ~~ TENTATIVE MAP OP TRACT NO. 7676 (Continued) ~ installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highwax parkway the full distance of said wall, ~lans for said land- scaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Dfaintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsi- bility for maintenance of said landscaping. 6. That all lots within this tract shall be served by undergroursd '~Y ~' utilities. 71-699 : 7. That drainage shall be discharged in a manner satisfactozy to ~ ~ the City Engineer. ;F'.~ `j "~' i 8. That an agreement shall be reached between the developer and the ='~ Placentia School District concerning their respective responsi- ~ bilities in the dedication and construction of Street "A". ~ 9. That Tentative Map of Tract No. 7676 shall be developed prior to the development of Tentati.ve Map of Tract No. 4693, Revision No. 3, ,;~; r' VARIANCE NO. 2298 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ~ ~RACE BAPTIST CHURCH, 2530 F,est _ i.a Palma AvenuQ, Anaheim, California, Owner; WYMAN 2ANDER, 6268 San Harco Circle, Buena Park, California, Agent; ~, requesting WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED USES, (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (3) MINIMUM LOT `! WIDTH, (4) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES~ AND (5) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT :~ TO PERMTT SUBDIVISION OF'AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AND CONSTRUCT'~ OF i CHURCH EXECUTIVE OFFICES on property described as: A rectangularly-sh.: ed ~ parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.2 acres, having a frontage of ~ approximately 180 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having : maximum depth of approximately 533 feet, and being located a of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, an,i further describedaas125306WesttLaast ~Y ~ Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. '~~ r :,,,,yy Subject petition was continued from the November 1, 1971, meeting to allow r~ time for the petitioner's attorney to meet with the City Attorney to draft ; acceptable documents in reference to the property being reverted to the ;~si petitioner if the church headquarters vacated the premises. )~ f?~ 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the attorney for F the petitioner had telephoned to advise he would be lace for the hearing. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to defer consideration of variance No. - 2298 to later in the meeting. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motior.. MOTION CARRIED. (See Page No. 71-709) ';~ -:-;a CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO - PERMIT N0. 1271 VENTURES, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM J. STARK, ANAHEIM HIZLS, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY CONSISTIP7G > OF A COMMERCIAL EQUESTRIAN CENTER AND VETERINARIAN FACILITIES on property t? described as: An irregularly-sha ed _ : mately 20 acres located in the Santa AnacCanyonlareacapproximatelya2~rmiles ;?; south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and spproximately h mile southwest of Walnut ~`''~~ Canyon Reservoir at the southerly terminus of Walnut Canyon Road. Proper.ty ~~ presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. i~.._`,' ` T~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October '8, 1971, to allow the petitioner time to formalize the plans and to draft a legal description ~~ ~ of the property. '~ .;. `;'~c '~ ,~ ., ~ ~ ~~! ~ ~~ c`) MIDJUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS£ION, November 15, 1971 71-700 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 (Continued) Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, reason for the continuance, and the proposal to establish an equestrian center, half c•f which would be in the City of Anaheim and the other half in the City of Orange; that the portion to be developed in Anaheim in- cluded an administration center and western shop, a show rinq and viewing stands, a barn~ walking rings, and parking for 58 vehicles; and that on the eastern end of the equestrian center, the plans also indicated a future veterinarian hospital with parking. Mr. DicDaniel then reviewed the evaluation of the proposal as set forth in the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the fact that at the present time the establishment of this proposal would not have an adverse effect on the surround- ing land uses, but the unknown factor was the proposed land uses in the vicinity of the equestrian center, and that while the veterinarian hospital would appear to be a logical use in conjunction with the equestrian center, there were no plans for the facility. Therefore, if the Planning Commission was of the opinion that the uses aere appropriate, it might be desirable to have plans for the veterinarian hospital approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Nelson Fry, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was their intent to develop an equestrian center in the area because it related tc :.neir equestrian estates; that they were proposing this not only for equestrian estates but it would relate to the entire ranch; that the facility could relate to the neighboring facilities, but it was their intent to make this a public facility and to make the finest facility in southern California; that in their elimination of the school site, it was not their intent to eliminate any of the total number of school sites; and that he was available to answer any questions as they related to the equestrian center itself. ' Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the proposed facility with three rings would be larger than the one at Diamond Bar; whereupon Mr. Fry noted this would be considerably larger since horse shows generally had one rinq, and the spectators had to wait between different types of horse displays, such as the English horses, the western horses, and the walking-cantering horse areas; that they proposed to have two different horse events simultan- eously while the third ring would be the work ring, and it would be covered with a canopy in the colors of Anaheim Hills; and that they planned to have 15,000 to 20,000 persons attend on special weekends. Chairman Farano noted this was quite impressive, but why didn't the petitioner submit more complete details for the entire facility rather than the rather sketchy plans or partial plans before the Commission; that no plans had been submitted for the veterinarian hospital - therefore, these should be presented to the Commission for consideration and approval. Mr. Fry then stipulated to submission of the veterin3ry hospital plans to the Planning Commission for approval and noted that the hospital would be sold to and operated by three Orange County veterinarians who would have to adhere to Anaheim Hills requirements. Mr. Fry, in response to a question by Commissioners Herbst and Kaywood, stated that over a three-day show, there would be up to 15,000 to 20,000 persons attending, not 15,000 to 20,000 persons per day; that there was a 6~a-acre parcel between the rings and the hospital that would provide an area for horse display and visitor parking; that the only thing they would not build would be the hospital, however, the plans for the hospital would have to meet their requirements; that the 58 parking spaces would take care of the daily parking requirements since this would be a working facility with the rings, stables, barns, and paddocks; that the animals would be hrought in vans for display when the horse shows were scheduled; that they planned the 6~ acres for additional unpaved, marked parking, keeping down any dust with a sprinkler truck, and this area would also be used as a work area when the rings were occupied. ~ ~ ~ ~%i' . \ C _a i j, ~/ ~.J i, ) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 71-701 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst inquired whether there was any provision in the conditians for a sprinkler system; whereupon Mr. Fry stated that these areas would be sprinkled with water trucks, similar to race tracks. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner felt the 6~a acres would ho1d.1,000 vehicles, and would the petitioner feel this was adequate space for both the 5,000 to 7,000 spectators as well as the trucks and vans that would be hauling the animals - would the excess vehicles have to park on the hills and streets? Dir. Fry replied that this 6~i-acre vacant portion, as well as extra space to the rear of the barns, and if necessary, ~arking could be provided on the Edison easement and at the commercial fac,ilities on the opposite side of the street; that they wanted all vehicles off the street so that traff9.c at the intersection could provide adequate traffic flow both to the proposed facility as well as to the homes; and that only at peak times would it bP capacity parking since only five to six shows per year were planned. Furthermore, they hoped to have three very fine trainers to take care of the barns. Commissioner Allred expressed concern as to what could be developed adjacent to thi~ proposed facility, even though the plans presented verbally appeared to be ideal, because this would be placed in tha center of single-family homes. Mr. Fry noted that this facility would be cut out of the hill, removing 600,000 yards of dirt, with the homes being located approximately 300 feet up the hill. Chairman Farano inquired whether this would turn into a dust bowl, subjecting ~,'j the residents of the homes adjacent to this facility to the dirt and dust from ; the proposed facility. However, he did not o .~ blacktopping the area, but the PPose the proposed deviation from and with over 15,000 visitors coming therea thislcould turnhintora~potentialem, ,,{ dust bowl. r ~ '~ Mr. Fry replied that the topography across the street had a very high mountain, j~ and there was no direct connection between the resi.dential area and the center. r ,~ Chairman Farano obsarved that :~ feet up, but if the winds cou1deb1owSSmokeeallmtheWwaydfrom1Azusaa there~waso c~ no reason why the wind could not blow dust into the residential area. t, c Mr. Fry replied that one of the basic dust control factors was the watering .~ down of the area, not only for the dust problem but also for flies, and they ~; would use every method known to keep the area in an immaculate condition since r they had no intention of leasing out this facility, and it would be their ~' manager's r•asponsibility to make this a show place. Furthermore, he had . visited many other similar facilities which appeared to have deteriorated and ': depreciated after the facilities were leased out, and they appeared to be ~ turning into a horse stable only; but that it was the responsibility of the c manager to maintain the facility in the best possible condition. :5 '_ Mr. Fry, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that the water trucks were used instead of installing sprinklers since it gave them '~i better control to water the areas that needed it and could not b got into e reached areas that by sprinklers to keep down the dust. ~'# :I ~i:. Cammissioner Kaywood then inquired as to the total number of parking spaces ; that would be available; whereupun Mr. Fry stated he would have to calculate `V the square footage along the rings and barns, and since they had almost 24 ~>~ acres proposed for this facility, most of the open ground would be available for parking when the shows were on, with only access to and from rings being ``'' kept open, these being areas that would be restricted from automobile parking. Commissioner Kaywood further inquired whether or not a special area was planned t for peeple to park thelr horse vans and how much space was being allocated• whereupon Mr. Fry replied that there were 3~ acres adjacent to the area where ,: horses would be washed 3own and blanketed just for parking of these vans. ~~', ' .kr ~ ~ 1 1 . `...~.a i -~ '.4~ ~ . . . . . . .. . . . . - . . . . . ~f~' . . . . ~ ~ ~ . .. ~1. . " = ; ~ ~ _ ~ . . . . . .. _ . - ~ _ ~ ' ' ~ .. : 1 S ". 's , , ~ ~ : ; . . , ~ Jr . _ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 -__------~_._._._..._ , `:~ 71-702 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1271 (Continued) Mr. Fry further noted that they did not worry about handlinq the crowd except when it became considerably larger, then they would open up the areas under the Edison easement since they owned this property also but could not build on it. Commissioner Kaywood then requeste3 further explanation regarding the veteri- narian hospital; whereipon Mr. Fry stated that he had been contacted by three _ veterinarians presently operating in Cerritos where they were being pushed out - one handling small animals and the other two handling large animals - who ,. ~- suggested that they incorporate the hospital and the equestrian facility and ~ had agreed to meet Anaheim Hills architectural requirements; and that he would ' be glad to present plans for this proposed facility when plans were available. ~ ~ Furthermore, he felt the hospital would be an asset to their facility as well :~ as to the people in the hills who had animals. ic.; f^, I~i ;: ; ~~;;:; `.fic ~ i . ~ Commissioner Herbst inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus what the capacity of Anaheim Hills Road was projected for - was it a main arterial or a residential street7 Mr. Titus replied that it was a secondary arterial, which could withstand ~n average daily traffic count of 16,000. Chairman Farano then inquired what would be the effect of the number of vehicles on a weekend - would this street be able to handle this increase in the number of vehicles? Mr. Horst Schor, engineez of the project, indicated they were projecting an ADT of 10,000. Mr. Titus then noted that if the de~elopers were projectiny 10,000, with the added number of vehicles the maximum capacity could almost be reached for this street. Commissioner Allred stated he would like to see not only the proposed project but also what was planned or proposed to surround the equestrian facility and up and down Anaheim Hills Road before he could consider this favorably. Mr. Fry then presented a map - the latest plans for the properties and then indicated what was projected through the area - noting that one of the things they had found was the topography and gp~>logy had made some very definite suggestions about what could be done; t;.at presently it was proposed to have the shopping center, the golf course, 1.he service road to the reservoir, traffic from Anaheim Hills Road, and they did not plan any more for the existing road; that they planned to break through the mountains for a com- bination of road and qrading plan where 3 million cubic yards of dirt would be removed at the peak of the road, which would be the equestrian center, and this focal point of 500 acres of equestrian estates provided open space leaving this as merely the basis from which to start and the start for the development along the high ridgelines for residential use only, wherein 1,000 acres were within its parameters; that approximately 1,000 acres would be associated with the equestrian show center; that they would not program this in phases but would build it entirely, even though only 500 acres were being opened up, but they wanted this to be one of the major amenities to tie in with the golf course, etc.; that they planned to open up Nohl Ranch Road from the west, and they had programmed Wier Canyon Road north to the Riverside Freeway, however, the Irvine Ranch people did not want Weir Canyon Road to go into their properties; that the property below one street would be eques- trian estates; that a grading plan had been presented to the City Council which would be considered later by the Planning Commission; that there would be commercial uses directly across from the equestrian cencer, and the elevation would be from 850 to 1,300 feet, and where a roadway could not be created, they would plan the road alonq-side the high mountain adjacent to the Edison easement; that there would be considerable open space, with at least ~ acre or more pads for this area - this would open up a whole new area. Commissioner Allred inquired as to the height of the area; whereupon Mr. Fry replied that this area was called Robber'r; Roost and was 1,300 feet high; that it would be maintained in its natural state, even the pads on which . ,,, . .., ~ , , . :. . . ~ . _ '' ; _ y ~ ~~ ~.:, ~r ~u~.,~ ..... ... ~ , ~-'- • . _. j r t _ ~.--~ _ - -- ~ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 CONDIT20NAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 (Continued) ^ •~~ 71-7Q3 , homes w>uld be built and on which custom builders would develop creative design homes which would go back to the foundation floor type, not the slab type homes, Commissioner Herbst noted that the Commission was concerned with providing some type of bufferinc adjacent to the com~ercial facilit stated that these equestrian estates would be very large padshofe4P7ngM7_16rY _ _ and 23 acre pads, and the reason for this was because of the statements made by the geologist because up on the ridgeline facing south the slopes were :y !;' ideal, but those facing on the north were not; and then in response to further questioning by Commissioner Herbst, stated that Anaheim Hills were only land ~ ! developers, and he did not know what would be built by Robert Grant, whether ;i'~ homes or condominiums in the area i geologist stated these were slide areasattheynwouldmhavebto cutathesehslide ~` areas until more solid ground was reached. Therefore, these areas could have comparatively flat ground. • ~ rommissioner Allred then inquired as to the distance between the veterinarian hospital and the first home; whereupon Mr. Schor replied that the hospital would be below the pad of the house because of the 2:1 slope. Commissioners Herbst and Allred continued discussion with the developer regard- 's ir.g the Zocation of the homes adjacent to the ro osed hos '~ P P pital, as well as Y, the fact that tlie developer was giving verbal statements, however, none of : this was set forth in the proposal which should have been presented to the Commission for their consideration in making a determination on the feasibility ' of the proposal. ; Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not it was planned to have a school in this general area since the original plans of Anaheim Hills projected a i school for this area; whereupon Mr. Fry replied that development of a school ^j at this loca±i~n was not feasible unless the school was placed on flat pads. ,, However, Mr. Stark was discussing school sites with the Orange Unified School M1~ District, therefore, he was not thoroughly familiar with the schrol plans. , Commissioner Kaywood noted that when the Anaheim Hills General Plan was i ,~ presented, there was a papier-mache dis la t~ elevations of the plan and with a 4,200pacrePsitenfor thecdevndicated all the ' ,~ these requests in a piecemeal fashion was not ideal since mostlofeittwasrnotnt ;i what the Commission intended when the Plan was recommended for a ;; pproval. :~ Chairman Farano noted that since this was a general plan concept that was - presented and which was now being presented out in bits and pieces, perhaps the ~ land developer should do the plan over again now that they had discovered all of these problems. ;.r Mr. Fry replied that one of the problems they encountered in the report was ~ the fact that they did not understand what a number of lines meant on the ,.x report made by the engineers-land planners. Therefore, when they did a ~ 's ~': geology report on this, they had originally projected 15,000 homes. ~ Chairman Farano noted that perhaps the people who did the report did not know ;' what the lines meant, but the Commission had a ' good idea of what they meant - now someone has awakened and found this was not realistic, and in all fairness to the City residents, the Planning Commission should know what was really being offered. If the developer had found out the realistic attitude and . ~ possibilities, why not do a plan over and tell the Commission and City Council + r what was now being planned. ~ ,;,^ ~ Mr. Fry replied that the reason they had gone to the southerly portion of the ranch was because there were no sewers, water, streets, etc., northerly, but with the golf course facility being available next September, they now planned ; to build these equestrian estates back down the street. t Mr. Fry, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood re~arding what was proposed to be developed east of the golf course, stated that they would have ~.:` to look over the property thoroughly first before any detail plans could be ~`: presented. ,..,~t ( ~ ;:: -- .,..... , ;:, -= - ,. ~. - .. .. . ; _ .. .. ~s :., : ~ ~ -. ~ . : ~ . _" _ i ., i ' ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERN!IT NO 1271 (Continued) 71-704 Mr. Fry then noted that in the area surrounding the equestrian facility they had proposed 1,200 homes in the original report, but after having walked over the area it was now determined that only about 238 homes could be built, and the only way the 1,200 homes could be developed would be to cut the entire mountain down to grade in order to place this number of homes in the area. Commissioner Herbst stated he recognized that Anaheim Hills would be develop- ing most of this for residential purposes, but how would they feel this equestrian proposal would help development of this area. ~~ Mr. Fry replied that this would bring in an affluent type of people; with all ;~!.~ these amenities it would bring in a better type of person - people interested ~`` in boating, horseback ridin , fishin 4 g, etc., would be going to this area; and _ that they hoped to have a connecting link between the Santiago hiking and riding trails to their facility. Comr~issioner Herbst observed that he would concur this would be a very nice ~` facility, but it would still be considered a commercial facility; whereupon Mr. Fry stated that people using the facility could be living in the condo- miniums or homes in this area. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not object to people living in the area ,~;~, using the facility, but it would appear that this would be bringing people _ from the outside into this residential area; whereupon Mr. Fry stated that the golf course would also bring people in from outside. ?':, '' Cammissioner Herbst stated that the golf course, in the main, would be used ,;;; by residents of Anaheim, and he did not feel there was rhat much interest in horses in the City of Anaheim to warrant this type of facility unless the petitioner was contemplating drawing most of the business from the outside. ~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not Anaheim Hills had given up on ;;; ; the original plan of lakes; whereupon Mr. Fry replied that the found after ~ the geolo ' y ~ gist s report, it would cost several million dollars to remove _ti alluvial material, and after the cost in the reports reached three million ~'•~~?~ dollars, they determined it would not be feasible since it would be more ;~ trouble in developing some the lakes originally proposed because of the ,.,ti composition of the dirt, but they still planned to have a lake north of the '~ existing reservoir, but they were still two or three years away from consider- .~ ing this. In addition, they had received a number of requests from various ,.A schools and churches who wanted to develop a cultural center - they also ,,;:;~ wanted the Citp''s regional library for an area indicated on the map. . .,,~ 'rt ~t:<; : y~~ ',:'6~7 '!'t ~ ~^ ,1 ~~'~ , ~'~', ~ ~ <~.I :~ ~ ' ~ i :, ' . Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts in3uired of M.;. Fry whether or not Anaheim Hills had taken into consideration the equestrian subdivision recently approved east of subject property and its relationship to this proposal; whereupon Mr. Fry zeplied that there would be a 15-foot auxiliary road to the south, and the main entry to the equestrian estates would be in a given area indicated on the mtip on display; and that the reason this tract was submitted first was because it would be adjacent to a Lract being developed in the City of Orange - therefore, they could establish a street pattern. Furthermore, they would be coming in again very shortly to file a plan for the ridgeline road, which was called Robber's Roost Road. Mr. Roberts indicated this partially answered his question, but would the horse trails be adjacent to the streets not running through undeveloped areas; whereupon Mr. Fry replied that there was a 760-foot Edison easement running ~ for approximately S~S miles through the ranch on which they held the title, which could be opened up for riding since it could not be devel.oped for any- thing except ridinq trails and parking. ~ Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson inquired whether or not any provision was being made for hiking and riding trails on the arterial highways; whereupon Mr. Fry replied that they had been trying, and unsuccess- fully, to get the County to maintain the trails but had received no answer. However, they were programming either the Anaheim or Orange side for a riding trail which would lead to the equestrian center, as well as making it avail- able through to the Edison easement. 'L~'~1.'~~":,.''-'.*AFi++.~^• . . .~ ~ .. , _ . ... .' . , . . ~~, ~• _ :. - ~~ :z~ _ . _ ~ ~ ' ~ . . ~ ~ ~.. . ^ ~ . '' , . ~ . . . .. . _ ~ . ~ . . ~ . " ~ . ' :, i . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 127Z (Continued) ~ 71-705 _.;.;:i..; Mr. Thompson inquired whether or not these trails would be on private property and would they connect with the Santiago hiking and riding trails; whereupon Mr. Fry stated they had b~en working with Mr. Sampson of the County to get the trail down the Santa Ana River, and that there were trails on the ridge bottoms where they were trying to connect Santa Ana Canyon and the Santiago hiking and riding trails, but the State Rec.l Estate Commissioner was requiring them to have the proper authority on maintenance of the facility. Furthermore, it •-~ was hoped the engineering report would include the equestrian riding trails, I~"`"~"``" and this was also the reason why tne equestrian estates tract was located t~~~' 3,000 feet away, because they wanted them to be on a common street to standard- ~~~,~;-,; ize exiting from the area. ~ ;;~" No one appeared in onposition. =~; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred stated his only concern was whether or not this was a good ~; land use in the middle of residential uses since it could be considered "spot zoning". ; Commissioner Herbst noted that he could see a need for a faciiity of this type, `~~ but he questioned the feasibility since this use would generate considerable ;` traffic even only four, five, or six times a year; that it did not represent the intent of the Commission for the area, nor was it what was originally proposed in the Anaheim Hills General Plan - if the center were proposed , -~ nearer Santa Ana Canyon Road, this would be different since the heavy traffic ~'`+ would not be going through a residential area, but he did not feel it should ~ be considered for the center of the ranch. ~~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Mr. Titus whether, in his opinion, the ~ street proposed for this area would be capable of handling a1:L the projected ~~ vehicles and people suggested by the petitioner. ; ; ,:; r,?~`,, ~ ; ~( Mr. Titus replied that the road would be able to handle the situation as i ~~1 proposed; however, the Commission must consider that eventually there would ?. 1 be other access points other than Anaheim Hills Road. ~ ~' ?~ . Commissioner Rowland noted there would be Weir Canyon Road as well as another ~ Ik. ~ road from the southwest which would give three access points to the area. rr `~i ~; ~ Commissioner Seymour then observed that from statements made by Mr. Titus, ! ,,~_~;~; •;-a access would not be a problem. t- `{ ; r~ Mr. Titus then stated that it would not be a problem at ultimate development. ~ ~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the horses and bicycle riders `~ would be riding on the roads with the automobiles - wouldn't this be a traffic ''~ problem? Whereupon Mr. Titus replied that the street standards were under `°:# study, but as set forth, there would be a horse trail adjacent to the road as ,%~ part of the right-of-way which they were still studying; that Mr. Fry had indicated they were attempting to get a trail along Nohl Ranch Road, but the _ details had to be worked out; and that the horse and bicycle riders would not •i be in the street travelway. - Commissioner Kaywood noted this could create a problem, if both automobiles and horses were on Anaheim Hills Road. ~:: ~:: : cc ~;,:.: Mr. Titus stated that it would create a problem, therefore, another area would have to be set aside for horse riding. ~" ;:{ Commissioner Herbst then observed that perhaps Mr. Titus felt the roads would be adequate, but he could not favor permitting this type of traffic being generated into a residential area. ~.j . Mr. Titus noted that the street was desi gnated as a secondary, which had a capacity of 16,000 vehicles per day, and as Mr. Schor had indicated, 10,000 ~`~ to 12,000 vehicles per day was projected, with the added 5,000 people per day ~*' on show weekends, projecting approximately 2,000 vehicles, or 14,000, this ~~.:;. would be approaching the upper limits, but from figures they now had, the ;, ~ 'i ; ;_ ; ~ - ~.: ,, - _ .. ,,:: ...~; . . ._ , ~ . - - ~ _. ;. ~:,.1-;~'°~, . . ' . ~a~:.: a . ~n ~ . . _ . . . . . . f / ~ ~.~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 (Continued) ~~ 71-706 road would be able to handle this, and there was no indication this would ga over capacity, Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion this facility would be brin in traffic into the residential area, to which he was o 9~ g outside Chairman Farano . PPosed. noted his objections were to the parkin stated from the beginning, and he did not realize the veterinarian hospital which would have to have g aspects, which he had y were proposing a parking that was prcposed verball Parking areas also the Commission would review, howeverould have to be . and any it would a Presented as a plan which 1,000 vehicles on subject property, and with a crowdrofh5r000aeachlday~on for special weekends, together with all the trailers or trucks brin-in there would be an immediate overflow of vehicles, and he did not know where they would park J g~~ horses, - in front of the equestrian estates? Furthermore there were too many suppositions on which this plan was petitioner had not disclosed to the Commission ~~verall asking staff of these ideas and thoughts and methods b Pr~Posed that the prior to the hearing, and in operated, nothing was ~lisclosed. Therefore Y which this was to be to look at this with any serious thought and possibl , the Commission had not Iiad time y add any additional conditions, since he did not know of any conditions that should be imposed that would be applicable, but some conditions should be required to make absolutely certain that it would be distinctive and desirous to the surround- ing property since there were too many uncertainties Commission had not inquired about ~ many of which the tion had made up their minds on the variousnfacetsHogls or the Grant would appear that Corpora- the Commission couldtbe fairllyadeveloped plan this operation, but it could not see how the Commission could consider thisgrammed in a fashion that Y Ppraised about on what their use would be, he proposal could not be changed - when the Anaheim Hills GeneraldPlan wasn the he had an idea of what was because too much had been channedto happen, but he had lost that conceptPr~Posed, presented to the bits and pieces which hadcbeen not focus the explanation Therefore, he did not know now what was reall Presented b until such time as the Plannin Y Planned for thise developer. everyone had a firm g ~~mmission and Cit pr~Perty, and grasp of the proposal Y Council, staff, and some deviation - further consider 5enerally - of course thing the Grant ation should not be ~ subject to call Corporation should do is to resolve whateWasand the first y, make up a new plan, and then come back to the Plannin Planned realisti- an overall plan, although he did not expect them to work miracles since he realized they must work within an economic reality because everymstoneotheyth had turned, they had come up with more problems, and a ti'ay the entire development would be handled with all these perhaps they could find Commissioner Allred noted that if the developer could brin aProblems solved. af what was proposed so that he could visualize these willing to go alon 4 topography map changes, but in th~swshorthe idea - and he recognized thereewouldebelmanybe he felt the Anaheim Hill period of time there had been back with somethin and Canyon General Plan representatives shouldsco~et 4 ~ore concrete. Chairman Farano inquired of Mr. Fry whether all the statements made any sense to him - that the Anaheim Hills and Grant Corporation should realistic facts, present more ,:~.~ Mr• FrY replied that he could not argue with the Commission tion wouln be that if he could take the Comm.isa showin . but his explana- ;, g the property as he,saw it as ion and drive on Anaheim Hills whose name was topo ra h a mark•eting manager, with a " 9 P Y, he coul~d show the Commission from whereutheyawere standing and relate it to the golf.course ]ury and how it would relate to the plan - then the equestrian satisfied. perhaps the Commission wouldabe~ Commissioner Gauer reviewed the manner in which Diamond Bar , their golf course first, the schools , and later the homes Ranch started with Commission should not expect to see this . and stated that the if this was a good development, they wouldrsellahomesel~P as one entit suffer by not sellin - otherwise, they wouldse q homes. * ^: `; ~~.A.~,....~..r . «.~. t ~ c il ~ . '~~ C . . C 1 . ,~%'= R ,.~ ~ ~ . . ,;,~ _:. , .:. _ „ ~, ~~ r ,., ;. ~ i ~ < .:; ~"s rV !.= . i, f , ~ ~ ,;~ • v~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSICIN, November 15, 1971 71-707 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 (Continuedj Mr. Fry noted that the home across the stree,t from the horse stable in Diamond Bar was a $285,000 home. Commissioner Gauer continued by stating he could not see how - and he was not speaking in favor of the developer - the Commission could expect a developer to take one piece of property with economics changing and develop the property to please everybody. Commissioner Allred stated that since this was under one ownership at the pr~sent time, if they could now present the truer figures as to density and how it related to their various commercial ventures, he would not be opposed to the proposal. Comcaissioner Gauer noted that Anaheim Hills had no intention of building this facii.ity - all they were doing was subdividing land. Mr. Fry noted that he had worked many years during the time Rancho Bernardo was being developed, which had a fine master plan when it started, but it was effective only for or_z or twc years, but it was hoped the Commission would not take away~ the flexibility tool from Anaheim Hills - one of the most important tools needed in development of the property; that Rancho Bernardo had located their equestrian center across the street from $60,000 homes and Rancho Santa Fe near Oceanside had a$650;000 program with $50,000 to $85,000 homes across the street from their equestrian center - these were all horse- oriented people -this was the type of person they were trying to interest and encourage. If custom builders of $35,000 to $100,000 homes aere interested 1 in developznq this property, this was what they planned to develop, and it was '{ also the reason for the need of flexibilit ~ in small portions to the Commission, y~ and they would continue to bring ~ ~ Chairman Farano noted it was not his intent to take away the flexibility tool, nor did he feel this would develop all at one time, but it was no secret that the developer had found conditions that he did not know of, nor were these wanted therdeveloperftotbrinq theseWSUrprisesaondaWgeneralSbasislem - he just Mr. Fry noted that they were developing more tracts as the P1 ~ that they knew they would have land on which they could buildanhowevertethis I was a one and one-half to two year program, and the geologist was working ahead ~ of their plan so that they would be able to tell where and what densities were I permitted; however, they could not pr.ogram anything until they knew that a ~ piece of ground could be built upon; that this was the first time under the present plan that the geologist told them that the green areas represented slide 1 areas, they did not know how much of the land had to be removed to make the area safe to build homes. Commissioner Gauer observed that the City of Anaheim had experienced that problem with the reservoir. Mr. Fry, in response to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated that in the area to the south of the equestrian center it was originally planned to develop i 1,200 homes, however, after the geologist's test, they now planned only 238 homes, and that the value of the homes would be in the vicinity of $100,000. Commissioner Seymour observed that one of the key factors of Anaheim Hills - and he was one of the first to concur that it had been jousted from side to side - that with the many changes occurring in the hills, if the Commission had an opportunity to maintain the environment by decreasing the density from 1,200 to 238 houses, he was interestea in moving in that direction; that this would be the high-class develogment of Anaheim, and if it took an equestrian center to spur a development of this type and with the assurances by the City Engineer's representative that the streets would handle this type of traffic, he could not see delaying this proposal - 238 units covering one-fourth of the land was a considerable drop. Mr. Fry advised Commissioner Seymour that the 238 units would be covering 470 ,; acres not 1,000 acres; however, within those 470 acres they would remove only 927,000 cubic yards of dirt, while in an area northwest, containing only 126 ~~ acres, they removed almost 2,000,000,~ cubic yards of d:rt. .~! -. ~ iV.'~. - ."f . ~ , .. .. " ......... .. . ~ .. . .. . .. . .~ . '-" . . . . ~ - .: - (' ,~ _ .. .. _ . ' . ' . ~ . ' ^ ~ . fw::,~ ~ ~ t Y.~~+~wyrry ." ^ J ti C~ r ~ I ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, November 15, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 (Continued) i:_j 71-70A Commissioner Herbst stated he difi r.ot want the Commission to be fooled as to density - maybe they had taken the 470 acres and developed only 238 homes, but if one looked at the peak area on the displayed map, the density was a differ- ent story - how much was the City giving up for this small decrease in density; that Mr. Fry had indicated the Edison easement wuuld provide needed parking for overflow of their regular facilities, therefore, the Commission shoula require something other than a verbal agreement - it should be a condition of approval. Chairman Farano requested that the representative stipulate to telling the Commission what was planned to be done to meet the additional parking needs. Commissioner Seymour, in reviewing the recommended conditions, stated that he did not care to see a"sea of asphalt" of 6~ acres and would prefer only the area where continuous parking was proposed to be asphalted and wheel stop~ provided. However, he, too, wanted more than verbal assurance that the aSdi- tional parking would be directed toward the Edison easement and special pro- visions made or plans submitted indicating the manner in which this would be handled. Mr. Fry stated he would so stipulate since there was no other physical use for the easement than par~cing and riders. Furthermore, the 900,000 cubic yards of dirt removed in the 470-acre portion was primarily for streets, and every pad was propsed to be left as is - maybe there would not be any lakes, but they were now proposing horses. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether the Commission or staff knew of other equestrian locations that had been affected detrimentally as to property values but received no response. Commissioner Herbst stated he was more concerned with the traffic pattern since there was 3~i miles from Santa Ana Canyon Road along Anaheim Hills Road to this facility, and all of this traffic would have to go through residential streets to get to the facility, said street having to handle near capacity traffic during the five or six times a year these shoas would be held. Commissioner Gauer noted that the City of Anaheim had been faced with similar traffic problems at the stadium, convention center, etc., and if this center were developed first, the people wanting to purchase homes there would know what to expect. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-221 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1271, subject to conditions ar.d the stipulation and condition that the development plans for j the veterinarian hospital be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; that parking plans be submitted indicating the location of said parking areas, both within the subject property ~ as well as beneath the Edison easement; that the petitioner had stipulated to I providing curbs and wheel stops in the parking area proposed for the 58 v~ehicles;~ this approval being based on the fact that the petitioner had stated that in the area of 470 acres formerly projected for 1,200 homes, was now proposed for only 238 homes, and removal of earth would be considerably less than if the original 1,200 homes were developed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano,.Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herb'st. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Herbst, in voting "no", stated it was his opinion the Commission was "putting the cart before the horse" because the pink area indicated on the revised map would be very heavy density with many acres being leveled, and that the Commission was fully aware of the ground leveling that was taking place in Anaheim Hills and only because the developer could not develop the 470 acres with the density proposed, he really was not giving anything up - he could not develop it in the first place, and that the proposal was a commercial use on a large scale, which would generate more traffic through a street pro- posed for residential uses. ~ ~ . , ~ ~~ ~ f ` ~* i ^ ,_ .: ... , . , , ~ ... , - _: , ~ _ ~ - i ` : _ ~ .r : : ,~`:: ~ ; _ , ~ ~ ,~ ~ `'~ MINUTES, C~TY PLANN~NG COMMiSSrON, November 15, 1971 71-709 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer observed that with the additional roads proposed, such as ~ Wier Canyon Road, this would alleviate Anaheim Hills Road from such intense ~ traffic, however, he would su ggest that the road be developed as soon as possible. Chairman Farano stated he wanted Wi.er Canyon Road to be designated as an arterial from the City of Orange through to the Riverside Freeway. • 7;;.- ~ RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute recess to allow ~ '>' ~r the developers time to remove their displays. The - meeting recessed at 4:10 P.M. • 'r I ;e RECONVENE _ Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:24 P.M., '- :~ all Commissioners beinq present. i. ~ VARIANCE N0. 2298 (Continued) 1. ~; Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ~ ~ property, uses established in close and the Proximity, the reason for,thegcontinuance, ~' proposal as set forth in the Report to the Commission to ether with ~. ' ~' the fact that the City Attorney's Office had met with the applicant's attorney ;": and both had concluded that it would appear a satisfactory document could be "~~ prepared by the applicant. Therefore, if sub'ect }` Planning Commission might wish to improse a conditionlrequiring that~the~ the ~ t; applicant submit an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney wherein the ~~ church and the Southern California Baptist Association agree that if the ~ Southern California Baptist Association (SCBA) moved from this site, the owner- ~ ~. , ship of the property and the building would revert to the church. ~ ' Mr. Richard J. Evans, 201 West F Street, Ontario, appeared before the Commis- ;, sion to represent the church and exglained the proposed document. l :f ~ Chairman Farano noted that since a full ~ ~r 'y last public hearin Pres_ntation had ~een made at the +F 4, in the interest of expediency, he would request that ~ this evidence not be presented again, and then inquired of Deputy City Attorney "`~ Frank Lowry how the p g Fr .r:~ 9 pro osed a reement would work in the event the property was ;~ n~ lon er used as an office building for the church association. ; .;~ Y ~~~, Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that it would take the form that was originally r~~', contemplated, a;d Mr. Evans had worked with the City Attorney's Office with a : ,, qreat deal cif cooperation; and that it was the opinion of the City Attorney's ~ _~ Office that a document could be drawn up with fee title recorded and said title ~ " ~` reverting to the church at such time as the association no longer would be I ~,:.~ operating or using the premises. 4` # Chairman Farano noted th'at so long as the City Attorney was satisfied with the h proposed 'agreement, and if Mr. Evans was willing to accept said condition, then ~: he would entertain a motion by the Commission. "~ Mr. Evans noted he had discussed this proposal with representatives of the Conservative Bavtist Association, and they were in agreement with the rough draft of the proposed deed, which would be a fee simple that would state that ; in the event the association no longer used the building as an executive office, t it would revert to the granting church; that they also had proposed a rough f- draft of parkinq agreements between the association and the church, which would u give the association six additional parking spaces off their property and on !° the church property, thereby meeting Code requirements. y~ ~"" Chairman Farano then inquired whether Mr. Evans' client would be willing to stipulate to the condition of reversion of fee title to the church and pro- visior. of parking. t Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not this would eliminate waiver "d" of the Report to the Commission. ~ Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that this waiver was still appropriate since ~~ this would be a waiver approved, however q ~c • but would be adjacent to the site; thereforerkthe finding~shouldnremaaname site . i ..l..' , k °_~, .. , - ~ ~~ ~. ~i,,,, t ti . - . . ~ . ~ :r~~~. r , y . ~ ~ -~ ~ . _ . . ~ .. i '~ . . J: ., . . . ~ _ _' _ __ ' __ "_ ~. ' _ ' _ __. __ `~ . ..._ . _ _ . '__ . . . . "~' ~ _ _. . ~ ' . 1 ~r l .~ ~ ~._ ~.. . ... . . ~.o:.""or~° ~ r ,,~ ; ~ . '. . ~ ~ . . . . . .... .... :~I'. ~ ~ `r~ ~ti • ~l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2298 (Continued) 71-710 :{ '`'"~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not this would be setting a precedent ~? by allowing the proposed use. Mr. Lowry noted that in the past, in apartment developments, similer agreements as to parkinq requirements had been approved by the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Seymour, in answer to Commissioner Kaywood's question, stated it ,;.;~.~;~ was his opinion this would create a precedent with a church and an office ' building on an R-A parcel. 4~i..:,:~.:'.. "1. ~;.~: . ~~- Chairman Farano noted that this would be a commercial use proposed in a resi- i~:.+ dentially planned area as indicated on the General Plan. - " Commissioner Kaywood noted that the Commission had recently recommended ' approval c~ R-3 zoning immediately to the east of the church. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1; Mr. Lowry, in response to the question raised by the Commission regarding the setting of a precedent, stated that it was the City Attorney's opinion that any zoninq action or use within Title 18 permitted on a parcel of property did ;. ` not set a precedent for similar requests adjacent to this property. a' `'''b`. Commissioner Herbst noted it was his understanding that the building was pro- " posed to be designed in such a manner that if the building reverted to the ~.~~ church, it would be available to be used as part of the church. . :i~ Mr. Evans advised the Commission that it could be used for church offices and -~ Sunday school facilitles if it were proposed to be used for other than the office of the Conservative Baptist Church since the association could not even c.,.i use it for other purposes, and if the association vacated and leased the office .,a~,~ space, the fee title would revert to the church again. .~ ~I Mr. Evans then indicated he had a dra£t of the proposed agreement as it per- ~~ tained to fee title and parking. ~~~: --y i' ~ Chairman Farano noted that he would rely on the City Attorney to determine ,;; ~"_'"; ~i~;j whether or not these were properly documented. A}., .~`5 ~. ~~:• ~Y r Commissioner xerbst offered a motion to approve Petition for Variance No. ~;--'•Y; 2298, subject to conditions and the st~pulation that the building would be designed in such a manner that if or when the building were turned back to the :~;~:-~ church it would be acceptable for church service uses; that under normal con- '-` ditions this type of struc*.ure would not be approved for office purposes, but j =' since it could be used in the future, then the special document as to this -'~ agreement of reversion to the church that the property was no longer being ;.R,i used for executive offices or headquarters for i:he Conservative Baptist Church ~=;~Y; Association be approved by the City Attorney. ":i Prior to roll call, Commissioner Rowland noted that even though this church had been allowed, he would not vote in favor of this because he had not seen any of the requirements for a variance substantiated, thus no hardship was proven; that it would establish a very unique precedent or set of circumstances for other facilitie~ to apply for a similar variance, and this could go on and - on and would perpetuate such requests and invalidate the requirement that a hardship must be proven when requesting a variance. t,`,:., : petitioner had shown no hardship and other - ` Commissioner Allred noted that the ' ~ land could be picked up without approving five waivers; therefore, he would ~: agree that this would be establishing a precedent and creating spot zoning, and as a Commission they would not allow this if it was built by the church itself and leased to someone for office space. ~ Commissioner Seymour noted that a church was a church, and if they came in, then the Commission in all likelihood would approve the request. However, what the Commission was interested in was the deediny of the property back to the church in the event the church headquarters no longer occupied the office ~" building. ~.~ .; ;, ' ,I `:~ i<`t, ~.«. . ~ .. ~~. _ _ ~;fi _ ., . y , _ .. ,y . _. ... .._. _ _ . '~ , . - .l._ ^ ~ '.~ :, ~. ~rt '•~~„~.,-. ; . ~ I ' . , . :. ; ... -- i. ~ ~T1 b. ,~ ~ MINUTES, C=Ty pLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 71-711 VARIANCE NO. 229g (Continued) Commissioner Seymour then stated he concurred with some of the statements made by Commis~ioners Rowland and Allred, but what the Commission had to consider was what they, the SCBA, was trying to accomplish - an attempt at ownership of the property rather than leasing seace from the church, and in his mind the question.was one of ownership versus leasing space - so long as it was tied into buying back the property agreement, there was no difference than if the church would be adding to their own facility and subleasing to another church. Therefore, it woui~ revert to the church, but there should be additional find- ings that this office was to be used for a church business office and there would be no off-the-street business traffic; that no other business would be conducted except the church business, and this was not a normal commercial ooperation in the normal business sense. Furthermore, the petitioner stipulated to all of these findings. ,':~ On roll call the foregoing motion lost by-the following vote: ~ ` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Seymour. ;<; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Kaywood, Rowland. 1' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. - ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 'Gaue7C. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-220 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2298 on the basis that the petitioner had no~ proven a hardshig existed; that this would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests from other facilities; and that this would perpetuate requests and invalidate the requirement that a hardship must be proven when requesting a variance. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO:IMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano NOES: COMMISSIpNERS: Herbst, Seymour.Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN; COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. ~1t M ~. ~f.'! - ' ~..-. r :,~ ,~ ,. 4:"~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1273 (Continued) Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in clo~e proximity, reason for the continuance from the November 1 meet.j^4~d the proposal by the petitioner to establish a hemo-dialysis center, including a tra~ning program for patients in the use of the dialysis equipment, the applicant indicating that he would be using approximately 5,000 square feet of a total 145,000 square feet in the multiple- unit industrial building; that the clinic would nut be expanded beyond the confines of the building; and that the use was considered to be clean, indoors, and was compatible with other tenants in the center. Mr. Raymond Madsen, attorney for the petitioner, 620 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission and noted that he recognized the Commission's concern with the proposed use; that he had been a member of the Brea Planning Commission, and he wanted to point out some of the concerns Commissioner Rowland indicated in order to put it in the perspective which it should be viewed; that when one talked about a conditianal use permit, one was looking at a use within a zone generally permitted but of sufficient concern to the community at large; that conditions and provisions could be placed on the use for the safety, welfare, etc., of the community, and they wanted to recognize this with the proposed application; that another item of concern was a letter to the Commission from the OCCHPC which was in response to the staff's provision to advise them because it did involve a health facility which the Commission was set up to review as it pertained to the health facilities of the County; that this committee originally stemmed from a federal operati.on - HEW - but had now evolved into its present name, and its primary concern was the proposed planning regulations of institutions engaged with activity of medical functions; that he had talked with Richard Basse, a member of. this council, to get an idea of the intent and concern of this council, who advised ; him it was to collect all the data on facilities in the area and try to develop i a~broadlobjectivecathatctheylwerenanradvisoryecommitteeewhich1did not requires ~ . .. ~ ~~ . _ . ~ . ~. _ -. .. .. _ . _ .. . . • ~ ~. . ~i .. . ~ ~ _ . ~ G ' , ~~ ... .. _'....~.: ~ s ~ - ~ '- _ ..Y ~. ..,' .,~.~ ~`. 1 . i f ~ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 71-712 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1273 (Continued) their approval, but it was desirable, and one of the primary concerns that there was a need for this type of facility and a need in the immediate area, and with good hospital planning to locate at this particular location. In view of all this, he would like to remind the Commission that this was the only facility of its type in Orange Caunty - it was a medical facility for out- of-hospital chronic dialysis, handicapped persons; that presently it was necessary to obtain this type of treatment in the hospital, taking up bed space, and this was very expensive; that he had just participated in a fund raising campaign to purchase one of these machines costing in the vicinity of $75,000; that the proposed facility would provide out-of-hospital treatment and from the health, welfare, and safety standpoint of the community, a requirament of the conditional use permit which he would urge the Commission to consider, that conditions should be imposed if the Planning Commission were concerned about the opinion of the OCCHPC; that further consideration could be made by the Planning Commission after this report was submitted by the OCCHPC; however, there was another concern and this was the licenses required and which had to be applied for to the Sureau of Health and Chronic Diseases as well as the Bureau of FaciliY.y Licenses and Certi£ication, and the Commission should make this a condition of approval, as well; that it was recommended by staff that the property be developed in accordance with plans. Therefore, with this new information brought to light and since this was also a new operation, he could understand the Commission's concern. Chai.rman Farano inquired as to the number of patients the center was equipped to handle for treatment and how many would be training in this fac:.lity; whereupon Mr. Madsen stated he would request that the operator of the facility answer this question. ;t Mr. Norman Gortz, 11151 Coventry Place, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commis- j sion, stating he was one of the partners in the proposed facility and noted 3 they would be able to handle ten patients i treatment three times a week; that there wouldSbeg40 shift per day needing 'r ~:j per three shifts; that there would be two patient trainingWbedslfwhichdwoo ~j mean 8 per three shift op=rations; and that the treatment could run six told `,,~„ eight hours and would be using most of one shift. ~"" "~=~ ; ,'i Chairman Farano then inquired as to the number of persons that wuuld be present :,;5-~ in research and development; whereupon Mr. Gortz replied there would be three ~°. to four and that they would not be selling this equipment but aould be working ~ with these people to perfect and better the application. 'x . ~ v Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not the people who would be 4 , training would be workin on the --= trained nurses who had worked thesetfacilitiesrinphosMr~ Gortz replied that . : pitals would be training I~ the patients to dialyze themselves in their own homes with some member of their ~;. family he,lping them. ~ Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not the family member had to be ,~ trained and the length of time this training would take ~e; Whereupon ~, Mr. Gortz replied that Dr. Lewin would be best to answer that question, kut ~F it was his understanding it would be about an eight-week training course. Commissioner A11red inquired whether or not the patient would be left alozie during the six to eight hours required for the treatment; whereupon Mr. Gortz stated that they would be under the surveillance of registered nurses and ~ technicians, and that the patients could not operate this facility by them- selves - they needed help. := Mr. Gortz then explained to the Commission the manner in which the two State T~ licenses had to be filed and data submitted as proof. Then, in answer to a question by Commissioner Rowland, Mr. Gortz stated that discussion had been . held with the State, however, since they had to get the building started, the r>. request to the City Council was made, but no other agency had reviewed this _ proposed use. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not this facility would require approval .= of the State of California Board of Medical Examiners; whereupon Mr. Gortz _,-.~~:~ replied that to his knowledge this approval was not necessary. ~ .~t " ; . _ -- ~~ _ _ ,w F . _ , _ , ~ .a , ~- _. ~ -- ' ~ ~ _ . - ~ - -'~-- a . °, _ ; r l ~.~ : ~ ~~... _ . .; ~ ~ ., ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISST_ON, November 15, 1971 71-713 CONDITIONAL USE PE RMIT NO. 1273 (Continued) , Mr. Gortz, in resaonse to guestioning by Commissioners Kaywood and Farano, stated they would not be working with acute dialysis patients but would be working with chronic, stabilized persons, and that rather than going to a , hospital, they would be getting their treatment at this facility b~cause this treatment would be a necessity for the rest of their lives. Further- more, they h~3 worked with nurses, doctors, etc., so as to develop the best environment possible in this facility. -~~_._- Commissicner Kaywood then inquired whether or not there would be a doctor on .~ the premises; whereupon Mr. Gortz replied that there would not be one on a ' full-time basis, but he would be visiting the patients during their treatments and they would be able to get patients to a hospital in the case of an emergency.~' ~s .;i ~ No one appeared in opposition. :i . THE AEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted he had made a motion earlier in the day to delay 1 consideration of this application until such time as a report requested by the Planning Commission was received from the OCCHPC, and to bypass this agency was foolish on the part of the Commission since this would mean the Commission was assuming their knowledge and ability to make a decision of a rather highly technicaY nature, as well as to consider making a decision on the `+, information presented to the Commission this date; ~ Commission bypassed the advisor bod that if each City Planning ~~ really not needed an wa y Y(~CCHPC) because their approval was ; Y y, it could be assumed that this body was not needed , even after the explanation made by Mr. Madsen as to ~he broad function of the 't OCCHPC - but there was more to it than that - their function is to advise the ''~ Planning Commission and all other medical bodies in the process of planning ~~ and developing facilities the need in the given regions - he had no idea what ;A, the need was in this region; that he was not sure that the hospitals presently providing critical dialysis were not also providing dialysis treatment for ~ ;~. the stabilized patients at this point in time ~ yx: sure that the OCCHPC would tell the Planning Commissionnthat1thisewas trueas ;a~~°~'f but if the need was not there, he did not want to be in a position of helping ~~ :!l~ _„ to increase medical costs again at the expense of the general medical patients , J. in order to provide a better service for a small segment of the people. If ~ i t:;~ ~~ there were four or five hospitals in this service area that were now i` s..~` this service adequately - an assumption - includin Providing i _ if another facility is built b the g the stabilized patient~; ' - stabilized patients and freezeythe equipmenteandttrainedcpeople inlthose I i~`~` hospitals, then some patients going to those hospitals for some other treat- , : ment would somehow have to pay for the equipment and staff needed for the `~' critical patients presently part of their function. This was part of the '~~ function of the OCCHPC to make sure that these functions were not duplicated - : they would not reduce costs by free competition, instead they would increase ~~ the costs to all persons. ~ ~ Commissioner Allred inquired whether Commissioner Rowland felt this proposal could possibly increase the cost to similar patients in hospitals; whereupon ~ , E Commissioner Rowland stated it might increase it to the dial sis would also increase the cost to Y Patients but ~ T general patients if the needs for this service ~ :M appeared to be satisfied by the existiny hospitals. Therefore, he wanted to : know whether the Commission could make a decision on subject petition based ~ '~ on these facts. ~ ; Chairman Farano inquired how this affected land use. ~ y o = Commissioner Herbst noted the petition before the ' ~ PP , P P 's'; a lication and since the etitioner had sti ulatedmtosobtainin aaland use the OCCHPC, the use needed only approval within the zone it was g Pproval of ~ be located in, proposed to ` Commissioner Rowland noted that the Planning Commission two weeks ago had a ~ ~ work session in the area of planning where the Commission thought one of the I vital ingredients missing was the cost benefit analysis on any planning going , into the city. ~ ;; ' .~e : , ! ,~;Y ~ . ~. - - -- '~ ~ . _ . .:~~- ' •_.5:....:.-F: . , ' ~ ; . ~ _ '~.~ _ 1 . . . ... . . ~ .. ~ ' .. . : ' ... . I . . /. . . . ... . . ... ... .. .._. . ...'-:..: _ - ~ . .. . . . . -. ~ "' . ~ ~.. . ..- . . .1. .. ~/ `~ ~,i~ :Y, ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO*?, November 15, 1971 77,-'714 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1273 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner was requesting approval of the site for the use, and since he stipulated to complying with the OCCHPC, the Commission was not bypassing that body because this could be made a condition of approval. ~ Commissioner Gauer observed that the City Council already approved the temporary use subject to going ahead at their own risk, whether or not they obtained approval on a conditional use perinit. ,. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant Petition for Conditional Use ~'~ Permit No. 1273, subject to conditions and re uirin a 4 3 pproval of the Orange County Comprehensive Health Planning Council, the California sureau of Adult Health and Chronic Diseases, and the California Bureau of Health Facilities ~. '~ Licensing and Certification on the basis that there was evidence submitted that there was a need for this service. Commissioner Seymour noted that there was another consideration, namely, the City Council gave temporary approval, however, the City Council also told the Planning Commission to review similar facilities in the past with the OCCHPC; that because they were all so technical, the Commission had to consider these recommendations - now it would appear the Commission should give approval on a similar technicality without this advice. Therefore, even though the City Council gave them temporary approval, if the Commission approved this now, they would be downgrading the advice of the OCCHPC - was this really what the Planning Commission wanted to do? Chairman Farano noted that the Commission should be considering land use eve:: though there might be an overabundance of these units in Los Angeles and Orange County, and whether or not this would increase costs to other patients. Commissioner Seymour observed that the Commission recently decided that since service stations now had a 15~ vacancy factor in Anaheim, there was no need for any more service stations, even though the site might be adequate for a service station. Therefore, the Commission should take a similar stand since the Commission needed the technical advice that could only be obtained from the OCCHPC. Furthermore, if the Planning Commission approved this and sub- sequently the petitioners spent thousands of dollars, but later the OCCHPC indicated their disapproval, then the applicant would attempt to establish the invalidity of the OCCHPC and ask the City Council for relief, even though Mr. Gortz stated they were processing the necessary papers - if this were approved they would begin to invest in capital improvements, which could be considerable. On roll call the foregoing resolution failed by the following vote: s' ~;.'; ,_ , _ ,i ~ ~t r .+~t = AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Farano,. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1273 to the meeting of November 29, 1971, in order to allow time for the Orange County Comprehensive Health Planning Council to submit data as required by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaywood ~econded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioners Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour voting "aye" and Commissioners Allred, Farano, Herbst voting "no") GONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. J. W. AND OLA MAE RUSSELL, 905 North ! PERMIT NO. 1276 Emily Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting ~ permission to EXPAND A GUEST HOME FOR THE AGED on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Emily Street and Mills Drive, having approxi-! ma*e frontages of 135 feet on Emily Street and 55 feet on Mills Drive, and ~ further described as 905 North Emily Street. Property presently classified ~ R-3, MULTLPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. i ~:~;;-. f:;~~ , _- .. ._:. ., _ . . . .,. . . ~ . . . . ~ . . ~ r . rY^.n '-,t. _ ~ ~?~..a.v+ ' • ' ~ .~.~.~~. ` . ~ '~ ~ ~ :; _- ~ ~ . +, ~p~....r,~ - ~~.~ ~ +~ . - MINUTES, CITY PiaNNING COMMISSIO*i, ::ovember 1:, 1971 71-715 COJDITIONAL USE PERMIT ivC. i2i6 (Continued) - Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed ~:n~a loa,s,tion of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previou; r.,oning action on the property, and the proposal to expand the existin3 rest home to permit ten •~! elderly persons; that all structural alterations had been acaomplished at the . time the gue;'; home was originally approved in ~anuary, 1968; that four park- ing spaces were proposed, which was considered adequate due to the age of the tenants; and that in view of the fact the rest home had already been established and due tio the fact that the proposed use was primarily residential in nature, r.iF;""'~ it would appear that the request would not be detrimental to other uses estab- za,,;,;>;;:r„~'` lished in the area. Mrs. Ola Mae Russell, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that it was her intent to provide care for ten ambulatory, elderly persons who did not need wheelchairs, and this would be a form of board and care facility. ~, ~j ki~ i?. ?'sj r.i;. ~: ~ ; :tt''. r: yc' ; : . ~~2 ' ~ ~rJ~ `~ f. , ~: 1 + '- Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the existing facility was suffi- ciently large enough to handle the ten persons in accordance with State requirements; whereupon Mrs. Russell replied in the affirmative. Mrs. Helen Sprinkle, P. O. Box 531, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated she owned a similar operation for ten persons at 205 Mills Drive, how~:ver, she leased this to another person for that use; that the location of the exist9.ng home at an intersection could create a problem with elderly persons possibly crossing the street; that a traffic problem presently existed, and this same problem was true on Mills Drive, which was used as a race track; that trafEic coming from the north used Mills Drive and even some of the alleys to gaiii access to another street; that since this was a corner lot, she could not see how they could increase the facility for the needs of the elderly people; and that her main concern was adequate facilities to meet the needs of these elderly persons. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not there was sufficient space for recreation area; whereupo- Mrs. Sprinkle stated that the capacity of her own home was for ten, but they were located in the center of the street, whereas the petitioner's property was located at the corner. Commissioner Gauer observed that these elderly people surely were alert enough I not to walk in the street. Commissioner Herbst noted that the State had a I pproved the maximum number of ~ persons who could reside in this facility, and the only concern the Commission ~ had was land use. Mrs. Sprinkle then stated she d.id not feel it was safe to put more elderly people at that intersection, and that she was quite sympathetic with the elderly people and wanted to protect them. Commissioner Gauer again asked how much recreation area did the petitioner have; whereupon Mrs. Russell stated that most of these elderly people walked outdoors around the block, and for other recreational purposes they had a TV room. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of bedrooms in the facility; whereupon Mrs. Russell stated that her son was now married and her daughter lived on campus; that she had two large bedrooms and four smaller ones, as well as having three rooms that were semi-private; and then in response to a I question by Commissioner Farano, stated that there were four private bedrooms and the balance would have two to a room. THE HEF,4ING WAS CLOSED. I Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-222 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1276, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~.~-~~ ^. . _~. , ~_ ~ ~ ~ 13~'~'"_._~t'. ~ ~ • ~~3 ~ A~ . _ . l_ .. - . j~ '~ ~" ~ , ,,~ I ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOri, November 15, 1971 71-716 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1276 (COntinued) 4 AYES: COMMISSIONEP.S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ;'I~`, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~`` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2296 - PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT DEAN, 519 South Brookhurst Street, ,':=~.-x~:,':- : Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE PERMITTED USES IN THE C-1 20NE TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION '`'"~{', OF AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY ONTO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY described ~~ as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street, w•2th frontages of approximately 150 feet r~` on Brookhurst Street and 140 feet on Orange Avenue, and further described as 521 south Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, _, ZONE . 1: :4ssistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to expand an existing adjustment center onto the property to the south on which a service station was located; that the appli- cant had stated that he did not intend to operate the service station but that he did intend to use the service bays for lube work and the main part of '' the building for a waiting room; that the plans indicate a 1300-square foot ;[=d`,; ,.;;: addition to the adjustment center; that 22 on-site parking stalls were pro- ,•`~'; posed, however, four of these 22 stalls were tandem stalls and could not be counted as legal parking in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code; and ; ~ that there were 13 parking bays under roof of the proposed buildings. s~ Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, stated that it would appear to be a ~~ logical expansion of the existing use; that provision for on-site circulation ''~:~ and p~~rking was proposed in addition to landscaping and appeared to be an c~ attempt to alleviate the typical problems associated with this kind of use. ~;,i: Furthermore, the plans indicated that the proposed expansion would not hamper the future operation of the service station in the event that it was re- activated, however, if the service station was reactivated, the intensifica- ~~ tion o~ uses on the entire property might warrant further consideration. ,;yt~~~ Therefore, the Commission might wish to require elimination of the pump islands ,,:>;;;:F; if this proposed expansion was approved. ",?.~ ':~ ~',~: :~: ; * ~!~..f:e ._i. ~ i}.z r;.' Mr. Everett Dean, the getitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated I that there was a sliqht error in the previous zoning actions on subject and , adjoining property in that the C-3 use granted in 1959 permitted the adjust- ' ment center; that the service station had been closed for fifteen months and ~ had been leased for the past thirteen years to Mobil Oil Company, however, he had requested termination of the lease since there had been thirty operators ' of this station during that time and all had gone bankrupt; that he had received no interesting offers to purchase the groperty or build on it because of its size; that he was requesting permission to utilize the existing building; that he intended to remove the pump islands and dispose of the gasoline tanks or fill them with sand; and that his existing business was very successful, thus he felt it would be practical to expand his facility. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate to plant- ing the landscaping indicated on the plan since it was apparent from an in- spection of the property that there was no landscaping; whereupon Mr. Dean stipulated to installation of landscaping and in tha areas where the former driveway approaches were located, as well. Commissioner Allred noted that the existing sign would not be located in the ce~•_ter of the property with this expansion; whereupon Mr. Dean stated that the only logical place to relocate it would be on the corner in order to be in accordance with Code. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not it would be an expense to bring the exis;`.ing sign up to Code; whereupon Mr. Dean replied that it would cost more to relocate the sign, and he wid not want to put in any additional signing. ` ~~ I /~ =" ..*::~:.eir~.*_~. ii': ~ .~t'`: . . ~~ '~ I _ : i, ;: f I ~ ' ~- , ~ - v C~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2296 (COntinued) ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~~-~~~ ~ " Chairman Farano noted that perhaps at a later date the petitioner might desire having the sign at the corner, which would be more in conformance, however, he did not particularly care to see a sign at the corner, Continued discussion was held by tne Commission with the petitioner regarding the signing. ~..-~:.;:.;;.._ Mr. Roberts also noted that there was an existing sign on the wall separating the brake shop, which was not in conformance with tha Sign Ordinance, and ~;;'~%;'°: inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to remove this; whereupon ~,., " Mr. Dean stipulated to removal of said wall sign. '~, N~i one appeared in ~~pposition. ) THE AEARING`WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-223 and moved for its passage 1 and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2296, subject to the peti- tioner's stipulation to removal of the pump islands and either removing or filling the existing gasoline storage tanks with sand; to removal of the ~ driveway on Orange Avenue nearest Brookhurst Street and the driveway on t Brookhurst Street nearest Oranqe Avenue; and to the extension of the required ~~ 3-foot wide screen landscaping adjacent to the abutting streets; and that the ~~ petitioner further stipulated to bringing all signs on the property into con- ;; ; formance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, except that the existing free-standing ~.j identification sign may remain as it exists provided that it complies with the '~ maximum sign area requirement; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) '-;s:1 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ' Seymour. ' F NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~' = i ~;~ ~~ ABSENT: COMMISSION$RS: None. t_ T~ VARIANCE NO. 2303 - RHODA M. KLETKE, 143 North Pine, Orange, California, r ,,.1 ~,:';,-,~~~ Owner; COASTAL AG-CIiEM, 1469 South State Collega Boulevard, t '~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF ('.) * ~ MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK AND (2) 6-FOOT SOLID MASONRY WALL REQVIREMENT 'TO ?'.>.,,;p~ PERMIT EXPANSION OF A FERTILIZER WAREHOUSING FACILITY on property described -':~~ as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner oE s`. ; State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue with frontages of approximately ;r 230 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and 139 feet on the north ~ side of Cerritos Avenue, and further described as 1469 South State College ~ Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~,` ' .iSe ''' 4 . ;f '' ~ ~ ~~{`•~:?~_;~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to expand an ex?sting fertilizer warehouse and distribution facility with an additional 10,500 square feet of land area to be utilized for equipment storage and off-street parking; that plans indicated the addition af a 40-foot by 60-foot concrete slab on the existing property to be used for the storage of ammonia gas cylinders; that a 6-foot high masonry wall would be provided along the State College Boulevard frontage and along approximately 87 feet of the westerly boundary, and the remainder of the property would be surrounded with a 6-foot high chainlink fence with wooden slats inserted; that waiver of the 50-foot setback in the industrial zone wa~ being requested because the applicant was proposing to construct a 6-foot high wall which would be aligned with the existing office building; that the exist- ing building was within the 50-foot setback, and the proposed wall would enclose ~ a portion of the existing activity which had been conducted in the outdoor area; that the applicant was provi.ding the 50-foot setback to the wall in the area - the proposed expansion; that waiver of the 6-foot high masonry wall was bein„ ^ requested on a portion of the interior property lines that abutted existing M-1 property to the north and west where the petitioner was proposing to install the chainlink fence with slats; and that in recent applications for a similar ~^S*~g . ~ ' . . ... ~ .-- . ~ .. ~ . ,: ,. , . .. ._ .,. . _ .. ~_ .. . ~ . ~ . ` . ~ . , 4 ~ ~ ' _ ~u",•~f°`,~--~.w.~. ,; '~, ~ 1 ~ -.; . ..-~- - ~;= r ~ i . ~a~~ -- ~ ~ 0 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIVG COMMISSION, ilovember 15, 1971 71-718 VARIANCE NO. 2303 (Continued) waiver the Commission determined that the provision of screen landscaping on the interior side of the property line, in addition to the slatted chainlink fence, was sufficient to waive the 6-foot high wall requirement in most circumstances. Mr. Larry Starr, agent for the petitioner and repr~ser:ting the agent, Coastal Ag-Chem, appeared before the Commission and noted that the company and the building had been located on subject property since 1944, and this was the reason for the building setback problem; that in order to consolidate their sales and advertising in Orange County, they would like to expand their facilities on subject property; and that they would be utilizing the propenty they had leased during tne past two years. Commissioner Gauer noted from the plans that the proposal looked as though a concrete slab was being proposed. ,•• Mr. Starr stated that they miqht request permission to erect a three-sided, metal-covered building; that the trailers they proposed to store were single trailers similar to those handling 5,000-gallon gasoline trucks with an overall height of about 8 feet; and that this size would be approximately the same as the height of the tanks presently on the property. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that ~he petitioner should either hide the existing storage facility or clean it up since the wall around the property would not hide its appearance since State College Boulevard was a nice-looking street. Mr. Starr replied that in general State College Boulevard had improved con- siderably over the last several years, and they were neqotiating for a five- year lease for the property. However, it was their intent to construct a wall along the State College Boulevard frontage. Commissioner Seymour noted that in the past when the Commission had a similar request from a petitioner regarding waiver of the 6-foot masonry wall, they had asked that slatted material be provided in the chainlink fence, as well as having some very dense landscapitig, and inquired whether the petitioner's agent would be willing to meet those standards in lieu of the 6-foot masonry wall. Mr. Starr replied that they would be willing to provide the landscaping in accordance with whatever the Commission requested. Commissioner Seymour noted that generally this was 15-gallon trees planted at 20-foot centers. Commissioner Herb~t inquired as to the installment of improvements on Cerritos Avenue, and would the petitioner's agent be willing to install said improve- ments; whereupon Mr. Starr replied he had no opposition to it. Commissioner Herbst further noted that there would be another parcel immediately . adjacent to subject property that would require improvement, which was approxi- mately the same width as subject property, and inquired whether or not dedica- tion had been received for the entire portion; whereupon Office Engineer ,7ay Titus advised the Commission that dedication of 45 feet had been acquired for Cerritos Avenue, and that improvement would occur when so~re other use was proposed for the property en which the house was located. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the owner of subject property also owned the parcel on which the house was built and whether they lived in that house. Mr. Starr stated that this building was rented to a caretaker. Further discussion was held by the Commission on the boundaries of subject petition, and whether or not the petitioner owned the property adjacent to subject property and whether or not it was a portion of this petition. No one appeared in opposition. ` ~ ~~°- ' I ~ f ''- ~ '--.:::~-,.,.. , '~a`' ~ _ t _ ti ` ~ ~~ { _ ~ ~ ~ '" MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 71-719 VARIANCE NO. 2303 (Continued) Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-224 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition Por Variance No. 2303, subject to conditions, and the stipulation by the petitioner to landscape the area adjacent to the chainlink, slatted fence, planting 15-gallon trees at 20-foot centers along the interior of said fence cf the north and west property lines; that said slats in the chainlink fence would be of unfinished redwood; and that setback areas adjace t to State Colleqe Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue be landscaped in conformance with the M-1 Zone standards. (See Resolution Book) {.~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~.: ':` `' ~ : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A21rad, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ;~,. ,;j NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ L'c' L ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. '': VARIANCE NO. 2304 - PUBLIC HEARING. DIVERSIFIED ELECTRIC, c/o Sidney E. Lewis, _~' 1250 horth Parker, Orange, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre located on the west side of ~ a private street extending 570 feet southerly from Peralta Hills Drive and ~y being generally located 750 feet southwesterly of the intersection of Peralta `- Hills Drive and Cerro Vista Way, and further described as 523 Peralta Hills K sj Drive. Property presently classified R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, 20NE. ~;a '~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject y property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct ,,,~ a swimming pool within 3 feet of the side property line; that two corners of the proposed L-shaped pool would project into the required 15-foot setback ~ area; that a strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance indicated that a '~ pool was considered to be a structure, and as such, a structure could not be y~ located in any required side yard; that historically, however, the require- '.~ ments for setbacks have been based on the provision of light, air and sunshine ;'~~:~ and the general welfare of people residing in these particular residential ''~:`•'~Qi structures, and allowing a pool to encroach within this setbaek would appear I `?`j to have no effect upon the provision of these elements. Therefore, the ~ -,.~j:? Commission may wish to consider this request for the const_uct3on of a pool ~~ ~ within the required setback area to be technical in nature as it would have ~ no adverse effect on adjoining land uses or properties. ~ ti i K~ Mr. Sidney Lewis, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission j .~;;a and noted that they were approximately three-quarters of Yhe way through develop-~ ,, ing an expensive structure when they realized they were not in accordance with ;,~_~° Code; that they had redesigned the pool and were now placing it about 6 fe~t ;` from the property line; that there was a retaining wall built for the purpose of erecting the pool; that there would be approximately 22 to 23 fpet from ~;,,•`~ the adjoining neighbor's garaqe; and that he had talked with his neighbor, who :~. had indicated no opposition. ~~ "' Commissioner Seymour noted th^.~ the petitioner's property was above the grade of ~ ' { the property owner immediately adjacent and inquired whether or not he was ~ taking precautions to prevent s plash from the pool seeping onto the plants of '.,; I the adjoining property owner. ~ Mr. Lewis reviewed construction plans as they proposed, which would indicate ~ ° any drainage would be drainin? from the splash protection area to a drainage ; area onto subject property. ~ _~~-`~ ~:~~:; r~•~.c w:: a ,_,. w `, `~.i~:l. '.~.. , ~ i ~ ! ,~ . .~ __; .' The revised plan was then presented to the Commission, which indicated a redesign of the pool to set it back 6 feet from the property line, this being marked Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 2. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. .--~. . _-d_.. ..~ ._.._..,-,.,_ ay,. ~ ~riiili/~`~..^TS°."'~'~9rT . ~ , . . . .. . . . . . ~. .. ~ . ' . . . ~ . ..: _ .-v,a..w. __. . ~-~~ ~ '~ ~. . _._~_~. '__'1..~-'- ___. ._..l-. ~ st.~.'r,:~ ;~::i~~... ~~~~ i; G , ;< s'.: _ ~t. , ;~; ~'' ~c '; i ~ / ~ • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 71-720 VARiAN~E NO. 2304 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-225 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2304, subject to conditions, with Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 2 replacing Exhibit No. 2 in said condition. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2305 - PUBLIC HEARING. ETJGENE R. DAVIE, 1243 North Moraga Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK AND MAXIMUM COVERAGE REQUIRE- MENT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN EXISTING SEMI-ENCLOSED PATIO AS A PERMITTED STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 59 feet on the west side of Moraga Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 104 feet, and being located approxi- mately 200 feet north of the centerline of Falmouth Avenue, and further described as 1243 North Moraga Street. Property presently ulassified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to waive the minimum required rear yard and maximum rear yard coverage to permit an exist- ing patio cover 14 feet by 48 feet to remain in the rear yard with only a 4-foot rear yard; that other open area was provided elsewhere on the lot in the form of large side yards and a large front yard; and that it might be determined that this existing patio cover had no adverse effect on surround- ing land uses and it may be appropriate to allow it to remain. Mr. E. R. Davie, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he had resided on subject property since 1955; that he had sold his home in July and since then it had become a comedy of errors; that he had hired a carpenter to build the patio while he was in Oregon, but found that he was now in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and that there was more than adequate area in both the front and side yards to compensate for the rear yard no longer available. Furthermore, two other homes in the block had their patios constructed all the way to the fence. Mrs. Jackie Worden, 1242 Minot Street, appeared before the Commission and not~.d her only objection was the fact that the patio was only 3 feet from her rear yard fence, and if somethinq could be done to gutter the roof and provide downspouts, draining the water away from the rear yard, sne would have no objection to the patio remaining as it was. However, because her rear yard was lower than subject property, if a heavy rain occurred, her rear yard would be completely flooded. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the opposition presented, it being determined that the petitioner should be required to p.~ovide gutters and downspouts, draining the water forward to the front property line in order to protect the property to the rear. Mr. Davie advised the Commission that if he were able to obtain some money, he would be glad to provide the gutters and downspouts; however, he had lost the property, and his cousin was staying with him only until the legal problems were resolved; and that his property was in escrow, pending approval of subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Davie then noted for the Commission that time was,an important element, and he could not wait the twenty-two days until_ Council reviewed subject petition. ~•v _ - ~ ~ ` ~ ~! -------.-~<- ~~.-. + - ~_ ~. '~ ~ :.~::-:. >~ ••--- ~ _ ' { ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2305 (Continued) Commissioner Seymour noted that the Council had to review all Commission action, and they cauld object if this werP approved; that part of the approval would require staff to write a letter that the Planning Commission had approved subject pe*_ition. However, none of the conditior.s should be set forth in said letter since if this were required, this would "hang the man out to dry". Commissioner Seymour further inquired as to the length of time it would take to obtain an encroachment permit; whereupon Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that this was rather a lengthy, time-consuming proposal, and it might take several months. However, the petitioner was encroaching within the utility easement, and he must obtain this through applying to various City departments and receiving Council approval. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-226 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2305, subject to conditions and the requirement that the petitioner install rain gutters and downspouts along the roof line of the patio roof within a period of thirty days, and that sta-ff should write a letter stating that the Anaheim City Planning Commission had grante;d permitting the encroachment of the patio into the required rear yard, said 1e.tter to be drafted i,mmediately for the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) ~: On roll call the foregoina resolution-was , passed by the following vote: ~w AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ~i' - •`~ NOES: Seymour. COMMISSIONERS: None. r+ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. ;~~ I~~ ~~;' -:' - *. ' .4e ' r ~' E: ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CRAIG HOSMER, 2217 Rayburn Building, N~• 71-72-19 Washington, D. C. and DON KOLL COMPANY, INC., AND LEAR- SIEGLER, INC., attention L. A. Thompson, Vice President, DON KOLL COMPANY, attentiontJames~ChuStanleyee17755aSkymPark1Circlea~irvines~ California, Agent; requesting that property described as: Pour individual parcels consisting of approximately 13 acres lying generally north of Crescent Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street, and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the 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 reclassify the property in order to assemble some fragmented portions into larger M-1 parcels; that the applicant was proposing to extend a street northerly from Crescent Avenue that would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the Santa Ana Freeway; that the proposed street would provide access to all of the proposed M-1 parcels; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated th_e area in question as being appropriate for industrial land use, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider this parce~ assemblaqe and rezoning to be the completion of the industrial character and zoning established in this area. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. James Stanley, representing Don Koll Company, devalopers of subject property, reviewed the conditions of approval, noting that on the Hosmer parcel it would appear to be superfluous to require meeting all engineering requirements since the new street they planned to develop would make the parcel not be dependent upon IIrookhurst Street for access; that they had a 180-day escrow period. Mr. MeDaniel interrupted by stating that the engineering requirements were not needed on all of the parcels, therefore, those that did not require engineering requirements could have the ordinance read, and then reviewed the conditions requiring sidewalks, street trees, and right-of-way on Brookhurst Street. ~ _ ~ ~~'-5 ' : J. ` fAG.1TK+Y~;N.u-....:.~- - ....., _J~ \ -_. ~ Y~1~:_ I. '~ i ~ I •' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 U ~.7 ~ 71-722 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-19 (Continued) Mr. Stanley inquired as to the need for the condition of approval of the right-of-way for Brookhurst Street to be obtained from the State Division of Highways. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the agent for the petitioner that the Division of Highways was in the process of revising the overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway, and just as a precaution, the staff had placed this _ condition so that the owners would know there may be need for additional --~;i right-of-way •.~ithin this redesign of the freeway. ~ " THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ 11 ~ Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that Condition No. 7, requiring street < trees along Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue, could be deleted. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-227 and moved for its passage ,,` and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-ig be approved,:subject to the recommended conditions, except - 1 that Condition No. ~ , 7 be deleted. '(See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,; AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ~ Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. .:;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. : •,~~ '` RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1277, TENTATIVE `~ MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7657, 7658, 7659 (Continued) :;,: , ;~;{ - ;~ Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that he had contacted the petitioner regarding possible continuance of sub'ect ~ i~ weeks, however, the developer was of the oPetitions for more than the two t~? the City of Buena Park officials he would Pinion that after his meeting with _?~~ before the Commis~ion, Therefore, Prefer using the plans presently ~"''~^~ he felt there were merits in the plan,Wwhich helfelttaasWthe mostieconomicalce ¢, ^~r~ way of developing subject property. ~ ~~ ~I ~ ~~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassi- p ;i~ fication No. 71-72-2p, Conditional Usp Permit No. 1277, and Tentative Map '^ of Tract Nos. 7657, 7658, 7659 to the meeting of November 29, as requested ~~ by the petitioner. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. , *, ~,~ :~ SPECIAL WORK SESSION - Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that it '~ might be well to have a work session with representatives ~ of Anaheim Hills and the Planning Commission to review recent events; then there miqht be better communication. 'x Commissioner Seymour state.. ,3t if there were areas on which this could be '~~~ accomplished, then it might .lso be well to schedule a field trip. r Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson stated staff would contact representatives of Anaheim Hills to schedule a work session and would , advise the Planning Commission of possible dates that would be convenient for ~ all at the next meeting. Commissioner Seymour left the Council Chamber at 6:35 P.M. ~ REPORTS AND - ITE_ M_ pp, 1 r ~COMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 67 - Request for ,; approval of revised plans. ~ 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, ; uses r.stablished in close proximity, previous zoning action establishing a ~ church which was approved in April, 1960, and the proposal to add a 2430- ' square foot addition to the existing church facility, the additional floor i ~~`x 4 ~ . :.. .;,'r. .: ~ ..,,..,. .>: .,... _. ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . .. ~ ~ ' - ; .:~ . . . '~ - _~_i - ~ - --:'~..XS~ ~-ti- - ;:.:r~ ~ ~ . . y~ ' . . . . . '. .. , ~..~_~ _ . . .t . i ~ - ' / f , ~ ~. '.ti,s ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) ~~ 71-723 area consisting of five classrooms and a library which would be located at the south end of the existing building, approximately 90 feet from the soutk: property line; that it would appear the proposed addition would have no adverse effects on surrounding properties, however, since this expansion was not indicated on the plans originally approved for the church by the staff, and since the plans originally submitted were somewhat incomplete, staff was requesting an interpretation as `o whether the proposed addition would be considered substantially in conformance with the original plans. Therefore, if the Commission determined that the proposed addition was in conformance with the original plans, staff would be authorized to issue a building permit for this construction. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve revised plans as submitted for the addition for the church facility located at the southeast corner of Westmont Drive and I,oara Street as being substantially in conformance with the original plans approved in April of 1960. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Kaywood abstained) ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT N0. 1245 - Request to waive condition (Dennis W. Aa e) Property located on the north side of ~CStreet, approximately 300~feet east of Pauline Street, and pr'eaently zoned M-1. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the previous zoning action in June, 1971, permitting the establishment of an automobile dismantling business for xebuilding and war~housing automobile parts in an existing building with incidental retail sales, and the request of the petitioner to waive the requirement of an improvement bond as required by the City Engineer, and staff's recommendation that as the improvements were necessary to bring the site up to minimum standards, said request should be denied. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the request, and after reviewing the original file, it was determined that the petitioner was also the owner of the propert1, therefore, the required street improvements were for improvement of the property itself and not for the benefit of a lessee. Comnissioner Kaywood offered a motion to deny the request to waive the requirement of posting a bond to guarantee installation of engineering requirements on the basis that said improvements were necessary to upgrade the area. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Herbst voted "no" and Commissioner Seymour beinq absent) F;~ '' ` ITEM NO. 3 `r': ~ '' ~ ' ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1262 - Request for - " i approval of revised plans. ;~, r ' ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the locatio ro s; r ~ p n of s~.bject perty and the request for approval of revised plans, noting that th li ant ~A ~ ~ ~he s e was still proposing a 221-space travel trailer park, however p evious plan 110 in ,4, , spaces were indicated for less than 800 square feet, and the minimum required by the ro os d ~ r; i p p e Travel Trailer Ordinance and the revised plans had reduced this to 85 of ,- ~ substandard spaces; that the applicant was providing the same number of - ~~ ; * spaces but at the same time was increasing the size of the spaces by reducing the 25-foot t wo-way drives to 15-foot one-way drives; that the revised plans al i L~ i ' ; so ndicated 60-degree spaces as opposed to 90-degree ~paces, as approved; that the the 60 bi , ~ com nation of -degree stalls and the one-way drives made approximatel spaces 99 f t '1~ ~ . y o ex the remely difficult to occupy; that the revised plans also did allow fo th ~_'` r,' , °`' M. r not e minimum corner cut-off areas; that the previous plans distributed trash areas at convenient lo ti t `~ ca ons hroughout the park, whereas this revision provided only one trash storage area inc onveniently located near the central recreation area; that the large recreatio j n an3 manager's apartment building was now reduced to a small recreation buildin with th g e manager and his assistant occupying mobilehomcs; that the previous lans l p a so indicated a wall along the front setback of the recreational area, whereas the revised plans indicated a chainlink fence; and that th ~.`- e Commission might wish to i -- ~ . ,I ..~.m.~._ - - ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 15, 1971 ITEM NO. 3 (Continued) 71-724 consider the revised plans not to be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, in addition to providing problem areas not found in ~he previous application. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposal, all of the Commissioners being concerned regarding the narrow streets and inability to have easy access to the pads an3 the poor location of the trash storage area. Mr. Tom Shelton, representing Alpine Civil Engineers, authorized agent of the development, appeared before the Cnmmission and noted that the owners of the property had been contacted by one of the largest travel trailer park developers and operators in the United States, Kampgrounds of America, who were interested in this site and had request~d that the Commission review the changes°they would like to make to the site plan as set forth in his letter to the Commission, noting that the chainlink fence was a complete misunderstanding - it:was their intent to have the same wall as they origi- nally had proposed. . The Commission noted that ttie agent for the petitioner must be fully aware of the Commission's concern and inquired whether or not the plans could be ~ revised since the ;,arrow streets would not be acceptable, although there was `,~~' no opposition to the an le g parking and to improve the trash storage area. ;.;;~i :;i.'.'~~ Mr. Shelton noted that as far as the trash storage areas were concerned, the ;,;;K; propose9 ~perators would have a trash storage container placed every two ~':~~i;~~ spaces in which a plastic bag would be inserted, and the manager or his :"`;',~~ assistant would collect these bags on a daily basis and sleliver them to the ;:=~ centrai ~rash storage area. ,~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that if the revised plans had been submitted at the beginning, the Commission woufd have denied them. Chairman Farano noted that he was fully familiar with KOA operations, and they did not require specific plans or size or angle of spaces - their only regula- tion was as to their primary buildings and recreation area, and any develop- ment would have to qualify for their franchise to meet these specific require- ments, not the revised plans as submitted by the agent. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that either the request for approval of the revised plans should be denied or set for public hearing since there was a vast deviation from the original plans considered. ~ Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to deny the reqeest for approval of i ~ revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1262 on the basis that there ~ ;;:,..,;~ was a substantial deviation from the original plans approved. Commissioner ~ `'~`~'`~~~ Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ 't:( i ~r` ~ _ ITEM N0. 4 ~ ~ ~ HOUSING ELEMENT - PROPOSED GOALS. ; r ;. . {` ~ Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission ' ,~ :~x that the first three pages of the special report submitted to the Commission n ~ represented the background ar:d recommendations of staff regarding the Housing ±~` ,~; Element for the General Plan• that these goals were more in conformance with ~? +; the Hill and Canyon General Plan than that set forth by the Oiange County Planning Commission; and that staff would recommend endorsing the initial ~ ~~; ~I housing goals as stat'ed. i ~~' `': Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the Planning Comn~ission should ~", ' more thoroughly study this ro o g y C?~,::~:;~; p p sal before makin an decisiol. ~" Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the Housing ~~.,,.,,; Element - Proposed Goals to the meeting of November 29, 1971, in order co allow .f the Commission time to thoroughly review ~he proposal, said Housing Element to ~ be considered under reports and recommendations. Commissioner Allred seconded :, the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~`; '?.~c. ' ~ . 1 Sl~~ ~ ~ : - . ` . ~j - . ~~~t ~~~ ~~:. ' - ' ,_ ' , _ . . ~ ~ _. _ _ . ~ . . - .L_ .. t -`:.. i. _ _ .~ ~ r..,.,,._ ~..~...._ . ~