Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/01/24~ ~ e City Hall Anaheim, California January 24. 7-9~2 A REGULAR MEETING'OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON REGULAR - A regular meeting o£ '.he Anahei m City Planning Comai~~~~ ~~, '~ ~~ ` MEETING called to order by Chairman Far " ano at 2:00 p.m•r a'-."^'.~ b'eing present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSENT - COMMZSSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Fra,:k i,owry ' Office Enqineer: Titus Jay Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve the minutes THE M2NUTES of the January 10, 1972, meeting, seconiied by Commissioner Gauez and MOTION CARRIED, subject to th~: following correction: _ pq, 72-16, para. 8, line 1: Commissioner Seymour (not Herbst). PROPOSED PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISS30N PUBLIC HEARINGS. Chairman Farano read ..ie following on behalf of the Planning Commission: It is our intention to expedite the proceedings conducted before this Commission. It 3s now and will continue to be our desire to provide appli- cants and protestants alike the opportunity £or a fa£r hearing. We do not believe, however, that a long, sepetitive presentation by any participant provides or conetitutes a fair hearing. Therefore,the following rules will prevail at this bearing. 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five miautes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, suah additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. 2. The Staff Reports need not be read in non-contested applications. 3. In contested applications the proponent and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present his case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. Each participant will be given equal time provided that additional time is necessary. The Commission's consi3erations ase not determined by the length of time a participant talks, but rather what he says. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearinq is close&..--. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in ita, opinion, the ends of fairness to,all concerned will be served. Commissioner Gauer offered a mGtion to adopt.the new regulations as set forth by Chairman.Farana. Commissicner Rowland secanded the motion. Chairman Farano directed that staff supply each petition with a copy of the new regulations. 72-20 ~ .~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI9N, January 24, 1972 ~Z-21 PROPOSED PROCEDURE TO EXPEDZTE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission *hat he would suggest that final action on the proposed new regulations be withheld until the next public heaxing, at which time he would have a legal interpretation by the City Attorney. Commissioner Gauer withdrew his motion for adoption. Commissioner Rowland also withdrew his second of the motion. Discussion was then held by the Commission as to whether or not the Report to the Commission should be read into the minutes, both for the benefit of the petitioners and the opponents, and at its conclusion it was determined that if this method of handling the public hearing proved to be unfair or that it would not accomplish the intent of the Commission, the public hearings would then be conducted as they had in the past. However, this proposal was a method which might speed up the public hearings, relieving petitioners of the ordeal of sitting through many hours of public hearings. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES D. AND LONEAL A. HORTON, NO. 71-72-22 604 East Oakmont Avenue, Orange, California, Owners; TED MORIARTY, Shell Oil Company, 1136 North Brookhurst VARIANCE N0. 2311 Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land heing the southeast corner of Lakeview Avenue and McKinnon Drive, having frontages of approximately 184 feet on McKinnon-Drive and 133 feet on Lakeview Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICUI.TURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-lr GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: '11ZVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT OF LOCATION AT THE INTER- ~ECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS~ (2) REQUIREMENT TO BE INTEGRATED W2TH A SHOPPTNG CENTER, (3) MINIMUM FREEWAY SETBACK~ (4) MINIMUM ARTERIAL HTGHWAY SETBACK~ (5) MINIMUM ZNTERTOR SETBACK~ (6) PE~MITTED SIGNS~ AND (7) TIME LIMITATION ON LIGHTED SIGNS TO ESTABLISA AN At1TOMOHILE SERVICE STATION. Subject petitions were continued from the November 29, 1971, meeting at the request of the petitioner. hairman Farano noted that there was a request before the Commission for a continuance from the attorney representing the petittioner/agent and inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition. Two persons indicated their ~Sresence. Chairman Farano then inquired whether or not the representative of the petitioner/agent was present. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney representing the:petitioner/agent, appeared before the Commission and stated that because of an emerqency he had been unable to research sufficiently the petitioner's request as it compared to the requirements of the City of Anaheim. However, it would appear Lhat there would have to be some changes because oE the SC Zone; and that he had dis- cussed the proposed continuance with Mr. Bob McQueen, representing the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, who stipulated that he would accept a continuanae. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to ±ntegrate the service station into a shopping center; whereupon Mr. Rnisely replied that as he read the or3inance of the SC Zone, together with the action in the canyon by the City Council duxing the past few months, this would have to be done. Commissioner Kay~vood inquired whether or not Mr. McQueen wished to confirm the fact that he did not oppose the continuance. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMN.ISSION, January 24, 1972 ~Z'22 RECLASSZFICATIOti N0. 71-72-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2311 (Continued) Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission and atated that he had diacussed the continuance •vrith Mr. ]Cnisely, however, the position of the Santa Ana Canyon Improv,ement Asaociatian was that they were opposed to the service »tationf that Mr. Kniaely realizud tha~ under the SC Zone a service station could not be constructed without slso having a shopping center, however, the City Council recently had approved a shorpinq center with an i•itegrated service station on the northwest corner of this intersection, which would be in conformanca with the General Plan, however, the General Plan projected only one corner for this type of development, not.all four cornere of the intersection, therefore, it was the association's feeling that this should be a consideration, however, they were not opposed to a continuance. Commisaioner Seymour stated that he concurred with Mr. McQueen'a statement on what was to be developed on the property or what the Commission felt would be der'eloped, therefore, he would like to consider continuing,the patitions forever. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions, for Reclassification No. 71-72-22 and Variance No. 2311 to the meeting of April 17, 1972, as requested by tY:e attorney for the petitioner/agent. Com~issioner Kaywood seconded tha motion, MOTION CARRIED. VARTANCE N0. 2306 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL J. KNAAK, 1751 Southeast Skyline Drive, Santa Ana, Catifornia, Owner; RONALD A. , MC LEOD, 9833 zinnia Street, Fountain Valley, California, Agentr requestinq permission to ESTASLTSH A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES CENTER WTTH WAI'VER'~P (7.) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING~ (2) PERMITTED USES, AND (3)' BERMxTTED OUTDOOR 95ES on property described as:. A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue. having frontages of approximately 154 feet-on the east side of Brookhurst Street and 105 feet on the north side of Lincoln.Avenue, and further described as 2181 West Lincoin Avenue. Property presently classified C~1~ QENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petltion was continued from the November 19, 1971, meetinq to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans. Chairman Faxano inquired whether or not there was-anyone.present in opposition \ and whether or not the petitioner was Qreaeat. No one appeared in opposition. 'i The Commisslon dispensed with readinq the Report to the Commissi~n. - Mr. Ron Weiss, attorney representing the agent f.or the petitioner, appeared ~ before the Commission and stated that they were requesting a two-week con- tinuance in order to have sufficient tiule to make a proper presentation. Chairman Farano noted that at the last public hearing the agpnt for the petitioner had advised the Commission that the Development Services nirector, Alan Orsborn, had approved the used car sales until subject petition had been disposed of. However, Mr. Ozsborn, subaequent to the meeting, informed the Commission that he did not approve the used car sales, in fact, he had advised Mr. McCleod to cease and desist the used car sales operation, therefore, as far as he was concerned, Mr. Weiss should discuss the legally-advertised use for the property and not what the petitioner contemplated doing under this _ _ ._ _ _ application. _ _. Mr. Weiss then stated that as to the legality of the proposal, he would agree with the Chairman if the Commission had such strong feelinqs, however, he had not had a chance to discuss this with the License Department. Chairman Farano advised Mr. Wei$s that this was a matter of land use, not the conduct of a businEaet that it was his opinion the uses proposed were not feasible on the property - furthermore, the petitioner was conducting a used car sales since several inspectior.s of the property revealed no mose than one • s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, January 24, 1972 72-23 VARIANCE NO. 2306 (Continued) or two recreational vehicles on the property~ that the petitioner had not requested the used car sales to be advertised, therefore, the Commiesion could only consider the recreational vehicles. Comttdssioner Herbst noted that if the petitioner intended te-include uRed car sales with this variance petition, then the petition would have to be re- advertised before the Commission could consider it. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the petitioner originally requested a ninety- day continuance, however, the Commission granted only sixty days - now it appeared the original ninety-day continuance request would be realize3. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2306 to the meeting of February 23, 1972, in order~to allow the agent for the petitioner time to file for an additional use, at his own : expense, and for staff to readvert~se tlie requests 'Commissianer Herbst seconded £he mot'ion. MOTION CARRZED. ~~ ~~G,yQ~~p,~~~` 12.c~c~d- p~y~ v v VARIANCE NO. 23:.8 - CONTINUED PUSLIC HEARING. IMPERIAL LAND INVESTMENT COMPANY, 7,900 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georqia, Ownerj SRUCE C. ARMSTRONG, 'Vice President, Tmperial Land Investment Company, 435 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Aqent; requeating permiaslon to ESTABLTSH A STORAGE YARD FOR MOBILEHOMES, MODULAR EiOUSTHG UNZTS, BOATS, TRAILRRS, RECREATIONAL VEHZCLES, AND CAMPERS IN THE R-A ZONE on property described as: An irregu2arly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7 acres having a frontage of approximately 1,100 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth ~£ approximately 400 feet, and being located between the Orange and Riverside Freeways. Propertp presently classified R-A, AGRICUI,TURAL, ZONE. Subject pet:Ltion was continued from the December 29, 1971, meeting for further study as to buffering techniques. Chairman.Farano inquired whether or not there was anyone present in'opposition and received no response. Chairman Farano then inquired whether or not the petitioner was ^resent and received no responae. c Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the petitioner had.sub-.` mitted ~r letter. requesting a£our-week continuance in order to allow time for: the preparatiun of plana. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration o: Petition for Variance No. 2318 to the meetinq of February 23, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to ~repare his plans. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2312 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., AND TEXACO VENTURES, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheir:; TENTATIVE MAP OF California, Ownersf WILLIAM J. STARK, President, Ar.'aheim TRACT NO. 7558 Hills, Inc., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly- . shaped parcel of land consisting oP appzoximately 31 acres located approximately 3/4 mile southwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir, 2 miles south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 1/4 mile south af the terminus of-Walnut -_ Cany~n Road at Orange Park. PYOperty preaently classified R-Ar AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARTANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH~ ~2~ MINIMUM *.OT AREA, AND (3) MINIMUM kEQUIRED FRONT SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A 22-T,OT EQUESTRIAN AND OPEN SPACE ORIENTED SUBDIVISION. TENTAxI'VE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: W=LLDAN ENGINEERING, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, Californias proposing to aubdivide subject property into 22 R-A z~ned lots. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2'24 VARI.ANCE NO. 2312 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7558 (Continued) Chairman Farano inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. ~ The Commission then dispensed with reading the Report to the Commission. Mr. Nelson Fry, representing the developer, appeared Hefore the Commission -and stated he had several quEStions regarding the recommended conditions: 1) the park and recreation fee - since they were allocating land for parka,, would this be in lieu of fhe park and recreation fee? Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson then asked for clari- fication on this from a representative of the City Manager's Office. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that he had just discussed this bp telephone with John Harding of the City Manager's Office, who had recommended that this condition be retained since they had no record of parkland being allocated to the City, and if there was any change, this could always be handled at a later date. Mr. Fry then referred to the condition that required drainage being conducted to the point of its ultimate disposal and inquired what that meant. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the ultimate dispoeal would be to the Santa Ana River, and the developer would be responsible for tliat water until it reached the river; and that as a rule, he would be assesaed`' a proportionate share of the drainage facilities cost to take care of the water to the river. Mr. Fry then noted that they han development between subject property and the Santa Ana River and were all programmed for complete drainage systems - in other words, water would flow over their other property at each development phase and then ultimately to the Santa Ana River. Mr. Titus advised Mr. Fry that the developer would be responsible for the disposal of the drainage until it reached the river and the proportionate share of the cost of drainaqe to dispose of this water. Mr. Fry then advised the Commission that they had been discussing at length with the City Engineer the 25-foot roadway, and it.was their intent to extend the 25-foot roadway from the westerly end of the cul-de-sac down the cut to - connect with Serrano Avenue. Commissioner Gauer noted that there were a number of larger parcels indicated, therefore, would it be the intent of the developer to place an additional home on those large parcels. Mr. Fry stated that because the lots were too steep, it would be impossible to glace another~ home on the parcel. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. PC72-3 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2312, subject to conditions. Prior to roll call, further discussion was h<ld regarding the distance between the garage doors and the right-of-way, particularly where a distance of only '- 15 feet was proposed between the etructure and +.he property line. Mr. Fry stated that the engineer-planner would explain this phase. Mr. Horst Schorr, 125 South Claudina Street, appeared before the Commission and advised them that it was their intent to have the garage and door with a clearance of 20 feet, and if a vehicle were parked in the driveway, it would not extend over the sidewalk and into the street since they planned to place the sidewalk adjacent to the skreet, therefore, there atill would be 25 feet from the garaqe to the sidewalk. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1992 ~2'?5 VARIANCE N0. 2312 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRP..CT-N0. 7558 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that there ahould;be.a miaimum,of 20 feet l~etween an opened door clearance of a garage.and the sidewalk. ` Commissioner Allred amended his moticn to require,a minimum 20-foot clearance` between the open qarage..door and the sidevalk. (See Rasolution,-BOOk) _ On roll call the foregoinq reaolution was passed by the following vote:: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Allrad, Farano, Gauer, Herbst,,Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Alired offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7558. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion and.MOTION CARRIED, subject to the followinq conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of:Tract.No. 7558 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-33, now pending and Variance No. 2312. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one-aub- ; division, each subdivision thereof shall'be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject groperty ahall be submitted to and approved tiy the City Council and Ehen.be recosded in the office> of the Orange,'County Recorder. 5. That street names shall be appx ~';~by the City of Anaheim prior to a~proval oE a final tract.mar ,'. `' 6. That the owners of subject property shall pay to'.the City of ~ Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as deter- mined to.be appropriate,by the City Council, said'fees to be paid at the time the building permit is isaued: . •s ' r;. 7. That Teatative Map of Tract Na. 7558 is approved.subject to compietion of annexation of the tract to the City of Anaheim. 8. That a roadway be dedicated and improved to provide utiility ., and vehicular access from the west end of Tract No. 7558., northerly to Serrano Avenue. The accass roadway shall be constructed with a minimum width of 25 feet of pavement and a walkway on one side with a minimum width of 3 feat. 9. That grading. excavation and all other construction activites ' shall be conducted in auch a manner as to minimize the poasi- bility of any silt oriqinating from the project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water runoff originating from or flowing through this pz'oject. . 10. That Ridge Road "A" ~hall be constructed in accordance with ' C1ty of Anaheim Standard Plan No. 122. 11. That.the drainage from Tract No. 7558 ahall be conducted to the point of its ultimate disposal in a manner that is satis-. factory to the City Engineer. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2-26 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RITIKER DEVY~LOPMENT CORPORATION~ NO. 71-72-21 P. 0. Box 2218, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land con- VARIANCE NO. 2310 sisting of approximately 15.8 acres being the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Zmperial Higk-way, with frontages of approximately 1,035 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Ro~d and approximately 544 feet on Imperial Highway. Property presently clas9ified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-l~ GENERAL COMMERCYAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED 'IARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED SIGNS~ (2) TIME LIMITATION ON LIGHTED SIGNS, (3) LOCATION AT iHE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIALS~ (4) MINIMUM FREEWAY SETBACK~ (5) MINIMUM LOCAL LOT SETBACK~ (6) SETBACK AREA LANDSCAPING, (7) MINIMUM I:7TERIOR SETBACK~ (8) MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA DIMENSION, AND ~9) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS TO PERMIT TAE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER ANb AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION. Subject petit•ions were continued from the November 29 and December 13, 1971, meetinqs at the request of the petitioner in order to allow time to resolve access problems. Chaizman Farano inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition; v~hereupon one person indicated he might be in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request, noting that of the nine waivers previously requested, only four were now applicable with the revised plans, those being 2-b-1, 2-b-3, 2-b-4, and 2-b-8; that the petitioner was proposing a community shopping center whlch would include a supermarket, a builder's supply store, a drug store, a bank, a res~aurant, service station, and other assorted shopsj that the revised plans indicated 111,400 square feet of building which did not include the 2100-square foot service station building; that 595 parking spaces were proposed, 20 more than was required; that two access points from Santa Ana Canyon Road were proposed, one being a public, local street near the easterly boundary of the property separating the service station and 4000 square feet of the shopping area from the main complex of the centers and that the second accessway would be near the westerly~boundary of the property in a form of a private drive to serve the major portion of the shopping center. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, stated that the Anaheim General Plan projected a commur,ity shopping center symbol in the vicinity of Imperial High- way and Santa Ana Canyon R~ad, and the proposed center could fit this desig- nation, however, a similar shopping center was approved by the City Council on the southwest corner of Imperial Hiqhway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, which was also considered adequate to implement the General Plan, said center having begun conatruction o£ the accessways, therefore, in this regard, the Commission might consider the proposed reclassification.and proposal to be inappropriates that the Scenic Corridor 2one required that setbacks adjacent to arterials be landscaped to a depth of 20 feet or 15 feet if a 3-foot high earthen berm was provided, while the revised plans indicated providing this landscaped area. and in addition, the petitioner was also proposing to landscape the 50-foot wide S.A.V.I. canal easement along Santa Ana Canyon Road; that although the proposed center was not intended to be oriented to the freeway but rather to Santa Ana Canyon Road, the Commission miqht wish to consider the deaign of the center and its probable appearance from the Riverside Freeway sinae the entire center would be visible from the freewap as it was elevated over Imperial Highway; that the truck loading areas and the rear exits and the backs of the shopping center would be the primary thing visible from the freeway; that siace the center would be visible from three sides, namely, Sant•a Ana Canyon Road, Imperial Highway, and the Riverside Freeway, it might be better designed so as to front these three elements rather than rear onto two of the elements; that revised plans in this respect indicated a 6-foot high masonry wa~l to screen the loadinq area, and in addition, a wider landscaped area between the center and the freeway was proposedt and that a mansard roof treat- ment had been extended to the rear oE the center, as well as the front. ~ ~ M7NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSTON, Januax~ 24, 1472 72~27 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued) Mr. McDaniel further noted that another concern which tne Commission might wish to consider was the possibility of development in phases since the revised plans projected development oP the easterly portion as the first phase, this beinq the main portion of the center and the service stution, while the second phase would include the bank, restaurant, and assooiated shops; that in light of the property ownership, in the event the westerly portion was never picked up by the petit3oner from the State, this would result in a landlocked parcel, thus it could be anticipated that two more access points wonld be requested to that landlocked parcel; and that although the staff had met with the petitioner in discussions with the State Highway Department and the County of Orange reqarding these two additional access points, the Commission might wish to consider the necessity of ruquiring written confirmation on the appropriateness of these two additional access points, even though the patitioner had agreed to provide access easements to the westerly property. Mr. McDaniel, in conclusion, noted that granting additional access to Santa Ana Canyon Road was because this was a proposed community shopping center, and if the Commission wished to consider grantinq the additional a.ccess points, perhaps approval should be withheld until after working drawings on the total center were received by the Building Division for plan check; and that in light of the unknown factors regarding the two State properties that had no determin- able future and the question of access to the pzoperty, in addition to the recently-approved community shopping center at the southwest corner of these two highways, this would render this proposal inappropriate at this time. Chairman Farano inquirt9.:~hether Mr. Rinker was present when he announced the new public hearing procedure, and if not, he would like to state that the petltionez and opponent would be granted ten minutes each for their presenta- tion unless, of course, the petitioner felt he needed additior.al time. There- fore, would Mr. Rinker feel he could present his proposal in ten minutes; whereupon Mr. Rinker replied affirmatively. Mr. Harry Rinker, reprsenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the continuance of subject petitions from the previous Planning Commission meeting was because the Commission requested that development plans for Phase I be presented. since he could not state definitely when the westerly portion, presently under option to him by the State, would be developed; that the Commission further requested a similar roof treatment for buildings facing the Riverside Freeway as was proposed along Santa Ana Canyon Road, therefore, they were proposing a full tile roof, as well as additional landscaping along the rear of these buildings, which would be visible from the freeway; that they also proposed the required landscaping along Santa Ana Canyon Road in addition to landscapinq the S.A.V.I. canalt that they would like to express opposition to two of the recommended conditions, one being the one requiring landscaping the median strip along Santa Ana Canyon Road, since, to his know- ledge, this same requirement had not been made of other developers alonq Santa Ana Canyon Road, however, if this was a uniform requirement, then it should be required of the property on the south side of the streetJ that the other condition was the requirement of reciprocal parking agreement with the property to the west since they were agreeable to providing accesa easements if a use were proposed that would require three to four times normal parking, such as a theater, then the required parking for the shopping center would be serving this facility; and that he had a larger rendering of the exterior elevations for all buildings. Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion and noted that there had been some chanqes to the original plans, and the petitioner had made an attempt to meet the requirements of the SC 2one, however,. he had some questions for the Commission to answer, namely, although the General Plan indicated a regional shopping center in this area, and the exact corner was not indicated, since one regional shopping center had been approved for the southwest corner of this intersection, would it imply that more than cne regional shopping center could be located - perhaps on all four corners with possibly four service stations - if so, this could present a number of problems, one being the number of residents 1n the canyon now could not support two shopping centers, let alone four, and the same would apply wherever a small ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, ~7anuary Z4, 1972 72^28 RECLASSIFICATI.ON_ NO._71-72-21 ANC V~RIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued) community center was proposed on the General Plan. Furthermore, The petitioner had attempted to comply with the SC 2one, and the City Council in recent action had tried to maintain the requirements of the General Plan and the SC Zoner however, there was another area which should be considered, and that was the fact that the rear portion of the development would still be seen from the freeway; and that the patitioner ~.vas requestinq additional accessway to Santa Ana Canyon Rc-.d contrary to the Stinta Ana Canyon Access Point Study. Mr. RinkEr, in rebuttal, stated that he felt quite elated after having read about the controversial zoning before the City Council wherein SOO homeowners representing 3,500 persons indicated they were opposed to the small ahopping center propoaed at Riverda.le and Lakeview Avenues and stated that they wou7.d not patronize that center, while the statements made by Mr. McQueen were rather innocuouar that there must be need for the center because of the invest- ment being made by the prospective teaants, which Lmounted to one ond one-half million dollars, and the people spending that kind c~f money would be indicative of the needi that this would be a very high quality ~enter, using the finest materials; that extensive landscaping was proposed both outside and within the center; and that he could not recall in the company's history of building 25 to 30 shopping centers having so little controversy than that experienced with this petition. Furthermore, this would change or negate any further shopping center requests so that they would not be adjacent to homes being proposed to be developed in the canyon. Commissioner Herbst noted tha~ in his motion of continuance he had requested staf° to consider circulation proposed and how it would affect adjoining properties, particularly the stzeet that would be affecting the property to the east. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts stated that the local street would bisect the property to the east in an east-west fashion. Commissioner Herbat noted that he would like to see a layout of circulation for both subject and adjoining properties because the street proposed could greatly affect future development of the property immediately to the east since only one accessaay presently existed, and that was at Solomon Drive, there£ore, staff should present an area development plan indicating an alter- native circulation for these properties. Mrs. Hazel Maag, 5665 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commisaion and noted that her property was immediately adjacent to the service station and inquired how would the service station fumes affect futurc- development of her property if she decided to have apartments on it, and would she, too, be granted two access points from her property to Santa Ana Canyon Road; that she did not feel a high fence was adequate to screen her from the undesirable element of a serv±ce station; and that if the Rinker property was to be approved for a shopping center, then the ent•ire property in that area should be developed for commercial uses. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that the Commisslon could approve subject petition with a condition that it be devel- oped in accordance with an approved area development plan, thus the staff could meet wlth Mrs. Maag and Mr. Rinker as to the most advantageous place to locate circulation to those properties. Mra. Maag noted that she had no immediate plans for her property, but what would the City permit her to do; that she did not want development of property adjacent to her property to possibly jeopardize any future dA~~elopment of her property, which was comprised of 19 acres, and ahe did not want to have a road which could not be utilized with sccess through the ahopping center since presently she was permitted access to Solomon Drive. Mr. Rinb:er noted that a^ to the actual location of the proposed local street and the service station, they would be flexible, and if "he zoning were approved, they could coordinate the road ~:o the benefit of both propertiess and that he did not know Whether a wall would be required by Code adjacent ~ r'1 u MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2'29 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (COntinued) to the service station, however, they intended to build the wall, and they wou13 have no objection to providing a 20-foot landscape strip adjacent to said wall. TAE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Harbst stated his reason for requiring an area development plan was for possible access for the property between Solomon Drive and Imperial Highwa,y and the effect that the local street proposed would have on the property to the east because of the possibility in the future of requests for additional access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, which would not be permissible, thus he wanted to determine what could be provided in the form of circulation. It was detesmined by the Commission that the Maag property/had frontage along Santa Ana Canyon Road of approximately S00 to 1,000 fee,c. Commissioner Gauer expressed concern regarding the State property which was originally considered under subject petition and wliich had been discussed at length at the last public hearing, since the petit':~ner had a prlor right to purchase said property, if there was no agreement to de:elop the property, he could sell off his option to someone else. Chairman Farano inquired of Mr. Rinker what the petitione~:'s position was on the State property. Mr. Rinker replied that they had said property in escrow with the State and had a substantial amounr of money tied up in its purchaser that said property had been oriqinally indicated in their development plans, which would be part of the seconu phase of development, however, at the last pub~ic hearing on subject petitions when the Commission inquired whether or not he could guaran- tee that the property would be developed - he being the conservative type - did not guarantee that development would occur, therefore, this was the reason for deleting it from the revised plans. However, onc could liken it to the Anaheim Hills Development, which would be ~one in phases alsoi that there was not suf£icient population in the canyon to quarantee establishing the department store that would be proposed for the westerly portion, although they had a number of lessees for the smaller stores, including the 30,000 square foot hardware store; and that although they might not develop the westerly portion, they would grant access easements through the proposed development. Chairman k'araao inquired whether Ms. Rinker had an interest in '..hat portion of the existing freeway property to the north, because this could also be a land- locked parcel as was the westerly portion, except for the ingress and egress Mr. Rinker offered; and that there was no legal document on file which would indicate to the Commission that the access easement was being granted. Mr. Rinker replied that the pxoperty to the north was owned by the State, and the State did not consider selling said property~ only that property to the west was being considered for. sale. Chairman Farano noted that he really was more concerned with the fact that Ehere was no legal document on file that would guarantee access easements to the property to the west, because *_his would zesult in a landlocked parcel. Mr. Rinker sep.lied .that_-i~ xras not his.. ~oing,.that..the parcel was landlocked, b~ trie scaE~'•s, ~h(Swever, ~they~ sEil ~ inten`8'ed to g6 forward with future devel- opment of the property. Commissioner Kaywood noted that i£ th~omm~~,Bnion _~~~u 'ect e it on this would create a landlocked parcel^ ~`eq~~"~f'e`8' at r• R n~ ~a Y~~ what he intended to do with the westerly portion of the property. Mr. Rinker replied that it was their intent to develop the property, however, he would not guarantee that he would develop it. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired as to the length of time the parcel would be held in escrow. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 72-30 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARTACICE NO. 231Q (Continued) Mr. RinJcer replied that this would depend upon the growth of the Santa Ana Canyon and when the department store determined there would be sufficient business to warrant leasing the property - this could rake from three to five y e a r s~.J~.~ / a~r.«,e.C~.~ '~sd ~/ .~.c~/ .~.e~..i R•~,cwn~XD ~"~+~ • - Q -- v ri Commissioner Gauer noted that the petitioner could sell his oQtion any time, and the Commission would never know if the department store would be located there. Mr. Rinker concurred that from a technical standpoint this was correct, however, from a practical standpoint, it would serve his firm better than someone else. Commissioner Rowland then inquized o£ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry what the definition of a landlocked parcel wasi whereupon Mr. Lowry stated it was a parcel that had no access to a public street. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether or not an access easement would qualify this as not being a landlocked parcel; whereupoa Mr. Lowry stat~~' he could not answer that immediately but would have to research the answer. Commissioner Herbst then stated that in his opinion he could not vote on this proposal until he had seen an area development plan which would indicate circulation for this area and whether tlie proposed access could be given to qualify this as a shopping center and how circulation would affect the adjoin- ing property, therefore, he would consider a continuance of subject petitions. Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that the City in the past had recognized access easements as providing the needed access to a public street over other property where some other partially or completely landlocked parcels were considered. Mr. Rinker r.oted for the Commission that he had made evezy attempt to do what- ever the Commission requested, providinq easemen2s and a road for the property to the east of said road, the location to be flexiblet that there had been one continuance already, and tlme was very important becauee they had tenants who might leave this project if an answer was not available, therefore, he would usge the Commission to make a decision today, and any consideration of an area development plan could be taken care of before this was considered by the City Council. Commissioner Herbst stated he could not consider this because he needed the area development plan report since there could be such an impact on t:.2 area because of the the access points being requested that it could affect the entire Santa Ana Canyon Access Points Study. Commissioner Allred stated he concurred with Commiasioner Herbst, and, further- more, he was not in favor of a service station on a loca2 street, particularly at that location proposed. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that an area development plan could be presented in time for the Interdepartmental Committee meeting next Monday. however, it would take four weeks before it could be considered by the Planninq Commission. Further discussion was held by the Commission on the area development plan, with direction being given staff as to the type of information the Commission would like to see, namely, an overall study as to acce~s to Santa Ana Canyon Road, the number of additional access points that could be safely considered and their location as that pertained to subject property and the property to the west and east in order that the Commission would not find their.selves in the position of having to approve each access point request when development occurred in the canyon; and that posaibly staff might consider a service road between the established access points and whethez or not a change should be made in the street alignment for the local road proposed under subject petition. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 71-72-21 and Variance No. 2310 to the meetinq of Febzuary 23, 1972, to allow time for staff to prepare an area development plan and advertise same. Commissioner Herbst &ecoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2-31 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued) Prior to voting on the motion, Commisaioner Seymour noted that he did not think this was fair to the petitioner since the Commission should come to gtipa with the issue, however, he would agree with Commissior.er Herbst that the Commiss3.on should know what effects this local street would have on the property to the east, but even if the sta£f's report would indicate the street was adequate _ to serve these properties, he still could not vote for subject petltiona because of the access points and the fact that the landlocked parcel to the west was not being developed, and this could not be solved in two to four weeks; that iE he were a property owner in that area, he, too, would request additional acc~ass points if aubject petition with its access points was approved; and that :.ntil the access points were resolved, as well as development of the property to the west, he could not consider subject petitions favorably. On roll call the foregoing motion carried. CONDITIONAL 'JSE - CaNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. COLLINS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP~ PERMIT NO. 1282 Pavid S. Collins General Partner, 1077 Wesic Ball Road, Anaheim~ California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLTSH A PRIVATE RECRRATION CENTER INCLUDING LIVE AND FTLM ENTERT~,INMENi~ P::BLIC AND PRIVATE DANCING~ AND OTHER RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVITiES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre located at the southwest corner of Adams Street and Broadway, having frontages oE approxie~ately 225 feet• on Adams Street and 34 feet on Broadway, having a waximum depth of approximately 455 feet, and £urther deacribed as 1430 West Broadway. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the December 29, 1971, meeting to allow the various City departments time to observe the proposal first hand and ze~ort back to the Planning Commission, and for the petitioner to review the requirements of the Fire Mar.shal as to cost for compliance. Chairman Farano noted that at the last public hearing the nearinq was closed, therefore, the Commission would dispense with reading of the Report to the Commission. Chairman Farano noted that at the last public nearing Mr. Collins had advised the Commission he would study the feasibility of ineeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal, who had found the building not in conformance with fire and building code requirements, and inquired whether or not Mr. Collins had made this study. Mr. David Co111ns, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that because of the fact that Fire Marshal Phillips had been i21 during the past week and htd just returned to work, he was unable to obtain the informa- tion necessary; that he had contacted the Chief Building Inspector, who had advised him that the letter from the State Fire Marshal stated that all build- ings would be required to meet code by November, 1972; that he had agreed to installation of sprinklers at a cost of $15,000; that Fire Marshal Phillips was of the opinion that the State Fire Marshal should issue a rulinq on this property before the local fire marshal sequirements were met, those being. having existing gatea swing out and providing wet standpipes; that he would be happy to meet all of the cther conditions of the Report to the Commission. including dedication for street wideaing purposesi and that they already had a trash storage area that was fenced in, and if this did not meet the City's requirement, they would reconstruct it to meet the requirement. Chairman Farano noted that since the petitioner did nut have the opportunity to determine the economic feasibility, would he pxefer to have more time, however, if there was any question as to waiving the building code, the Commission was not empowered to do so - this was only the prerogative of the City Council. Mr. Collins replied L•hat they were not requesting we.iver of the code, just additional time to meet it; that they had been ias operation such a short time that they were unable to evaluate the success of this operation because of the many other competitive buslnesses in this area; thac if they were able to ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, C.TTY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2-32 ~ONDITIONAL USE P_ERMIT N0. 1282 (Continued) oper.ate through the summer, this would give them the experience to determine if it would be economically feasible to continue this operation. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner had been operatinq under a temporary permit from the City Council; that the petitioner also had advised the Commission that h~ had a number of bookings which he wanted to complete in February, however, hp did not want to continue subject petition indefinitely without requiring this buildinq to meet code; and that any extension of time for completion of the requirements of tha Fire Marshal should be only a short time. Mr. Cellirs then stated that if their facilities did not provide adequate exits and rire s3f.ety, they would not be permitted to operate; even though the Fire Depar~ment had one criteria to meet, he still would be required to have the Fi.re Marshal inspect the property. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consi3eration of Conditional Use Permit ho. 1282 to the meeting of February 23, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to revie:v the feasibility of ineeting the State Fire Marshal's requirements £or the buildii:q. Commissioner Herbst requested that the petitioner stipulate that no additional bookings be made until aft2r the results of the February 23, 1972, public hearing were made publir, Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mr. Collins would stipulate to no more bookinga until after the Planning Commission action on February 23, 1972; whereupon Mr. Collins so stipulated. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIE.D. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. THOMAS P. WALKER, 2855 East Facific Coast PERMIT NO. 1285 Highway, Corona Del Mar, California, Ownert ENVIRONMENTAL LEISURE CORP., WILLIAM J. HERRICK, 126 North Euclid Street, Fullerton~ California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABZISH A MOTEL WITH WAIVER OF PERMZTTED STGN LOCATION on propesty described ?s: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1~ acres having a Erontage of approximately 213 feet on the south side of Via Burton Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 292 feet, and beinq located approximately 240 feet east of the centerline of State Co•llege Boulevard. Psoperty presentlY classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRZAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not there was anyone preaent in op~ositior., and one person indicated his presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 65-unit motel having two free-standing signs, one freeway-oriented and the other oriented toward Via Burton Street; that the M-1 Zone permitt~d establish- ment of motels in the zone by way of a conditional use permit since it recognized the need for providing accommodations to industrial personnel and businessmen in the industrial zone; that wfth the existing service station and reataurant adjacent to subject property to the west, it would appear that the location of a motel immediately adjacent would be a compatible use; that the primary ques- tion the Commission would wish to answer was the appropriateness of the two free-standing signs since the property was not of sufficient size to allow two free-standing signs automatically, together with the faat that the petitioner was proposing a sign oriented toward the freeway, since the elevation of ~the freeway at this location rendered the building and property with the proposed sign along Via Burton very visible to freeway traffic. Mr. William Herrick, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had several questions regarding the Report to the Commission; that the sta£f concurred there appeared to be a need for this service in the area, as it did at their five other locations; that there were minor deviations regarding the sign, however. what they we:•e attempting to do was avoid the building of a very large sign, and if one took staff's recommendations, tnis would remove a sign 300 feet from the freeway, thus requiring the sign to be ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3anuary 24, 1972 72-33 CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1285 (Continued) at least 10 to 15 feet higher, however, they did not want to spend this addi- tional $8,000 to $9,000 for a sign; that they had not flagged the property prior to submitting the petition, however, this was now done, and in order to obtain visibility beyond the Denny's Restausant sign, their sign would have to be 52 feet high with a 156-square foot sign, but this, then, would make the sign visib~e from State Co11egQ Boulevard. Mr. Joel Cudler, 10142 Shoemaker, Santa Fe Springs, appeared before the Commission and stated that normally he did not appear for a client when a sign was considered, however, the agent for the petitioner was a long-time and valued friend; that the Commission and staff failed to indicate all the needed waivers - not only was the request for the numbes of signs but the location in respect to the required setback from the common property line; that they had flagged the property, which was indicated on the pictures being presented, and with a sign 52~ feet in height, it would be viewed approximately 390 feet from the centerline of the freewayt that staff was'suggesting that signing be accomplished only to the front of the property, or a distancp of 75+h greater from the freer~ay centerline than now proposed, and in or.der to attract freeway trafric, the sign would have to be considerably higher; that a similar problem had occurred in Loma Linda where they oriented the symbol message ta the free- way and incorporated other info±-mation in the second sign; that waivers re- quested from the M-1 7.one were needed because said zone permitted signs of on].y 100 square feet, whereas the C-2 Zone, in which motels were also permitted, allowed a sign up to 300 square feet, therefore, their sign was mose than the M-1 Zone permitted but also less than the C-2 Zone permitted; that if the sign were ].ocated on Via Burton Street, which was only 30 feet wide, another waiver would be required; that the flag nicture would indicate the proposed new height would be in line with the Denny's siqnt that the proposed motel was needed in the area because there were not too many which rented rooms for only $6, how- ever, the size sign permitted, from their experience, would indicate insuffi- cient trade would be drawn from the freeway. Mr. Raymond Ast, repsesenting Avionics Structures, 1429 North State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission in opposition to both the proposed motel as well as the waiver from the Sign Ordinance and stated that they had selected this area for their industrial operations because it was considered pure industrial, however, since 1965, numerous waivers have k+een granted permitting intrusion of commercial uses into the industrial area; that they had received numerous complaints from the commercial uses regarding the noise from tneir operation; that he did not consider a motel a complementary indus- trial use; that this location was an ideal place for industrial uses because of the freeway exposure; and that he could see no benefit from approving a motel in this area since there was a very large one at the next freeway off- ramp on East-Raymand Avenue, therefore, he wondered how the Commission could consider a motel as desirable in ~he M-1 Zone. Mr. Herrick, in rebuttal, stated that there appeared to be a need for this type of facillty since he had checked with both the service station and restaurant representatives who had advised him they had numerous people getting off the freeway and asking for the location of an economical place to stay; and that this would serve industry as well as their facilities served industry in Riverside and La Habra. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the manner in which Mr. Ast's company had i been affected - were they unable to lease their building, or did he have a financial loss because of the commercial uses permitted in the area; whereupon Mr. Ast stated that when they decided to move their facility, it was determined that the Anaheim area in which they located was a pure M-1 area; that they not only dedicated fos street widening, but also provided sidewalks, but since 1965, other than industrial uses have been permittedt that there was no vacancy in their building because they owned and operated their company in this building; and that they had to erect a fence since the plumbing company was aermitted to have commercial uses, and he had received numerous complaints from them because of the noises from their power too',s. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI4N, January 24, 1972 72-34 CONDITIONAL USE PE_RMIT NO. 1285 (Continued) Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner proposed an increase in size of the sign and inquired of staff whether or not this would be within Code require- ment of the M-1 7,one. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the size siqn propcsed still would have no effect on the waivers requested, however, the sign repreaentative was correct in that the zequested waiver of the sign location should have been expanded since Code required this, however, the advertisement was sufficiently broad that it could be included in the Planning Commission's consideration this date. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not there was any connection between the owner of subject property and the property to the south; whereupon Mr. Herrick replied they were in escrow with Thomas Walker, however, he did not think they were the owners of the property to the south. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that it was staff's opinion that Mr. Walker did not own the property to the south. Mr. koberts further noted that the representative made reference to the need for ~dditional waivers if the sign were larger on Via Burton Street, however, the h~_iqht of the sign was determined by the half-width of the street, which wa~ 32 feet, and if the sign were located 5 feet from the property line, the 1G0-square foot area restriction would still not allow this si.gn. Furthermore, staff had suggested to the petitioner that one sign should be qiven some consideration. C~mmissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not this would solve the Commission's problem by having one sign at a greater heiqht on Via Burton Street rather than having two signs. Mr. Cudler advised the Commission that there were other problems, r.amely, the distance at which the siqn would be readable and location of the sign which would place their sign behind the Denny's Restaurant sign, negating visibility of their sign at the same elevation, and even thou~h the sign was 100 square Eeet, it would be necessary for them to go farther back because their building was a two-story building and the sign location would qet within the physical structu•re of the building, thus requi.ring a very large sign if they were not permitted to have a freeway-oriented sign. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that she could not approve two signs. Mr. Herrick replied that if they were restricted to only one sign, they would have to abandon this project because it would not work out, particularly at the price they charged for rooms, and a new sign would cost in the vicinity of $9,000 to $10,000; and that th.~g could count on only 25$ of their customer.s to emanate from industry, while 758 would be cominq from the freeway. Mr. Roberts, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that the restaurant in this area was approved by conditional use permit, however, he did not know if there was a siqn waiver granted since the file was in the Development Services Department. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner's agent answered his question by stating he would need two signs or abandon the project, therefore, if the petitioner wanted to establish in the industrial area, he should be required to meet the M-1 Zone requirementst that he did not object to the motel, but he did not feel the petitioner should be granted a privilege not afforded others in the M-1 Zone, and perhaps those already in the area would want to come in for larger, £reeway-oriented siqns - then the Commission would have no recourse but to grant additional large signs if subject petition was approved; and that if ~he petitioner could not abide by the zone require~ents without waivers requested, then subject petition should be denie2.. Commissioner Seymour stai~d he would like to elaborate on Commisaioner Herbst's statements in that where residential uses intruded into the industrial area the Commission had required bufferinq from said residential use; that the Commission approved satellite uses that could be justified so long as they ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION, January 24, 1972 72-35 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1285 (Continued) served the industrial area, however, with the petitioner'~ research indicating that only 25$ of the anticipated business beinq generated from the industrial properties and the balance of 758 being freev:ay-oriented, it would be clear in his mind that this particular u~e would be an 3ntrusion into the industrial area and was not designed to serve industry, but other than M-1 uses. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-4 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1285 on the basis that the proposed use would not be serving the industrial community primarily, as required by the existing M-1 2one, since the petitioner stated that only 25$ of the anticipated business would be from industry while the balance of 75+k would be from freeway traffict that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land use; that approval of the proposed siqning would be granting the petitioner a privilege not enjoyed by the other industrial uses in the area or within other industrial areas within the Citys and that the petitioner stated that if signing as proposed were not granted, he would abandon the project. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Flerbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAZN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute recess at ~ 4 :15 p :~in'. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:30 p.m., - all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE NO. 2322 - PUBLIC HEARING. HERBERT & ETHEL MYERS, 529 Victoria Avenue, Venice. California, Owners~ U. S. FACTORY-BUILT, INC.. 1601 Ma.ller Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF REQUTRED FRONT SETIIACK TO PERMIT TEMPORARY STORAGE OF A FACTORY-BUILT, SECTIONALIZED HOUSE IN THAT AREA located cn property described as: A rectanqu- larly-shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the west side of Miller Street, having a maximum ~'~~pth of approximately 375 feet, and being located approximately 560 feet south of the centerline of Orange- thorpe Avenue, and further described as 1521 Miller Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRZAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired if there was anyone in oppositian and received no response. The Commission dispensed with the readinq of the Report to the Commission. Mr. Colberg, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and statad that they manufactured single-family homes, and their factory was located on Miller Street where they employed 115 hourly and :5 salaried persons; that they had a prototlpe building and proposed to locate it on the northerly portion of the front setback area of the psoperty; that they were not involved in an advertising program but wanted to display this on a temporary basis so that they could show it to their distributors: that it was not their intent to utilize this front setback oermanently, only for approxi- mately six months; that if the Commission had viewed the proposal and the location, they would have~noticed there were c=.her uses, such as an older home, that wese also encroaching into the setback and the public right-of-way; and that they wanted to use this setback area until such time as they developed another ar.ea, and when this.unit was accepted it would be removed since they would have been established elsewhere throughout the state. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ e MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 72-36 VARIANCE NO. 2322 LContinued) The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner what was meant by a temporary use and where did the petitioner propose to display the units later, after the t.ime requested had expired= whereupon Mr. Colberg replied there was a letter on file indicatinq that the display would be removed in less than six months, and that these units would be distributed elsewhere throughout the state for display. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired i,f these units were not for display pur- poses, why did the agent object to locating it behind the fence? Whereupon Mr. Colberg stated that they would be unable to remove their finished units through the qate. Commissioner Herbst observed that he did not oppoee thi~ variance request „ since this would assist the manufacturer and his product; and that the encroach- ment would not infrinqe on the rights of others in the area since the flood control basin and Anaheim Lake surrounded subject property on three sides. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that a variance should go with the land and inquired whether or not there was some other vehicle that c~uld be used to implement thi.s request. Commissioner Herbst noted that if thi.s use were approved, the Commission could require posting of a bond to insure removal of the display aithin the time period allotted. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that this request came before the City Council originally, and at that time it was the opinion of the City Attorney that a variance was the appropriate vehicle to allow this use, after several members of the Council felt some other vehicle should be used. Deputy Ci.ty Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that there was no need to require a bond since this variance would terminate at the end of the time period set forth in the resolution by the Commission. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-5 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2322 for a period of six months, said use to terminate on or before July 24, 1972. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~~ote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, GaueT, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2323 - i~UBLIC HEARING. DONAT_,D a2. GILILLAND AI3D VERNON DUNHAM~ 4900 East La Palwa Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WATVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED HEIGHT TO PERMIT A FREE-STANDING STGN on propErty described as: An irregularly-shaped ~arcel of land having a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 450 feet, and being located approximately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Kellogg Drive, and further described as 4900 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone in opposition and received no response. The Commission dispensed with the readinq of the Report to the Commission. Mr. Leonard 'Van Zanten, representinq the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that what they proposed was to have a covered planter- sign with steel letters which would not have the appearance of a commercial sign normally required to be 8 Peet above groundi that the sign would be only 5 by 8 feet, advertising the name of the company ~nd its address; and that the Commission and Council in the past had granted similar waivara of monumented signs. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2-3~ VARIANCE NO. 2323 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer of£ered Resolution No. PC72-6 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2323, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2321 - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN F. AND CATHERINE QUINN GANAHL~ 501 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ownersj GAYLEN B. COMPTON, 316 East Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED USES AND ~Z) NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARRING SPACES TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A COMMERCIAL PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 56 feet on the east side of Topeka Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, and being located approximately 185 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 114 North Topeka Street. Property presently classified P-1, AIITOMOSILE PARKING, 20NE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there wss anyone present in opposition and received no response. The Commission dispensed with the reading of the Report to the Commission. Mr. Gaylen Compton, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that their major concern was the rpquest for waiver of the parking requirement; that the intended user of the property would have a jobbing ~peration rather thaa~ a normal retail, off-the-street operation; that Mr. fl rewer, the proposed user, advised him that approximately one-half of the square footage would be utilized for warehousing to eliminate constant delivery, although they would have a loading dock for deliveries which would reduce their parking area for customers and workers~ that the parking lot design problem could be resolved by removal of two parking bays, providing for a turn-around and heading out of customers into the alley; that the use could be likened to an industrial use rather than commercial; that the user would have oniy two employees, and if the industrial formula was used, they would be permitted t~ i-ave as high as ten employees with only five spaces; that at their present location at Anaheim Soulevard and Chestnut Street the proposed uaer indicated they had approximately eight to ten customers per day, or one to one and one-half persons per hour, thus the proposed number of spaces would be more than adequate to take care of customers coming into the shop, who would be coming to just pick up or deliver the product. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissipner Herbst inquired as to the type of printing presses that were proposed - would they be rotary or regular printing - his concern being because of the location of residences to the north of subject property. Mr. Walter Brewer, proposed user of the facility, indicated that this would be the sheet set operation type, which was quiet; that their present operation was over a motel, and they had never received objections to the noises; and that they did have one large press. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mr. Brewer would stipulate to not having rotary presses in the new facilitys whereupon Mr. Brewer stated he did not feel rotary presses made any more noise than large presses did. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission was concerr.~d with the noise factorf and that this use would not turn out to be an undesirable use at this location. ' ~J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~anuary 24, 1972 72-38 VARIANCE NO. 2321 (Continued) Mr. Compton noted that a previous variance had been approved to establish a cabinet shop in conjunction with the lumber yasd, and power saws were used in their bu3lding operation, therefore, the proposed use would be :io more noisy than the use that was previously approved. - Discussion was held by the Commisaion and staff relative to the existing variance an the property, it being the City Attorney's opinion, according to 2onin;;Supervisor Charles Roberts, that where a previous variance was in effect, the old action would be superseded by any new action. Mr. Compton noted that Mr. Ganahl, the present o;aner of the property, was entering into a lease,with an option to purchase the properEy, for the estab- lishment of the printing press subject to the variance being approved, and if subject petition were not approved, then he would prefer that the present variance be continued on the property. Commissioner Allxed offered Resolution No. PC:2-7 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2321, subjeat to conditions, on the basis that this was located in the P-1 Zone and a similar use_formerly existed in the building; that the petitioner stipulated to opening the fence for adequate alley circulation; and subject to=the additional condition that the proposed use shall not be obnoxious or offe:,sive by reason oi the emission of odor, dust, smoke, ash, noise, vibration, electro-maqnetic diaturbance, radiation, or other similar causes detrimental to the public health, safety,, or general welfare. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following v~te: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I3one. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-8 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings on variance No. 1612 on the basis that a new use was being established on the property. (See Resolution Book) on roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSZFICATION - PUBLTC HEARING. VZRGIL L. LONSDALE, 2557;Rowland Avenue, NO. 71-72-28 Anaheim, California, Owner; DOROTHY R. FULMER, 1556 Chateau Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agentt requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 55 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 250 fee:, and being located approxi- mately 543 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further des-. cribed a 2550 West Broadway, be reclassified from the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether anyone was present in oppositiont whereupon one person indicated his presence in opposition. P,ssistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the locatian of aubject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zonir~g action on the property, and the proposal to reclassify the property to the R-3 2one to develop a four-unit apartment complex, with plans indicatinq no waivers from the site development standards of the R-3 Zone being required. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewinq the evaluation, noted that the prnperty was a narrow, 55-foot wide, 250-foot deep parcel located between 9xiatinq sinqle- family homes and a supermarket, these factors making the pro~~erty in question. very difficult to develop within the R-3 standards, however, thia had been accomplished; and that the Commission might wish to determine~ whether the ~ ..* ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2'39 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-28 (Continued) I R-3 zoning on this property was an appropriate buffez between the existing C-1 uses and the existing sinyle-family uses, or whether th3s reclassification would be a case o: spot zoning in that the lt-3 was bounded by other zoning ciassifications. ~ Mr. Stanley Bell, 9776 K.xte~-~ Avenue, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coi,. ' ~ion and noted that as Mr. McDaniel had stated, this was an extremely difficult parcel to develop, however, they were requesting no waivers; that ~here was a 6-foot masonry wall to the south and west, the one on the west being between the commercial property and subject property, while a wooden fence existed to the east; and that this would be a desirable transi- tion to serve as a buf.fer between the commercial and the single-family residen- tial uses to the east. Mrs. Marlan Hamdorf, 311 South Gain Street, appeazed before the Commission in opposit3on, stating that a petition signed by eix persons whose homes abutted subject property were opposed to just the 6-foot masonry wall since three of these homes would be aLle to view their propert,y because the single-family homes to the east were approximately 2 feet above subject property; and that there would be no objecticn if a retainer wall of a minimum of 7 feet was erected. Mr. Bell, in rebuttal, stated that they would be very happy to meet any conditions the Commission might wish to impose. THE HEP+RING WAS CLOSED. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that when a 6-foot masonry wall was required, the heiyht of said wall was mea3ured from the highest finiahed grade level, therefore, since the R-l was higher than subject property, the height of the wall would then be measured from that of the R-1. Mrs. Hamdorf advised the Commission they were somewhat upset with the develop- ment of the C-1, particularly after it was constructed, the noises from the refrigeration and the truck traffic and the-.qeneral untidiness of this area r~as their prime objection, however, they would not object to reclassification of the property and c?evelopment since this would be better than a vacant lot. Furthermore, they would like to have the fence at least as high as chat at the Stater Brothers property. Mr. Roberts noted that the Commission could require a 7-foot masonry wall. Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that since the property owners requested a higher wall, at least as high as that at Stater Brothers, this should be a requirement for subject property. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-9 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to th~: City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-28 be approved, subject to conditions, and the additional condition that a 7-foot masonry wall be constructed along the east propertg line, as stipulated to by the patitioner; and that a finding be made that because this was an unusual size and difficult parcel to develop, this should not be regarded as setting a precedent as a buffer between commercial and single-family usea. ~(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. Commissioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 5:05 p.m. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3anuary 24, 1972 ~2'4Q RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LENZI M. AND MILDRED IMOGENE ALLRED, NO. 71-72-26 403 Cedarhaven Way, Anaheim, California, Owner; WAI,KER & LEE, INC., 1477 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property deacribed as: A recta:igularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of anproximately .23 acres, having a frontage of approximately 79 feet on the east side of Maqnolia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 177 feet, and being loaated approxi- mately 254 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further des- cribed as 116 South Maqnolia Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAT, COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether thare was anyone present in opposition and received no response. The Commission dispensed with reading the Report to the Commission. Mr. Arthur Hancock, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that t;~ey could comply with. all of the conditions set forth in ti:e Report to the Commission, except that it would be dirficult to retain the existing ash tree inasmuch as the building they propased to construct would be 15 feet from the front sidewalk and the trev. would overshadow the signing for the property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Raywood noted that since this was a heautiful specimen evergreen ash tree, she would urge that the petitioner make every effort to retain the tree; whereupon Commissioner Herbst noted that anyone moving into the area would want to preserve any aesthetic value, however, since tliis was being developed for commercial ur.es, if the tree interfered:with the business, then it would be difficult.'to preserve the tree. Mr. Hancock advised the Commission that there might be a po:.sibility of trimming the tree in order that the signing wauld not be obscured. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-10 and moved far its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-26 be approve3, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rcwlar.d, Seymour. NQES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LAWRENCE A. MUCKENTHALER, 1530 Avolencia Np;~, .~z_2~ Drive, Fullerton, California, Owner; PANAMINT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., P. 0. Box P, Newport Beach, California, Agent; VARIANCE NO. 2324 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 9.17 acres located on the northwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Loara Street and having approximate frontaaes of 465 feet on Crescent Avenue and 223 feet on Loara Street, and further described as 1619 West Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified C-l, GEtiERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-EAMSLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUSTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM SUSLDING HEIGHT AND (2) MINIMUM REQBIRED BUILDILIG SITE AREA PER UNIT TO ESTABLISH A 182-UNIT~ THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. Chairman Earano inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. The Commission dispenaed with the reading of the Report to tlie Commiaslon. ~ ~ N.INiJTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 72-41 RECLASSIFICATION N_O. 71-72-27 AND VARZANCE NO. 2324 (Continucd) Mr. Donald Kenny, representing Panamint Construction Co., appeared before the Commission and noted that the parcel in question had C-1 zoning since 1957j that there were commercial uses astablishe~3 to the west, the post office to the north, the Anaheim Shopping Center to the south, and the YMCA to the east, therefore, their development would not affect any R-1 properties; that although the property owner had attempted to develop commercial uses on the property since the zoning was granted, because of the existing commercial usea estab- lishe6 in the area, the demand for commercial properties was lost, and the highest and best use now wculd be for R-3 development; that they proposed a three-story apartment project which would be a luxury-type apartment devalop- ment with many recreational facilities and heavily landscaped; that the only major violation of the Anaheim Zoning Code woul3 be the density proposed of• 42 units per acre, while 36 dwellinq units per acre was the maximum permitted, and this was because they were proposinq three stories, not additional coveraget 'chat the code permitted 55~ coverage, however, they were proposing only 42+l; and that the developmen*_ would meet the needs ii: 'his area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted that he could see no basic difference betheen this land use and the land use next to the YMCA on North Street where a 35+! vacancy factor existed; ~hat he did not oppose R-3 zoning, but he would not approve a development with A2 units per acre; and that the 6-foot masonry wall on the front would provide a better living envisonment becasse of the type and volume of traffic coming in and out of the main access to the commercial center. Commissioner Allred returned to the Council Chamber at 5:10 p.m. Commissioner Herbst noted that staff had promised to check the density allo.red on the Park Lido Apartments. Mr. McDaniel advised the Commission that the Park Lido had besn required to provide 1200 square feet per unitp that they had a density of 36 units per acre and a coverage factor of S1B. Cammissioner Herbst concurred that the density proposed was too high for tk,is area, although the develapment was a very attractive project, and inquired whether or not the devaloper would be wiiling to reduce the number of units per acre to meet code. Mr. Kenny replied that there were economics to consider, however, he would attempt to bring this down to 36 units per acre. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed, and that this increase in the number of units would add to an already heavily traveled intersection. Mr. Kenny then stated that they would be willing to eliminate the center building which had 12 units and developing this as a green area or a recreation area. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberes advised the Commission that the reclassifica- tion could be approved. and only waivers 2-b-1 and 2-b-3 of the variance may be approved, reqviring that the petitioner meet the minimum building site area per dwelling unit. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-ll and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-27 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbet. Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Seymour. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 ~2'42 RECLASSIFZCATION NO._71-72-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 2324 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-12 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to grant, in part, Petition for Variance No. 2324. denying waiver of the minimum building site area per dwelling unit on the basis that the property was of sufficient size to meet misiimum code requirements for square footage per unit, and the petitioner had not demonstrated that a hardship would exist if this ;+aiver were not granted, and subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 2 by the addition of., "provlded, however, that suffi- cient dwelling units shall be deleted from the development in order that a minimum of 1200 square fee't of land is provided for each remaining unit". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reso.lution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rawland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSZONERS: Seymour. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: THE COVINGTON BROTHERS, 2451 East Orangethorpe TRACT N0. 7448, Avenue, Fullerton, California 92631. ENGINEER: Lander REVISION t70. 2 Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, ,iuite H, Anaheim, California. Subject traat, located on the south side of Ball Road approximately 280 feet east of Belhaven Street and comgrising 10 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 34 R-3 zoned lots. Mr. Gerald Burns, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that the map before the Cosnmission was the same as that considered at the ~anuary 10, 1972, meeting; and that the developer had visited the development suggested by the Commission to determine how they could redesign their project, however, there appeared to be some very significant things which he would like to have the engineer of tne project review. Mr. Vic Edge, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission and noted his prlmary purpose was to discuss the asphalt coverage of the proposed tract compared with that of the suggested development; that the table of figures preaented to the Commission indicated an increase of asphalt coverage of the suggested development over that proposed by them of from 11.5 and 12.4~ to 17.1$ as it pertained to secondary accesss that some of the advantages which the Covington Brothers development had over the other development sug- gested were that the patios were at the rear of the building and would back up to other patios; and that a£ter making the comparisons of the two develop- ments, the developer decided to develop in accordance with the plans that had been presented to the Commission. Mr. Burns noted that there was a great difference between their project and the one to which the Commission made reference, namely, that t'hey were develop- ing fourpler.es not a condominiumj that there would be one owner for each four- p1Ex or 32 separate deeds, whereas the condominic..n would have many separate deed^, t'~ereby requiring a homeowners association to take care of landscapi-~g. repairs. etc.t that the major portion of the owners of the fourplexes would be former single-fam3ly homeowners who transferred their equity from the home in order to establish a higher return for their moneyt and that the Co~miESion was fully aware of the tyge o£ development Covington Brothers had built in Orange County. Mr. Burns further noted that the figures presented in the brochure would indi- cate that they did not like building other than fourplexes, particularly whPn one viewed the 1.8$ vacancy factor for all of their fourplex developmenta in Orange County; and that it compared with the 8-108 vacancy factor for multiple- family units which provided green recreation areas, tennis courts, barbecues, etc. Commissioner Herbst expres~ed c~ncern over the fact that there was a 10-foot landscape strip on the south side of Omeqa Avenue which would have to be main- tained, and inquired who would have the responsihility of maintaining this landscaping. ~ C MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~anuary 24, 1972 72-43 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7448, REVISION NO. 2(Concinued) Mr. Burns advised the Commission that he was under the impression that the City would maintain the landscaping, but that there would be no problem since the owners on the opposite side of the street could maintain this. Commissioner Herbst noted there was a difference in the proposed tract and development to the west in that the projact to the west was under one owner- sY.ip rather than several owners. Furthermore, there were some sections of the 10-£oot strip on the opposite side of the street that would not be directly across from a fourplex lott and that there should be some written assurance that this landscaping would be maintained, possibly in the form of a bond. Commissioner Gauer noted L•hat the Commission had visited several of the four- plex developments of the developers and found the alleys well maintained, and nothing indicated the location of the trash storage areas as being objection- able, even though the Commission was fuliy aware of their existence; and that the landscaping was also well maintained. Commissioner Rowland noted that he had been opposed to alleys and the vast amount of asphalt, however, it wonld appear that the figures presented by the developer would tend to indicate he was i.ncorrect, but then he, too, could present numbers which could reflect a different picture; that he was only referring to the type of development and the fact that this type of develop- ment was devoting space for two separate circulation elements (streets and alleys) for the same purpose (the automobile); that he did not feel the City of Anaheim, or for that matter any other city, intended to place emphasis on the vehicle rather than on the people living in the unitst that the City of Anaheim had a policy for a number of years of not accepting alleys for dedica- tion in multiple-family developments on large parcels; that it was discrimina- tory to accept alleys in subdivided developments such as this; and that, in addition, the City presently had over 17 miles of alleys which had never been serviced properly. Commissioner Gauer noted he did not like to see the appearancF of alleys during certain times of the week, particularly at trash pick-up time. Commissioner Rowland noted that the pr.oposed development had virtually no off- street play area and a great numbez of children in those developments that were viewed by the Commission; that alYhough there was a great City park not too distant, there was no way for the chidlren to get to the park; that the developments visi~ed did have the trash areas covered, but they were also located between buildings, some beneath the kitchen windows and others beneath living room wAndows; that with the abuae these containers received and with trash pick-up only once a week, this could be most unhealthy or unsanitary during summex months; and that the City's ordinances were outmode3 in given areas. However, he could not argue against the developer's success because it was obvious he was fulfilling a need. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the proposed development should have more recreation area provided. Mr. Burns noted that many people who had lived in their fouplex developments which Covington built often called them when they moved from one area of the County to another to find out i£ Covir.gton had built any similar units in the new area because they liked what they had rented before. Commissioner Herbst thought perhaps the alleys should be private alleys; this, then, would relieve the City of the burden of maintaining them, however, this would mean there would have to be sper.ial easement agreements signed for access across the private alleys. Mr. Edge noted that one of the major problems regarding private alleys was the difficulty in maintaining themj and that when one considered an alley which was being traveled by several people, there would be aifficulty in getting the people to agree on the alley maintenance. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the alleys were for the beneflt of the people living in the adjoining units and not for the general public who would be payinq £or maintenance of the alleys if they were public alleys. 0 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3anuary 24, 1972 72-44 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7448, REVISION NO. 2(Continued) Commissioner Kaywood stated it was obvious that children would be living in these units, however, it was also obvious that there was no recreational area being provided for these children, who would have to play in the public streets and alleys. Commissioner Herbst stated he was still not satisfied as to who would be main- taining the 10-foot landscape strip on the south side of the east-west street: even though this area was a dedi::ated public area, a requirement of the Area Development Plan required the adJoiaing property owner(s) to maintain it. Mr. Roberta, in response to a request for clarification of the maintenance by Mr. Burns, noted that the property west of Belhaven Street was a private drive, however, immediately to the west of subject property this was a public street, known as Omega Avenne, and a special condition of the Area Development Plan required the owner of the property on the north side of the street to maintain this landscaping. Commissioner Rowland noted that there were basic differences oY' opinion with Covington Brothers who had excellent reason to pursue the proposal considering the success they had had in the past, but he personally was not convinced - in fact, he was adamantly opposed to it. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny Tentative Mag of Tract No. 7448, Revision No. 2, on the basis that the devel~pers ware proposing an inordinate amount of land devoted to vehicular circulationt that there was a lack of on- site recreation areas; that an acceptable method had not been presented to resolve maintenance of the 10-foot landscape strip on the south siae of Omega Avenue as required by Area Development Plan No. 94s that the developer did not submit proof that it was impractical to develop subject property without alleys, thereby converting portions of the asphalt areas into recreation areas. Furtheru~cre, ±hat the City Council be urged to enact an urgency ordinance abandoning the City's commitment to accept dedication and maintenance of some alleys in order that future development of apartments and commercial uses may be accomplished with any alleys proposed to be private alleys which shall be maintained by the property owner. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Allred and Gauer voting "no"). REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE NO. 2201 (Charles and Verity Hobbs) - Request for extension of time - Property located on the east side of Cambridge Street, approximately 240 feet north of Camden Avenue. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel presented a request from one of the petitioners of property located on the east side of Cambr9.dge Street, appzoxi- mately 240 feet north of Camden Avenue for an ext~nsion of time for the completion of Variance No. 2201 granted in part by the Planning Commisaion in Resolution No. PC70-166 dated September 10, 1970; that said petition had expired on September 10, 1971, but the p.etitioner was requesting a retroactive extension of time, to expire January 1C, 1973, for the completion of all conditions; and that no previous extension of time had been granted. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a retroactive extension of time from September 10, 1971, through January 10, 1973, for the aompletion cf conditions in Planning Commission approval of Variance No. 2201. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 2 Proposed naminq of the new high school located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway as Anaheim Hills Hiah School. Chairman Farano noted that a recommended resolution for the naming of the new high school site located within the Ora::ge Unifiad School District, however within the boundaries of the City ef Anaheim, was before the Commission for co.~sideration. ~ ~ MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 24, 1972 72-45 ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) Discussion was held by the Commission and staff regarding the verbiage of the proposed resolution, it being the Commission Secretary's recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that tne Orange Unified School District be urged to name said high school Anaheim Hills High School. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-13 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that the Orange Uni£ied School District be urged to name the new high school site located within the boundaries of the City of Anaheim at the southeast cornor of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway as Anaheim Hills High School, based on the fact that the City of Anaheim and the school district were cooperatively undertaking he develop- ment of a joint recreation and school facility~ that the name of the school should be descriptive of the locale; that the City of Anahe;m had developed their major recreational golf facility named Anaheim Hills; and that the City of Anaheim is purchasing a 17~-acre p~rk site immediately south of said high school site to £urther its overall services to young citizens of Anaheim as well as school children of the school district. (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. Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 5:55 p.m. ITEM N0. 3 MOHLER DRIVE ANNEXATION - INHABITED - Located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, comprised of approximately 500 acres. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, boundaries of the annexation, the terrain, public and private facilities, access to the property, existing Orange County zaning on the property, and previous zoning action on,the property; and that staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council said proposed annexation be approved and the appropriate City of Anaheic~ zoning be initiated at such time as an annexatior. ordinance had been read. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Mohler Drive Annexation - Inhabited be approved as being a logical exten- sion of the boundaries of the City of Anaheim, and that appropriate City of Anaheim zoning be initiated at such time a~ an annexation ordinance had been read. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motior.. MOTION CARRZED. ADJOU~NMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTON CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. Respectful.ly snbmitted, d~~~',..' _ ANN KAEBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. 101G Lacy Ave. 7'632C0 ~nahe~m, C-~I~turn~a