Minutes-PC 1972/04/17~
City IIall
Anaheim, Cali£ornia
April 17, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OP THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - A reqular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 p.m.. a quorum
being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry ~
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Seymour led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGiANCE Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner
THE MINUTES Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, to approve the minutes of the meet-
ing of March 20, 1972, subject to the following corrections:
pg. 72-122, para. 5, lines 3 and 4: "area." (Dclete remainder
of sentence)
pq, 72-129, para. 1, line 6: "Hills was the only small acre
estates area...."
Pg. 72-131, para. 5, line 1: "Mormon church...."
para..6, line 8: "the numerous complaints of
neighbors;" (Delete "moved elsewhere")
Pg. 72-133, para. 6, line 3: "would be at the site and be a
detriment...." (Delete "would it")
Pg. 72-134, para. 10, line 14: "sporadic"
pg. 72-138, insert after paragraph 5: "Recess - Chairman
Farano declared a£ive-minute recess at
6:45 p.m.
Reconvene - Chairman Farano reconvened
the meeting at 6:50 p.m.. Commissioner
Seymour being absent."
pg. 72-140, delete paragraphs 10 and 11.
"
Pg. 72-145, para. 8, line 2: "offered a motion....
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes
o£ the April 3, 1972, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Rowland
and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following correction~:
Pg. 72-151, para. 1, should read: "Commissionex Kaywood noted
that she had visited the property and had
seen nine used cars, 1 boat and one camper
on the Brookhurst Street side of the
property, where one entry is blocked, and
the only access remains. There were at
least 11 used cars and 6 campers on the
Lincoln Avenue frontage_ The entire access
to Lincoln Avenue is and has been blocked
by t2ie petitioner's use3 vehicles since
November 1971. Due to the lack of access
and parking, one of the customers parked
his car on the shoulder and in t:~e public
right-of-way on Lincoln Avenue, creating a
very hazardous traffic situation."
72-172
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972
72-173
pg. 72-152, para. 5, line 4: "Commission as uses that
could be staff administered too...."
pg. 72-156, para. 4, line 1: "quorum"
pg. 72-158, para. 3, line 2: "A1 Roberts" (not All)
pg. 72-160, para. 8, line 2: insert "petition, who would.."
para. 5, line 3: "adjacent"
para. 13, line 4: insert "deprived of a"
pg. 72-164, parei. 3, line 3: delete "it was his under-
standing" and insert "Mrs. Madison
said"
para. 9, line.2: delete "he" and insert
"Queyrel stated Mr. Wagner"
pg. 72-167, para. 8, line 9: "aloud" (not allow)
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. J~MES D. AND LONEAL A. HORTON~
NO. 71-72-22 604 East Oakmont Avenue, Orange, California, Owners;
TED MORIARTY, Shell Oil Company, 1136 North Srookhurst
VARIANCE N0. 2311 Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as:
An irregularly-shaped parcel of land being the southeast
corner of Lakeview Avenue and McKinnon Drive, having
frontages of approximately 184 feet on McKinnon Drive and 133 feet on L3keview
Avenue. Property presentl~ classified R-Ao AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE~ SECTIONOOF(TWOA RTERIALNHIGHWAYSAT(2) REQUIREMENTRTO
BE INTEGRATED WITH A SHOPPING CENTER~ (3) MINIMUM
FREEWAY SETSACK~ (4) MINIMUM ARTERIAL HIGHWAY SETBACK,
(5) MINIMUM INTERIOR SETBACK~ (6) PERMITTED SIGNS~ AND
(7) TIME LIMITATION ON LIGHTED SIGNS TO ESTABLISH AN
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION.
Subject petitions were continued from the November 29, 1971 and January 24,
1972 meetings at the request of the petitioner.
Chairman Farano noted that a letter was on file from the agent for the peti-
tioner requesting that subject petitions be remo~>ed from the agenda since it
wou].d appear that in order to meet requirements of the City, additional land
may have to be obtained which would then necessitate readvertising the
petitions.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to remove Petitions for Reclassification
No. 71-72-22 and Variance No. 2311 from the agenda and that the petitioner pay
the readvertisement fee at such time as the petitions are to be rescheduled
for public hearing. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. :.339 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., AND TEXACO
VENTURES, INC., Attn: William J. Stark, President. 1665
TENTATZVE ri:,P OF South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners;
TRACT N0. 7588 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 53 acres located approximately
1/2 mile south of Walnut Canyon Reservoir in the Santa Ana
Canyon. Property presently zoned R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (2) MIN3MUM LOT WIDTH, (3)
MINIMUM BUILDING S~TBACIC, AND (4) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT
HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET TO CONSTRUCT A 44-LOT
£QUESTRIAN-ORIEI3TED SUBDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC.r 1665 South Brookhurst
Street, Anaheim, California 92604. ENGZNEER: Willdan
Enqineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
California 92805; propoeiny to subdivide 53 acres
into 44 R-A zoned lots.
Subject petition and tract were continued from the meeting of March 20, 1972,
at tha request of the petitioner.
^
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~Z-1~4
VARIANCE N0. 2340 - CONTINUED PU$LIC HEAP.ING. AtdAHEIM HILLS~ INC., AND TEXACO
VENTURES, INC., Attn: William J. Stark, President, 1665
TENTATIVE MAP OF South Brookhurst Streetr Anaheim, California 92804, Owners;
TRACT NO. 7589 property deseribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 20 acres located approximately
3/4 mile south-southwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir in Santa
Ana Canyon. Property presently zoned R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE (1) MINIMIIM LOT SIZE~ ~2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH~ AND (3)
THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED
STREET TO CONSTRUCT A 21-LOT EQUESTRIAN-ORIENTED
SUBDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst
Street, Anaheim, California 92804. ENGINEER: Willdan
Engineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
California 92805; proposinq to subdivide 20 acres into
21 R-A zoned lots.
Subject petition and tract were continued from the meeting of March 20, 1972,
at the request of the petitioner.
VARIANCE N0. 2341 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC.~ AND TEXACO
~TENTURES, INC.. Attn: William J. Stark, President, 1665
TENTATIVE MAP OF South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners;
TRACT NO. 7590 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 56.5 acres located approximately
1/2 mile south of Walnut Canyon Reservoir in Santa Ana
Canyon. Property presently zoned R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3)
MINIMUM BUIL•DING SETBACK, (4) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE
FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET~ AND (5) REQUIREMENT THAT A
SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE REAR ON AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY TO
CONSTRUCT A 45-LOT EQUESTRIAN-ORIENTED SUBDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst
Street, Anaheim, California 92804. ENGINEER: Willdan
Enqineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
California 92805; propcsing to subdivide 55.5 acres
into 45 R-A zoned lots.
Subject petition and tract were continued from the ~„eeting oF March 20, 1972,
at the request of the petitioner.
Subject variances and tract maps were considered as one item.
Chairman Farano noted that a letter was on file requesting that Variance Nos.
2339, 2340, and 2341 and Tentative Msp of Tract Nos. 7588, 7589, and 7590 be
continued for tNO weeks co resolve problems. However, it would appear there
was some question that a two-week continuance s.ould be sufficient to overcome
the problems recently presented by staff, namely, subdividing in an agricultural
preserve for residential purposes, submission of this land project to the Office
of the Intergovernmental Management prior to Planning Commission and City
Council action, and problems pertaining to the boundary lines between the Cities
of Anaheim and Orange, and then inquired whether a representative of the peti-
tioner-developer was present.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner-developer.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson suggested that the
Commission defer any action until a member of staff coLld cuntac~. the petitioner
regarding appearing before the Commission to answer questions.
Chairman Farano sta~ed it would be his suggestion that staff contact the peti-
tioners and inform them that the Commission was cf the opinion that a two-week
continuance was insuff.icient, and that if these petiticns were continued for
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-175
VARIANCE N0. 2339 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7588; VARIANCE NO. 2340 AND
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7589; AND VARIANCE N0. 2341 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 7590 (Continued)
two weeks and the petitioner-developer did not resolve these problems, the
petitions would be removed from the agenda to be advertised at the petitioner's
expense for a later hearing.
The Commission concurred with Chairman Farano's comments. (See Page No. 72-180)
CONDSTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MP.URICE GALE HARTMAN~ ZULETTA JANE STARBECK,
PERMIT N0. 1306 ELI2ABETH ANN ROBERTS, 16692 Landmark, Yorba Linda, Califor-
nia 92686, and ALFRED L. AND EDNA V. CANCLINI, c/o Amigo
Mot•el, 41ti West Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners;
CHARLES E. GIBSS, 833 Dover Drive, S~iite 3, Newport Beach, California 92660,
Ac,=_nt; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXiSTING MOTEL on property described
as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having approximate frontages of 135
feet on the south side of Ball Road and 153 feet on the north side of Berry
Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 213 feet and being located
approximately 138 feet east of the centerline of Palm Street, and further
described as 416 West Ball Road. broperty presently classified C-0, COMMERCIAL
OFFICE, ZONE.
Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner had requested a two-week continuance
in order to present revised plans and to allow time for stai•f to readvertise
any necessary waivers.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allzed and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1306
to the meeting of May 1, 1972, for the submission of revised plans.
CONDITIONAL USE - READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. LEDG~R SMITH, 151 Miramonte
PERMIT N0. 13Q1 Drive, Fullerton, California 92632, Owner; PAUL WALLACH,
1011 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. California 92805, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
FACSLITY AND TENNIS CLUB WITH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPED SET-
BACK A~ID (2) MINIDiUM REQUIRED PARKING on pr~perty described as: An irregularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9 acres having a frontage of
approximately 426 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and approximately
620 feet on the south side of Howell Avenue, and being located approximately
150 feet north and approximately 150 feet west of the northwest corner o£
Katella and Howell Avenues, in addition to apnroximately 11 acres of property
located on the north side of Howell Avenue approximately 650 feet west of
Sinclair Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZOt1E.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 3, 1972, in order. to
allow time for staff to readvertise the additional parcel proposed for parking
purposes and for a full Commission to be present.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the file.
Mr. Paul Wallach, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission,
noting he was the project director for the proposed tennis facility; that in
his estimation this would be the finest private club facility ever proposed
and would bring business and tax revenues to the Cityj that this would serve
both industry and commerce; and that they had received numerous letters from both
industry and commerce indicating their appro-ral of this facility. Strangely
enough, however, they were being treated as interlopers, and although they
knew they were proposing this in the M-1 Zone, they went to everyone who Yad
presented opposition on a previous petition and obtained their approval o:
e
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-176
CONDITIONAL USE PiRMIT NO. 1301 (Continued)
their indication they were not in opposition; that they had met with the
Chamber of Commerce and presented their plan, however, they did not request
their endorsement, although in the past the Chamber of Commerce had opposed
a number of uses proposed for the industrial area; and that at an executive
meeting at the Chamber of Commerce, th~y decided not to take any action ror
would they indicate approval or disapproval. Furthermore, at the last public
hearing one of the Commissioners had stated the Chamber of Cammerce wanted to
review this proposal more closely, therefore, they had contacted them again,
and the Chamber of Commerce had advised him they were not opposed to the
proposal. In addition, at the last public hearing, he had stated they had no
intention of having jai a ai, and he would like to stipulate that there would
be no jai alai nor roll derbies since they were not physically
able to handle these types of events.
Mr. Wallach then noted that within a year they estimated they would be paying
$66,000 in property taxes, which would be a substantial increase to the
present property taxes; that they would have a$420,000 payroll, which would
give many jobs to the residents in the city; that they had contacted residents
of the community for guidance in their program; and that many other cities had
made overtures, but they were trying to locate in Anaheim.
Mr. Wallach continued by stating that they, as a free enterprise venture,
would like to be afforded the same kind of treatment from the City that was
given to Anaheim Stadium, and if the M-1 policy for this property were to be
adhered to, the property might be developed in five or ten years, or maybe
never, and in th~ meantime, the property owner was paying taxes each year;
and that it seemed absurd to recommend that another piece of property was
available since subject property was secured at a reasonable price only be-
cause the property owner wanted to bring this facility into AnahPim. Further-
more the other property was not ecanomically feasible for the proposed facility.
In addition, with the present economic situation, which could exist for years
to come, and with the countless types of jobs and tax dollars he was talking
about that would be available to the City, he felt the proposal was one that
should be favorably considered. Finally, Mr. John Wells, the architect, would
explain any technicalities of t:,e project.
hYr. John wells, 4500 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, architect for the proposed
developtnent, appeared before the Commission and stated he would like to
review the concept layout for those Commissioners who were not present at the
last public hearing, and then proceeded to display and explain the proposed
facility, stating t!~at this would be a 100,000-square foot facility, and that
the only problem at the last public hearing appeared to be the parking, how-
ever, this had been resolved by the lease which had been presented.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that he had submitted
copies of the proposed lease agreement and his opinion to the Commission
regarding the property across Howell Avenue foi the proposed development for
parking purposes, however, this did not constitute an acceptable document and
would be considered acceptable only if the lea~~ were of sufficient nature to
constitute almost a fee ownership of the proper'.:y, but the lease as presented
was not sufficient at this time to satisfy that requirement, however, if other
things were satisfactory to the Commission, there would be no reason why the
Planning Commission could not grant the use provided that parking was suffi-
cient to meet the Code requi.rement.
Mr. Wells inquired whether the City could make the lease a part of the
conditional use pe•rmit, wherein if payments for the parkirq area were not
made or accepted by the lessor, the conditional use permit would become null
and void - this would be the only way this could be hendled.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not this could be bonded; whereupon
Mr. Lowry inquired whether the petitioner-developer had discussed this aspect,
and received a negative response from Mr. Wells, who >t:ated he had not dis-
cussed rhis with the petitioner, however, he could assure tha Commission that
if there was inadequate parking, the facility would have to close.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2'1~~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1301 ~Continued)
Mr. Wells then prasented other renderings to the Commission and noted the
area where private members would view any events from an area hiqh above the
activity.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Farano inquired why a 55-year lease was not sufficient, when in
financing projects generally a 55-year time was sufficient.
Mr. Lowry replied that he did not state there was any magic number, and a
55-year lease could be terriinated in 30 days for non-payment of r~nt, there-
fore, this would not satisfy the intent of the Anaheim Municipal Code for
on-site parking without having an almost fee ownership, thereby guaranteeing
the future life of the project; that the City Attorney, Joe Geisler, and he
felt that a 55-year lease was insurable under title insurance, but unfor-
tunately, it was considered a short-term lease, which could be cancelled,
thus leaving this facilit~~ with only 300 parking spaces against the required
1,309 spaces; and that this was considered a short-term lease which was not
sufficient guarantee for required parking.
Chairman Farano inquired whether the two parcels would be leased under the
same contract; wheseupon Mr. Wells stated that they were under two separate
ownerships.
Chairman Farano then inquired whether the tennis courts and swimming paol
would be open to the general public; whereupon Mr. Wells stated there would
be a number of m~mberships, and members could bring private guests. Further-
more, on occasion, there would be public matches which would perm9_t the
general public to attend.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether the use of this facility would be
open to the general public.
Mr. Wallach replied that the health facilities, restaurants, and display areas
for business and industry would be open to the general public.
Commissioner Seymour then stated he wanted Mr. Wallach to substantiate his open-
ing remarks regarding jai alai; and that there would be no connection between
this proposed facility and any ~ai alai recently proposed for Anaheim.
Mr. Wallach replied +hat he wanted this conditional use permit to be restricted
to exclude any events that were dealing with qambling, and jai alai was one of
them.
Commissioner Seymour then inquired as to the manner in which the petitioner
proposed to handle the pedestrian traffic crossing Howell Avenue - would there
be any way of assuring the safety of the people crossing the street?
Mr. Wallach replied that they had explored three different approaches: one
would be to have a member of their staff handle pedestrian traffic undez the
supervision of the Traffic and Police Departments; another would be to nave
a shuttle bus service from the parking area to the facility, however, there
would be very few days during the year where s+~ch a large number of persons
would be attending an event, but the idea of an overpass was almost impossible
beaause the cost would be prohibitive.
Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Of£ice Engineer Jay Titus what impact
there would be when Sunkist Street was extended into this eroposed development
on the residential area north of Ball Road.
Mr. Titus replied that he did not anticipate too much of an impact on the
residential area along Sunkist StreEt since people would be using Ball Road
to exit to State CalZege Boulevard or to go to the freeway, and Ball Road was
considered a major east-west arterial, ai'.;zough it could be anticipated that
some people who knew the area could take Sunkisi Street northerly.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2-1~8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1301 (Continued)
Commissioner Kaywood inquired of Mr. Wallach whether the petitioner proposed
to utilize the railroad facilities on the southerly end of the property;
whereupon Mr. Wallach replied that they would like to, but it wo+tld depend
upon the negotiations with the r.ailroad for delivery of special equipment and
people into the facility, however, they had made no contact with the railroad
regarding this possibility.
Commissioner Seymour then inquired as to the anticipated number of employees,
since Mr. Wallach had made reference to hundreZs of job openings.
Mr. Wallach stated that ttiis would be difficult to sta* accurately since
they considered this a two-phase facility - one a clu' .nd h=alth center with
a diagnostic center, but he would estimate approximately 90 to 120 full-time
employees, and when special events were to be held, th`•~ number could increase
to anywhere from 200 to 400 additional employees who would be on a part-time or
temporary basis, depending upon the utilization of the facility.
Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether a fair estimate would be 100
employees on a full-time basis.
Mr. Wallach stated, at the outset when only a portion of the facility would
be utilized, there could be ]ess, however, by the second year they would
anticipate 100 employees.
Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the hours of operation; whereupon Mr.
Wallach stated that outside of special events where traffic would be consider-
able, they anticipated traffic would be from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 or 5:00 p.m.,
taking into account that many of the people utilizing this facility would be
employed in the industrial area surrounding subject property; and that they
did not anticipate any major type of event that would be scheduled before
8:00 p.m, during the week, therefore, they would anticipate an increase in
traffic flow around 7:00 p.m. However, they had cunsiderable flexibility in
their scheduling, and about 40+t of the events that would be scheduled would
be free to the peopie in the area, and scheduling could be such that they
could be set up around less ~eak load times.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the ter_ais courts would be lighted
for evening use, and what: percent of the pevple would be from the industries
in this area?
Mr. Wallach replied that the tennis courts would be lighted for night time
use, hohever, they had no idea what number of pecple would be coming from
industries in the area, but their preliminary marketing study indicated there
could Y•e considerablP membership from the industrial area and the business in
the immediat.e vicir.~ty of the property since virtually all of the facilities,
restauranr.~, etc., would be available to them, tnerefore, he would estimate
approximatsly 60~ of the operation would be +available to the business and
industrisl community around the oeripher~~ of the facility.
Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the impact this facility might have on the
stadium when baseball games were scheduled a:: the same tiine as a major event
was scheduled for this proposed facility.
Mr. Titus stated that if there were an event scheduled on an evening of a
baseball game, there would be quite a traffic problem since streets could be
taxed to capacity, because there was one entrance to the stadium from Katella
Avenue, while the others were on State College Boulevard and Oranaewood Avenue,
thus there could be conflicts from the State College Boulevard and Katella
Avenue traffic.
Commissioner Herbst noted tha~ there were only 77 baseball games per year to
consider; whereupan Mr. wallach stated that their events could be scheduled
around these games, however, at the present time they were not accepting any
bookings until they founc nt how thi.ngs would work out, because they, too,
d:d not want to create t ic problems with people attending their ~cheduled
events.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-179
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1301 ~Continued)
Commissioner Seymour stated he would rather see this facility located in the
Commercial-Recreation Area, however, on the other hand, who could say exactly
where a facility of this type should be established, and that the primary
problem in the aspects of good planning was the parking, and if the Commission
had some concern that the parking problem could be solved through an extended
lease and the lease maintained throughout the period of operation of this ~
facility - he would hate to be one of the owners of this tennis facility if
the parking lease came to an end - however, it would still be difficult to
negate the use.
Commissioner Gauer noted that many recreational facilities had events scheduled
on selling season tickets, which could require considerable money from individ-
uals, depending upon their circumstances. This could determine the membership
of tnis faci~ity, as well as its success -- and further noting the fact that
Pacific World had been approved in 1965 and had still not started ~peration.
Thus, it could appear to be an imaginative product of someone's mind.
Commissioner Seymour stated one of his concerns was the cffect of vehicular
traffic on the residential area to the north on Sunkist Street, however,
Mr. Titus sugyested that the traffic flow would not go through the residential
area but to arterial streets and the freeway; that since this facility would
have an arena with only 4,400 seats, it could be assumed approximately 2,200
vehicles could be injected into the area during the time a baseball game was
also scheduled, and although he did not know the carrying capacity of the
streets in the area, this would appear not to overload the facilities so long
as the residential area was protected.
Commissioner Herbst observed that the property aould generate traffic regard-
less of the type of use proposed for it, and a very active industrial pZant
could generate as much, if not more, traffic, although the time of the peak
load would be different since industry would be primarily daytime traffic, and
a1tY.ough he, too, had expressed concern as to how the use would affect the
residential uses on Sunkist Street, perhaps when the Orange Freeway was com-
pleted, the majority of those attending these e~~ents would be using the free-
way or Stat~ College Boulevard.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that there were 24
letters from nearby industries, indicating their approval of subject proposal.
Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the parameters of the conditional use
permit as to uses that could be established in this facility excludinq, of
course, jai alai and roller derbies, as stipulated to by the petitioner -
would these uses be the same, or could the uses be broadened to include,
perhaps, pop concerts and motorcycle events in the parking lot7
Mr. Lowry replied that the Code had none, but he could obtain the list of uses
for the Commission from the petitioner, if they so desired. However, the park-
ing area would have to be used exclusively for parking purposes.
Commissioner Seymour inquired as to how the Commission could protect the
citizens of the City of Anaheim from undesirable types of events that could
be scheduled in this facility.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the decibel sound at the property lir.e could
limit any loud events, snch as motorcycZe races and outdoor concerts, etc.
Mr. Lowry stated he could meet with the develope: to draft a list of usEs
that would be acceptable to the Commis~ion and present these at the next
public hearing.
Commissioner Farano observed that there was a possibility of scheduling a
mobilehome or trav~l trailer show in che parking lot, although the applicant
did r.ot state this was his intention, and that he would suggest that any events
to take place on subject prope~ty should be confined to the arena area itself.
~
.~.
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972
CONDITTGNAL USE PERMIT NO•. 1301 (Continned)
~2_18~
Mr. Lowry stated that the intent of the Code as to the leased portion should
be reserved for parking only - this was a requirement of the Code, and this
was the reason why the City Attorney's office felt there sYiould be a fee title
to satisfy the required parking on••site, thus~ the park9.ng area would be
reserved for parking purposes only.
Commissioner Seymour inquired of the petitioner whether or not he would agree
to stipulating to specific uses with the understanding that if a new use not
indicated on the list was proposed, this could be presented to the City Council
for their approval; whereupon Mr. Wallach sc stipulated.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-71 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1301 on the
basis that the proposed use with adequate parking would be considered compati-
ble with the industrial area, particularly in this general area since the
subject property is an isolated parcel separated by a railroad track, a grade
separation, and a street from other industrial uses, and that the traffic
pattern would not conflict with the industrial uses already established in
the area. Furthermore, that Section 18.52.060(2-a-1-b) Arterial Highway
Landscaping waiver is granted on the basis that the property was located above
a grade separation, and the required 10-foot landscaping strip would zot be
seen from Katella Avenue; that the waiver of the minimum number of parking
spacer was denied on the basis that it was essential that adequate on-site
parki.ng be provided to eliminate potential parking conflicts between the
nroposed use and adjacent industries, and other uses established in the area
had been required to meet parking requirements, and granting said waiver
would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by adjoining propertie~; that the
petitioner stipulated that if parking as proposed on the leased land was no
longer available, a parking structure or soine other means would be provided
to offset any parking deficiency; that the petitioner stipulated there would
be no jai alai or roller derby proposed for this property, nor would there
be any form of games where gambling would be involved; and subject to condi-
tions, requiring in addition to those set forth by the Interdepartmental
Committee, that any parking agreements or leases be ~ubject to the approval
of the City Attorney's office and subject to review by the Planning Commission,
and that a list of specific uses which the applicant wishes to conduct at this
facility be su~mitted to the Planning Comm3ssion for review and approval.
(See Resolution Book)
Prior to roll call, Commissioners Seymour and Hezbst stated they would not
approve this pr~psal in any way unless parking problems were solved, and that
the City Attorney's office should be satisfied that there would be adequate
parking on or off-site to serve the use proposed.
On roll call the foregoin? resolution was passed bv the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE NO. 2339 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7588; VARIANCE N0. 2340 AND
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7589; AND VARIANCE NO. 2341 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 7590 (Continued)
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that a repre-
sentative of Anaheim Hills was present in the Council Chamber if the Commission
was desirous of considering the three variances and tracts prev3~u^].y held in
abeyance.
Chairman Farano invited Mr.. James Barisic, representing Anaheim fi'iJ.l~, to come
to the podium to answer questi.ons by the Commission.
Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner had requested a two-week continuance,
to the May 1 meetiny, however, from all indications of the Report to the
Commission, the Commission was of the opinion that it would be rather diff.icult
or almost impossible to overcome these problems, and then inquired whether the
patitioner would be able to resolve these by May 1, since the Commission had
adopted a policy not to grant continuances from meeting to meeting on an
indefinite basis.
e
~
MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, April 17. 1972 72-181
VARIANCE N0. 233S AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7588; VARIANCE NO. 2340 AND
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7589, AND VARIANCE NO. 2341 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 7590 (Continued)
Mr. Barisic stated he appreciated the position of the Planning Commission and
staff, however, he would not be present to address the Commission if he did
not feel these problems could not be resolved, even though it appeared at
first glance to be unsolvable in the two-weeks' time requested, but that they
had a number of staff inembers working on these problems, aad he would hope that
by May 1 these would be resolved.
Chairman Farano inquired as to how much of a possibility there was to resolv-
iny these problems; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated there was a 50-50 chance
they would be resolve3.
Commissioner Rowland inquire3 as to the problem regarding the agricultural
preserve since it was generally well known that the State did not act very
hastily on a problem of this magnitude.
Mr. Barisic stated they had been working with the State for several weeks
regarding this as to their original intent, and it was hoped they would have
something to present to the City and County, and alLhough he knew this was a
monumental task, it was hoped to have something concrete.
Chairman Farano noted that if nothing was presented in the two weeks' time
requested, the petitions would be taken off of the agenda and wou~d have to
be readvertised and rescheduled for a later meeting.
Commissioner Rowland noted that items scheduled ar.3 being requestecl to be
continued for two weeks were responsible for the Commission having to schedule
a night meeting, thus not only creating an inconvenience, but the cost to the
City was considerable money for said continuances because of the time in
preparing the reports and printing them. Therefore, if the representative
was not sure they would be ready at the next public hearing, he would suggest
a longer continuance.
Commissioner Seymour noted that if some ofi the Commissior.ers felt the odds
were only 50-50 that this might be heard at the next public hearing, why not
schedule a night agenda as the only item for that evening and then if the
petitioner was unable to meet the two-week time, then this would not be
considered.
Mr. Barisic noted that they had drafted the documents and had contacted people
in Sacramento, therefore, it was their hope that they would be able to resolve
all of these problems by the next public hearing.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance
No. 2339 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 'S88; Variance No. 2340 and Tentative
Map of Tract No. 7589; an3 Variance No. 2341 and Tentative Map of Tract No.
7590 to the meeting of M~ 1, to be scheduled as items on the evening agenda.
Commissioner Raywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:02 p.m.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. VILLA FRONTERA TOWNHOUSES~
PERMIT NO. 1303 P. 0. Box 3236, Anaheim, California 92803, Owner; ARMOUR
BUILDING COMPANY, P. 0. Box 3236, Anaheim, Califorr,~.a
TENTATIVE MAP OF 92803, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-
TRACT NO. 7802 shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 14.6
acres, having a frontage of approximately 595 feet on the
south side of Frontera Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 1,200 feet, and being the southwest corner of Frontera and
Armando Streets. Property presently classified R-A(0), AGRICULTURAL (OZL
PRODUCTION), ZONE.
•
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2'1$2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TiACT NO. 7802 (Continued)
REQUESTED CONDZTZONAL USE: CONSTRUCT A 176-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
MENT WZTH WAIVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT MUST
ABUT A PUBLIC STREET~ (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE
pe'2~';A, (3) MAXIMUM HEIGH^' WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-
FAMILY RESI~ENTIAL ZONE~ (5) MINIMUM ARTERIAL HIGH-
WAY SUILDING SETB*~'.K~ (6) 6-FOOT SOLID MASONRY WALL
REQUIREMENT~ AND (7) MI;:IMUM LOCAL STREET BUILDING
SETBACK.
TENTATIVE TRACT PROPOSAL: DEV~LOPER: ARMOUR BUILDING COMPANY, P• 0. ?ox 3236,
Anaheim, California 92803. ENGINEER: Applied Pi~n-
ning Dynamics, 17802 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin,
California 92664; proposing to subdivide subject
property into 176 nlanned residential development
zoned lots.
Subject petition and tract were continaed from the April 3, 1972 meeting for
lack of a quorum and at the request of the developer.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the fil~.
Mr. Larry Armour, agent for the fetitioner, appeared before t'r.e Commission and
stated he would like to have about ten minutes to present his petition and *_hen
noted that he had been a builder in Anaheim since 1952; that his companp owned
subject property for some time and had built one phase of the deve2opment with
246 apartment units; that they had reviewed the balance of the property and
felt the proposed development far subject property was a better use of the
property than building more apartments, even though the zoninq folanse howevery
was for apartments; that he would not review the details of the p
he would like to say a team of experts was brought in to lend their idPas on
how to go about developing the property; that they had an architectural enai-
neering team, as well a~ a landscaping arcl_itect, who were present to present
their ideas - these people having worked on the Irvine Bluffs projec*.; and ths~.:
Mr. Renfro was the captain of this planning team.
Mr. Marvin Renfro, representing Applied Planning Dynamics, 17802 Irvine
Boulevard, Tustin, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was speak-
ing for the entire planning staff of his company; ~hat they believed this
planned residential development was a:~ interim answer to what appearad to be a
great need in housing today; that his company had moved to a point where they
specialized in this type of development above everything else, even after having
worked for fifteen years on single-family homes; that ±he proposed facility
would provide a good quality housing development for young marrieds having a
different life style and for the older people who did not want a larye home or
lot to take care of; that they had done a great deal of research on p].anned
unit developments, having looked at the undesirable things as well as those
things that could be improved and ap;~lied these to their development; that they
had tried to resolve some of the proLlems which had faced apartment living in
the past, one being the fact that more and more automobiles were found to be
necessary, particularly where married couples each would have his own automobile,
meaning a minimum of two cars per family - these people were being forced to
live in apartments or forced to purchase a house in the $35,000 range, however,
their living style did not demand it; that the proposed development would be
a combination of fourplexes and dupZexes which would be separated with a local
recreation area or a courtyar3 or accessway; that there would be a dual purpose
area with utilization of the area as automobiles were driven into the garages,
this rear yard area would offer children a place to play basketball, such as
could be found in single-family areas, and they were proposing to spread about
20 of these around this proposed development; that there would be a common area
where 1-1/3 acres were devoted to recreation facilities, which included a
swimming pool; that they recognized that the automobile intruded into the local
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-183
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7802 (Continued)
recreation area, but they were trying to apply similar uses of thr garage areas
as was done in front of garages of single-family homes where one could see
basketball hoops above the garage door; that they had located four of the six
entrances off the court; that the}• proposed a circulating street lined with a
row of trees where ~chere would be a low traffic volume, and the front doors
had been oriented in that direction, and no vehicle could enter their ~arage
from this circulating street; that this formula did not just happen, they made
it work, and they felt this was a good solution so that people would not have
to park their vehicles and walk 200 ~eet for either a guest or a resident;
that this would be an alley-like driveway, bringing the automobiles into the
court, ard they were attempting to solve a way to have people use the area
since most times vehicles were gone for the day, then this area could be
utilized; that the entire concept was based on this court, and then presented
an artist's view of what was proposed, indicating that in this solution they
were generating a feeling of thz daily life style of most residents; and that
thi5 nroposal solved with a new idea an area for people to use for recreation
as well a~ oarking of vehicles.
THE F!EARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer observed that he did not know of any mother who would let
her children out into an alley to bounca a ball, since people did not even
~ike to have their children play in a pablic street, because a vehicle in this
alley could be driven with hazardous conditions because they could not see the
children, nor the fact that a vehicle could back out into the alleyway, thereby
blocking the access since there was only 34 feet from the building and 50 feet
from building face to building face; and then inquired how this could be used
as a play area when one could not predict when an automobile would be pulling
out of the garage into the alley - children could see an automobi'le in a public
street but it would be impossible to see a vehicle when it was pulling out of
a parking area.
Mr. Renfro replied that this was joined to a common area with the automobile
area being 20 x 50 feet.
Chairman Farano inquired whether this was also an access court, and was it a
dual use?
Mr. Renfro replied that in some areas there would be parking stalls, and that
this was considered a dual use.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the petitioner was also proposing
automatic door openers since there was only about 15 feet from thu garage door
to the center of the alley, and anyone going into the garage would have to park
in front of the garage, the car protruding into the alley•.vay - there j+ist did
not appear to be sufficient room without the vehicle extenC'ng into the alleyway.
Mr. Renfro noted that two-car garages were being proposed.
Commissioner Herbst countered by stating that the driver would have to park in
the alleyway before getting out to open the door.
Mr. Renfro replied that the alleys were part of the community property which
would be regulated by the homeowners association.
Commissioner Herbst observed that since there was only a 20-foot alley 5 feet
from the apartment, this would mean that anyone backing out or entering the
garage would block traific, and if more than one driver were leaving at the
same time in the morning, the accessway would be blocked off.
Mr. Renfro replied that this would be the same situation if these were homes
having garage access from an alley.
~
•
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-184
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7802 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst noted that the City had been faced with similar blocking
problems in the R-2-5000 Zone with 20-£oot front building setbacks and vehi.cles
parked in the driveway extending ovez ~he public right-of-way into the sidewalk
or even in the street~ and with an alley it was doubly difficult, therefore, if
an automatic door opener were provided, this might solve the problem.
Commissioner Seymour inquired whether there was any similar type of development
which the Commission cuuld view which had been in existence for a year or more
t~~ determine how this situation was resolv~e~d,/ since it was his understanding
that a similar operation called La Casta arr located in La Jolla.
Mr. Renfro replied that they had nothing already built in Southern California,
but there were several in Northern California, and they were presently con-
structing one at Cerritos and Western in Stanton where the models had jest been
completed.
Commissioner Seymour stated he Lnderstood the concept of the basketball caurt
driveways, however, these would be shared courts, therefore, what wcnld happen
if anyone decided tu park his car in the court area all weekend?
Mr. Renfro replied that there could be no parking in front of the garage
because this was inset 10 feet from the access court and was private space for
each unit where each unit had a private patio, and that there were five Siffer-
ent areas for living purposes, namely. the home, the private walled-in patio,
the entry court, and the access court for a small recreation area, as well as
the common area.
Commissioner Seymour noted that by proposing the access court, the petitioner
was attempting to utilize space for a dual purpose, namely, storage of auto-
mobiles and a recreation area, and the price for this dual use was a greater
density.
Mr. Renfro replied chat they had reduced the density by one-half; whereupon
Commissioner Seymour noted that if Mr. Renfro was suggesting that the density
was reduced because he was comparing it with apartment5, this was a wrong
assumption since no condominiums had ever been approved in Anaheim with a
density greater than 10 to 12 units per acre, while the petitioner was propos-
ing 14.3 units per acre, however, he would agree that this was an improvement
over apartments, but the Commission was reguired to view this development as
a condominium.
Mr. Renfro noted that they had not Flanned thi~ density since he was not in-
volved in a numbers game, but was trying to brir_g a better environment to a
living style that moved clocer to whaC could be expected in the $75,000 range
for condominiums; and that they had as great a concept as La Casta.
Commissioner Herbst noted that on~ of. the waivers requested was the setback
from an arterial.
Mr. Renfro stated that he had assumed the setbacks permitted in the R-3 Zone
were automatically applied to this condominium, however, this could be 3eleted.
Commissioner Herbst further noted that the petitioner was requesting waiver of
the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 Zone.
Mr. Armour appeared before the Commission and stated that this was a planned
unit development and there was only one R-1 lot which barely touched their
property at the very tip on the south, and if una ran a line from the R-1 home
to the two-story units, it would be more than 150 feet, therefore, he did not
feel tbis would apply in this instance since the man owning the R-1 property
did not present any opposition because his lot also came to a point; that they
had misunderstood the street requirement in the :-treet design for Jackson
Street, and they could manage without Waiver 3; tl:•^t on the waiver of the wall,
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-185 '
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7802 (Continued)
they did not object to c~nstructing the wall, which would ba along the power
line on the south, s?nue carports on the apartment deveiopment were installed
anci the mobilehome park had their own wal.l - t.his wa17. would be adjacent to
the parcel which could be projected by the City f~r pa.k purpoees, therefore,
they could propose a see-through type wal?. £or that portion co~.isidered for
recreational purposes; and. thaL• undar W~.i~~er 7 regarding the r,ul-de-sac on
Armando Street, this, too, had beP~, reu ed, the~af.ore waivers 3 and 7 could
be deleted.
Mr. Armour t'~zn noted that they had wary strong feeli:,gs about whethf~r or not
vehicles would be parked in the small recreation ~;rea; that the gues'c parking
would be under the homeowners association juris3ic~!:ion; that vehicles wovld
not be allowed to park in the s~mall recreation area cn a permanent basis since
there would be other families involved; and that thay, too, had »l~::zned this
area well aad also proposed to ~xse. these areas. Then. in res~^.iae to a questiol~
by the Commission, Mr. Armo~zr ~tated that the guest parking areas w~~u13 be
stamped concrete, but this was only onr, way of treatiny these p~i~':.:.r.~ nraas,
an3 they would not alJ be alike.
Commissioner Kaywood inaairea. how th~ peti~Lir.r=r planned to enferc:: no pzrking
in the recreational arF:a - wlia= i•f x ran insisted upon parking his car tbere
in a driveway?
Mr. Armour stated that unc.'er the homeowners association rPgulations, this
would not be allowed, and the residents of th.is f.acility would have to compl~
with these regulations.
Commissioner Kaywuod stated that the petitior.e~: was creatina a problem that
did not have to exist; that when a woman bror.ght groceries h~me and would park
in front of the garage because she intended to leave in about 15 minutes, this
meant the recreation area was unusable; and that if the guest ~'a"estedsbalthe
were being used, she could rot park there temporarily as was •.ugg Y
developer.
Mr. Armour repli~d that there would be ~mple curb parking aloixg the f.r~xst, and
that there was a parking ratio of 3:1.
Commissioner Kaywood then inquired about trash pick-up; whereupon Mr. Armour
stated that the trash pick-up would be che s="•'.= as £or single families whe're
there would be curb pick-up, and that this was approved by the Sai~itation
Divison of Public Works.
Chairman Farano noted tnat ~:L° Sanitation Division~ representative had advised
the Ccmmission tha± re:.~val o'c the trash cans should be written i;~to tlze
CC&Rs.
Commissioner Seymour noto_d that tY:e trash aans would hav:~ to be carried 130
feet to the front for nick-up.
Commissioner Kaywood then stated thot th~_• pet,itioner wae comH~~indiny his
problem six to eiqht times over s'_nae the~e could be e.s many as 16 trash cans
in front of one cluster unit for s:ix resi:~~nces. Furthermore, one could not
compare single-family home trash cc~llection with multiple-fanily collectio*:~
since there were only two to three cans per f>mily at the curb in front of
each home, and with 12 to 24 oans :n front of the proposed development mnltipl~
units, there would be considerable debris falling into the ~treet at trash
pick-up time.
Mr. Armour stated that in their designs they ha3 placed each v%::i.t as an oucside
corner lot with a two-car garage.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the trash pick-up ur.c.urrE3 or. i:he street fror:t-
age, therefore, how could the developer insure thac the empty tr:~sh cans wero
taken back to the storage area within a reason~4t., time?
Mr. `.rmour replied that this could be written .nto Lhe ~C&Rs and was a matcer
that had to be studied, placing controls on it.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANN7NG COMMZSSION, Apzil 17, 1972
72-186
CONDITIONAL USE PF.RMI'l~ NO. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TFT_C": NU._ ~°02 ~Continued)
Commissioner Kaqwc:?~. then inquized how Mr. Armour p~a:.ned to enforce these
CC&RS; whereup~ir: Mr. _*_rmour stzced that it, would be controlled throuoh a
homeowners a~rsor.~.=_:.'.:.::, that they had hi::~~a a firm of specialists Co thc~s
fi.eld ta op:~`:ate tr:~t type of association, and it was not l~~t up :
?resi~ient c•t '.~,e: 1^emeowners association to enforce these regulations, hoF~ing
~.•at the ~._f.iq'iJior ••.o~ild comply with these regulations.
Ca.~~missi:r.::r Allred stated that there was a question in his n~ind regarding *h~:
access ~•c::':t being usable as an additional recreation area, particu'_arl}~ wi.th
cnilcirer.. ~: lnning into the alley - they could not see a:iyone c~~ming from thc
most dist:a~~t apartment and could :re iniured, and sinc~~ Comm~.^:sioner Hez•bst had
suggeste~i a~ut~~matic doors, this m:~,;ht be e means of solving pulling in from
the alle~~.
C~mmi^.~i?ner Gauer was of the opinion that t~~.~. p?"r, poso.l would ?:av~. a trash '
probler.:, and he was fully aware of the a11e}• ~~~~ation since his tra,sh w.is
p.icked iip in the alley, and he would ha~~e to 3~~ into the alley ~o lcok for
the traah can lids and p:.ck up debris which ha3 fallen or which had been
spi].le~'.. and he covld seE: all the c?tbris from the nume: ~us cans, which coute~
create quite a health hazard.
Gommi•asioner Herbst ex~~r~ssed more concern about the recre~tion 'acility
adjarent to the alley zi';a the densi~y which wa~ too high, th~rercre, he woulc.
svg,c,est that subject petitions be ~:ontin»Pd and tY.e dev~lopers nresent revis~:d
pla.ns that. would show a wider acc~_ss~aay along the front of the g:.~rages so that
there would be no one blocking t:iese access points, particularZy with six homes
on an alley - by being combined in*o a recreation area, tnis could mean 12 !:o
15 cars and could not be compared witli cars parked in the drivec~ay of single-
family hom.~•s, whose accessways wouln k,e where others would be living, and it
would 'a~e :t~`.rimenta] ta the community living environment to permit ::siny a
20-foot ~~].ey, permitt.i:ag people to live of: an alle~yr even witb all thx~ g~een
area proi.sed. He co•11? nat visLalize childre~: playLng ~ff ar. alley, an3 he
did not feel this was Lne type of envizonme^t h~~ wa~ted to se for Anahei~n.
Commissioner St~monr sta.ted that he w~uld rathe~: sec~ a creative design around
p.~ople rather than aroen3 the size oE the trae;i :~ck-up truck; that trash
co~i~d be picked up witi? ~~nallpr truckb and compaction of the trash cauld also
DP, ,~.~de, particularly wher,. one considered that land development should pro~ide
fe~r housi_^_g for all types of income le.veis, and much more creativitp was needed.
Furthermore, he could not accept a plan concept where an area was us?d for
both parking and recreation at the ~same times and that the paddl.:-~~Y..eel concept
which the developer f~.lr. was outmoued did not appear that way to '~iim since it
did pravide for street patterns a:~d s,•paratc:3 the F~destrian from the vehicular
pattern.
Commissioner Herbst felt '::'.iat the ~ro~,o~ed deve'_opment was too dens~, aad the
developer was sacrif?cing the outdo~~_ living environment to achievice this; even
Ehough a parking-play area :~a~ rrcpuseci, the main recreation area h~~ been
"skimped on".
Commission=r~Allred stated he would like *_o see more room in the access court
~;o that an automobile could get iu and cut, and 5.i everyone drove compact cars,
maybe the distance proposed might ':~ more accPpc~!hle, however, he felt e: minimum
of 36 feet for an access co>?rt shoul3 be provided. This, then, would cut down
on tY.e den:;ity.
Commiss='.ner Seymour stated he would like to s=e a similar rr~ject as propos=d
where children ware requixed to ;~lay in the allcy and an ;srea ~+zo~ose9. for
pas~king and wnere t.rash cans were IinPd up on a street, whi~h had been in
operation for a year, before he could ;:~e any ~onsideraticn c~ this proposal.
Comcrissionar Allre:' offered a c~otion to reopen the k:earing ai~d continue Petition
for Conditional Usr. Permit No. 1303 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7802 to Che
meetir.~ uf May 15, 1972, to allow time for the submission of recised plans
incorporating ~=he suggestions mada by the Commission. Commissioner Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2'18~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7802 (Continued)
Chairman Farano advised the petitioner that th~ hearing would be reopened only
to consider the revised plans, and no further presentat~on should be made.
RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute recess at 3:50 p.m.
RErONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting ai• 4:OU p.m., all
Commissioners being present.
CONDITIONAL USE - READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH,
PERMIT NO. 1298 700 West South Street, Anaheim, California :Z805, Owner;
CULVER HEATON, 774 North Lake Avenue. Pasad~na, Cali.fornia
91104, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN EXIST-
ING CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN DAY SCHOOL AS A CONFORMING USE AND PERMIT THEIR
EXPANSION WITH WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM AEIGHT LIMITATION AND (2) MINIMUM NUMBER
OF P'~RKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting cf approximately 3.3 acres located at the southeast corner of
South and Citron Streets, having approximate frontages of 473 Eeet on South
Street and 306 feet on Citron Street, and further described as 700 West South
Street. •Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the :;ommission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a raz•t of the file.
Mr. Culvar Heaton, agent for the petitioner and architect of the proposed
development, appeared before the Commission and noted that the church was in
existence sinr.e 1952, and a day school had been in operation since 1957; tha~
the project consisted of two items, namely, the existing sanctuary and the
construction of a new school building so that the day school could be r~oved
from the Sunday schoe~ rooms; that he had questi.ons regarding the Interdepart-
men*..al Committee recommendations on Condition Nos. 2 and 3 and requested that
they be aiven permission to post a bond for the installation af the street
lights. Furthermore, in Con3ition No. 4, which required street trees, the
parkway was completely concreted in, although they had trees on the church
property. Therefore, .:e felt that this conditioit should be waived, and they
had reviewed this with the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, who had not
commented, althoug:i he did not in6icate any opposition to not requiring trees.
TYE HEARING WAS CI~OSFA.
Commiss9.oner Gaur_r ~nquired as to the nunber of enrollment planned for the
S::Y1G0~..
Pastnr Harry SteiF, 700 West Scuth Street, appeared before the Commission and
stated that at the F~resent ti ~ they had 10!' students, and they anticipated
1~0 to 175 st~dents.
Chairnan Fa:^.anc~ reciu~sted that sta.':f make comments regarding Condition Nos. 2
and 3 a~ ref~er.~ed te by t:~e archi•tect.
Zoning Su~ervisnL Charles Roberts noi.ed that Condition No. 2 already had a
portioz of the co~dicion cf ~equiring banding, and that he had discussed the
bonding oE re4~~.r<.n.nt~. of ~~ondit.:.on Nu. 3 with Deputy City Attorney Watts
with the staEan.~nt niade by Mr. Heator. rhat Deputy City Attorney Watts had
advised 'nim the street lights conld be bonded, however, staff had attempted to
contact Mr. Watts but had been unable to get an an~wer from him. Furthermore,
thera w~= sufficieat area in the parl-.way for street trees on South Street, and
street tr~aes coula be installed on Citron Street by the removal of some of the
pa~ing area.
Mr. Heatan aoted thaY. the area involved was about 300 feet in length, and that
they would agree to planting trees, although there were large tree~ on private
property, +i:id tne only place he could see to plant trees would be to cut the
curb, whic`~ he felt was an expensive propositian.,
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAIvNING COMMISSION, Arril 17, 1972 ~2'l8B
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1298 (Continued)
The Commission noted that there wo~tld have to be only areas for four trees to
be cut out of the cement for ~lanti:.ig purposes, since trees were generally
planted on 40-£oot cPnters.
Mr. Roberts, in response to a questior. bf the Commission, noteu that subject
pr~~perty had a_typical commerci.al parkwav.
THE IiEARING WAS CLOSED.
Th~ Commis.:ion inquired whether Pastor Steif wau.id stipulate to a max3a~um of
200 students; whr:reupon Pastor Steif so stipulated.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-72 an~ r..~ved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Jse Permit No. 1298, requiring
bonding for the installation of street lights on both Citron and South Streets;
requiring street tree fees as set forth in the Report to the Commission; that
a maximum of 200 students be permitted in the proposeu Christian day school
facility, as stipulated to by the petitioner; and the stipulation of the peti-
tioner to ~':e installation of si3ewalks on Soath Street. iSee Resolution Book)
On rr,il call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follnwing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranu, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
PIOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SAM AND TOKIKO NAKAMURA, 2623 West
PERMIT NO. 1305 Lincoln Avenue, Anahe~m, California 42801, Owners;
CRAIG GRAINGER, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
Cali£c_:-nia 92805, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A SEMI-ENCI.OSED F~ESTP.URANT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land having a£rontaqe of approximately 112.5 feet on the north side
of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximate.~y '1?6 feet and being
located approximately 175 feet west of the centerline of ^'agnolia Avenue, and
further describe.d as 2611 West ?incoln Avenue. Propert;' presently classified
C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZOPTE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the file.
Mr. Craig Grainger, agent for the petitioner, appeared befoze t;ie Commission
and noted that *_he use proposed was allowed :.n the C-2 Zone except that the
developers planned to have ~our tables outdoors in front of the enclosed
restaurant in the event some people preferred to eat their snacks outdoora;
':hat the usual Tastee-Freez A-frame was no loagpr being proposed, and their
new deeign was much better than formerly constructed; and that the sign would
be 21 feet, 6 inches and landscaping and parking would be in conformance with
Code requirements.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-7:3 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Perc~it No. 1305, ~ubject
to condit{.ons. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COM~IISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nona.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIoSION, April 17, 1972 ~2-189
VARIANCE NO. 2345 - PUBLIC HEARING. THE HERTZ REALTY CORP., 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 350, Los Angeies, California 90067, Owner;
H. R. MC MURROUGH, 221 West Katella Avenue, Anab.eim,
California 928C2, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED USES, ~2) DIaTANCE
BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ AND (3) LOCATION OF FRE~•STANDING SIGN TO PERMIT
THE SALE OF USED AUTOM03ILE5 on property described as: An irregularly-shaped
parcel of land having frontages of approximately 112 feet on the north side o£
Katella Acenue and arproximately 100 fEet on the east side of Clementine Street,
being north and eaat of the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Clementine
Street, and furthei described as 2:1 West Katella Avenue. Property presently
classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
No one appeared in op~osition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the file.
Mr. Hal McMurrough, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the proposed request was not for a used cwr lot but only for
the i.isposal of obsolete vehicles in their rental fleet.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate that only those
vehicles proposed to be disposed of from the rental fleet at 221 West Katella
Avenue would be sold at this location, and aould the petitioner operate with
just one sign; whereupon Mr. McMurrough stated they would so stipulate to the
sale of rental fleet vehicles only. However, the sign that was proposed was
somewhat of a directional sign to separata the two uses.
Mr. McMurrough, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that
they disposed of from 15 to 20 cars per month in a manner proposed that would
be legalized, and that the sign was considered directional rather than an
advertising sign eince people who came to see and purchase these vehicles
always stopped at the rental office to inquire about them.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the petitioner brought vehicles from
other areas for sale; whereupon Mr. McMurrough stated they planned to sell
only the vehicles declared obsolete from the Anaheim f].eet; that they had
between 15 and 20 vehicles per month and sold them on a monthly basis after
the vehicles were from S to 15 months old; and that they would advertise in
the newspaper that these vehicles were on sale.
Commissioner Herbst expressed concern that approval of subject petition would
establish a us,e on the property that could be detrimental to the commercial-
recreation area, permitting the sale oE used cars generally, and since a
variance went with ~he land, this use could go on in perpetuity, permitting
sale of used cars in general, which would not be the intent oi• the Commission.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that a time limit for
the use, subject to review and/or removal, could be established.
Mr. Mcblurrough stated that the Hertz Rent-a-Car had purchased this property
and intended to remain in operatiox: at this location.
Mr. Lowry noted tha~ if Hertz Rent-a-Car relocated their facilit}~, aaother
used car dealer could establish an operation on the proF;:rty, and establishing
a time limit would give the Commission an cpportunity to review the property -
however, this need not be at a public hearing.
Assistant Devel~pment Services Director Ronald Thompson suggested that perhaps
this could be established as an accessory use.
Mr. Lowry.then stated that the Commission could also appro+~e this as an acces-
sory use with the existing Hertz Rent-a-Car as a primary urse, and if and when
the primary use was terminated at this l~cation, then this use would also be
terminated.
•
MI*dUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, april 17, 1972
.'ARIANCE NO. 2345 (Continued)
72-190
Chairman Farano noted that since the petition~:r also indicated the use wou2d
be conducted on that portion of the pr~perty located northerly of the service
statiori site at the northeast corner of Cle~aentine Street and Katella Avenue,
perhaps the Commission could also limit the area where used cars could be
sold.
The Commission inquired whethes the petitioner intended to place pi:ice signs
on the vehicles; whereupon Mr. McMurrough stated there would be no price signs
on aay af the windows of the vehicles proposed for sale.
Commissioner Kaywood expreysed concern that the City would be permi,tting sale
of used cars on Katella Avenue in the com'mercial-recreation area, r.:oting tl.~t
while the Commission had been informed by the Ci*y Attorney's office that t}is
would not set a precedent, what wonid prevent otners from requesting the same
privilege.
Mr. McMurrough stated that they were only disposing of their own vehicles and
were not generally selling all types of used cars, and that he would stipulate
that the use of the property north of the service station site on Clementine
Street and Katella Avenue would be used for the sale o£ Hertz Rent-a-Car
vehicles declared obsolete.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the petitioner was proposing to
use a mobilehome unit for a temporary sales office, and that if the sales
activity appeared to be successful, they planned to replace the mobilehome
office with a permanent structure - this was the reason it ~•as not advertised
as a waiver, however, the petitioner would have to submit a letter to the
Development Services Director requesting an extension of time for the use of
the mobilehome presently on the premises.
Chairman Farano was of the opinion that the use could be conducted from the
rental office, however, if the petitione.r was of the opinion that this was not
so, he should so state and make proper application, since he would not approve
the use of a mobilehome for office purposes because as it now stood, the
establishment of *_he mobilehome expired on May 30, 1972, unless, of course, an
extension of time was requested and granted, or waiver was made for the use at
this hearing.
Commissioner Seymour noted tl~at when the Commission approved thp rental of
reczeational vehicles in the commercial-recreation zone last year on this
property, it was because the Commission found it desirable to provide wheels
for the visitors to the city, but when the petitioner now was requesting the
sale of automobiles, one could no longer consider dealing with people and
traffic generated in the commercial-recreation area but traffic coming from
ovtside the commercial-recreation area, and he was reluctant to open np the
commercial-recreation area for new or used car sales because of this different
type of traffic the use generated.
Commissioner Allre3 noted that peuple from outside used the re^•taurants and
other £acilities established in the commercial-recreation area. therefore,
there was no difference in the use now proposed.
Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that if no signs were permitted, the usc
might be compatibit.
Commissioner Seymour again noted that jus*. because this was Hertz Rent-a-Car,
maybe the use was acceptable, but what would happen if the owner of the dune
buggy facilit-y next door wanted permission for the same use?
Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether the rental and sale of the vehicles
was consistent over all the places which rented the Hertz Rent-a-Cars, or was
the.re one central location where tlxese vehicles could be sold.
Mr. McMurrough stated that they had similar facilities at the Los Angeles
International Airport, one in Ontario, another in Palm Sprinqs, and another
one in Pasadena.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN, April 17, 1972 72-191
VARIANCE N0. 2345 (COntinued)
Mr. McMurrough, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated
that he had been selling these cars since 1967; whereupon Commissioner Kaywood
stated that if they had been doing business at this location since 1967, and
apparently they were successful, there would be no reason for granting an
additional sign for the used car sales.
Mr. McMurrough inquired whether they could just have a siqn indicating this
w.:is Y.ertz property and omit reference to the used cars.
',-•,mmissioner Kaywood noted that the Commission was more concerned with future
requests for the same uses, since if this petition was approved, the Commission
could not deny someone else the riqht to do the same thing.
Mr. MeMUrrough, in response to a question by Commissioner Herbst, stated there
was still one recreational vehicle on the premises belonging to Boise Cascade,
and they had requested that this be removed, however, they were no lonaer
interested in renting motor homes to the visiting public.
Mr. Roberts then noted that this petition could be terminated if the petitioner
was not exercising the right.
Commissioner Rowland offesed Resolution i~o. PC72-74 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2345 as an accessory use to
the primary use of rental of automobiles; that the sales be restricted to
automobiles declared obsolete which were on consignment to the Hertz Rent-a-
Car facility at 221 West Katella Avenue as stipulated to by the petitioner;
that no price signs would be placed in the windows of the vehicles and the
sales restricte3 to che area located north of the service station site at the
northeast corner o£ Clementine StreeY. and Katella Avenue; that an additional
sign indicating the word "Hertz" only be permitted, all as stipulated to by
the petitioner; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-75 and moved for its passage
and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Variance No. 2239
on the basis that the petitioner was not exercising the use granted. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOiS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE N0. 2348 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALDOR CORP., 363 South Main Street,
Orange, California 90029, Owner; W. C. BARTELS, 4513
Collwood Lane, San Diego, California 92115, Agent;
requesting WAIVER OF (1~ PERMITTED USES. ~Z) REQUIRED 1,0-FOOT LANDSCAPED
SETBACK, (3) MINIMUM A1.''.EQIAL HIGHWAY SETBP..CK, (4) REf,~"`ZRED ONE TREE PER
10,000 SQUARE FEET OF PAiZICING AREA~ AND (5) MII3IMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKTNG
SPACES TO PERMIT AN AL'"~M~rI:.~ POLISHING AND WAXING BUSINESS on property
described as: A recta.~yularly-shaped parcel of land being the southwest corner
of Kraemer Boulevard and Miraloma Avenue, with frontages of approximately 140
feet and 150 feet respectively, and further described as 1295 North Kraemer
Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing. it is
referred to and made a part of the file.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2'192
VARIANCE NO. 2348 (Continued)
Mr. W. C. Bartels, agent for the petitioner and representing the American Oil
Company, agpeared before the Commission and stated that the service station
had been closed £or some time, and prior to leasing the property for a polish-
~ng and waxing business it was boarded up, and when they were approached by the
operator of the polishing and waxirq business, they felt that leasing the
property for some ather activity would be better than havinq a boarded-up
service station, a prcblem facing many other companies with closed service
stations in this area.
Mr. Bartels then noted that in the Report to the Commission it indicated certain
changes wouid have to be made, however, the American Oil Company did not want to
make any changes since there was a possibility they would be using this facility
as a service station in the future, therefore, they would request that con-
sideration be given to allowing this use since they were issued a business
license, therefore, they thought the use was approved. However, they had been
informed later this was not so. Furthermore, he felt it was better to have
some type of activity on the property than having a boarded-up service station.
Commissioner Gauer inquired about the requirement in the Report to the Commis-
sion by the Fire Department regarding filling the tanks ~vith sand; whereupon
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted this was a policy of the Fire Depart-
ment to require tanks to be taken out of the service station site or the tanks
filled with sand where another use was proposed for the site - this was neces-
sary to avoid any fire hazard.
Commissioner Herbst inquired of Mr. Bartels whether there was something else
that could be suggested that would be acceptable by the Fire Department, other
than removal of the tanks or filling them with sand.
Mr. Bartels noted there could not be any problem since the pipes to the tanks
were locked, and that there might be a way of filling the tanks with water if
some rust preventative was used in the tanks.
Commissioner Herbst noted this was a requirement of the Fire Department, and
the Commission was relectant to bypass any suggestion made by the Fire Depart-
men*_, particularly since the petitioner had done nothing to the site except to
remove the pumps; and that the Commission had been opposed to the many service
stations considered for the City of Anaheim, therefore, it would appear their
opposition had some merit, particularly when one viewed the many service stations
now closed in the City of Anaheim. Therefore, if the petitioner was proposing
to change the use, then he would have to meet the requirements of th~ Fire
Department, remove the pump islandsand canopies - don't leave bits a,nd pieces
of a service station - join the coaimunity and help clean up the bli~tht that
had been created.
Three letters, one from the Chamber of Commerce, one from an industrial organi-
zation in the Northeast Industrial Area, and one from a large industry e~tab-
lished there, were read to the Commission expressing no opposition to the use,
but requesting that the use be required to meet the site development standards
of the M-1 2one.
Mr. Bartels gave no rebuttal but requested that the use be approved without
any changes to the existing facility.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour stated that Commissioner Herbst stated it very well and
subsequent conversions of existing service stations should'be required to meet
the site development standards of the underlying zone; that the Commission
welcomed conversions but only subject to improvement of the site to the area,
and upon looking at the waivers requested, he was not in favor of a use with a
conversion by merely establishing another business on the site and doing noth-
ing to improve the site - unless the use was very temporary in nature - and
there was some assurance that a subsequent use wuuld meet all the requireme:-ts
of the Code, therefore, he would be opposed to the use as presently requested.
~
~
~.
~
MINUTES,CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-193
VARIANCE NO. 2348 (Continued)
Chairman Faraao inquired whether the Commission could impose the condition
that if the progosed use cease2. to exist, could the Commission require removal
of the service station within six months, since it was repulsive as a service
station site being used for a venture of this type without thought o~ po,ssible
failure since he knew the attitude of oil companies about not really be~~n-
cerned because the operator of the operation was involved and the uses could
change from a caz polishing and waxing business to a service station, or
whatever, and as each failed, a new use would be established, and there was
only a limited extent to which he would be willing to cooperate as to alterna-
tive uses for the property, particularly since this had the least amount of
money expended for conversi~n purposes. Therefore, he felt that if the service
station were not going to be located on the property, then anything that
resembled a service station should be removed.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that a service station was permitted by
right in the M-1 2one, therefore, it could not be renoved.
Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that the City should have an ordinance
that would remove vacant service stations if any other use was proposed for
the property, such as the pump islands~ the canepies, and should conform with
the site development standards as it pertained to setba~ks and landscaping.
Chairman Farano noted that if the Commission voted favorably for subject
petition, then the petitioner should be required to meet the site development
standards of the M-1 Zone and the variance would not be in force or effect
until they were met.
Mr. John Shopper 3162 Pearl Drive, Fullerton, operator of the car polishing and
waxing operation on subject property, appeared before the Commission and noted
that he had been informed by American Oil Company that it would not be feasible
for them to make these changes, and he could not make these changes since hP
was just a small business man, therefore, how long would the Commission gsant
him to relocate his business if the American Oil Company did not meet these
conditions, and then in response to a question by the Commission, stated it
would take about sixty days to relocate.
Commissioner Herbst noted ~hat a City business license permitted operation of
a business only within the confines of the Code requirements.
Mr. Shoppe stated he did not open his business until after the business license
was issued, and he did not realize they were not in accordance with Code
requirements.
Chairman Farano noted that the oil companies were fully aware of the zoning
problems of each city in which they were located, and they should approach the
individual business man with a better understanding if a better atmospher: was
to be created.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-76 and moved for its passage
and adoption to giant Petition for Variance No. 2346, in part, granting Waiver
1-a on the basis that the use would be a co~patible use in the area
in which it was proposed to be located; that Waivers 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, and 1-e
are denied on the basis that the site development standards have been established
to guarantee and preserve the continued quality development of Anaheim's indus-
trial area, and since adjoining industrial firms have developed in conformance
with these standards, to approve the requested waivers would be granting a
privileqe not enjoyed by other industrial properties in this zone throughout
the city; that the City of Anaheim is deluged with an overabundance o£ service
stations over the past several years, which has resulted in an approximate 25$
vacancy factor, and these abandoned service stations are a blight on the com-
munity; that the oil companies are responsible for creating their own high
vacancy problem by developing too many service stations within the city and
for creating this blight upon the community, and they should be more cooperative
and willing to join the community and clean up the blight created by their own
industry; that conversions of existing vacant service stations to a productive
use is a problem which is recognized by the Planning Commission, and considera-
tion should be qiven to allowing such conversions, but at the same time these
o •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-194
VARIANCE NO. 2348 (~ontinued)
conversions should be such that it is an improvement to the area; that a waiver
of the M-1 site development standards would break down the character of the
quality 3.ndustrial areas which the City of Anaheim has been able to creaL-e;
that the petitioner indicated this would be an interim use, therefore, he was
opposed to removal of the pump islands and canopies; and that the petitioner
was opposed to complying with Fire Department policy which requires that the
gas tanks be either removed or filled with sand; further providing that in the
event the petitioner was unable to meet said site development standards, he
would be granted sixty days from date in which to relocate the business, and
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Sook.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer.. Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE NO. 2349 - PUBLIC HEARING. COLLINS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 1077 West
Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner; requesting
WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED USES, (2) 10-FOOT LANDSCAPING
ALONG BROADWAY, (3) 5-FOOT LANDSCAPING AND FENCE SETBACK FROM ADP.MS STREET,
(4) MASONRY WALL SURROUNDING OUTDOOR USE~ (5) MINIMUM NUMEER OF PARKING SPACES~
AND (6) PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS TO PERMIT A CENTER FOR TI'iE SALE OF HAND-
CRAFTED ART OBJECTS AND RELATED MERCHANDISE WITH FOOD SALE':; on property des-
cribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~= approximately
one acre located at the southwest corner of Adams Street and Lrcadway, having
frontages ~~f approximately 225 feet on Adams Street and 34 feet on Broadway,
having a maximum depth of approximately 455 feet, and further described as
1430 West Broadway. Property presently classified M-1. LIGHT It;DUSTRIAL, 20NE.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the Report to the Commission, noting
the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous
zoning action on the property, and the new proposal "co establish a center for
the sale of handcrafted art o»jeccs and reinceu nazci~anfl~sa v:ith incidental
food sales, utilizing the existinq Harmony Park building by dividing the build-
ing into 50 cubicles; that 30 parking spaces in the front area near Broadway
were ~roposed, with 38 spaces to the rear of the building; that access to the
parking was proposed from a private street; and that the outside patio preaently
existing on the east side of the building would be used for outdoor display and
sales area, however, if one person per stall had a parking space, this would
mean 51 stalls being used, leaving only 17 spaces available to the general
public for parking purposes while visiting and shopping in this facility.
Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the evaluation of the progosal, noted that it would
appear the same problem or potential problems existed in the the most recent
zoning request on the property, and the major reason for the Planning Commission
denying the previous petition was the fact that the Fire Department objected
to the safety of the existing building; that although the Fire Department had
indicated this use would receive a somewhat different "occupancy rating" than
the former use, it was still objectionable from a public safety and health
standpoi.nt, and it was conceivable that the proposed use might still adversely
affect the adjoining land uses and the development of the area in which it was
proposed to be located; and that the matter of crowd management and control
by the operator was still questionable, which proved to be a primary factor
in the denial of the previous request.
Mr. ~toberts, in conclusion, stated that the parking space deficiency could be
very significant, and although calculating on the square footage basis alone,
83 stalls would be required, and the pet~tioner was proposing only 68 spaces,
which could create a monumental traffic and parking problem since these
commercial activities would take place during the working hours of the adjoin-
ing business area.
•
~
MI23UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-I9S
VARI~NCE NO. 2349 (Continued)
Mr.,David Collins, the petitionF•r, appeared before the Commission and noted
that Waiver "c" relative to Adams Street only applied to a portion of the
street; whereupan Mr. Roberts stated that the Engineering Department had
indicated that Adams Street was not a dedi.cated public street.
Mr. Collins advised the Commission that in order to provide for safe pazk~ng
in the front, they were proposing angle parking; that they proposed to land-
scape the 5-foot setback and hoped by so doing that the Soutnern Paciffc Rail-
road would also plant the front of their property, however, they did not use
their property; that because of the historical climate of the building, it was
hoped that they would be permitted to have a new wooden wall to create an
atmosphere; that he did not feel there would be 51 persons displaying their
art works, therefore, 51 parking spaces would not be us~i as staff suggested;
that this o eration would be simil~~a~, t S ~ entur~.~ .~.~wn~ as the "Whole Earth" ,
where they had 15.000 square feet~'an'T~~t~ ris mas~i-d ~fi~id they have a parking
problem, ana they had only 30 tenants in their facility, therefore, he felt
they also would not have 51 stalls; and then presented an a ist's rendering
of what was proposed, noting it would be similar to the stival at Laguna
Beach. Furthermore. they had a limited amount of ~pace, therefore, they would
screen any prospective tenant who might want to display his art works since
they wanted quality artists.
Mr. Collins further noted that the last waiver requested pertuined to garking
improvement, and he would request that consideration bE: given to requiring
this to be completed within 180 days, however, it was 'cheir intent to land-
scape the front setback and improve the parking area;,;that the clientele they
expected would be patrons of the arts and crafts; thit there would be few times
there might be large activities except for a special guild presentation or
sporadic events; that he wanted to attain a peoples' atmosphere, which would
be an entirely different concept; and that although he would like to state there
was additional parking available, there was no land which could be used for
such a purpose.
Mr, Alvin Rohrs, 1436 Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission
in opposition and stated he was the owner-operator ~f a petroleum operation
adjacent to subject property and requested the Commission to deny subject
petition on the basis that the petitioner would hase no way of gaining access
to his rear parking area without going over private property since he had
purchased a portion of the property formerly known as Adams Street; that the
only way across would be gained by removal of a fence and a large pepper tree;
that he had made an offer for accesa to Mr. Collins over his property, however,
Mr. Collins chose to take it to court, and the final outcome of this action
would be d~cided in court Novembpr 7.
Chairman Farano noted this was a civil matter which was not within the juris-
diction of the Planning Commission, therefor.e, he would request that Mr. Rohrs
confine his objection to other matters.
Mr. Rohrs then stated that the ~?etitioner was creating considerable trash
problems on his petroleum operation property and indicated the boundary of his
property, noting that Art Shipkey owned the balance of the property, and that
he was unable to use his portion of the property because of the court injunction.
A letter of opposition was read to the Commission setting forth further reasons
for denial of subject petition, from the attorney for Mr. Rohrs.
Mr. Collins, in rebuttal, stated that the fee title to a portion of the abandoned
street was Mr. Rohr's, however, the court saw fit to permit himself the right to
access to the property over the Rohr's property, and that opposition had been
ei:pressed regarding the debris from the pepper tree, however, the tree had been
trimmed so that the leaves would not fall on the Rohr property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred inquired whether Mr. Collins coeld comply with the Uniform
Building Code of the City of Anaheim; whereupon Mr. Collins stated he thought
he could.
Chairman Farano noted that the Report to the Commission raised the same problems
that existed when the Commission considered the dance hall previously.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-196
VARIANCE NO. 2349 ~Continued)
Mr. Collins replied that he had talked with Fire Irispector Bob Phillips, who
stated that the use now propos=:; would be within the Building Department's
jurisdiction, and the Fire Department would no longer require ir.atallation of
the sprinklers sinca this was not considered a place of assembly. therefore,
the Buildinq Code would be the only thing to meet.
Chairman Farano no*_ed that in the brochure presented by the petitioner there
were two items of concern, namely, outdoor shows and outdoor entertainment,
and requested that Mr. Collins explain what type of entertainment was proposed.
Mr. Collins replied this would be medievai type music with minstrels, and nc
dance bands or audience participation was proposed.
The Commission expressed concern that there would be outdoor music playing
during the day during office hours; whereupon Mr. Collins stipulated that there
would be no outdoor entertainment between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Chairman Farano inqufred how the exhibit booths would be leased out; whereupon
Mr. Collins stated they would have a one-year lease, and if the lessee was not
successful, they then would find a new tenant.
Mr. Collins noted that a similar operation had been opened in Santa Barbara
on State Street, and their tenants eventually became permanent, such as any
other merchandising situation.
Chairman Farano then inquired whether this would be a perpetual exhibit of
merchandising and retail sales.
Mr. Collins stated that this would be retail sales, and craftsmen would be
performing on the premises. Furthermore, sales tax would be collected on
sale items.
Commissioner Rowland noted that from recent experience it was his understanding
that the petitioner would have to provide a sprinkler system because of the
size of the building and the uses proposedi whereupon Mr. Collins stated that
if this were required, they would have to reassess this, but with the uses they
proposed, he felt it would be quite expensive. However, if this were a require-
nent ~nd needed, then they would have to meet the Fire Department's regulations.
Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that the use proposed would be accept-
able, provided, however, that it was done properly, and, further, the question
was that of parking, and unless there was another alternative so that streets
were not used for parking purposes, the petitioner would have to solve his
parking problems after the vaziance was approved, and then,if these parking
problems were not solved, then the petition should be terminated.
Mr. Collins requested that the Commission consider giving him one year to
determine whether or not the parking as proposed was adequate, since it would
take that long to determine the success of this operation, and that they would
be closing at 10e00 p.m. - the one at Santa Barhara closed at 6:00 p.m., but on
weekends was open until 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Farano noted this would be a good thing for Anaheim after having.
attended the arts and crafts shows in Laguna Beach, but he had also seen some
rather unwholesome situations develop, and it wauld be up to the petitioner to
resolve these problems.
Mr. Collins stated that he a'lso would be concerneft that this would not happen
on these premises.
Chairman Farano noted that to have just arts and craEts would not be impossible,
but it could gravitate into something undesirable.
Mr. Collins replied that he hoped they would attract only q»ality clientele,
since they would like people who visited the city and Disneyland to come to
this facility when there was nothing to do in the evening.
Chairmaa Farano inquired whether or not this would be similar to the art colony
in Sausalito; whereupon Mr. Collins stated it would not be of that nature, Lut
he would like it to be something like Giardelli Square.
^
~
MZNUTE°, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972
VARIANCE N0. 2349 (Continued)
72-197
Chairman Farano inquired how and where this facility would be advertised;
whereupon Mr. Collins stated they would be advertising through the newspaper.
by mail, and motels and hotels in the Disneyland area.
Commissioner Gauer stated he, too, was concerned with the shortage of parking
when one considered the amount of parking that could occur on the adjacent
streets, and if this proposal was successful and attracted many people, parti-
cularly when each car meant one or two persons just to browse around a place,
not necessarily to purchase anything, it could mean 50 to 60 people just look-
ing, or 50 to 60 cars.
Mr. Collins noted that in visitinq the "Earth" place, there were quite a few
people but only 15 to 20 cars, and he would like to have an opportunity to
try to solve the parking if he were allowed to determine if the need was there
and how it should be resolved.
Commissioner S~ymour offexed Resolution No. PC72-77 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2349, subject to granting
waiver "1" which permitted uses for one year to deter~aine the impact of the
use on the industrial area and to determine whether or not parking being pro-
vided was adequate to serve the proposed use, and a review at the end of one
year would be made by the Planning Commission to determine if the use should
be continued; that waiver of the screening of outdoor uses with a solid masonry
wall was waived on the basis that a wooden fence was deemed adequate to enclose
the proposed outside activityj that waiver of the required parking was granted
for one year to determine whether the proposed parking spaces would be adequate
to serve this use, and a review at the end of one year would be made by tha
Planning Commission to determine if parking was adequate; that waiver of the
required 10-foot landscape sethack along Broadway was granted on the basis that
to provide the required landscaping would further reduce the proposed parking;
that waiver of the parking area improvements was denied on the ba=~ chat the
parking area should be surfaced in conformance with Code requiremcuLS, however,
the petitioner stipulated to zesurfacing the front parking area prior to
commencement of the acti~ity and the Planning Commission granted the petitioner
180 days in which to complete resurfacing of the rear parkiny area; and that
waiver of the 5-foot setback along Adams Street was determined to be unneces-
sary; and subject to stipulations by the petitio;zer that there would be no out-
side business conducted in any of the parking areas and that there would be no
outside entertainment between the hours of S:OJ a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; and subject
to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOESs COMMISSIOIJERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn for dinner
FOR DINNER at 5:32 p.m. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECONVEN~: - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 7:33 p.m., all
Commissioners being present.
RECLASSIFICATSON - PVBLIC fIEARING. FRANK M. IWASAKI, 801 Ridqecrest Street,
NO. 71-72-40 Monterey Park, California 917~4, Owner; WPC DEVELOPMENT
CO., 9774 West Katella Avenue, Suite E. Anaheim, Californi.a
VARIP.NCE NO. 2350 92804. Aqentj property described as: A rectangularly-shaped
' parcol of land consisting of approximately 2.5 acres havinq
a frontage of approximately 330 feet on the north side o•~
Lincoln Avenue, having a max~mum depth of approximately 330 feet and being
located approximately 885 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. and
further described as 2511 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
~
MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2-198
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-40 AND VARIANCE NO. 2350 (Continued)
P.EQUESTF,D CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMZLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN SUILDINGS AND
(2) MRXIMUM DISTANCE FROM PARKING SPACES TO DWELLING
UNITS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 72-UNZT APARTMENT
COMPLEX.
A showing of hands indicated four persona present in opposition.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established in close proximity, pre'viaus zoning action on the property,
and the proposal to reclassify the property to R-3 in order to develop a 72-
unit, two-story, semi-subterranean apart:ment complex havinq carports below
the two-story buildings with waivers of the minimum distance between buildings
and maximum distance from parking spaces to the dwelling units; that the
density proposed was 32.3 units per net acre, with a coverage of 40.7+t; that
the Anaheim General Plan designated this area as being appropriate for medium
densitj residential development; that the waiver of the minimum distance be-
tween buildings was being requested for the areas between main entrances to
the units and two entry alcoves, and this waiver had been granted in the past
under similar circumstances; that the waiver of the maximum distance from the
parking spaces to the dwel2ing units was being requested for approximately 8
units in the soz~theasterly correr oi the proposal, however, it should ba
pointed out that almost every apartment development in town generated a tre-
mendous amount of on-street parkinq, and this condition was created in part by
the fact that the parkiny £acilities were not conveniently located to the
dwellinq un.its they intPnded to serve; that while the present code recognized
L•hat 20p feet should be the maximum distance a tenant should be expected to
walk to get to the parking space asaiqned him, current evidence of on-street
parking conditions indicates that 200 feet may be too far, therefore, it would
appear Chat the requested waiver requiring tenants to walk up to 250 feet to
their parking space would not be reasonable, and the project coul~i be redesigned
to eliminate this problem. Furthermore, a field inspection of this particular
area indicatAcl that the apartment compi.ex to the east may already have a parking
problem since on-street parksna in front ef the adjacent property, as weSl as
the property in que~tio~: was currently very prevalent, which could be an indi-
cation of an existing park.ing pzoblem, and to allow waiver of the maximum
distance between carports and the units in this instance would tend to magnify
the problem beyond the current stage.
Mr. Roberts, in summary, stated that the Commission might wish to consider the
zone change for the property to be appropriate and in conformity with existing
land uses and the General Plan, however, the proposed plans may be considered
3nadequate due to the potential parking problems that could arise.
Mr. Phillip Case, 9774 West Katella Avenue, representing the agent for the
petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated they would be purchasing
the property, building it and operating it as their own; that they also owneti
the adjacent 105-unit development as well as one farther east; that they pro-
posed a development similar to Sierra West with subterranean parking; that
their density was 32 units per net acre, while 36 units was permitted, however,
on the plus side was the fact that they were proposing a coverage of 40.9$.
whereas Code would permit up. to SS+k, which should be considered a plust that
~ierra west was the first development in Anaheim where the carports were
depressed and a split-level livi.ng environment was propos_d, and this created
a more desirable living environment for tenants wherein the units surrounded
an immense courtyard area; that since they built and owned these units, they
knew it was important to their tenants to have more g=een and open area; that
the shape of t'he property was ideal for the proposed design; that the waiver
for the distance between buildings was greater in the previous development
approved; that reference to the parking being too distant, he would have one
comment on that, and that was the fact that they provided a center entry to
~ t- ~--~-. • •
MINUTES, CITX PLANNING CO,fMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-199
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-40 AND VARIAN'CS NO. 2350 (Continued)
the complex with the units off a courtyard, since most people did not like the
idea of entering their apartme>:~ts airectly from a street which this plan
avoided, therefore, they were providing controlled access; that parking on the
street was a necessity to allow for prospective tenants'and existing tenants'
questa to park; and that in their present buildings, most people appeared to
park in the spaces avai.table, therefore, he did not feel the walking distance
was of too much concern Lo the tenants themselves.
Mr. Chet Clark, resident of the R-2-5000 tract south of the south side of
L.incoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to increasing
the traffic flow in this area, particularly with some of the traffic usinq
the residential tract to qain access to Braadway; that this small residential
street ha%. been subjected to a considerable number of cars driving at rapid
speed, which was dangerous to the children living in the residential subdi-
vision, and this was particular.ly hazardons when one considered there was no
stc_r, sign to prevent said tra€fic from having a clear road to Broadways and
that although he had ju~t a~aved to this area, his neighbors had advised him
there had been numerous accidents due to the high speed of traffic.
Mrs. Nancy Brown, 2513 Chain Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion and stated she also was concerned with the traffic increase from the
proposed development, which wculd use Gain Street; that there had been numer-
ous accidents because of no left-turn lane on Lincoln Avenue, and with
the speed of traffic on Lincoln Avenue, to permit additional apartments would
add to an already hazardous situation; and then inquired as to the number of
bedrooms that were proposed for these units - the Commission advised the
opposition there would be 8 three-bedroom units and the majority would be
two-bedroom units.
Commissioner Seymour asked that Mrs. Brown explain again about the traffic
problem~ whereupon Mrs. Brown stated that as traffic progressed along Lincoln
Avenue easterly of Magnolia Street, there was a break in the center divider,
but no place £or a left-turn pocket, and when someone decided to turn left at
this break, people would have to apply their brakes, and they could hear the
squealir.g brakes because of the fact that no leEt-turn pocket was available
on a street where normally a left-tuxn pocket was provided.
Commissioner Seymour inquired whether traffic had increased on Gain Street
after the apartmen~s on Brookhurst Street had been completed.
Mrs. Brown stated that Gain Street was open to Lincoln Avenue after the hous-
ing development was built, and then in response to further questioning by the
Commission stated that people used Gain Street and Chain Avenue for a short-cut
to Broadway, and the speed of these vehicles on the loca?. streets was anywhere
froin 40 to 60 miles an hour; and that they had called the police to this area
a number of times since this street was opened, therefore, they felt any addi-
tional apartment development would increase an already-existing prohlem.
Mr. Case, in rebtittal, stated that :here was no reason for residents of their
apa.~tments to go to Broadway since cheir places of employment were not located
in that general direction - perhaps they were qoing to the grocery store at
Magnolia and Broadway, and although he, too, had taken the short-cut once, he
no longer did this 1^ecause of the many children residing in that subdivisions
that the speed on Lincoln Avenue was somewhat changeable since it was only
35 miles an hour esg~ of Brookhurst Street and 40 miles an hour west of
Srookhurst Street, th.~refore; it would appear that a more uniform permitted
speed should be strictly enforced on Lincoln avenue.
TYiE HEARIL3G WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour observed that the agent for the petitioner had stated
±;~ey justi£ied the waiver of the 260-foot limitation by providing a more oDen
project, and people would have to use the main entry way, therefore, it was
just as far to thE carports as it would be to parking the vehicle on Lincoln
Avenue, and then inquired what was meant by that after having reviewed the
plans.
~
~
MINTJTES, ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, ~372 72-200
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-~0 AND VARIANCE NO. 2350 (Continued)
Mr. Case stated that people generally filled up the carport spaces in the
facility before considering parking on the atreet.
Mr. William Phelpa, desiqner of the pro~ect, appeared before the Commission
and otated that irom his calculatioi~ the disfance was only 205 feet.
Chairman Farano asked staf° how this distance was measuredf whereupon Mr.
Roberts stated ~ha:• the individual who had prepared cha repor.t most likely
measured the distance as an individual would wslk, not as the crow tlies.
Mr. Phelps noted that each dwelling unit had its own carport for parking
purposes assigned, and then noted the distance on the exhibit~ as to how far
people would have to walk, which would be about the same from either going
north or going we~terly.
Comu~issioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner was sure the residents
filled the inside parking first before moving outside, because she had visited
the units to the east the previous day and cars w~re parked solidly along
Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Phelps replied that most people preferred to park their vehicles in the
stalls assigned them.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether this would indicate insuf£icient paz;::ng
was being required and provided, since in all seriousness she felt more parking
was needed, and she also wanted more open space for people tc move around -
these were real problems.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether only automobiles were permitted to park ia
the pasking stalls; whereupon Mr. Case stated that they ha8 never allowed
campers or boats in the carports because of the size, and owners of these
~ehicles were required to have parking facilities elsewhere; that although
many automobiles were compact cazs, he would still have to meet his competition,
thereiore, they were not asking for any parking waivers since they needed all
the parking they could gzt.
Mr. Fhelps asked the Commission if they would like to hear how the City of
Fullerton had resolved this parking problem.
Chairman Farano stated that there was considerably more to be considered be-
sides this item, therefore, he would suggest that Mr. Phelps present his
findings to staff, who could inform the Commission regardinq it, and expressed
surprise that someone would admit there was a need for more parking.
Mr. Case again stated that on-street parkinq was nePded for prospeotive tenants
and guests of the existing tenants, and that all parking spaces being provided
on-site were allocated, and if any ~+ere left over, these were leased out.
Commissioner Kaywood inquirad whether the developer took into account the
existing recreationa.l facility to the west in the construction of the proposed
development, because of the possible noise factor.
Mr. Case stated that they were fully aware of the noise factor and were also
negotiating to purchase that land; that the recreational £acility had a short
lease on the property, and he doubted that the owners o£ the property would
negotiate a new lease; and that he had located the dwelling units 45 feet from
that area, however, these facilities were not open in the eveninqs.
Commissioner Kzywood ncced that the high overhead lights were not very desirable,
nor was a large slide to a tenant in a complex of this type.
Mr. Case w~= ~f the opinion that this recreatiun facility would remain there
for only a year or two, and tY.en in response to further questioning by the
Commisaion, stated it was not their intent to use the exi~ting swimming pool
because it.rras too large, and they could not maintain it.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-201
RIs'CLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-40 AND VARII,VCE NO. 2350 (L'ontinued)
Commissioner Row2and observed that if the intent of the 250 feet was to h9 able
to get to a garking space from a unit, then the 3imension stated by staff was
accurate, and if one really analyzed the plan, the dimensions were greater, and
it wa~ significant be~ause this increased the density of the project.
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that when a developer proposed to have
units located 250 Yeet from the parking stalls, this, to him, was not qood
design planning because it would be difficult for someone to walk that distance,
particularly if they were carrying a large bag of qroceries, therefore, he felt
the ].iving environment proposed was not qL.ite desirable, and because of this
distance, this would encourage people to park on the street, which was some-
thing the Commission was trying to discourage, and the farther units were from
the parking area, the more this on-street parking was being encouraged.
Perhaps this was too dense a development because of this.
Commissioner Seymour noted that although this was a very attractive develop-
ment, the design encouraged parking by visitors and tenants on-street, and
there presently existed a very serious problem in this area, therefore, the
Commission should not compound a problem.
Commissioner Rowland noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated that a
hardship existed because of the size and shape of the parcel, therefore, this
aaiver should not be granted.
Commissioner A1?red offered Resolution No. PC72-78 and moved for its passage
and adoption to xecommend to the City Council approval of Petition for.Reclassi-
fication No.'71-72-40 subject to conditions. (See Resolution Aook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Allred o£fered Resolution No. PC72-79 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2350, in part, denying the
request for waiver of the distance from a dwelling unit to a parking stall
since the petitfoner had not demonstrated a hazdship existed because of the
size and shape of the parcel, and subject to conditions. (See Renolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland,
Seymnur.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: N~ne.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission should make some comment or
recommendation regarding the traffic problem on Gain Street and Chain Avenue
since there was opposition expressed regarding more traffic being generated by
the aforementioned proposal on Reclassification No. 71-72-40 ar.d Variance No.
2350, requesting consideration of a stop sign at the intersection of these two
local streets which were somewhat unusual, and then inquired of Office Engineer
;iay Titus whether a stop sign was feasible.
Mr. Titus replied that this was rather unusual, and he did not know whether
the TraEfic Enqineer wonld approve of one without studying this situation.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to request the Traffic Encineer to study
the traffic problem at the intersection of Gain Street and Chain Avenue to
determine whether a stop sign should be erected to discourage traffic from
Lincoln Avenue using these local residential streets as a short-cut to Broadway,
and that the feasibility study be made tr. sufficient time for consideration by
the City Council at the time public hesring was held by the Council on Reclassi-
fication No. 71-72-40. Commissioner Xaywood seconded the motion. MOTION •
CARRIED.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-202
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARZNG. MELVIN SCHANT2, 1741 West Katella Avenue,
NO. 71-72-41 Anaheim, California 92804. Owner; H.M.S. AIR CONDITIONING
CORP., P. O. Box 1532, Orange, Califurnia 92668, Agent;
VARIAN~~: NO. 2351 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 3.5 acres being the north-
wes: corner of Miraloma Avenue and the Orange Freeway,
having frontages of approximately 640 feet on the west side of the Orange
Freeway and 163 feet on the north side of Miraloma Avenue. Property presently
claesified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUE.iTED CLASSIFIGATIGN: R-3~ MULTIPLE-F'AMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF ~1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (2) MINIMUM DIST2'NCE
BETWEEN BUILDINGS~ AND (3) LOCATION OF STORAGE AREA TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 96-UNIT APARTMENT CCMPLEX.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property,
and the proposal to establish a 96-unit, two-story apartment complex with
waiver af the minimum floor area, minimum distance between buildings, and
storage area rev„uirements, said development haviny access from Miraloma Way
and Park Lane.
Commissioner Kaywood left th~ Council Chamber at 8:14 p.m. and returned at
8:16 p.m.
Mr. Roberts then reviewed the density and coverage, r,oting 31.8 dwelling units
per net a.cre was proposed, with 43.6~ coveraget tbat 33$ of the units were
proposed to be less than 700 square feet, however, the Planning Commission in
the past had approved projects with up to 25$ bachelor or single units so
long as the units were no less than 425 square feet; and that since the smaller
units were 644 and 672 square feet, this would not be considered typical
bachelor units but. iustead. were substandard one-bedroom apartments which
did not meet the minimum square foot requirement of the R-3 Zone, therefore,
the Planning Commission would wish to determine khether the requested waiver
would be appropriate or whet:~er these were just substandard one-bedroom
apartments. In addition, the waiver of the location of the storage area was
requested to be relocated from the garage area to within each unit, which the
Commission may wis~ to consider as being inappropriate because of the lack
of large storage space in apartment complexes for such items as barbecues,
automobile-oriented equipment and general storage space.
Mr. Roberts also noted that a further consideration for the Commission was
the proximity of so many unita to the Orange Freeway and the proposed vc:hicular
circulation system since 16 of the proposed units would be only 10 feet from
the right-of-way line of the freeway and 8 other units would be only 13 to 15
feet from said right-of-way; that while that 8istance satisfied the minimum
requirement of the R-3 2one, it was questionable that these would be de:sirable
units from a living environment standpoint; and that as far as the circulation
system was concerned, there was no through connection of the driveways rince
each unit terminated as a dead end. However, with the exception of one turn-
around area, the design met the minimum standards for automobiles, trash and
fire truck accessibility, but it would appear that a better circulation system
could be designed.
Mr. Roberts, in summation, stated that it would appear the property would be
appropriate for the zoning requested, however, the Commission may wish to
consiuer requiring the plans to be revised to incorporate larger one-bedroom
units, more adequate storage facilities, and more consideration to the living
environment for the uniL•s adjacent to the ~range Freeway.
Mr. David Mayer, 710 North Main Street, Orange, representing the agent for
the petitioner, appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that in order to
develop this property, they had to design around the existing apartment
complexes to provide and maintain the necessary parking and turn-around; that
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, ?._il 17, 1972 72-203
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-41_ AND VARIANCE NO. 2351 (Continued)
they proposed to develop a berm with perimeter parking; that reference was made
as to the through tra£fic on this property, however, they were providing drive-
ways with parking areas near each apartment, and in designing it this way, the
recreatiot: area would be in the center of the project; that this was a unique
type development as far as apartments were today since there would be extensive
landscaping to create a living environment because they planned earth mounds,
specimen trees, and landscaping for maximum appeal; that trees would be placed
along the freeway property line as a sound buffer; that the square fuotage of
the one-bedroom units was the same as the two-bedroom, except that one bedroom
was deleted; that he felt they aere offering a better desiqn by placing the
storage area adjacent to the apartments since they felt they did not want to
turn carports into a week-end mechanic operation; that they were proviaing the
interior court area so that people would not have access through a living room;
that 80$ of the units would be overlooking a green area rather than driveways
or trash areas; and that this would give a garden-like atmosphere since parking
was proposed around the perimeter area.
Mr. Albert Herlin, 2823 Montair Avenue, Long Seach, appeared before the Commis-
sion in opposition and stated he owned fourplexes at 1318-132~3 North Fashion
Lane; that they had been fighting a battle to reduce the vacancies in their
complexes for the past seven years, maintaining the place and recreation area,
being particular about their tenants by not allowing children or pets; that
he was opposed to the number of waivers being requested because this would not
provide a desirable living envisonment for the tenants, and ha would suggest
that these large buildings be split and additional lnndscaping be provided,
since he found his tenants preferred this also; that everyone lately was
discussing ecology and noise, however, the petitioner was not considering
this when he proposed units so close to the freeway, which did not have heavy
traffic present~y, but when completed, it would be consi3erable since there
was enouqh noise now because of the juncture neas by, and cne could hear brakes
squealing in their units, which was considerably fa.rther away than subject
property - this was like people building homes wher~ an airport was proposed,
and the noise from the planes was so great people wanted to get rid of the
airport, however, one could not get rid of freeways since this was for the
benefit of the vehicular traffic to and through a city; that when more peo}~le
moved into this area, this would increase vandalism which would cost the City
money in the form of more police protection, more taxes, etc. - even a stop
sign cost considerable money; that the school taxes from their complex went
to the Placentia Unified School DS.strict, which meant children living in this
complex wouln have to go to Placentia schools, and he had one tenant who moved
out because she did not want her child to go to a Placentia school; that he
was not opposed to people making money by building apartments, but there was
a saturation point as to the number of apartments that could be built and
rented by the population of the city; and that other cities had declared
moratoriums on apartment development, therefore, he would suggest that some
light industry be developed on subject property, such as sign makers, office
supply, equipment companies, and service businesses, however, no metal stamp-
ing or manufacturing that produce noise both day and night.
Mr. Mayer, in rebuttal, stated ihat prior to considering developing subject
property, they analyzed •che site and the market and determined there was a
shortage or void in the type of apartments they proposed for dollar expended
for rental, however, he felt they could provide a superior apartment without
charging more rent, and that they proposed an all-adult, Spanish-modern design
development with amenities conducive to adult apartment living only.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the reason the developer was requesting
waiver of the reduction in square footage of the units other than what was
stated - was ti~e. 3eveloner'saying that the City's code requirements were wrong7
Mr. Mayer repliea that he did not think the City's cade was wrong, but they
had developed a similar projecc in La Palma, and they had a very unique floor
plan which did not require a tenant to walk through a unit, and all he had
done was eliminate one bedroom from the two-bedroom design. However, i£ the
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-204
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-41 AND VARIANCE NO. 2351 (Continued)
Commission was to require a 700-square foot unit, then they would redesign
accordingly.
Chairman Farano inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus the elevation of the
Orange Freeway at this location and what type of traffic would Miraloma
Avenue have; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that said freeway was at grade and
Miraloma Avenue was an overpass about 30 feet over the freeway, and that
traffic along Miraloma Avenue was fairly heavy.
Co~~,:_'•~~ioner Allred then inquired as to the distance between the freeway
travel way =nd subject property; whereupon Mr. Titus replied this was between
40 and 50 fee~.
Commissioner Herbst inquired about the reference made to only 36 cubic feet
in the storage area proposed; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated this should have
read 36 square feet.
Mr. Mayer advised the Commission that the storage area proposed woLld be the
same as presently required in carports - they were only placing them closer
to tne units they served and would be placing them under the stair well.
Commissioner Rowland inquired how the developer proposed to utilize this
storage area; whereupon Mr. Mayer stated that there were doors both at the
front and side.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired about the row of trees proposed along the
freeway property line; whereupon Mr. Mayer stated this would be ir. addition
to an earth mound at various heights planted with trees.
Mr. Mayer, in response tu questions by Commissioner Kaywood, stated the
property was a freeway remnant, and that they proposed a central electrical
air conditioning which. in turn, required double insulation between the side
walls, therefore, this ~nsulation would serve as further buffer to the outside
noises from the freeway, and although code did not require this, they were
proposing it.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the developer was proposing 24 units adjacent
to the freeway, which, in his opinion, was providing a very poor living
environment, and even though the petitioner stated they were providing an
earthen berm, this would be totally impossible since the structures were set
back only 10 feet from the property line, and any berm in that setback would
be very minimal.
Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the developer had not addressed
himself to the problem, and he could not see how anyone cuuld place that
number of units with all those openings just 40 feet from the freeway and
proposing to have landscaping that would block out the noise when that •aas
difficult - even if there were a.mile of dense forest separating the freeway
from a unit, the noise could not be blocked out; that the living environment
proposed was "zero", therefore, he would suggest a six-week continuance to
allow the developer time to revise plans indicating a more desirable living
environment for people who would be living in these units, and although he
knew similar type developments were proposed in the Valley and Los Angeles,
those units would have no openings in the walls backing up to the freeway;
and that perhaps the developer did have a successful operation in La Palma,
however, he would not consider this petition as it preser.tly existed, particu-
larly since the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship existed that was not
self-imposed; and that although .he petitioner proposed a development that was
basically within c~de requirements, this did not mean he was planning a desir-
able development that would 'ue a credi± to the city.
Commissioner Allred suggested to the developer that the Commission had approved
apartments adjacent to freeways at the junction of the Newport and Riverside
Freeways, however, that development provided a street plus 10 feet of land-
scaping and, in addition, they had the garages between the fraeway traffic
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17 1972 72-205
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-41 AND VARIANCE NO. 2's51 (Continued)
noises and the livinq snits, thesefore, if the developer could present revised
plans which would indicate an alley and garages adjacent to the freeway, to-
qether with considerable landscaping, this might be of some assistance.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the City was faced more and more by these types
of parcels which were freeway remnants, and in his estimation, this would be
better suited for a park which the residents of the exist~ng units could use,
rather than proposing a very poor living environment by backing up apartments
to the freeway and by increasing the density bg reducing the size of the living
units, and it would be his suggestion that the developer try to design the
project without requesting any waivers and providing additional buffering, as
well as reducing the density proposed.
Commissioner Seymour offere3 a motion to reopen the hearing and continue
consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 71-72-41 and Variance No.
2351 to the meetinq of May 15, 1972, to allow the developer time to revise
the plans as suggested by the Commission and to meet with staff for additional
guidance in the design. Commissioner Rowland secended the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18~ - PUBLIC H}iARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, California; to consider amendments to
Title 18, Chapters 18.13, R-H-10,000, Residential
Hillside; 18.18, R-E, Residential Estate; 18.20, R-O, One-Family Suburban;
18.24, R-l, One-Family Residential; and 18.26, R-2-5000, One-Family, Zone -
Site development star.dards thereof.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that the Planning
Commission and City Council, at a work session, had dirE~cted staff to study the
various methods to amend the code by improving the site 3evelopment standards
of the sinale-family zones in the Cicy of Anahe::.m, and that developers,
enqineers, and architects deve:oping in the canyon, as weli as interested
citizens in the area, had received copies of the suggested amendments several
weeks ago. Therefore, he would keep his comments to a minimum and review the
alternatives presented by staff for amendment of the R-2-5000 2one.
Mr. Thompson then noted that some o£ the suggestions were very significant.
and if the Cosmission wished, they could reco~nmend amendment of those sections
to the City Council for consideration, as well as the criteria they would
employ in determining when these standards would apply.
Chairman Farano indicated he did not quite understand what Mr. Thompson meant
by the criteria - if the Commission recommended adoption of the recommendations
made by staff, then the R-S-5000 would be available for those areas suitable
for R-2 and R-3 development.
Mr. Thompson stated this was not what he intended to say, but that his comment
was referring to the fact that about 200 to 3G0 acres in the Santa Ana Canyon
had been approved for R--2-5000, One-Family. Zone, and in the past when the City
of Anaheim made changes to the site developments standards of a particular zone,
there had been certain criteria established as to whether or not a developer
would have to meet these standards since he could have spent considerable money
on plans, and even had a final tract map approved, therefore, in this criteria
the developer might be able to proceed under his original plan; and that this
criteria was a policy established by the City Council.
Chairman Farano declared this a public hearing and requested that anyone wish-
ing to discuss both pro and con the merits of the proposal limit their remarks
to five minutes and to re£rain from repetitious statements.
Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, President of the Santa Ana Improyement
Association, appeared before the Commission and stated it seemed strange to be
present and be in favor of something; that Lhey were basically in favor of the
^
u
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apzil 17, 1972 72-206
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued)
staff's recommendations except everybody appeared to be confused as to the
Description and Purpose recommendations, and perhaps the Commission was also
confused by action of the City Council, however, it was the residents of the
canyon understar~di.ng that low density had been approved when General Plan
Amendment No. 122 had been considered and approved by the City Council. How-
ever, just recently R-2-5000 had also been approved in an area obviously
intended for low density; that some of the R-2-5000 had been denied, and the
developer was required to provide 7200-square foot lots, however, to change
the wording appeared to be erroneous since this might mean a developer could
first request R-2 or R-3 zoning and then later come in for R-2-5000 if the
R-2 and R-3 zoning was approved, but this was not the intent of the Commission
since there were specific areas indicated on the General PZan as being appropri-
ate for low-medium and medium density, and inquired of Deputy City Attorney
Frank Lowry what took preceden~„
Mr. Lowry noted that the General Plan was not a precise plan, and implemer~ta-
tion of it depended upon the desires and needs for the property as to zoning
that would be appropriate, at which time the Planning Commission and City
Council could amend the General Plan to reflect a different density, and that
there was no way a General Plan took precedenC~.
Mr. Thompson tk:en stated that in order to clarify the reason for some of the
recommended changes to the site development standards as tney pertained to
the R-2-5000 Zone was the fact that there were properties zoned in accordance
with the density depicted on the General Plan, however, the coverage of the
lots had been presenting numerous problems, such as placing very large. two-
story homes on small lots, and where only a 5-foot rear yard was required and
developed, people would look at these lots and would ask about the rear yard.
The salesman would inform them that these slepes would be graded and soil
retainer provided, however, all that was done was to plant these slopes with
ice plants, and this le£t these residents with no rear yard, and in the wintcer
considerable mud.
Mr. McQueen noted that the homeowners asso~iation was in favor of the rear yards
as proposed by staff, particularly since this would discourage four to six-
bedroom homes on these small lots - this change would give some leeway to the
developer, permitting him to provide a three-bedroom home on the small lot,
but it appeared that the developers were trying to make the most of these small
lots, for instance, there were tracts on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon
Road to be considered by the City Council the following day wherein 593 homes
were proposed, most of them with very large homes; and then referring to a recent
statement in the Anaheim Newsletter wherein the City Manager stated that 85$
of the property west of the river in Anaheim was developed, this would mean
85~ of any future housing development wou].d occur in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
There had to be some way to allow the developer to present acceptable tracts
and a better livinq environment so that the entire Santa Ana Canyon was not
torn up, placing one house right on top of another.
Mr. William Stark, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, appeared before the Commission
representing Anaheim Hills and stated he was interested only in limiting his
remarks to the R-H-10,000 Zone as it pertained to the front yard since other
developers would comment on the R-2-5000 Zone, and noted that it was not
clear to him what was proposed or intended to change in the front of the
R-H-10,000 Zone.
Mr. Thompson noted that the R-H-10,00~ Zone was somewhat confusing, but it
had been interpreted by the City Attorney and the Development Services Depart-
ment Director that a 10-foot setback may be proposed so long as a straight-in
drive was not provided or proposed, because this could not be permitted; that
the setback would be fully landscaped, and it would be difficult to place a
driveway in this setback. In order to avoid the existing confusion with this
particular zone, as well ~.s in the other zones where there was some ambiguity
and confusion, it was fe~c that if a change was warranted, especially for
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2-Z~~
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MDNICIPAL CODE (Continued)
setbacks on homes with straight-in drives between the garages and the property
lines in the R-2-5000 2one, maybe all of the single-family zones should be
chanqed now so that everybody understood these rules.
Mr. Stark then inquired whether staff was rec.,,nmending a 25-foat setback.
Mr. Thompson stated that there was a mulf:iplicity of requirements in the
various single-family zones. and the City had incurred some very serious
problems with the 20-foot setback; that this 20-foot setback requirement was
also very confusing in the R-H-10,000 2one, and to avoid any future confusion
in this zone, if it was decided that a 25-foot setback was needed for homes
with straight-in drives between the garages and the front propertp lines, then
all of the single-family homes should be amended to reflect that and to cleac
up this confusion.
Mr. Stark then noted that if this was the reason for the change in the R-H-
10,000 Zone from 10 to 25-foot front yards, it was very short-sighted, and
all the City was doing was requiring additional earth movement, 15 feet on
every home site, and the City differentiated between the hillside and other
zones, and this differentiation made more sense than it did in 1967 when it
was adopted. Therefore, he would strongly urqe that the City retain the 10-
foot setback in the R-H-10,000 Zone.
Mr. Thompson stated that staff was not proposing to change the R-H-10,000
10-foot setback where there were no straight-in drives, only where a developer
proposed a straight-in drive to the garage would this ~e changed in order to
clear up confusion in the residential zones.
Mr. Stark then stated he had assumed that the 10 feet would be deleted, and
all lots would be required to have 25 feet, however, in the hillside situation
where topography had to be considered. and where there were changes in the
elevation, perhaps requiring special garage door openers would accomplish this
since he could see it would be difficult to make every one of the homes with
side-ons rather than perpendicular to the lot - this would be another element
in the topography, therefore, he felt this was arbitrary, however, before he
could make any further comreats, he would prefer this setback not be changed
without further study by staff.
Chairman Farano noted that the sta£f and Commission were not trying to be
arbitrary about this, however, if there was additional time left after every-
one presented their statements, perhaps the Commission could further discuss
this aspect later in the meeting.
Mr. Fred Armstrong, 1665 South Brookhurst Street. representing the Grant Corp.,
appeared before the Commission and stated he wanted to fortify his position
by stating there were a number of tract maps that had been approved in the
R-H Zonp. particularl.y for the Grant Corp., where four tract maps on the Nohl
Ranch property had been approved by the City Council - the fact that they
were presently grading and had about 25B of the 80 lots finished and were
ready for the building - he did not feel any changes to the site development
standards should affect any approved project having a tentative tract map
wnerein consideration was given to the existing ordinance and to the present
zone. Everyone was aware of the fact that engineering and planning were based
on the design of the homes of the present zoning and standards; that they had
tried to work with the City to meet these ordinances, and they were fully aware
of the fact that they would not have an opportunity to proceed with their
development. Purthermore, speaking for anyone who was in the same situation,
he would like to see that no action take place with respect to the entire item,
because at this hearing the City was lumping this into one category, which may
be good for one classification of property, but it should not be applied to
all classifications. He would suggest this be vetoed, but he realized there
were certain adjestments necessary for clarification of the ordinance, as
Mr. Thompson had indicated, however, what he was more concerned with would be
the changes that would affect their development, which was already under
construction.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM2SSION, April 17, 1972 72-2~8
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued)
The Commission inquired how this would affect the tracts which Mr. Armstrong
was discussing.
Mr. Armstrong replied that they had considered a 10-foot setback and were
developing accordingly; that the City had given them the interpretation that
20 feet was adequate for straight-in drives, and as Mr. Stark had indicated
the additional 5 feet for a straight-in drive, depending upon the topography,
could require a considerably large amount of grading in the hillsid~ area
where slopes occurred in tlie front yard or sloping in the rear yard, and to
get this additional 5 feet of flat area, it could probably end up with 5 feet
off the slope, and nobody was qoing to provide more building pad than was
necessary for the home being built, and since the City felt 408 coverage was
appropriate for some proposals and 33$ in otners, that would be the only thing
that would be provided, and the City could end up with additional slopes ,in-
stead of flat areas, howe~er, he was more concerned with the R-h-10,000 2one.
The Commission inquired whether Mr. Armstrong was of the opinion that the
25-foot setback for garages on a straight-in drive should not be considered;
whereupon Mr. Armstrong replied that where a 10-foot setback was required
and provided, they had a 15-foot setback, since their development was approved
allowing sidewalks adjacent to the curb; that they were providing 5 feet of
landscaping where none was required, but in any case, whether a swing-in dzive
or a straiqht-in drive, even in their future tracts they were proposing 7-foot
parkways, which would provide an additional 2~S feet on the straight-in drive
that would be measured from the back of the property line, however, since they
were able to dA this, maybe the Commission should consider this on an individual
basis since there were different standards in the hillside.
The Commission stated that in the 20-foot drive the car overlapped the side-
walk, and this would mean no one could walk or ride their bicycles because of
this overlap, and this would be verp evident where people had station wagons and
Cadillacs which were at least 20 feet long and would mean they could not open
the garage door without overlapping the sidewalk.
Mr. Armstrong stated that 23 feet was adequate to park any car, and maybe
the hillside area was di£ferent - perhe s staff would not recommend this where
sidewalks were adjacent to the curb anu street - this would increase the
distance by about 2~i feet.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that she had taken some photographs of 20-foot,
straight-in drives in the R-2-5000 Zone, and these pictures indicated the
cars not only overlapped the sidewalks, but also extended into the street -
in this instance the sidewalks were adjacent to the curb.
Chairman Farano then stated it was his opinion that where the si~ewalk was
adjacent to the parkway, there should be a minimum of 25 feet between the
sidewalk and the garage door, however, if there was something the Commission
could do in the R-H-10,000 Zone to alleviate gross plan changes, staff could
perhaps assist, but there still should be 25 £eet for parking area in the
driveway, even though he could see the problem Mr. Armstrong presen~ed.
Mr. Armstrong stated he was interested in knowing what the City planned as far
as enforcing these regulations would pertain to properties where tzacts had
been approved.
Chairman Farano noted that the City Attorney had ruled this would not affect
tracts where construction had begun, and to him this woLld mean when the first
shovel of dirt was turned over, however, he did not know if this was what the
Planning Commission and the City Council would approve and what legal implica-
tions would be involved, however, the Commission would make some recommendation,
but what the City Attorney would do with that recommendaticn as to its legality
was something else.
Mr. Lowry noted that he would like to correct one aspect of Mr. Armstrong's
statements since Mr. Armstrong stated they were grading in accordance with the
existing zoning, but this grading was done pursuant to a hold harmless agreement
^
U
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~2'2~9
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, P.NAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued)
where any grading and money expended prior to final approval would be the
liability of the developer for advance permission to grade, and the Grant
Corp. had assumed this responsibility in the event grading would be affected.
Mr. Armstrong, after viewing the pictuxes presented by Commissioner Kaywood,
stated there was no question that the cars were overlapping the street, one
car beinq a camper and others were station wagons, and another where a car
overlapped the sidewa2k the qarage door was completely open and there was
sufficient room for closing the door, however, in one section of Chapter
18.13 of the R-H-10,000 Zone, this prohibited vehicles carrying more than
nine passengers from being parked in the front setback.
Mr. Gil Kraemer, 836 Alta Vista, Placentia, appeared before the Commission and
noted he was particularly concerned about his property because he had been
working with the City since June, 1969, to develop the property north of the
river and inquired what would the proposed standards do to their present tract
map which would be presented to the City Council in final form very shortly.
Chairman Farano noted a great deal depended upon the Planning Commission
recommendation to the City Council as to the revised ordinance and how it
should be applied to tracts presently in tentative form, as well as the lega7
aspects of the matter ruled on by the City Attorney; that• if the Planning
Commission recommended that the ordinance apply to all tract maps, tentative
or otherwise, perhaps the City Attorney would rule otherwise, therefore,
Mr. Kraemer's question was very "ify", and he did not have the answer.
Mr. Kraemer stated he wished this wculd have come up before they proceeded
into their final phase.
Chairman Parano noted that `_.e photograph presented by Commissioner Kaywood
was sufficiently indicative, however, he did not feel that a tentative map
should be given permission to develop under existing ordinances since there
was plenty work to be done before it was presented in final form to the City
Council, and it would not hurt a developer as much as one who had a final
tract map appzoved and had let out contracts for building purposes.
Mr. Kraemer asked that Mr. Thompson advise the Commission as to the date when
their last tentative tract ~:ap had been approved, since he thought they were
only about a week away from presenting their final tract map. This was a
further block in their way when one considered all the problems they had
encountered in trying to develop their property.
Mr. Thompson noted that he did not have the information readily available as
to the last date of approval of the tentative tract maps for the Kraemer
property.
Mr. Kraeme: noted that they had had talks with Mr. psborne of the County Road
Department *elative to the extension of La Palma Avenue; that they had had to
obtain a writ of mandate in order to get action on the tentative tract maps,
and if this had been presented earlies, he would not be so concerned, however,
they were in the last stages of drafting the final tract map, and Mr. Thompson
had been in contact with the engineers regarding the models pr~posed f.or their
lots; and that they had finally gotten information from the Orange County
Flood Control District regarding the elevation of the flood level of the Santa
Ana River.
The Commission noted that the developer might not htve any problem as to the
lot size, but as to house size, since at the outset when the Commission con-
sidered the R-2-5000 Zone, plans of the developers indicated only three-bedroom
homes, however, the developers were now proposing up to six and seven-bedroom
homes on these small lots, therefore, it would depend upon how Mr. Kraemer's
developers proposed to place the house on the lot whether there would be any
problem, however, to think of building a seven-bedroom home on these lots was
overbuilding the property, and this was a grave problem.
• ~ ~ , ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17,.1972 72-210
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAH~IM MUNICIPAL CODE (COntinued)
Chairman Farano noted that the CommissSon had gleaded with the developers not
to build euch large homes on these 5000-square foot lots, but once appro~val
was given for the zoning, it appeared the sky was the limit, and thi's wat~
what prompted the City to consi~er amending the standards, but he hoped this
would not affect Mr. Kraemer's development too greatly. However, the peopte
who had not caused the problem would have to suffer with those who had.
Commissioner Seymour stated he had some very specific feelings as to when
these standards should be enacted, and the best he couln find to describe
the criteria was that established when the R-3 Zone standards were amended,
and then referred to City Council Policy No. 524, reading from it and noting
that this could be similarly applie3 to the proposed changes.
Mr. Kraemer noted that they were held up on cheir tracts by the Oranqe County
Flood Control District as to when a final tract map would have been filed and
no more money could be expended until this approval by the Orange County Flood
Control District was given.
Mz. Phillip Joujon-Roche, 21527 Mohler Drive, President of Santa Ana Canyon
Property Owners Association, appeared before the Commission and noted that
Mr. Kraemer had presented a question as to what could be done to forestall a
large number of potential R-2-5000 tract maps from having to meet the new
standards. For instance, on the Danker property, could the City require thes4
Aeople to hold off on their plans until the ordinance problem was resalved,
since the City Cocncil could rule favorably after the moratorium expired on
those 593 R-2-5000 homes proposed on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road;
that he was glad the Commission was considering this problem since it would
appear that the canyon would be getting a large dose of these types of homes;
that he would be in favor of referring to the zone as R-S-5000 rather than
upping the lot to 6000 square feet because this would reduce the R-1 lots,
which were more desirable; and that he was more in favor of leaving the
Description and Purpose at low-medium and medium density, otherwise it could
create quite a problem in the canyon. Furthermore, the variable lot width
would upgrade development since this would require larger homes placed on
larger lots; that nothing had been discussed about variable widths of lots,
kiowever, he felt this would add to the attractive~ess of any density by
proposing a variety of lot sizes and lot widths within the R-2-5000 rather
than having factory built homes.
Mr. Warren Nickle, representing Classic Homes, 12700 Knott Avenue, Garden
Gzove, appeared before the Commission and stated he wouZd lixe to address
his comments to coverage of a lot; that he felt the Planning Commission and
City Couacil are going i.n the right direction tr~ correct these deficiencies
in the Code, but he felt they were qoing too fa.r by requiring only 33$ coverage
for three-bedroom and increasing it by 16$ when an additional bedroom was
proposed, since he felt it should be more equitable; that the increase per
bedroom be 400 or 500 square feet since the bedroom was only 130 to 150 square
feet, and the requirement of extra width was also very restrictive since it
could be maintair.ed within the square footage of the lot; that the requirement
of a 25-foot setback was also more than necessary since the problem could be
resolved with a 22 to 23-foot setback, which would be adequate even for campers
and Cadillacs, and with a station waqon, a 23-foot setback would be adequate,
thereforE, he felt that the 25-foot setback was not the answer but a compromise
at 22 to 23 feet was more appropriate.
Mr. Larry Matzick, representing Ponderosa Homes, appeared before the Commission
and stated he had several questions: 1) What would the setback be in th= front
yard for swing-in drives in the new ordinance? whereupon Mr. Thompson rtated
this would be 10 feet; 2) Were homes pad areas7 Mr. Thompson stated tY.eSa were
single-story homes with straiqht-in drives. and the code revisions would require
lot areas to be the same as pad areas.
Mr. Matzick noted that many of the homes they proposed were 1250 square feet,
and anyone could later add an additional 400 square feet, which would still
give a very attractive home.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-211
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNZCIPAL CODE (Continued)
Mr. Thompson noted that there could be a three-bedroom, two-story house which
could have a swing drive and have a 10-foot building setback.
Mr. Matzick noted that when they received their R-2-50C0 zoning - called
several different names - discussion was held about having single-story homes,
and the biggest concern was composition shinqles on the roof because of the
concern regarding the development north of the Riverside-Nec:port Freeways
where up to seven bedrooms were being constructed. Unfoztunately, these two
companies were causing othez good developers considerable anguish; that they
had spent a lot of money without having a tentative tract map or a final tract
map approved; that it cost $900 per acre from the time a tentative was approved
to recordation of the tract map, and this was considerable money when large
acreages were involved; that there would be $20,000 to 530,000 spent for floor
plans, and these were the basic costs while still doinq a good job, and since
they proposed 40$ coverage, this would mean they would have to go back and
redesign their project; that he felt no one should be building 2500-square
foot homes on a SOOG-square foot lot, nor did a 1250-square foot home appear
desirable because this would create a very sterile development; that he was
not concerned with the 23-foot setback since in their present series of homes
in the canyon they proposed a good design of high quality living space; that
many people did not want a large yard which they would have to take care of -
many people did not want to purchase a home where they would have to spend
their weekends taking care of yards - those that wanted large yards could live
in Anaheim Hills; that people ~referred purchasing homes ranging in price from
$25,000 to $32,000 where no large lawn area was proposed, however, he would
suggest that more time be spent in analyzing what was proposed so that the
developers would not be limited in what could be developed on these lots; that
he felt a 150~-square foot home, single-story, on a 5000-square foot 1ot was
ideal and pleaded that the Commission not take this design criteria away from
the developers; that he felt the limit should be placed at four-bedroom homes
on 5000-square foot lots, and plans should indicate the square footage of each
home with the requirement that these be single-story only, and a very nice
1800-square £oot home, or 36~ coverage, could be developed if a setback of
23 feet from the front property line were permitted; and that if people wanted
a large lot, they could go to the areas where 7200-square foot lots were being
built.
Mr. Matzick then stated he had informed the City Council that they would try
to maintain the development within the confines of the proposed new standards
on their tracts north of Santa Ana Canyon Road since he was hoping they would
be able to build the 1800-square £oot homes in the canyon.
Commissioner Seymour inquired h:,w Mr. Matzick would sugv=st the City get to
the developers who were the prime oEfenders; whereupon Mr. Matzick stated
that the bedroom limitation would provide this.
Chairman Farano noted that the proposed changes was one way the City could
place the developer in the position to provide open space, since the Cpmmission
had discussed this many times in the past; that the developers would be mose
successful where more green, open area was provided on smaller lots; that he
had been in four-bedroom homes which covered a considerable portion of the lot,
however, the rooms were very sm~ll. Furthermore, he would agree that many
people di.d r.ct wanc to spend their weekends taking care of their lawns, however,
the develaper should provide a decent living environment without too much
coverage.
Mr. Matzi.ck noted there was considerable open space near their tracts with the
new 101-acre regional park. the new golf course, therefore, there would be
considerable open space and reoreational area available than requiring a change
in the coverage, and t~eavier density should be promoted where all of these
open space and recreational areas were provided.
Chairman Farano noted that the Commission did not argue the point as to where
open space was available, but every developer felt this did not apply to him,
and the R-2-5000 Zone was being misused because it was originally drafted to
take the place of R-2 and R-3 multiple-family apartment developments, not as
~
~
M7NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-212
AMENDMEN~^ TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (COntinued)
a replacement Por the R-1 lot, and he would not be too far wrong to state that
since the R-2-5000 implementation there were no more than five R-1 tracts
presented for Planning Commission consideration.
Commissioner Gauer noted that there were five and six-bedroom homes developed
north o£ Katella High School on Wagner Avenuet that with children in a high
school so close to a home, the students could walk to school• but when these
children went to junior colleqe, this would mean additional cars for
transportation.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the people were now on an ecology kick, and man
was his own worst enemy, however, if man did not soon replace the green areas
which had been removed, no one would be living very long, and this was very
important for a builder to take into consideration, because it was impossible
to have a sea of asphalt in the canyon; that the Commission was aware the
eco:~omics wculd have to enter the picture, however, the pendulum would have
to swing back to the other side in order to survive, and although Mr. Matzick '
stated that many people did not want to take care of large green areas, these
green areas were still needed since this was being constantly cut down, there-
fore, he would suggest that a start be made to swing the pendulum back, whether
it was liked or not.
Mr. Matzick noted that developers were placed in a peculiar position, such as
with the planned unit developmer.t where open space and a given density was
required with the landscaping maintained - many projects were denied, and a
big cry went out within the last two to three years to require planting, etc.,
which was now being done, and he was fortunate enough to work with a company
who brought in a condominium concept into this area which would have massive
open space and amenities, etc. However, he was more concerned with their own
project now, and many 5000-square foot lots in the City did not warrant changes,
for instance, in his present project he would be spending $200,000 for a drain-
age channel, and to get one extra lot was very important, and he did not feel
that *'~ canyon should be restricted, nor should any other area require some-
one wanted to purch~se a home to pay $45,000 to $50,000 for a three-bedroom
home since there were other means that could be employed to protect the
environment.
Ccmmissioner Kaywood noted that the pictures she had taken were not taken in
cheap, 5000-square foot developments. The vehicles in the pictures were
parked there in the driveway beaause people owned these homes, and all homes
were on 5000-square foot lots, and when these pictures were taken the entire
tract had not been sold; that from viewing these nictures. an environment was
created where not even one tree could be planted - this was disgraceful -
people purchased these homes and did not understand what it meant to purchase
three to seven bedrooms, since after children became teenagers there would be
no place for any additional cars - there would be no place to park in the
driveway and the sidewalks were next to the curb - guests and members of these
families were parking cars on cul-de-sacs directly into a street, and if one
wanted to leave a cul-de-sac area, he would have to back into someone's drive-
way - this was a fact because the Commission had driven into such places.
Mr. Matzick inquired whether the City had an ordinance which prohibited blocking
of a public right-of-way, such as a sidewalk.
Mr. Lowry stated that the City permitted parking on streets, but one could not
block a street or a travel way, however, he did not know whether this ordinance
extended to blocking a sidewalk.
Chairman Farano stated that he would not care tn have his automobile blocking
the sidewalk with children running and using their sicateboar3s; that damage
to the vehicle and cost of a suit for injuries sustained would be considerable.
Mr. A1 Hyatt, 251 Peralta Hills Drive, representing the Peralta Hills Home-
owners Assoc?ation,'appeared before the Commission and stated the police had
more to do to enforce the law than to have to keep cars off the sidewalk,
however, he would li.ke to state he was in wholehearted agreement with the
Commission trying to resolve the housing problems that had occurred as a result
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-213
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued)
of the R-2-5000 Zone; that he was in sympathy with developers who would be
spending money on their projects; that he had lived in the canyon for eiqht
years, and during the first four to five years there was little action, but
in the last two to three years it appeared that 509 of the Planning Commission
and City Co+incil public hearings dealt with problems and zoniag actions in the
canyon; and that he was in full agreement wiL: the Commission's attempt to
keep the density in the canyon low, which he felt part of the proposed changes
in standards would accomplish.
Mr. Terry Crowther, representing Poinsettia Homes, appeared before the Commis-
sion and stated he agreed with most of the statements made by Mr. Matzick -
the Planning Commission should be concerned with what was being developed in
the city, but, at the same time, he did not feel an undue hardship should be
placed on the developers who were trying to do an adequate job in developing
in Anaheim; that they were purchasing property from Mr. Kraemer, and they were
planning two to four-bedroom homes because tney did not like to overbuild
5000-square foot lots, but there was a great need for this type of housing
with homes ranging in price from $20,000 to $90,000, since there were not as
many people that could affor~ the $35,000 home; that thef considered themselves
as successful builders and also felt Ponderosa Homes were successful builders;
that they did not want to develop and refer to their success by "land rape" in
the city, but from knowinq the ~arket and providing that product, therefore,
if anything was proposed for development in the canyon, he would suggest that
the Commission make sure that not too many restrictions be placed on a devel-
oper who was :.:ying to do a good job; and that he did not feel the coverage of
40$ was excessive since many people could purchase these homes but could not
afford the large yards which had to be planted and landscaped and then
maintained.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer noted that two of the developers had ind?aated they would
not have more than four-bedroom homes, however, he was co•.-rned with prevent-
ing the overbuilding of lots.
Commissioner Gauer then noted that historically speaking, the R-2-5000 2one
came about when the Butler Company presented different alternatives after they
had been granted R-3 zoning in the northeast Anaheim area north of Orangethorpe
Avenue, and at that time he had infozmed Mr. Butler that he felt this was a
subterfuge, and he was trying to put something over on the Commission; that he
had not voted in favor of this reduction in land area for single-family homes,
but since that time this type of development was abounding, and when driving
around the city, the Commission had seen all kinds of development, and the
density now seen where R-2-5000 was developed appeared to be almost highpr
than R-3, with more people density, and something would have to be done about
that - this was adding more bicycles, automobiles, traffic, trash, etc., even
though the City would not be pleasing everybody.
Commissioner Herbst noted that he, too, was concerned about the people density
statement and developments since density in the R-2 and R-3 Zones could be
related as to the number of people, and even in the R-1 Zone, but where homes
with up to seven bedrooms were proposed on these small lots, this meant 3
greater increase in people density, and it would appear that the density would
be comparable to R-3, something the Commission did not intend when they con-
sidered R-2-5000 zoning for those properties, and the subterfuge referred to
did occur, therefore, the only way this could be limited would be the size of
the home, and where four-bedroom homes were proposed, the lot should be in-
creasedj that a combir.ation of lot sizes would give the developer a chance to
cover different types of buyers - he could even provide a variety of setbacks,
and with proper design, this would make for a better development than what was
now being developed as a grid-type sub3ivision - give the people more open
space - keep down the people density - if more bedrooms were proposed, then
more land should be provided to maintain open space.
Commissioner Seymour noted it was not unusual to see a price variation in
homes~ , but he was more concerned about how
.n~G d.w/ ~i..r.l~..~t.~~ .~ ~ •- -
IO~~od - ~~ pao~
~
O
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 72-214
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (COntinued)
this wou13 affect the canyon, particularly when one referred back to General
Plan Amendment No. 122, where the Planning Commission and City Council desi~-
nated that area south of the river for low density - now the City was faced
with a large scale of R-2••SOO~ development, and for that reason, the City must
adopt a new procedure to insvre proper development in that area. Then, going
bac'-. to the time when the R-2-5000 2one was initiated, Commissioner Seymour
ni:ted this was intended to provide housing for lower price range homes, and
some of the developers even suggested and offered lower priced homes, however,
he did not know how aconomically one could get in the price of a home since a
given amount of lumber would have to be used, r=gardless of the size of the
lot, and he believed that the propoaals suggested by staff to the Commission
would assure that there would be more homes in the lower price ranget that the
Commission was given a number of alternatives with zero lot lines, different
lot widths, and different densities and techniques as t~ setbacks; and that if,
as Mr. Nic:cle suggested, a 22 or 23-foot setback be considered, this would
become the rule of thumb, and if it were adopted, in no time there would be
variances proposed requesting waiver of the 22-foot setback.
Commissioner Seymour offered P.esolution No. PC72-80 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council amendment to Title 18, Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.26, Site Development Staudards, be made in accord-
ance with staff's recommendation, referred to as Exhibit "A"r provided, however,
that in the Description and Purpos'_ reference to R-2 and R-3 be placed in
parentheses to be included within their respective density as depicted on the
General Plan. This, then, would discourage possible requests for zone changes
if no reference were made to actual zoning - this should leave no doubt of the
Commission's intent for the R-5-5000 Zone, and he wanted this made perfectly
clear. Furthermore, that in order to implement these standards, the language
of the City Council in their City Council Policy No. 524 shou2d be considered
as the criteria and flexibility needed to assure proper development within the
community. and at the same time, not cause undue hardship on developers where
plans had been approved in the final form or where first stages of development
had occurred.
Commissioner Kaywood left the Council Chamber at 10:43 p.m. and returned at
10:46 p.m.
A lengthy discussion was held by the Commission a~ to the mot~on by Commissioner
Seymour, particularly with reference to the proposed Purpos;a.and Description
of the zone, and upon its conclusion, it was determined tha~ instead of placing
the R-~ and R-3 in parentheses, perhaps a dash•after low-medium with R-2 and
after medium with R-3 would accomplish the intent of the Commission in assuring
that the zoning should only be permitted in areas deemed appropriate for R-2
and R-3 and not be considered for areas where low density was depicted on the
General Plan.
The motion was restated as follows: Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution
No. PC72-80 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City
Council that amendment to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.26,
Site Development Standards be made as depicted on Exhibit "A" on the basis
that the R-2-5000 Zone was intended to encourage a reduction of density in those
areas that had been deemed appropriate for low-medi~zm - Ri~' and medium - R-3
density uses on the General Plan, as well as provide an alternative method of
developing a wider range and variety of housing for the City of Anaheim. By
permitting 5000-square foot lots, single-family subdivisions in areas af~pro~ri-
ate for low-medium and medium density, it was anticipatcfi a lesser density
would be achieved in the R-2 and R-3 residential zones, yet in actual practice
the developer had been able to achieve a greater density than if the property
had been pezmitted to develop for multiple-family residentia]. use; that it was
contemplated at the time the original R-2-5000 2one was adopted the single-
family character and environment of a subdivision could be retained, and
adequate open space on individual lots would be provided, however, in examining
existing developments, this had not been achieved; that upon investigation of
the developments that had a3.ready been constructed, it was apparent that the
present coverage factor with no pad requirement was not providing adequate
~
•
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMZSSIO'N, April 17, 1972 72-215
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (ConEYnued)
usable open area on the lots, particularly where lots had been developed with
four, five, or six-bedroom homes; that if the coverage factor were reduced
from 40~t t.o 33$ for uo to three bedrooms, then the usable open area on the
R-2-5000 lots wou'_d be brought more into line with the open area that is
provided on typical single-family lats, and where more than three-bedroom
homes were proposed, additional open space should be substantially increasedt
that the description of the zone, namely R-2-5000, was somewhat of a misnomer
and should reflect its proper residential character, therefore, consideration
should be given to designating it as R-S-5000 Zone, i.e., Residential Single-
Family Zone on 5000-square foot lots; that the 20-foot building setback where
garages were entered directly from the street appeared to have created both a
pedestrian and vehicular hazard since vehicles had been protruding over the
public right-of-way (the sidewalk, parkway, and into the street), thus con-
sideration should be given to increasing this setback to 25 feet; that where
lots were located in slope areas, many times the developers had included the
slope areas as part of tne rear yard, however, said rear yards were not usable
by the property owners of these homes, creating a less than desirable living
environment, therefore, consideration should be giv.~n to requiring that the
pad size be at least 5000 square feet rather than just the lot size; that in
order to provide for a variety of house designs, it would be desirable to
provide the developer the opportunity to develop with zero lot lines provided,
however, that the required side yard setback of 5 feet, or a total of 10 feet,
was incorporated on the opposite side of said zero lot line; that in order to
insure that continued quality of residential environments be continued and
maintained, particularly in the canyon area, a specific plan of development
may be required by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to considera-
tion of any zone changes; that in ordar to insure proper light and air, as well
as providing a recreation area, the rear yard should be a minimum of 5 feet for
single-story structures and a minimum of 10 feet for two-story structures; and
further provided that the-_C'ztr Cuuncii considc~ iac^rparating a similar policy
for the enactment of this amendment as was established in Councii °alicy No.
524 in order to provide the parameters fa-r developers who had plans, zoning,
tracts, etc., either approved or processed, thereby determining what properties
should be affected by the proposed amendment. (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.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1216 (W• D. Ser.vices) -
Request for an extension of time.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property,
uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property,
and a request for an extension of time for the completion of conditions
established in Resolution No. PC70-224, dated December 145 1970, since the
petitioners indicated they had been delayed in their plans and they needed
additional time to comply with conditions; and that staff recommended a
retroactive extension of time from December 14, 1971 to March 27, 1972, with
an additional one-year extension of time to be granted to expire March 27,
1973.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a retroactive extension of
time and an additional one-year extension o£ time, to expire March 27, 1973,
for the completion of conditions in the approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1216. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
^
u
.~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSSON, April 17, 1972 72-216
ITEM NO. 2
VARIANCE NO. 1892 (Joseph Truxaw) - Request for
an extension of time - Property located on the
northeast corner of Vermont Avenue and Lemon
Street.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject pzoperty,
the use prop~~~3 f~r subject property, and the number of extensions granted
previously, .~d the recommendation of staff that a retroacTCive extension of
time be gr%:nted, effective September 12, 1970, said time extension to expire
September i2, 1973.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to qrant a retroactive extension of time
to extend from September 12. 1970 to expire September 12, 1973 for the
completicn of conditions of Variance No. 1892. Commissioner Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM NO. 3
VARIANCE NO. 2282 (Joseph Truxaw) - Property located
on the northeast corner of Vermont Avenue and Lemon
Street - Request for an extension of time.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the ].ocation of subject property,
previous zoning action on the property, the proposed use for the property,
and the request for an extension of time for the completion of conditions,
and that staff would recommend that a one-year extension of time be granted,
to expire Februarg 23, 1973.
Contmissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time,
to expire February 23, 1973 for the completion of conditions of Variance
po, 22g2, Commissioner Seymour seconded the uiotion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 340 - Request for
approval of expansion.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property.
uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property,
notiiig that the petitioner was proposing to enlarge an existing enclosed
eating area, eliminating existing outdoor service windows and creating, in
effect, an~ enclosed restaurant rather than a walk-up restaurant; that plans
submitted indicated the revised plans would comply with all minimum C-1 2one
standards, and the petitioner had agreed to initiate a reclassification
application for C-1 zoning, the most appropriate zone for this use, if the
revised plans were approved; and that staf£ would recommend approval of the
revised plans provided, however, that development occur in accordance with
the C-1 Zone site deve2ooment standards and that the petitioner initiate a
reclassification petition for C-1 zoning.
Commissicner Kaywood offered a motion to approce the revised plans for expan-
sion of a resraurant granted under Conditional Use Permit No. 340, subject to
development in accordance with the C-1 2one site development standards and
the initiation of reclassification proceedings for C-1 zoning on t;e pr~perty.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM NO. 5
VARIANCE NO. 1633 - Request for approval of
revised plans and an ext2nsion of time.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property,
uses establi~hed in close psoximity, previous zoning action on the property,
noting that the revised plans proposed 16 dwelling units, or ~5 dwelling units
per net acre; that coverage under the original plan was 49~, and the proposed
plan was 46$; that 15 parking stalls would serve the 12 units included in the
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~Z'21~
ITEM N0. 5 (Continued)
original plan, while the present plan indicated 16 enclosed spaces and an
addition 8 open spaces, or 24 spacest and that staff would recommend approval
of the revised plans provided, however, that a bond be posted to insure the
construction of a wall on the west pxoperty line prior to final building
inspection since the Right-of-Way Division indicated a bond for the engineer-
ing improvements had been released because the requirements of the bond had
been satisfied.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve revised plans of \!ariance
No. 163:i, subject to the petitioner filing a bond to insure installation o£
the 6-foot masonry wall along the west property line, said bond to be posted
prior to final building inspection. Commissioner seconded the motion.
b10TION CARRIED.
Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 11:10 p.m.
ITEM NO. 6
CONSIDERATION OF STREET LIGHT STANDARDS IN
THE SANTA ANA CANYON AREA.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the City Council had granted
the Grant Corp. approval of the use of a street lighting unit that was .
different from that commonly used throughout the city, known as the
"Traditionaire" type unit, which was a decorative scroll hracket and a
jasper brown pole as noted in the photograph sub~nitted to the Commission,
said unit having e rustic appearance and was selected because of its
aesthetic qualities as being more in keepinq with the character of devel-
opment anticipated for the Anaheim Hills community.
Commission.er Allred of£ered a motion to recommend to the City Council
consideration of standardizing street l:ght standards in the Santa Ana
Canyon by approving the "Traditionaire" type unit approved for Anaheim
Hills in order to establish uniform lighting in the canyon area, extend-
ing from Villa Real Drive to Imperial Highway south of Santa Ana Canyon
Road, excepting the Peralta Hills area, and for a11 undeveloped areas
within the existing and future boundaries of the City of Anaheim east of
Imperial Highway. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTZON CARRIED.
Commissioner Rowland voted "no".
ITEM N0. 7
PROPOSED REVISION OF THE HILLSIDE GRADING
ORDINANCE~ CHAPTER 17.06 OP' THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that copies of the proposed revision
:~ad been submitted to tk_em with al*.^rnatives presented by the Engineering
staff to the direct effect these Ltandards would have on proposed development
and the indirect effect un said development; that the physical features and
hillside characteristics were also reviewed, the predicted traffic volumes
for Royal Oak Road, Imperial Highway, Anaheim Hills Road, Eucalyptus Drive
and Weir Csnyon Road were depicted, and the conclusions that based on the
previous traffic estimates and assumptions of development in the area, the
proposed roadways would be taxed to handle the demand using existing design
criteria, thus, if any serious considerat.ion was given to a reduction in the
design criLeria covering horizontal and vertical alignment, width, grades and
other features, whicn :uould result if the 50-foot height limitation for cut
and fill were adhered to on the coastruction of arterial streets, it would be
necessary to either establish more sccess ruads into the area or reduce the
overall allowable density of development in the area if fut;:re massive traffic
congestion in the area was to be avoided.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 17, 1972 ~Z'218
ITEM NO. 7 (COntinued)
Commissioner Rowland complimented the Engineering skaff for an outstanding
and excellent report, however, it was his opinion that the 50-foot height
li~itation for cut and fill be retained, even after the conclusion drawn by
the Engineering sta,ff, since it was entirely possible that the overall allow-
able density in the hillside was too high at this point in time due to topo-
graphy to consider any change in the height Limitation on cut and fill slopes.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that
no changes be made to the Hillside Grading Ordinance, Chapter 17.06 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, wherein the 50-foot heignt limitation for cut and
fill was presently required on the basis that it was entirely possible that
the overall allowable density in the,hill and canyon area was too great at
this point in time due to topography to permit any change. Commissioner
Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Iierbst was absent.
SPECIAL RE UEST TO CITY ATTORNEY
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to request that a temporary restraining
order be filed by the City Attorney's office on the present used car-mobilehome
operation at the northeast corner of Brookhurst and Lincoln Avenue.
Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further busireess to discuss, Commissioner
Seymour offeted a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTZON
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~I~%~ %~;I w~•
ANN KREBS, Secretary;
Anaheim City Planning Comraission
AK:hm
U n L ~ Mir_.ROFILMING SERVICE. INC.
i010 lacy ic.~_ ''b-3::J
Anahr•~m, ,'; i'~~1~~m~a