The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1972/05/15~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California May 15, 1972 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Plannzng 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 (who entered the Council Chamber at 2:03 p.m.), Seymo'ur. ABS~NT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Sugervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledqe of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner THE MINUTES Allred an~ MOTIOIJ CARRIED, to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 17, 1972, subject to the following corxections: Pg. 72-176, para. 1, line 12 should read: "be no jai alai nor " roller derbies since.... Pg. 72-184, para. 2, line 4 sh~uld read: "that a similar opera- " tion called La Casta was.... Pg. 72-193, para. 1, line 5 should re~d: "....not really beinq con-" Pg. 72-195, para. 2, line 10 should read: "where they hacl 15,000 square feet and 75 parking spaces, and at Christmas only did they have a parking" Pq. 72-195, para. 2, line 13 should read: "....similar to the Sawdust Eestival at Laguna" pg. 72-206, para. 1 and 2, lines 14 and 5 change from "prece- den~' to "precedenQ~. Pg. 72-213, last line of page should read: "homes next door to " each other of $10 to $12,000, but.... Pg. 72-218, para. 2, line 1 should read: "Commissioner Rowland." pq, 72-218, para. 4, line 2 should read: ".-,..on the present used car-recreation vehicle" ENVIRONMENTAL - Review of Environmental Impact Report prepared by Koebig IMPACT REPOFcT and Koebig, Inc. for the Orange County Flood Control District for the Santa Ana River in an area located between Balz Road and Imperial Highway. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Planning Commission the report ta the Commission regarding the study made for the Orange County Flood Control i~istrict regarding levees, flood control, channels, and water spreading basins as it pertained ta the Community Goals, Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element, Storm Dzain System Element, and the Watez Distribution Systea Element of the Anaheim General ~lan, noting that the representatives of the Orange County Flood Control District and staff had met with the Commission previously, at which time the detailed report had been reviewed; that the Planning Commission, after having discussed said report with the aforementioned representatives, @etermined the project proposed by the Orange County Flood Control District would appear to be highly beneficial 72-267 ^ u ~~ MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May Z5, 1972 ~Z'268 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Continued) in providing for needed flood control, ground water recharge, open space, enhancement and recreational opportunities for both the City of Anaheim and the Region; and that it might be in order for the Commission to make their recommendations to the City Council regarding their findings, includinq the Commission's concern pertaining to the problems of water quality as supported by the City Cauncil when the General tlanager of the Orange County Water District appeared before them May 9, 1972, regarding a complaint to the State Supreme Court for a review of the practices of both the Regional and State Water Quality Boards concerning upstream discharges into the Santa Ana River. The Commission expressed the opinion that this would be a step in the ri3ht direction, since staff had recommended preservation of the wildlife and ecologyt and that staff's recommendations be recommended for adoption, including the Planning Commission's concern regarding the water quality. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to recoramend to the City Council thac the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana River in an area located between Ball Road and Impezial Highway as prepared for the Orange County Flood Control District by Koebig and Koebig, Inc. is in close conformance with the adopted Anaheim General Plan; that the proposed project will be beneficial to the environment; and that staff be directed to resolve the concern regarding water quality with the Orange County Water District and the responsible agencies. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILTOWER PROPERmIES, 1010 Wilshire Boule- PERMIT NO. 1311 vard, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owner; ROBERT BURGLIN AND SAM ITAYA, 14571 Brookhurst Street, Westminster, California 92683, Agents; requesting permission to RE- ESTABLISH A CARWASH AND AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATZON WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land havinq frontages of approximately 180 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 180 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and being located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, and further described as 201 South State College Soulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONES. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the petitioner had requested a two-week continuance in order to resolve various design problems on this site. A showing of hands indicated several persons present in opposition, said persons indicating they would be present at the next meeting tu voice their opposition. The Commission then stated that the item should be scheduled as the first item on the afternoon agenda. Commissioner Kaywoo~'i.offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permi.t No. 1311 to the meeting.of May 31, 1972, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATZON - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MELVIN SCHANTZ, 1741 West N0. 7i-72-41 Katella Avenue, Anaheim. California 92804, Owner; H.:!.5. AIR CONDITIONING CORP., P• O. Sox 1532, Orange, California VARIANCE NO. 2351 92668, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.5 acres being the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and the Orange Freeway, having £rontages of approximately 640 feet on the west side of the Orange Freeway and 163 feet on the north side of Mi=aloma Avenue. Proper±y presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA. ~Z) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDIIiGS, AND (3) LOCATION OF STORAGE AREA TO PERMZT CONSTRUCTION OF A 96-UNZT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNSNG COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-269 RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 7_1-72-41 AND VARZANCE NO. 235i (Continued) Subject petitiSns were continued from the April 17, 1972 meeting to allow the petitioner time to revise his plans. Chairman Farano reopened the hearing since the petitioner had submitted revised plans that were substantially different than originally considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dave Mayer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating that he and his designer had met with staff in order to determine how the plans could be resolved and wished to compliment the staff and the Commission for doing him a service as it pertained to changes sugqested because he would not have been able to obtain financing for the project otherwise; that he had met with the Division of Highways regarding the layout of the berm on the Oranqe Freeway right-of-way and arrived a~ a 5 to 6-foot berm which would be landscaped with a fence on top; that the buildings were further recessed, and the layovt now proposed was a considerable improvement. Furthermore, circulation had been improved by adding two turn-around areas, while the one- bedroom units were now increased to the minimum required, therefore, this waiver was being withdrawn. In addition, the storage areas proposed were considezably more than the minimum requirement of 100 cubic feet, although they still were not being located in the carport areas. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour noted that it was difficult to determine from the plans whether any of these units were parallel to the freeway and would have freeway exposure since the building was only 13 feet from the riyht-of-way; whereupon Mr. Mayer replied by indicating on the plans where the units referred to would be located and where windows would be placed, stating that all units would be overlooking a green area; that it was their intent to insulate both the walls and ceilings; and that two of the buildings would have no openings toward the freeway. Commissioner Seymour observed that although the petiticner indicated the walls and ceilings would be insulated, this did nothing for the windows, and inquired what would be done to reduce the noise from the freeway throuqh the windows. Mr. Tony Ruiz, building designer for the proposed development, replying to the question by the Commission as to the landscaping and the berm toward the free- way, stated that this could be resolved with the State, howevez, they intended to have the berm facing the residential development landscaped by the developer and possibly that berming portion facing the freeway would be landscaped by the State. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the City had only a verbal approval by telephone from the State Division o£ Highways rPgarding Condition No. 3, and some written documentation would be necessary. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate to providing double windows on those windows facing the freeway in order to reduce the noise factor; whereupon Mr. Mayer stipulated to providing double windows, stating that all units would be air conditioned, therefore, the windows would not be opened. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-94 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-41 be approved subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 3 to require that any bezmin3 proposed on the freeway property shall be subject to approval of the Oivision of Hiqhways. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution wa5 passed by the ful"owing vote: AYF.S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ' ABSENi: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2'Z~~ RECLASSIFICATION_NO. 71-72-41 AND VARIANCE NO. 2351 (Con±inued) Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-95 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2351, in part, eliminating the request for waiver of the minimum floor area since the petitioner withdrew this waiver request; subject to stipulation by the petitioner that both walls and ceilings woul3 be insulated on the entire project and double windows pro- vided for the units adjacent to the freeway to provide additional sound bn^.fer- ing from the freeway noises; and subj~ct to conditions. (See Resolution Bcok) On roll call the foregoinq resolutior. was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commiasioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:20 p.m. CONDITZONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. VILLA FRONTERA TOWNHOUSES~ PERMIT NO. 1303 P. O. Box 3236, Anaheim, California 92803, Owner; ARMOUR BUILDING COMPANY, P• O. Box 3236, Anaheim, California TENTATIVE MAP OF 92803, Aqent; prope.rty described as: An irregularly- TRACT NO. 7802, shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 14.6 REVISION NO. 1 acres, having a frontage of approximately 595 feet on the south side of Frontera Street, having a maximum depth o£ approximately 1,200 feet, and being the southwest corner of Frontera and Armando Streets. Property presently classified R-A(O), AGRZCULTURAL (OIL PRODUCTION)~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONHL USE: CONSTRUCT A 160-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTZAL DEVELOP- MENT WITH WAIVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT THA1 A LOT MUST ABUT A PUBLZC STREET~ (2) MINIMUM BUILDING 6Ii'E AREA, ~3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT W2THIIN 150 FEET OF S7P.GLE-FAMILY RESIDEI9TIAL ZONE~ (5) MINIMUM ARTERIAL HIGHWAY BUIE.DING SETBACK~ (6) 6-FOOT SOLIII MASONRY WALL R1:QUIREMENT~ AND (7) MINIMUM LOCAL STREET BUILDING SETBACK. TENTATIVE TRACT PROPOSAL: DEVELOPER: ARMOUR BIJII;DING COMPANY, P. O. Sox 3236, Anaheim, California ~2803. ENGINEER: Applied Plan- ning Dynamics, 17802 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California 92664t praposing to subdivide su5ject pzoperty into 162 pla~nned residential develo~.ment zoned lots. Subject petition and tract were continued from tYie April 3 and 17, 1972 meetings to allow the petitioner time to revise his plans. Chairman Farano inquired whetTter there was anyonc; present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Larry Armour, agent for the petitioner, appeared befoxe the Commission and stated that they had worked with staff since their last public hearing on subject petition and completely revised their proposal, taking into considera- tion the suggestions made by the Commission, and complimented the staff on their cooperation, interest, and professional helpr which he felt should receive their appreciation and commendation, and that he would prefer the architect review the changes since he had done yeoman work on it. Mr. Marvin Renfro, architect representing the engineer of the tract, appeared before the Commission, noting that they had changed their fourplex-duplex plan having two-car garages attached and were now propasi.ng duplexes; that paving in the area had been reduced by almost 2 acres, and the density was also reduced ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2'Z~l CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT NO. 1303 AIQD TENTATIVE MAP OF TRi~CT NO. 7802~ REVISION NO. 1 (Continued) from 176 units to 160, and this was placed into the green area and the recrea- tion areass that the proposal would be done in three increments, with Jackaon Street still providing access, having 53 units to the northt that a private street would parallel Jackson Street where 61 units would be located between Jackson Street and the private street, and to the south there would be 46 units; that each section of units would have their recreation area so that there would be no need to cross over a street to gain access to the reczeation area; that this was a compatible concept that was totally foreign to what was presented previously, and then presented and reviewed a blow-up of a typical unit areat that there was almost a 3:1 ra.tio for parking since there wou13 be no parkinq in the public right-of-way; that the units would be basically the same; and that there would be single-story structures at the entrance, with two-story to the rear. THE HEAR?NG WAS CLOSED. The Commissian commented that the revised plan~ were quite an improvement and that they appreciated the cooperation of the petitioner since it was felt a yeoman job had been done, having a development that would be considerably more attractive. Commissioner Allred inquired as to the distance between this two-story develop- ment and the R-1; whereupon Mr. Renfro stated that 8 units would be within 150 feet of the R-1 property line, however, the buildings would be more than 150 feet from the single~family dwelling unit itself. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-96 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1303 with the waivers requested, except that the petitioner had withdrawn waiver a£ the 6-foot masonry wall and the minimum setback from a local street, with a finding that the waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-1 was granted on the basis that the odd shape of the R-1 parcel and subject property made a tip of the parcel fall within this 150 feet, however, the units were set back considerably more than 150 feet from the single-family hom^. therefore, no precedent was being established, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Bouk) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Aerbst and MOT:ON CARRIED (Commissioner Rowland being absent), to grant Tentative Map of :ract No. 7802, Revision No. l, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7802, Revision No. 1, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-13 and Conditional Use Permit tdo. 1303. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of subject property shall b~ submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-272 CONDITIONAL USE PER1~:~T N0. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7802, REVISION NO. 1 (COntinued) (5) That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted t-• ~.:' approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council . 1 of the final tract map, and, Purther, that the approved ,.. ,.. conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded con- .:,,~r•c.',~ . -ith the final tract map. (() »ners of subject property shall pay to the City of .... ~ th:~ appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as . .•.•~':3 to be appropriate by the C;ity Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (7) That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. (8) That the developer initiate the abandonment of Armando Circle which was dedicated with Tract No. 7185 and pay the normal fees therefor. (9) That the existing sewer line west of Armando Street shall be reconstructed on a new alignment as approved by the City Engineer, the existing sewer easement abandoned and a new sewer easement dedicated to the City. (10) That a standard or off-set cul-de-sac be constructed by the developer at the southerly end of Armando Street. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLI~ ~F.RING. STL'ART D. NOBLE, 25181 Manzanita Drive, PERMIT NO. 1310 Dana F•_,int, California 92629. Owner: WILLIr:, SIZEMORE, 31R West Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92805, Aqent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A REAL ESTATE SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITA AN EXISTING REAL ESTATE OFFICE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped ~arcel of land having a frontage of approximately 64 feet on the south side of Sall Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 94 feet and being located approximately 920 feet east of the cente~line of Fiarbor Boulevard and further described as 318 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-O, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZUNE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not sead at the public hearing, it is re£erred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. William Sizemore, agent for the petitioner and director and owner of the real estate school, appeared before the Commis:.ion and stated these real estate school classes were held in the evening Monday~ and Thursdays from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and there were 15 tn 25 students, however, at no time would there be any attendance of more than 30 students per evening. Mr. Stuart Noble, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that sta£f indicated the parking requirements were insufficient, liowevez, when the City Council approved C-O zoning on the property on Ball Road, he had opposed it; that the 416-square foot room would not create any parking problem, any more than other similar type schools had created; and then reviewed the square footage and parking provided for the Orange County Business School, notinq that addi.tior.al commeccial uses increased the number of parking spaces, the Sawyer Business School, the Anthony Schools, etc., and then stated that if the parking required for the proposed use were applied to the other schools, they, too, would have a deficiency; that it would be very difficult to provide these 42 parking spaces for the 15 to 25 students; that Sall Road had now been widened and improved; that the agent had been using this building for his school in the past and there had been no complaints from the adjoining commer- cial or residential uses; and that the other uses were a real estate office when the school was not in session and an answering service run by one person. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2-2~3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1310 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:36 p.m. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by Chairman Farano and Mr. Noble regardinq the figuzes quoted for other schools. Commissioner Herbst inquired why this petition was befcre the Commission now after the school had been in operation for a year. Mr. Noble replied that the agent had a chance to obtain the franchise of the Chamberlain Real Estate School and would have to obtain a license by the State, therefore, they had to have the proper zoning permit for the use. The Commission inquired where the majority of these students would park; whereupon Mr. Noble stated that they parked on Hall Road since there were only 6 spaces available on the site, but the building next door, also owned by him, had 6 additional spaces since they had no eveninq hours; and that just because this would now be a State licensed school, they wanted to comply with the zoning. Continued discussion was held by the Commission and Mr. Noble regarding the proposal and need for waiving the parking requirements compared with other schools. Commissioner Seymour inquired why there was a requirement af the number of spaces; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts read the zoning code requirement and noted it was also a building code requirement, namely, that of 10 square feet of area was necessary for each student, therefore, if a 416- square foot area were used, this would represent 42 students, and perhaps the Commission might wish to take into consider.:tion the statement by the agent that there would be no more than 30 students if the waiver were permitted by limiting the number of students. Commissioner Seymour then inquired about the deficiencies noted by Mr. Noble of other schools and inquired why this was so; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated he did not know there was any school which did not provide adequate parking, although there had been a school on Brookhurst Street which appeared to have a parking shortage, and they later resolved this by acquiring more land for parking purposes. CommisGioner Kaywood inquired whether the students arrived individually, or would some double up; whereupon Mr. Sizemore stated most arrived individually except where there might be a husband and wife attending at the same time; and that they kept their classes small because of the facilities znd the individual instruction given. Chairman Farano inquired as to whether there were any complaints on the other schools; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated there had been quite a number of co:.~plaints on the Brookhurst Street school, but since they had provided the additional parking, there were no more complaints. Continued discussion was held by the Commission on a means of approvinq subject petition or denying it, based upon the fact that this was C-O zoning and maybe the use was not in the proper place since this miqht lead to similar requests from other single-family homes being converted for waiver of any required parking, and the C-O Zone had been established on the properties in this area to encourage land assemblyr which apparently appeared not to be happening. Mr. Roberts noted that although he did not know the exact nature of the schools and their needs as set forth by Mr. Noble, perhaps in calculating the parking needs, the qross floor area was taken into consideration with the number of students, therefore, the parking would not be deficient. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-274 CONDITIONAL USE__PERMIT NO. 1310 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the Commis~ion could establish a time limit to determine at the end of said time limit that the use was not creating any problem, since he would not like to deprive this petitioner the opportun~ty to have his school. The Commission then discussed this suggestion and concluded that the Commission would be faced with similar deficiencies from parking requirements of the other properties in this area, as well as throughout the city, in similar situations. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-97 and moved for its passage and adop±ion to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1310 on the basis that the C-O Zone was established on properties on the south side of Ball Road easterl? of Palm Street in order to encourage land assembly for construction of office huildings; that the use would establish an additional use in this building, creating serious parking shortages that would be detrimental to the adjoining land uses of commercial and residential; that the petitioner did not submit substantiating evidence to warrant favorable consideration of waiver of almost 70~ o£ the required parking; and that granting said waiver would establish an und~_sirable precedent for similar parking waivers from other homes being converted into C-O, commercial uses, and such parking deficiency would be extremely harmful bccause parking could occur on the residential street abutting the alley south of the Ball Road properties. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSTONERS: Farano, Gauer. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. Commissioner Seymour stated he was abstaining from voting because he did business with this school. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBL7C HEARING. HORACE E. MORELOCK, ET AL, 264 Granada PERMIT NO. 1313 Street, Long Beach, California 90803 AND GEORGE A. COLEMAN, 16651 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California 92686, TENTATIVE MAP OF Owners; PALM DESERT BUILDERS, INC., 5435 West 76th Street, TRACT N0. 7876 Los Angeles, California 90045, Agent7 requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN 80-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITFI WAIVERS OF (1) LOT FRONTAGE ON A D~DICATED STREET~ (2) MINIMUM Bt7ILDING SITE AREA~ (3) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH, AND (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS on property described as: h rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.7 acres, having a frontage of approximately 528 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 510 feet and being located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMZLY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and three persons indicated their presence. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Chairman Farano then stated this would be deferred until later in the hearing to allow the representatives o£ the petitioner to be present. (See Page 72-276) • e MINUTES, CITY ,PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z'2~5 VARIANCE NO. 2359 - PUSLIC HEARING. STANLEY BOVETZ, 728 South Rnott Avenue, Anaheim, California 92804, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ALLOW TWO SZNGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON ONE LOT described as: A rectangularly-snaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 104 feet on the east side of Kr.ott Avenue, having a maxir~um depth of approximately 140 feet and being l~cated approximately 135 feet north of the centerline of Rome Avenue, and further described as 728 South Knott Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RE~IDENTIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone in opposition and received no response. Althcugh t:ie Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred t',o and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Stanley Bovetz, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that when the second building aas built, the property was R-A in the County, and his father resided in that structure, ana :iow his mother-in-law lived there; that the real estate agent advised him he should have a lot split of the parcel so that in the event the property was sold or when the mother-in- law no longer resided there it could he used for ~nother home or rental pur- posES, this would be an added advantage for possibly a GI who would need extra money to take care of house payments by having a second unit for rental purposes. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired whether the petitioner's mother-in-law would be con- tinuing to resi3e in this home; whereupon Mr. Bovetz stated she would until he could sell the property since he could not maintain it because of health reasons, and if the property were sold, she would reside with them. The Commission further noted that there was only one two-car garage, and if this were to be lot split, then a garage would have to be provided for the second unit, and inquired whether the ? .:ioner planned to construct a garage; whereupon Mr. Sovetz stated there was a ~onsiderable amount of paving in the back for parking purposes since he had several dv.mp tr:.cks parked there, and, furthermore, there was a covered pat?~ that could be used as a carport. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that if the petition were approved and subsequently the property were lot split, then the property owner would be required to file a lot split and another variance because the property, being R-1, would not have the required width or square footage. Commiss~oner Rowland observed that since subject property was only 70 feet wide, it would be extremely difficult to lot split it for single-family homes. Commissioner Seymour reviewed the uses surrounding subject property, statinq perhaps if the lot split were proposed for the property, this would be a better way of handling this problem. Commissioner Rowlan3 stated that the Commission had a very simple procedure which had been functioninq since 1960, and the petitioner had not submitted evidence of a hardship by the shape of the parcel, therefore, to approve subject petition would be spot zoning, as Commissioner Herbst had stated in the past. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve Variance No. 2359 due to the uniqueness of the property and its location. On roll call the foregoing motion failed by a vote of 4 to 3, 4 votes against and 3 in favor. Continued discussion was held by the Commission, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC7~--y8 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2359 on the basis that the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship existeu by the size and shape of ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z'2~6 VARIANCE N0. 2359 (Continued) the parcel, and to grant subject petition would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by other properties in this same vicinity and zone. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregaing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONE°S: Seymour. ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1313 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7876 (Continued from Page 72-274) Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established iii close proximity, past zoning action on the property, and the proposal to construct a one and two-story, 80-unit planned residential development; that it was not intended to be the type where only air space was sold to individuals and all improvements and ground would be held under common ownership, but, instead, each of the 80 units would be situated on a postage-stamp lot which would be sold alonq with the dwelling unit and garage; that the 81st lot would be open space, recreation area, and driveways that would be held in common by the individuals who owned each lot; that since the postage-stamp lots were being proposed, each lot would not have frontage on a public street, and the proposed building site area and building site width would not meet the standards established in the Zoning Ordinance; that the applicant was providing 2 covered parking spaces per unit, or 80 two-car garages, and had provided 30 open parking spaces for guests; that the density proposed for the development would be approximately 13.3 units per net acre; and that the proposed coverage would be approximately 44.4+k. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the General Plan designated this area as being appropriafe for medium density residential development, and the existing R-3 Zone would implement this designation; that the R-3 Zone would permit up to 36 units per net acre, and the proposed 13.3 units per net acre would fall within the General Plan designation, however, the Planning Commission and City Council in the past had not approved condominium developments with a density in this range, and the average density agproved for condominiums in the past was 10 to 12 dwelling units per net acres and that in addition to this higher density proposal. the design required a considerable amount of asphalt to provide access to the garages of each unit. Mr. McDaniel further noted that the first three waivers requested were generally attached to developments of this type and had been granted in the past for similar projects, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider these waivers as being appropriate in accordance with previous proposals; that the waiver £or minimum distance between buildings was also a waiver that was attached ~o an apartment complex and which had generally been granted in the past by the Commission; and that the waiver for the arterial highway setback was being requested because the buildings along Kellogg Drive were proposed to be set back 15 feet instead of the required 20 feet, however, the project could be redesigned and the density lowered by requiring Code setback. Furthermore, there were other areas of deficiency in the proposed plan, namely, the drive layout which divided the parcel into several segments, making it difficult for an individual in any given unit to enjoy the green area and the common recrea- tion area without crossing one or more asphalt driveways; that very few units had direct access to the common, open recreation areas which would require small children and adults to cross the 34-foot wide driveways to go any place in the project, and this obvious conflict in pedestrian and vehicular circulation would hsve to be considered a major problem; and that in light of the proposed density, the possible conflicts of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and the large amounts of area devoted to paving, the Commission may wish to con- sider this proposal to be inappropriate as propused. Thesefore, the Commission might wish to consider requesting the petitioner to submit revised plans. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. May 15, 1972 ~2-2~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1313 ANP TENTATZVE MAP OF TRACT N~. 7876 (Continued) Mr. Bowers, representing Palm Desert Builders, appeared before the Commission and stated that they planned to have their architect present to present this proposal, however, his mothar became very ill and thus they were unable to contact him, and he was not familiar with the details of the plan; that they would agree with the staff's recommendations except that he would i.ake excep- tion to the comment regarding crossing of driveways to reach the recreation areas, and if the Commission had reviewed the plane, there would be about or.ly 11 units where this would occur, while the balance would have direct access to said area; and that they could stipulate people with children would r.ot purchase these 11 units. Mr. Douglas Johns, 1727 Sallad Drive, Yorba Linda, appeared before the Commis- sion in opposition, noting his property was located to the east of the proposed development, and stated that although he was a resident of Anaheim, his children had to attend ~chool in the Placentia School District, and the children were attending split sessions a~ the Orchard Drive Se:~ool, although another school was proposed to be built and located to the west and could alleviate the present overcrowded situation; that subject property was bordered on the northeast and northwest with single-family homes, with another single-family development being constructed farther north adjacent to the freeway, therefore, with so many homes going in, he was concerned with the number of children that might be coming from this proposed project, creating further congestion in the schools. The Commission noted that the petitioner already had R-3 zoning on the property and could develop the property with up to 36 dwel~.ing units per net acre with- out appear.ing before the Commission, and the school board should have planned for additional schools because this density had been reflected on the General Plan, and the proposal would be one-third less dense than what could be devel- oped within the zoning on the property. Mr. Johns then noted that the property to the north wa:~ being developed with single-family homes, and although he would prefer the orange orchard, he also would prefer houses on subject property so that the schools would not be over- crowded. The Commission noted that their only jurisdiction was that of land use, and the school districts !~ere required to provide schools in accordance with the General Plan densities. The Commission also noted that if many one-bedroom units were proposed, there would be fewer children than i£ there were three-bedroom anits, and if homes were planned on subject property, they could be £our and five-bedroom homes, which would mean considerably more children; and that statistics which had been presented to the Commission indicated that apartment developments had fewer children than single-family homes. Mr. Johns furtlier noted that it was distasteful to him to see so much blacktop area in this proposal, and that if there would be many children, it would further overcrowd the schools, but they would not object if there were few children. Mr. J~hn Brewster, 1731 Ballard Drive. Yorba Linda, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he had appeared previously when the R-3 had been considered for subject property, and he could not see ho~~ the Commis- sion could approve apartments in the middle of single-family homes; that he felt the City did not care what happened to the area surrounding subject Property, and it did not have anythinq to do with planning because not long ago a young boy had been killed. and it took the police forty minutes to arrive at che scene; and that a condominium had been turned down on the property farther to the east, therefore, it was unfair to other builders to approve this proposal. The Commission noted that the General Plan since 1965 had projected a small commercial area on the west side of Kellogg Drive and multiple-family develop- ment on the east side where Kellogg Drive intersected with Orangethorpe Avonue; ~ w ~ MIiQUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72'Z7a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1313 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7876 (Continued) that the petitioner was proposing a planned community which would reduce the density from 36 to 14 units, and the Coa~~nission v~ould have to consider land use, therefore, the Commission could not stop the property owner from developing under the zoning on the property, and the Commission was trying to arrive at a better development of the property, and a condominium was one tool which the property owner had in developing his property under the existing zoning. Further more, the Commission was just as concerned with the area north and east of Orange thorpe and Kellogg Drive, although they had no control over services to the area. Mr. Brewster was of the opinion that the proposal wou13 be unfair to the property owners adjacent who had lived there prior to the zoning action on the progerty, and even prior tc annexation to the City of Anaheim, and the manner in which the proposed development was set up would allow no place for children to play, which was very important since there ~ras no public recreation area or park in the area. Mr. R. J. Farrell, 1754 Ballard Drive, Yorba Linda, appeared before L•he Commis- sion in opposition and stated that subject property had received R-3 zoning while still in the County, and the single-family residents had not been informed by the County about any zoning action so that they could voice their opposition, and then inquired what the ratio of taxes ~aould be from this proposed develop- ment compared to homes; whereupon the Commission noted that they could not concern themselves as to taxes or schools since their only function was land use, and if the proposed condominium were approved. this would be a better development than i£ the property were developed with regular apartments. Mr. Farrell then requested that the Commission deny the waivers requested by the petitioner since he did not want a precedent to be set for all of the other undeveloped property in this general area. Mr. Bill Miller, 2082 Business Center Drive, Irvine, representing the two petitioners and the developer, in rebuttal, stated the property had been aoned for R-3 in 1969, and the development being proposed would be a better project :or this property since prospective owners retained the property for years, and although it was an apartment in scope, it would be single-family ownership; that there would be professional care of the landscaping and upkeep of this development; that the density proposed would produce a need for commercial uses, and the property owners would like to see a small, neighborhood shopping center; and that the conditions as set forth were in the realm of building the project, however, he would have to go back to the architect if there were any changes as staff suggested. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that the proposal was similar to the Armour project previously considered wherein the Commission requested revised plans and made suggestions as to what would be desi.rable, which was reflected in their revised plans approved by the Commission, because they were a vast improvement; and that this developer-architect also could bring in a more desirable development b,y submitting revised plans. Chairman Farano noted that if the Commission were to deny subject petition and tract, the petitioner could build immediately under the site development standards of the R-3 Zone with considerably more units than was proposed, or up to three times that proposed, and the Commission was not leqally able to chanqe the existing zoning on the property unless the property owner asked for a lower density, and regardless of whether the people in the area agreed or disagreed with the zone on the property, the Commission could do nothing except have some thoughts on the proposed development and the proposed density. The Commission noted that the developers were not proposing apa:~tments for rent, but units for sale wherein each owner would have an individual lot; that the agent stated the landscaping and recreation area would be maintained; that the Commission did not like small lots unless part of a planned unit develop- ment, which were generally well maintained, and the City did not obtain any ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2'2~9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1313 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7876 (Conti~iued) money for maintenance of landscaping; and then inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether the CC&Rs would be enforceable by the City. Mr. Lcwry stated that ine maintenance of these properties would be 2nforceable by the individual homeowners as members of the homeowners group; that the developer would have to meet the City requirements as it pertained to CC&P.a for a glanned unit development. The Commission noted that the Armour project originally proposed a considerable amount of asphalt, as did the proposed plan, however, the revised plans of the Armour project indicated a considerable reduction in asphalt and converted it to green, open space, therefore, subject petition should be continued in order that the developer could meet with staff and attempt to revise the plans, reducing the amount of asphalt and providing more green area and less conflicts in the pedestrian-vehicular traffic. Commissioner Seymour noted that he would not be interested in negotiating a project that was poorly designed, which would not be an asset to the City of Anaheim, and if the Commission denied this, the petitioner could develop a very undesirable apartment complex with a considerable increase in density per acre, however, the Commission should not be swayed too much with approving the lesser of two evils by approving a less than desirable project; and then inquired if the petitioner would prefer a continuance in order to meet with staff so that revised plans could be presented to the Commission that would resolve the pedestrian and vehicular traffic problem, reduce the density to be more in keeping with the density approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for planned unit developments, and reduce the amount of asphalt while increasing the open, green areas since this would be beneficial to future residents of thi~ proposal. Chairman Farano suggested that in the revised plans the petitioner ahould make every attempt to eliminate every waiver possible; that it would appear that if the development standards were changed, reducing the density while havii., high standards as to open area, a more desirable development would be constructed in the city. Commissioner Rawland noted that if this were proposed as a condominium, there was no way the first three waivers could be resolved. The Commission nated that the arterial setback waiver was not needed, whether it was a foot or several feet; that the planned unit development gave the petitioner a tool to provide a better living environment; and that the Commis- sion had asked the developers in the past to present their plans after review- ing the Commission's desires and working with staff. Commissioner Allred observed that it was too bad Mr. Bowers was not present when the Armour project was considered since Mr. Armour stated they were happy they were required to redesign their project since it was a much more desirable project, even though they lost some units, and Mr. Armour had praised staff for their assistance in designing the new plans, making it a very desirable project, therefore, he would suggest that the petitioner present revised plans that would give more open space, green area, and less walking across streets to get to the recreation areas. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARR]:ED, to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1313 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7876 to the meeting of June 12, 1972, in order to allow time for the petitioner to meet with staff and revise plans to be more in keeping with the Commission's suggestions. Chairman Farano noted £or the opposition that if they were desirous of reviewing the revised plans, they were available for the public to review and suggested that they contact staf£ to determine when these plans would be available. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2'280 RECESS - Commissioner Rowland moved for a ten-minute recess at 3:42 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meetiny at 3:55 p.m., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE N0. 2360 - EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 WHSt Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92804, Owner; TtiE HANDYMAN OF CALIFUP.NIA, INC., 8372 Center Drive, La Mesa, California 92041, Aqent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ALLOW OUTDOOR MERCHANDISE DISPLAY on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres having a frontage of approximate7.y 268 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, and being located approximately 1,050 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1616 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classi- fied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and one person indicated his presence. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel summarized the proposal, noting th2 lor.ation of the property, the request to have outdoor e~rchandise display under the existing canopy, and since this was not within the confines of the building as required by the C-i Zone, the waiver was being requested; that the 1575- square foot area was located adjacent to the existinq plant nursery and near the entry to the store; that the applicant indicated he would be displaying assorted plant material, a small selection of lawnmowers, a selection of out- door storage sheds, patio furniture and barbecues; that the Planning Commission in 1969 had approved waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall to screen the outdoor storage area on subject property, permitting the installation of a 24-inch high slumpstone wa]l and a 6-foot high chainlink fence to scr.een the outdoor storage of nursery supplies; and that if the Commission felt the requested use could be approved at this location, it might be appropriate to extend the 24-inc.h slumpstone wall beyond its present location and encompa~s this outdoor ui~play area also, since it might be considered an extension oi the existing nursery. Furthermore, if it was determined that the use was appropriate, it might be desirable to require that the live plant materials be placed adjacent to the slumpstone wall. Mr. Henry Hermison, 8372 Center Drive, La Mesa, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that if subject petition were granted, this would enable them to display their storage sheds, patio furniture, etc. in a manner similar to that in and around one's own home; that none of this merchandise would be stacked up since it would be displayed for aesthetic purposes; that it would enhance the elevation of the building, and the reason for wanting to display outdoors was for visibility to vehicles in the parking lot; that the Payless Drug Store had outside sales approved where they were required to construct a 2-foot wall, as would they on their ~~utside display of nursery items, however, their existing wall was now 6 feet high and visibility was zero; that it would be desirable from their viewpoint to have this display, and they would be happy to screen the display area ::imilar to Payless and they would be willing to have the display set up so that the plant materials would be on the outer perimeter and the other displayed materials would not be visible from the street. Mr. Lynn Page, 9542 Shannon Drive, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his property was located on the north side of Katella Avenue, and this particular piece of property was creating considerable noise since they ;iad hours of operation Erom 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., seven days a week~ that a new building was being erected near Katella Avenue, and if the Commission approved subject petition, they should consider the people who purchused property on Katella Avenue since this was making it impossible to rent th~_se homes on Katella Avenue. and his request was consideration for the five property owners when increasing the commercial uses in the area; and that if this increase in commercial uses were continued, in all likelihood the five homes on the north side of Katella 'lvenue would be requesting commercial uses for their properties. • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-281 VARIANCE N0. 2360 (Continued) The Commission noted that the five homes on the north side of Katella Avenue across from subject property were side-on lots, and perhaps part of the problem could be resolved by the erection of walls. Mr. Page noted that he already had a 6-foot wall on his property which cut down the noise factor, but there still was a dirt factor to consider, and he realized the property under consideration had the zc~ning, but increasing the commerciaL uses was creating quite a problem for the owners of the five single- family homes on the north side of Katella Avenue, particularly since one build- ing was being erected only 50 feet from the right-of-way line of Katella Avenue. The Commission noted that there appeared to be very little encouragement for the single-family homeowners for conversion purposes; that the commercial uses established on the south side of Katella Avenue, particularly Payless Drug Store and The Handyman, were set back a considerable distance from the street, and even the 50-foot setback from Katella Av2nue was considerable for commer- cial establishments; and then inquired how the oppasition felt there was a land use change being proposed by moving the indoor use to the outdoors, which would still be located within the canopy area. Mr. Page replied that the City was granting extended uses to go on this property which was gradually encroaching ~o the front part of the street, and if this further encroachment to Kate.lla Avenue was encouraged, the City should consider c~mmercial zoning for those five homes on the north side o£ Katella Avenue - either rezone those properties or stop the increase of commercial uses in this area, and if the ~ommission approved an increase in commercial uses, all propertie~ would have to baild higher walls. Commissioner Seymour noted that he found it diff.icult to believe that the clank of even a garbage can in the commercial area on the south side of Katella Avenue could be heard over the noise of the traffic on Katella Avenue. Mr. Page noted that when he purchased his single-family home there was only an orange qrove on subject property, and the street has reached the point that if these homes were to be retained for residential uses, ii~~r+ there would have to be a limitation in the amount o£ cammercial uses for subject property. Mr. Hermison, in rebuttal, stated that the opposition had mentioned a structure beinq built within 50 feet of the strect, however, this was not under the juris- diction of The Handyman, but the lessor of the property, who was responsible; that the variance request was within the confines of the roofline of their building so that they would not be moving closer to the street, and their build- ing was presently set back 350 feet from Katella Avenue. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that as long as Payless Drug Store had outside exposure, which was enclosed within a 2-foot wall, then the petitioner should be permitted the same use of his property. Commissioner Geuer offered Resolution No. PC72-99 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2360 on the basis that adjoin- ir~g commercial uses had been granted a similar privilege, and subject to conditions, with the added condition that the existing 2-foot slumpstone wall be extended across the display area proposed, and that all shrubbery would be displayed behind said slumpstone and no stacking of the outdoor display wonld be done, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2-ZBZ VARIANCE N0. 2361 - PUBLIC HEARING. PRIMUS HOLDING COMPANY, 9889 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90210, Owner; JOSEPH J. KUNT2, 5521 Burlingame Rvenue, Huena Park, California 90621, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED USES, (2) MASONRY WALL ABUTTING A RESIDEIITIAL ZONE, AND (3) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF MASONI2Y WALL SURROUNDING AN OUT- DOOR USE TO PERMIT RETAIL SALES AND SERVICING ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RECREATION- AL VEHICLES on property ciescribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6 acres, having frontages of approximately 179 feet on the southwesterly corner of Shepard Street and Carpenter Avenue and 566 feet on the north side of the Riverside Freeway, havinq a maximum depth of approxi- mately 400 feet and being located at the southwest corner of Shepard Street and Carpenter Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Joseph Kuntz, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the recreational vehicle service center they were proposing would provide a service for those vehicles as they entered the Southland, providing a service for both visitors and residents in the area; that thi~ was located on a majcr arterial and not in a congested area, and this was one of the reasons for selecting this location since it would help prevent congestion and ecologi- cal disturbances; that there were four million vehicles on wheels, and it was expected there would be £our million more of these in the very near future, that the Southland was receiving many of these people visiting the area; that although the Report to the Commission indicated t;~is was commercial in nature, this was so to a degree, but there were commercial uses in many operations permitted in the M-1 2one, even a car and truck center would be permitted; that this was a very complex use; and that because these were homes on wheels, it was necessary to equip them whenever problems arose; th~*_ rhey would be adver- tising in the proper publications to direct people to this service being offered so that the recreation vehicles would not have to go into the city in order to look £or repairs or servicing of their vehicles. ,~T e~ Commission noted that there were recreational facilities for these types of ~ v'"-eIiTcles which provided a~~.r,e~ e io rea for the children and inquired why there wasn't one propose er up n Mr. Ku tz t d t t t~wh~~iy~ .pl nnedw""~-t+"Qc ~~ e a small area set aside foar a~ay~~ T le~~Y •'°" ~~'Y ~'arki'ng stalls was because this was something new and they were trying to provide park- `~i~g~and that they were trying to make it easily accessible, not like the way thp Rose Bowl looked after a game. The Commission further inquired whether there were any plans for the sale of equipment, accessories, etc., on the premises; whereupon Mr. Kuntz replied negatively. Chairman Farano inquired whether people in their motor homes would be staying overnight on the premises; whereupon Mr. Kuntz replied that they would dis- courage people from staying there overnight and would tell them of the facili- ties available in the area; that they would have a rental car operation so that people could leave their vehicles for repair and refurbishing purposes and go elsewhere. Chairman Farano noted that the proposed plan of service was a desirable use for Anaheim, but he questioned the fact that a playground was going to be proposed since people would stay overnight with their campers and there were no facili- ties proposed, according to the plans, that would provide for the necessities for overnight paxking; whereupon Mr. Kuntz stipulated there would be no over- night accommodations permitted; that people who would have a time delay in servicing their vehicles might stay there for a while, and this was the reason for proposing the playground area, primarily for a place for children to play while the vehicle was being repaired. The Commission advised the petitioner that the proposal was good, but they would not permit overnight parking of these vehicles with people residing in them, and then inquired what type of refurbishing and replenishing the petitioner was proposing; whereupon Mr. Kuntz stated carpeting and upholstering damage, ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-283 VARIANCE NO. 2361 (Continued) and maybe these people coming in to the city from out-of-town would not know who would take ca.re of these repairs. Chairman Farano then observed that the petitioner had indicated the upholster- ing or carpeting would be removed fzom the vehicle and repa~red indoors, from his understanding, however, he wanted to know what was planned for the area and then indicated it on the map; whereupon Mr. Kuntz replied that they were installing display racks that would show what they would be installing at this facility, and this would be a display area rather than a refurbishinq and installation area. Chairman Farano then inquired whether it was intended to remove the skin portion of the outside of a camper; whereupon Mr. Kuntz state3 that tY.,e service would not go beyond the livinq unit, and they would not become iravolved with any chassis repair, however, they would repair the skin and frame if it were damaged, and in some instances they would have to sublet to take care of these repairs. Chairman Farano summarized a letter from Autonetics, whict~ indicated the pro- posed use fell within the uses permitted by the Zoning Ordi~ance which would be another ameliorating addition to the area. The Commission Secretary noted that another letter from the adjoining miniature golf course operator was submitted, indicating approval of subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired why a varianc~ was beEore the Commission rather than a conditional use permit; whereupon 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the City Attorney had ruled that unless a use was listed for which a conditional use permit might be approved, it could not be handled under the conditional use permit section, and since this use was not permitted by right in a conditional use permit, the ozly way it could be considered would be by variance. The Commission inquired of the petitioner why he was proposing a 4-foot wall instead of the required 6-foot wall; whereupon Mr. Kuntz stated that their reason for asking for waiver of the 6-foot wall was because they were proposing landscaping and shrubbery. The Commission further inquired as to the type of ].andscapinq proposed along the freeway; whereupon Mr. Kuntz replied that the improvements of the land were considerable, but the landscaping would be approached in the same manner that they had approached thie project, puttinq in nothing but the best in order to make this a good project, and the landscaping would be attractive. Commissioner Kaywood stated that there should be both attractive and dense landscaping. The staff, in response to questioning by the Commission regarding the proposal, reviewed the plans as staff had originally analyzed them. Chairman :'arano inquired where the dump was proposed, and was the maintenance area in the marked section colored in orange; whereupon Mr. Kuntz stated that the general cantractor was available to answer questions regarding the develop- ment if the Commission wished questions answesed. The Commission inquired what type o£ landscaping was proposed adjacent to the R-A in lieu of the wall; whereupon Mr. Kuntz noted that they should have had the landscape architect present, howeves. he would assure the Commission that adequate landscaping would be provided. Commissioner Herbst requested that these landscaping plans be spelled out since the petitioner was asking for waiver of the wall. Mr. Jerry Lefevre, 18636 Thompson Street, Reseda, General Contractor of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and stated that the wall ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z-284 VARIANCE NO. 2361 (Continued) referred to was to enclose the service area, and the current boundary between the golf course an3 this property had a chainlink fence and along the River- side Freeway there was also a chainlink fence, however, they were planning a 6-foot high chainlink fence at the property line so that the entire property would be enclosed with said chainlink fence, and the interior 4-foot high wall would be enclosing the service area. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner was requesting waiver of thp 6-foot wa]1 requirement in the M-1 Zone where service uses were placed, and the Commission, in the past, had proposed alternatives to the 6-foot masonry wall - when a chainlink fence was proposed, ther~ would be dense landscaping or slats in the chainlink fence with medium-type landscaping, therefore, he did not want the petitioner to feel that the chainlink fence was in liee of the masonry wall requirement; and that the Commission, in the past, had other plans of landscaping end up with only the chainlink fence constructed. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the petitioner was proposing to have gasoline pumps and inquired whether the petitioner was planning to have any signing, and also what other type of signing was proposed. Mr. Kunt~ replied that their sign would not have any advertising as to the gasoline since they would have an unnamed brand and woeld be an accommodation, and ~hey were negotiating with the petroleum compar_ies because many people needed 80 to 90 gallons of gasoline and required a different type of nozzle than reguiation service stations; that because of the height factor and width of these vehicles, they could provide a service that was not available other- wise, and he did not feel they would be taking business from the local area since they would be taking care of something which the l:.cal service stations could not provide. Mr. Kuntz, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that he would stipulate there would be no advertising of the qasoline visible from the freeway. Mr. Kuntz then noted that he had been a resident in this area for a long time, and it was a comfor4: to him to realize the staff gave such able assistance in their proposal. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-100 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2361 on the basis that the use was not a use generally permitted in the M-1 Zone but provided a service similar to uses nortaally permitted in the M-1 2one; that the petitioner had stipulated these would be no sign advertising gasoline sales visible to the freeway; that there would be no overnight living quarters permitted on the premises; that there w•~uld be no retail sales of vehicles, trailers, campers, trucks, etc.; that the chainlink fence would be landscaped; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts stated that a clarification was needed regard- ing waiver "b" since this might be technical because the property to the north anfl west had a resolution of intent to M-1, and if the owner had an .1-1 ordinance read, this property owner would not be required to provide the wall. Chairman Farano noted that a chainlink fence would be needed by the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner had been offered the option to provide slats in a chainlink fence and landscaping, however, Mr. Kuntz had stipu- lated to providing the unslatted fence and dense landscaping, as well as the 4-foot wall and landscaping around the service area. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. s ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, May 15, 1972 ~2'285 VARIANCE NO. 2362 - PUBLIC HEARING. ANDRO PETERSEN AND SAM ZONA, 415 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802, Owners; ADVANCE ELECTRIC SIGN CO., c/o Robert Van Gerpen, 1120 Towne Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SZGN TO PERMIT ADDITION OF CHANGEABLE COPY PANEL TO AN EXISTII3G SIGN on property described as: A panhandle-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 615 feet and being located approximately 725 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 415 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCZAL-RECREATION, 20NE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Robert Van Gerpen, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposal was to add a 40-square foot reader panel to the existing si.gn; that subject property was a panhandle-shaped parcel having a very small frnntage of 110 feet, while the rear portion had a 615-Eoot width, and af±er a:he property extended 615 feec to the south, the property width increased to 315 feet, and the sign area was calculated for only the 110-foot frontage; that they thought their existing sign would be satis- factory, however, after viewing other signs in the area, it was found necessary to have an attractive, chanqeable panel; that there were ZS motels along Katella Avenue, and 5 of these had no changeable copyt and then reviewed the different types of signs these other motels had, noting they proposed a 40-square foot addition to their existing pole, and based on the actual parcel size rather than the 110-foot frontage, they felt this was a hardship imposed on them because of the size and shape of the parcel. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired as to the type of reader copy proposed for thi~• addition; wher~upon Mr. Van Gerpen stated that he would assume it would be similar to that being displayed on the other readerboard signs in the area. The Commission then inquired whether the ~~~itioner felt this was a necessity to have readerboard co~.y where 99$ of the motels had color TV, queen size beds, and rates; whereupon Mr. Van Gerpen stated that he could not spell out what the traveling public should be informed of, but when looking at the other motels, it would appear that the petitioner was at a disadvantage. Commissioner Seymour noted that perhaps the petitioner had a disadvantage, but they developed the motel in this location knowing full well the disadvantage they would have, an3 from drawings presented in the variance petition submitted in 1971, when the sign was approved by the City Council, the disadvantage was there, and the sign people should have taken this into consideration when t'aat sign was considered and designed; whereupon Mr. Van Gerpen stated that they were not the desigr.ers of the existing sign. Commissioner Seymour noted that this happened each time a new sign waiver was being requested ir. the Commercial-Recreation Area - there was always the alibi that they were not the designers of the original sign, and it was somewhat dis- turbing that the petitioner and the agent did not feel the Commission was fully aware of the problems in this area; that this was all taken into consideration, both the nature of the parcel and other parcels in the area when considering the previous sign. Mr. Van Gerpen stated that there were many garish signs along Katella Avenue, and the signs they proposed were Plexiglass, modern-type signs, and no additional signs would be over them. Chairman Farano noted that the owner of this motel selected the size of the sign he presently had, and the City may have granted this partition of the property, however, the applicant had created his own hardship by selling off a portion ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, May 15, 1972 ~2-286 VARIANCE NO. 2362 (Continued) ' of the frontage, which also meant he sold off a portion of his signing. Comr~issioner Kaywood noted that this had been pointed out to the petitioner at the time he requested the high sign. Mr. Van Gerpen stated that since the City did not have written in their Sign Or3inance an abatement period for signs that did not meet Code, he was propos- ing this type sign, although the planning staff had informed him that they were drafting changes iz the Sign Ordinance that would take care of the amortization period. However, he would have to build under the present Code requirements. Chairman Farano then stated that it would be nice to see someone build under the present Code rather than asking for all of the waivers; that the Commission was fully aware of the problems that existed in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and this was the reason for the Commission's attitude toward signs - they were trying to promote having people comply with the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Seymour observed that just because he did not have a fir.e hose to put out a fire did not mean he would be stopped from putting out the fire with his own garden hose, and the same would apply to the proposed signing amendments being drafted by staff. Mr. Van Gerpen stated that the parcel was very peculiar in size, and this was one of the reasons for asking for relief, which was a requirement of the variance. Commissioner Kaywood observed that the petitioner had created his own hardship by erecting the size sign he did last year. Commissioner Seymour off•ered Resolution No. PC72-101 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny petition for Variance No. 2362 on the basis that although the Planning Commission had previously denied the request o` the existing sign, the Council felt the peculiar shape of the property warranted granting the sign height, and now the petitioner was requesting further Fraivers from the Sign Ordinance; that there had been no changes in the use o£ the property to warrant c~?nsideration of the wai-er requested; that the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship existed; that the proposed signing would add to the unsightliness already existing in the area, and to grant this signing would t• contrary to the sign amortization period being proposed and could create a variant situation since the petitioner would be spending considerable money for this additional sign and would claim this as a hardship. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call on the motion, Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that this was a hardship parcel because of insufficient frontage, and other motels which had fewer units than the existing facility were permitted readerboards. Chairman Farano was of the opinion that the petitioner had made his choice by the size sign he had requested just a year ago, and just because the petitioner had a narrower frontage than the rear portion of his property, it would still violate the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, which were based on the frontage of any parcel. Commissioner Kaywood noted that on another request where the Commission had denied a rather undesirable sign and the City Council had granted said sign, this business was in operation for only three weeks and there was now an ugly sign with a ~acant building, and that there was such a clutter of signs in the Commercial-Recreation Area that no one could read anything on the signs anyway. On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ -"1 LJ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z'28~ VARIANCE N0. 2363 - PUBLIC HEARING. JERRY F. FARROW, ET AL, P. O• Box 247, Garden Grove, California 92642, Owners; SIMON J. SHEEHAM, 403 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, Calif.ornia 92804, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES TO PERMZT ~UTDOOR DISPLAY OF WOMEN'S CLOTHING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 104 feet and being located at the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and Rowland Avenue, and further described as 403 South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opp~sition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Simon Sheeham, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he and his wife had opened up this boutique, although they knew the location was somewhat hidden away, however, because they had a small capital they took the place; that they had people come in who had suggested that tney place racks out- side so that someone could see this was a dress shop, and thus they had done this almost a year ago, however, the Zoning Enforcement Officer had advised him they were in violation of the Code, and he was before the Commission requesting that he be permitted to contin~ae this outdoor display of clothing; that because he had the business in the City of Anaheim. he had moved to Anaheim; that khey have had many customers say thpy could hardly see their place, even with the racks on the outside, and if one drove down the street, one could not see the sY.ore; that there was signing on top of the building, and he would like to have a neon sign, but he d'd not have the money, and, furthermore, his sign would not be seen because of the other signs; that he wanted to enjoy the use of his property as others in the city; that they had improved the property after this store had been empty for almost a year; that tenants of the other buildings did not object to their outdoor display; and that he could take the Commission around the city and show them many undesirable appearances of cars and other outdoor storage which was much more objectionable than what they had. Commissioner Kaywood noted that she had driven by this facility, and, quite frankly, she felt these racks made the area look quite depressed, and she would never patronize it; and that she could not see how the Commission or the City could deprive others from having outdoor display while allowing the petitioner a use not enjoyed by other people. Commissioner Herbst noted that the store was off the beaten path, and when the City allowed this parcel to go commercial, they were in error, and if this meant the petitioner was on the borderline of losing his business, perhaps if the Commission gave him a year's time to build up his business, he would not need '~~ have outdoor display of clothing, however, he did not want to grant the variance without this limitation since the variance ran with the land, and a more undesirable use could be established in this building. Commissioner Kaywood noted that there were some very attractive custom ho~nes eracted in this general area, and the display of clothing gave the appearance ,of a fire sale. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Petition for Variance No. 2363 £or a period of one year with option to review this to determine how the use was affecting the area. A lengthy discussion was held by the Commission regarding the motion, with the Commission expressing various opinions regarding the use, and upon its conclu- sion, a vote was taken with the motion losing by a vote of 4 to 3, Commissioners Allred, Herbst, and Seymour voting for the motion; Commissioners Farano, Gauei, Kaywood, and Rowland voting against it. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-102 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2363 on the basis that it would be against the City Code i£ permitted; that this would be establishing an un- desirable precedent, and it would be 3ifficult to stop similar requests through- • . s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z'Z88 VARIANCE NO. 2363 (Continued) out the city; and ~:~ould be granting the petitioner a privilege not enjoyed by other commercial uses. (5ee Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMt4ISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2365 - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM AND SHIRLEY ALMAND, 3335 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Owners; request- ing WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT A MOSILEHOME IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the north side of Lir.coln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 310 feet, and being located approximately 1,240 feet east of the centerline of Knott Avenue and further described as 3335 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mrs. Shirley Almand, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated they had a vezy unusual situation, and since they did not know what to do, they had asked the staff for advice and were told to file a variance; that when they built their home, their parents had given them a 100-foot frontage by 500-foot depth; that in 1963 when che parents wanted to develop a travel trailer park to the south they did not have sufficient land, thus they gave a portion of their land back to their parents in order to obtain adequate financing; that the mobilehome was parked to the rear of their lot and was being occupied by their daughter, her husband, and children; that altk:cugh the mobilehome could be in- cluded in the mobilehome park to t;,-~ south, it was an all-adult park and children would not be allowed; and that they would request permission to have this mobile- home on their property until the parents' finances werE cleared up and the prop- erty they owned to the south was given back to them, and then in response to questioning by the Commission, stated that the loan would be paid off in 1984, however, if the loan was reduced sufficiently so that the loan was sufficiently covered by the existing mobilehome park, then they would have their property returned to them. However, the loan was not low enough to bring the property baa:_ into their own name. A leng~ny discussion was held by the Commission relative to resolving relocation of the mobilehome into the mobilehome park to the south, the length of time the petitioner was requesting permission for this use, and then inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus what would be required if the property were made a part of the present mobilehome home to the south. Mr. Titus replied that a parceZ map would be necessary. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry stated that the property could be divided, thus placing it under separate ownership, and this property could be tied up for some time. Mrs. Almand stated that they had a deed from their parents that stated their property would return to them upon their parents' death if it occurred prior to the expiration of their loan commitment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to grant Petition for Variance No. 2365 for a period of 12 years to permit the mobilehome to be located on subject property, subject to conditions. ~ 1"~ U MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2-289 VARIANCE NO. 2365 (Continued) Prior to roll call, further discussion was held, the Commission requesting that the requirement of improvements be waived until such time as the adjoining properties were developed also. Mr. Titus noted that the curb and gutter and improvements on the property to the west were already in; that the property immediately to the east did not have sidewalks or trees, and the second property to the east had sidewalks and trees, therefore, there was only subject property and the property to the east that were not improved. The Commission inquired as to the amount of money necessary fcr bonding for the improvements; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that approximately 1~8 of the amount of the cost for the improvement would be the cost of the bond. Commissioner Herbst requested that in addition to the granting of the use for twelve years, he would suggest that if the property were sold, the variance would become null and void in order that it did not carry with the use of the land in perpetuity; whereupon Commissioner Seymour accepted said amendment and reiterated his motion by stating that he offered Resolution No. PC72-103 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2365 for a period o£ twelve years or in the event the property was sold, said variance shall become null and void. (See Resolution Book) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, ~p, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~LGaP-~F~y ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2367 - PUBLIC HEARING. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, Box 3249, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California 90051, Owner; DONALD J. FEARS, A.I.A.~ 1477 South Manchester Avenue, Suite 360, Anaheim, California 92802, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF SOLID MASONRY WALL AROUND OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acres, having a frontage o£ approximately 230 feet on the south side of La Jolla Street, having a maxi- mum depth of ayproximately 640 feet and being located approximately 430 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard, and further described as 3050 East La Jolla Street. Property presently classified M-l, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Don Fears, architect and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the gas company's primary concern was with security, and like most large corporations, they were having problems with vandalism and thieves; that this property had an unusual shape which made it more conducive to thievery ~_s}~ ; was, 40 ~t to the rear property line, it was very difficult to~ t at t e type of equipment stored here varied in the vicinity of $400,000 - pickup trucks, vans, pipe fittinqs, etc., as well as being employee parking, and with this type of investment in equipment, the risk became noticeably higher; that they had made a survey of public facilities of the petitioner, there being 42 of them, and said survey indicated that the highest theft and vandalism occurred where a solid masonry wall was required around the storage area, and this was the reason for requesting the hgher chainlink fence with barbed wire on the top; that this facility had $9,000 in lighting fixtures to suf£iciently light the area for security purposes; that the property to the east toward Kraemer Boulevard was owned by the gas company, and it was proposed to plant these two parcels and also chainlink the area since it was easier to live with than with a masonry wall; that the Report to the Commission indicated a chainlink fence with trees might be considered, ~ ~ 0 MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2-2g~ VARIANCE NO. 2367 (Continued) however, they nad discussed this and as an alternative theg would suggest that instead of trees they be permitted to provide low shrubbery with scattered, light-type higher shrubbery that would not be strong enough to use for climbing and which would also be seen through for the security P°rob~emabecausehofctheir link fence were approved, thi~ would help the security p very expensive type of equipment that could be stolen; that they had considered the possibility ~f placing these items in a secure yard if a solid wall were required, however, this would be a handicap; and that representatives of the gas company were present to answer questions. Mr. Fears noL•ed that they had a setback of 25 feet from the property line to the building; that the sidewalk had been waived by the City Council, and they had solid landscaping from the building to the curb. °rthatftheretwas alwayslso had strips of landscaping approximately 116 feet deep; persannel on the iroperty 24 hours a day, but no watchman as such; that people working on the premises late at night were responsible but not as security men; and that the blacktop fot this area was approximately 425 feet deep; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Herbst, stated that they could have landsraping along the east property line, and they could also have dwarf-type trees; and that they had discussed with the client the passibility of landscaping the interior, but they would prefer this be left without landsoapina. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner was asking the Commis:;ion to make a determination based on security, and !?hen this had been presented to the Commission before, the Commission had given the applicant the alternative of a masonry wall or a chainlink fence with landscaping, or a chainlink fence with slats and additional landscaping, but all three of these alternatives seemed to defeat the purpose of the petitioner, and since this was not a security commission, the Commission would have to waive the request in terms of appearance, and the Commission was attempting to screen from view large, heavy equipment. Mr. Fears noted that the extreme degree in security was their reason for being before the Commission, and that if *_hey did not have a large amount of va2uable equipment, compliance would be a possibility, therefore, they would request consideration of semi-dense landscaping so that it would not present a complete blockage. Commissioner Rowland noted that this site was devoted to parking, and outdoor storage was limited to pipe storage, meter items, etc., therefore, he could not see why the petitioner could not relocate these in a more secure spot, and then this could be treated the same as a sand and gravel operation was enclosed; that he could not understand why this was not considered as a parking lot except for the equipment storage as such. Mr. Fears noted that they did not have security police, and they depended primarily upon the City police patrol. Chairman Farano noted that unless there was someone patrolling the perimeter of the property, it would seem to him that with or without the wall or fence, there would be no way of seeing any intruders because it was very dark. Mr. Feax-, responded by stating that the area was very well lighted since they had eight poles witti mercury lights. having spent $9,000 fcr this lighting equip- ment. and the advantage of a see-through fence was because it would be difficult £or people to hide there atid get out with the equipment. Discussion was held by staff and Commissioner Rowland regarding how the staff deter~rined what was storage and non-storage area. Commissioner Herbst noted that there was a need for greenexy because of the ecology everyone was talking about, and since this was a 3~-acre area having all blacktop, it was important to have some Eorm nf landscaping; that other companies in the area were able totherstarkealaearancen~flthe blacktop~7there- in such a manner that it broke up PP fore, the petitioner could pr.ovide some landscaping. ^ LJ ~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z'Z91 VARIANCE NO. 2367 (Continued) Mr. Fears stated that they had 4.7~ landscaping, however, this was all in the front setback area. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether there were any plans for development of the property to Kraemer Boulevard. Commissioner Seymour observed that the property to the east would be developed, and whatever was developed, there would be a blockage of v?ew into subject property from Kraemer Boulevard, therefore, at some time in the future the petitioner would be faced with the problem of no police patrol on Kraemer Boulevard, whether fenced or not. Mr. Fears noted that he was not concerned with the property line to the south since there already was a 6-foo` masonry wall constructed on the property line; that the gas company was hop~ng to be able to develop this property in a similar manner as that on Katella A~venuer but his previous statements still applied to the west side of the property which they did not own. Commissioner Seymour observed that although he understood both sides of the problem, if the Commission allowed this waiver to be granted, how could they deny the next request asking for an 8-foot fence and barbed wire on top - it appeared the only way they were resolving the crime problem was going back to the 1890 fences. Mr. Fears stated that his security statement was based on the fact that they had extremely expensive equipment. Chairman Farano noted that from a security standpoint, with all of this open area, it was his opinion that the petitioner was inviting thieverp, and he would assume that a 6-foot masonry wall might discourage a tnief, ever. though it might hide him from the patrol view, therefore, he could not see any way thievery would be discouraged. Mr. Fears stated they had originally planned for more landscaping throughout the plant, although they already met the landscaping requirements of the M-1 Zone. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts stated he wanted to respond to a comment made as to utilization of the parking area - that if the major portion of the area were employee parking, there would be no requirement for the 6-foot masonry wall - it was only when large equipment and vehicles were stored that the wall would be required; that he did not know where these vehicles would be stored or where the equipment wou.ld be stored, therefore, he would suggest that both the large eq~iipment vehicles and special equipment be located in one area for screening purposes with the masonry wall. Commissioner Rowland observed that after looking °it the plan and the turning radii, these size vehicles would be the pickup tcucks and vans, and on the perimeter would be the employee parking, and it would appear that it could be done that way, localizing the s~~rage and leaving the balance yo, although he understood the security problem. Commissioner Allred observed that the gas company's problem was no more unique than any other industrial development in this area. Commissioner Rowlan3 observed that he was not concerneft whether they erected the fence or not, but from looking at the land plan and understanding qenerally what went in, it was not a screening problem with the masonry wall since the masonry wall should be required for only the pipe stora•~e area, meter equipment, and regulators. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Variance No. 2367 with a condition that the pipe storage, meter equipment and regulators be located behind the masonry wall, as required by ordinance, and that landscaping be in accordance with the M-1 standards for regulation parking areas. • s MINUTES, CITY PLANi:iNG COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2~292 VARIANCE NO. 2367 (Continued) After further discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Rowland withdrew his motion, the petitioner then having stipulated to providir,g an additional 100 feet of landscaping, provided, however, that said additional landscaping would shield from view from the street the special equipment, such as pipe storage, rEgulators and meters. Commissior,er Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-104 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2367 on the basis that the trucks and cars parked on the premises were not considered outdoor storaget that the use of the rear portion af the property ~vas somewhat different from the adjoining property; that the petitioner had stipulated to providing an aflditional 100 feet of landscaping, which should be made a condition of approval, saici landscaping to hide from view from the street the equipment storage; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pas~ed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A~1red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2368 - PUBLIC HEARING. MAGIC LANTERN. INC., 1030 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner; MC LEAN & SCHULTZ, ENGINEERS, Attention: Howard Yarsell, 2000 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, California 92631, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MZNIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 39-UNIT MOTEL TO 74 UNITS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the south side of ICatella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet and being located approximately 390 feet west of the centerline of West Street, and further described as 1030 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whetner there was anyone present in oppositi.on and received no response. Although the Report to the Commis~ion was not read at the public hear3ng, it is referred to and made a part of t}ie minutes. Mr. Howard Parsell, representing the agent for the patitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the petitioner planned an expansion program from the existing 39 units to 74 units, aslcing waiver of the parking of one space per unit because t.here would not be any additional room, therefore they were provid- ing 58 parking spaces for these 74 units. Chairman Farano interrupted Mr. Pa.rsell by stating that the Commission was interested in discussing with the agent the basis upon which the petitioner had deci3ed he would~ot need the required number of parking spaces; that the Commission had considered similar requests previously and had only approved waiver of the required parking upon the applicant presenting certification of the analysis made on the use of units versus the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Parsell noted that the owner, during the past two to three years, came up with figures that ?.2$ of the guests had no vehicles. and these were averages for both summer and winter use of the motel. Chairman Farano inquired whether the petitioner had these figures availablet whereupon Mr. Parsell stated that they could be obtained. The Commission further noted that the petitioner was proposing 47+t of the new units as efficiency units, and it wou].d appear that these were more like apart- ments; whereupon Mr. Parsell stated that they did not plan to have kitchen units in all of the additional units - this was an error on his part since they had only four at the present time. which was approximately 10+t of the number of units. • s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2'293 VARIANCE NO. 2368 (Continued) Chairman Farano noted that the Report to the Commission indicated that plans showed 35 of the units would contain efficiency kitchen units; whereupon Mr. Parsell stated that he had drawn a typical unit and had failed to note that the typical unit was the efficiency type unit, however, he would stipulate to meeting the past Commission and Council policy permitting up to 10+k of the units with efficiency kitchen units, or an additional three or four anits having kitchen facilities. ~;r. Parsell aoted that the owner had maintained records, and his reason for requesting this waiver was because of the number cf parking spaces that appeared to be available; that the petitioner maintained a shuttle service from the airport bus terminal bringing guests to the motel; that the facility was across the street from Disneyland, and they also bussed their guests; that this was in close proximity to the Convention Center, and many businessmen stayed with them because they were within walking distance between t1.e motel and the Convention Center,- and then in response to a question by the Commission, noted that they provided shuttle service from the Grand Hotel, not from the airport; that they gave £amily rates for large groups; and that they never had all the stalls Pilled. Furthermore, if this waiver were granted, they planned to have major remodeling of the entry and would make it more attractive from Katella Avenue. In addition, they were 22+k deficient, or 16 stalls, from the Code parking requirement, and it was his understanding that previous variances were granted allowing up to 33$ deficiency. Chairman Farano noted he would prefer having the documented data regarding the percentage of parking spaces available versus the number of units rented, said documentation to be certified by a certified public accountant prior to the Commission making any decision on waiver of the parking r.equirement. Further- more, he wished the Commission would permit only l0a of the units to have kitchen facilities. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2368 to the meeting of May 31, 1972, in order to allow the peti~.io~ier time to submit certified documentation of the ratio of available parki:;:~ to the number of units rented, as had been required of other mote~s in the Comme::c:ial-Recreation Area. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARi.IED. Chairman Farano noted that the Commission should establish a policy requiring that where similar requests for waiver of the parking in motels was being requested, that the petitioners be informed that prior to acceptance or con- sideration of the petition, the Commission would require that parking stud9.es be made, documentation be certified by a certified public accountant so that a continuance would not be necessary, and chis wculd be in fairness to all other motel owtiers in the future. Mr. Roberts noted that it would not be staff's responsibility to go through the figures submitted by a petitioner, but that it would be a certified record by a certified public accountant. GENERAL PLAN - READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM AMENDMENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, NO. 123-A California; to consider a proposal to amend that portion of the Anaheim General Plan consisting of an area approximately 4,200 acres located generally south of Santa Ana ranyon Road, east of the Newport Freeway, and extending easterly beyond Mohler Drive to Weir Canyon and having a southerly boundary approximately along the Sant~ Ana Mountain ridge line, amending the densities proposed for that area. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that General Plan Amendment No. 123-A had been approved by the Planning Commis- sion together wich the reclassification to the Planned Community Zone for a 652-acre parcel surrounding the golf course and reservoir in the Anaheim Hills area, at which time the Commission determined that in order to maintain the balanc~ of the puhlic facilities, the entire area should be readvertised; that the 1969 Genpral Plan provided for 11,500 units on 4,200 acres. and the first • C MSNUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z'294 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A iContinued) General Pla.n amendment approved by the City Council hac 15,000 units on 4,200 acres, therefore, this new amendment would be a decrease and would also be a redistribution implementing the Commission's suggestion that they build more intensely where they could and with less density wheze there were severe slopes. Commissioner Farano wanted to understand that this readvertisement would in- corporate the entire 4,200 acres with the density approved at the last public hearing; whereupon Mr. Tl:ompson stated that this we:s correct; and that the plan submitted by the representatives of Anaheim Hills also included traffic studies, density studies, and layouts for public facilities for the entire 4,200 acres. Commissioner Kaywood stated that she would like to have a seismic element included into the General Plan, making it a findi:.g that ~rior to approval of a specific plan, that the seismic report be investigated and reported on and approved by the Planning Ccmmission. Mr. Darrell Daugherty, City Planner rapresenting the City of Orange, appeared before the Commission stating his purpose being before the Commission was to protest the increased density of the General Plan area of Anaheim Hills and the basio concept of redistribution, taking the area lying south of the ridge line and projecting it for lowest density and increasing the density of those portions northerly of the ridge line; that on May 9, 1972, the Orange City Council stated it was their intent to annex land to che ridge line - this would be the City's policy to this point, and a portion of the 4,200 acres would be southerly and easterly of the ridge line; that what was proposed was increasing the densities in the portion of Anaheim's sphere of influence and those southerly of the ridge line would be under a planned community of the purveyor; that no comment was made about Weir Canyon Road, although it was proposed to go westerly of the boundaries indicated, and he was opposed to the fact that they had not had an opportunity to make any comment regarding the location of Weir Canyon Road within this 4,200-acre ranch. Chairman Farano then wanted to know whether Mr. Daugherty was stating that the reduction in density for certain garts of the ranch from 3.57 to 3.03 would be those portions that fell within the City o£ Orange's influence and would be in- creased within the City of Anaheim, and that the City of Anaheim would end up with a density much greater than previously considered. Mr. Daugherty stated that a number of things were indicated in General Plan Amendment No. 123-A; that he could not state that the density figure of 3.03 was accurate for both that with?n the sphere of influence of Anaheim and the sphere of influence of the City of Orange, might be reduced still more, and since they had not had enough time to thoroughly analyze this proposal, it would appear based on the legal notice of the public hearing that the density incr~ase would be considerably more in Anaheim's sphere of influence. Chairman Farano noted that the Planning Commission was not in favor of an increase in density, but they were led to believe that the density under Anaheim's sphere of influence would be less, but it wo~zld appear from Mr. Daugherty's letter to the Planning Commission that their analysis would indicate the population re- distribution would only reflect the lower density in areas that ultimately would be within the City of Anaheim, while increasing the Anaheim densities. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether Mr. Daugherty was opposed to the density decrease in Orange or the density increase in the City of Anaheim. Mr. Daugherty stated that he was opposed first to the density decrease in the City of Orange, while increasing it in the City of Anaheim, and still using the 4,200 acres - the situation would really increase the density in Anaheim over that originally approved in General Plan Amendment No. 123, however, it was very difficult to arrive at a total acreage and dwelling unit - perhaps many of the figures occurred near the ridge line, and it was difficult to identify certain areas increased in density anywhere, however, he was present to present opposition to any overall increase in density. ^ U ~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-295 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A (Continued) Commissioner Seymour noted that he understood what had been presented by Mr. Daugherty - he was objecting that if the Grant Corporation had less density on the ranch in the City of Orange, he would be opposed to that; whereupon Mr. Daugherty said "no". they were just indicating to the Commission by the reduction of densitx on an oversll basis of the 4,200 acres, which would drastically reduce many of the acres in Orange but would greatly increase the density of acreage in Anaheim, and the result might not be in the units as indicated, and since they did not have any figures accurately settinc~ forth the densities for those areas under the City of Anaheim's influence and those under the City of Orange's influence compared to those previously approved, they were opposed to any increase in density in Anaheim's sphere of influence; and that it was their intent to annex to the ridge line. Commissioner Rowland noted that the equestrian estates were originally planned for 1,400 units, however, this had now been reduced to 240 units. Chairman Farano then read the letter of opposition from the City of Orange. Mr. Daugherty, in response to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated that the redistribution of density was fine, but they objected to the increase in density on the 4,200 acres; that the acreage under the sphere of influence of the City of Orange should not be used for calculating the densities in the City of Anaheim; and that they were opposed also to any increase in density in the City of Anaheim. Chairman Farano then asked staff what the density for the Anaheim sphere of influence was indicated for. Mr. Thompson stated that the ridge line was still difficult to define, but it went back to the density approved under General Plan Amendment No. 123, which permitted 3.57 units per acre on the 4,200 acres, still taking into account the ridge line as a boundrry, and what had happened was that Grant Corporation stated they could not develop the tops of the hills with as much density as they thought on the last GPneral Plan amendment, but it was difficult to deter- mine how much in Anaheim and how much in Oranqe, but the entire 4,200 acres redistributed the density to 3.03, and it could be assumed that this was a significant reduction both in the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange. Chairman Farano noted that the Commission had discussed many times the areas for heavy development, others £or light development, and still others where no development could occur, but at all times he had been talking about the area within the City of Anaheim's influence. and there should be no more density considered or allowed than what was permitted in low-density development, and if the proposed amendment was less than the 3.57 approved under General Plan Amendment No. 123, that was fine, but if it was higher than that, then someone had better advise the Commission. Mr. Thompson noted that he did not feel it would be higher, but i.f the Commis- sion would like to continue this General Plan Amendment No. 123-A reaflvertised to the evening session, they could run some figures to determine those areas along the ridge line, but it would appear it would be closer to the 3.5 figure. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the City o£ Anaheim should only consid<.r in their General Plan amendments of the Anaheim Hills those areas within the City of Analieim or its sphere of influence since if the portion within the sphere of influence o£ the City of Orange was also taken in, this would lead everyone to have the wrong impression of actual densities. Commissioner Kaywood stated that in the calculations by staff she would suggest that the City reservoir and golf r.ourse not be made a part of the acreage computation since it could not be considered the residential portion. Commissioner Allred noted that that portion within the City of Orange's sphere of inEluence should also be excluded from consideration in this new data of density. Commissioner Rowland of£ered a motion to continue consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 123-A readvertised to the meeting of June 12, 1972, in order to allow sufficient time for staf£ to re-calculate the densities incorporating only those areas under the City of Anaheim's sphere of influence, deleting in the ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-296 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A (Continued) total acreage those portions developed with the City golf course and the City reservoir and for a special finding to be made a part of the General Plan amendment consideration of a special seismic study report to be submitted to the Commission for approval pricr to any approval of development in the canyon. Commissioner Kaywood seconr~ed the motioa. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Chairman Farano recessed the meeting for dinner at 6:35 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Fara.no reconvened the meeting at 5:10 p.m., all Commissioners being rresent. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROY W. MABEE, 841 South Western Avenue, PERMIT NO. 1309 Anaheim, California 92804, Owner; JOSEPH E. BONADIMAN & ASSOCIATES, 1265 Kendall Drive, San Bernardino, California 92407, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A TRAVEL TRAILER PARK on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.3 acres having a frontage of approximately 144 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 547 feet, and being located approximately 700 feet west of the center- line of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2645 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and one person indicated his presence. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to establish a 70-unit travel trailer park for recreational vehicles in addition to a two-story, 1680-square foot recreation building, having the main entrance in the center of the frontage along Lincoln Avenue; that the applicant was conforming to the ~5-foot setback along Lincoln Avenue and had provided a minimum of 17 feet of landscaping in the setback area; that an additional 5 feet of landscaping was also provided along the periphery of all property lines; that all of the spaces would be 20 feet wide. and 38 of these spaces would be 30 feet deep while 32 of the spaces would be 35 feet deep; that the plans also show that 20 of the spaces would contain ap~.roximately 600 square feet and 50 spaces would contain approximately 1080 square feet; that the Commission in the past had approved 600 to 620-square foot spaces for campers for a portion of proposed spaces in a trailer park; and that the Com- mission would have to determine whather or not this was the proper location for a travel trailer park. Mr. Joseph Bonadiman, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had read the conditions and had discussed them with staff and concurred with all of the recommendations, thereforer he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. C. Van Dusen. 2652 Yale Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that the width of his property abutted subject property to the north where single-family dwellings in the price range o£ $25,000 =o $33,000 were located; that subject property was also bounded by apartment structures, and the camper-trailer park would be for people spending one or two nights in an area; that it was a well kept, quiet, reserved com:aunity; that recreational vehicles were made for outdoors, mountains, and deserts where outdoor sports were prevalent, and the area proposed was not an outdoor area but a quiet community needed to rear childzen, not for overnight visitors; that the resi- den~s of this area had invested their money and paid their taxes and were a stable element of tne community; that he would not reside in this area if the camper-trailer park were approved since there would be considerable noises from the trailers being hitched and unhitched; that the sanitary facilities were rather limited, and those available appeared to be somewhat primitive; ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2-29~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1309 (Continued) that the trailer park did not belong in a single-family neighborhood; and that he wanted to urge the Commission to weigh the social implications and consider the residents who had moved into the single-family homes as well as the apart- ments because of the quiet, conservative neighborhood where no delinquency problems were apparent. Furthermore, itinerant people were not needed in this area since they did not vote nor did they pay taxes; that the proposed devel- opment was by people who did not reside in this area but lived out of town, therefore, he would request that the Comnission deny subject petition. Mr. Sonadiman, in rebuttal, stated he could appreciate the opposition's concern, but they had faced the same concern in other areas with mobilehome parks, apartment projects, etc., and he would like to state for the opposition, to vnderstand what they ~aere proposing, there would be no owners of these types of vehicles who woulii be gynsies - these would not be itinerants or migrant workers at the gark; that his concern regarding the sanitary facilities could be allayed since they were providing full water, ~ewer, and electrical facili- ties, as w~ll as a restroom over and above State requirements; that the park would be landscaped, paving on the lots and concrete rolled gutters; that they were the engineers on this project, and the owner still resided in Anaheim and has owned this property for a number of years, also paying considerable taxes on the property but was interested in the growth of the area, therefore, if the Commission had questions to askr this would conclude his statement. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred noted that the petitioner had proposed travel trailer lots of less than 800 square feet and asked whether the pai~k could be redesigned to provide a minimum of 800 square feet per lot. Mr. Bonadiman stated that there was in excess of 50 lots that were over the 800-square foot minimum, and those lots that were less than 800 square feet were motor home and camper lots, and that they had some lots that would take the largest trailer that could be pulled. Commissioner Seymour noted that in reviewing the plans, it appeared the peti- tioner was providing 5£eet of landscaped buffer along the north adjacent to the single-family homes and 5 feet of landscaped buffer on the west side adjacent to the apartments; and did Mr. Bonediman, being an experienced mobile- home and travel trailer park designer and who was present when the Commission was creating the Travel Trailer Ordinance, feel the 5 feet of landscaping proposed a sufficient buffer? Mr. Bonadiman stated that they felt the north end would be the most critical, and they had provided parking spaces and had more than 5 feet of landscaping in addition to the driveway. Commissioner Seymour then noted that the agent should be advised of the prece- dent in the past wherein the Commission had approved R-3 adjacent to R-1 and had required them to provide a 20-~oot buffer zone between the two residential zones; whereupon Mr. Bonadiman stated that they had attempted to adhere to the Travel Trailer Ordinance. Com~:issioner Seymour then observed that perhaps he had adhered to the ordinance, but this might be the wrong location for a travel trailer park. Commissioner Gauer observed that if subject property were developed under the C-1 Zone existing on the property, they would have to provide a minimum of 20 feet of landscaping between subject property and the single-family property to the north. Chairman Farano noted that under C-1 zoning the type of parking would be in the nature of automobile parking rather than camper parking overnight; that space 15 on the plans was within 5£eet; that a 9~ix8-foot trash receptacle was located immediately adjacent to the wall o£ the R-1; that he had pulled many a trailer into a trailer p~rk at 2:00 a.m., and he could think of nothing more noisy at night than to hook up and drain the trailer and put jacks undernesth it, affecting the residential living environment of those properties located • s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~2'298 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1309 (Continued) to the north or anywhere near an R-1 property, particularly campers within 5 feet of the property line - this was an observation of fact since he had done this type of camping too many times - even as another camper he had been awakened at 3:00 a.m, with headlights, noise, and clatter normal for setting up a camping area, and being one of them, he could feel for the people living adjacent to th~s property who were not overnight guests of a trailer park. Mr. Bonadiman stated that they could increase the tree planting in the bufEer area. Chairman Farano noted that, in his opinion, in this location there was considQr- able that had to be done to improve the situation; that it had a number of natural problems at its best use, and a even a 20-foot buffer would not sati~fy him. Mr. Bonadiman noted that this was similar to one he had designed on the west side of aeach Boulevar~i where they had single-family homes on one side to the north; that the use was always a factor to consider in all of their parks by the honest concern for the people - they could argue whether this use would be more of a problem than might arise if the property were developed under its preaent zoning since it could be opened up to more intense uses; and that he could disagree on whether this was a proper location for this type of facility. Commissioner Seymour noted that this particular development, in his opinion, was in the wrong area; that it was not compatible with the existing uses and would be detrimental to the values of the properties to the north as well as to the west; that the area did not lend itself for a travel trailer park; that there were other places in the city that were more practical for this type of use; that he could see no way the Commission could approve something that provided less of a buffer than other uses. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-105 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1309 on the basis that the noises from the trailers being hitched and unhitched durinq the hours of arrival late at night would be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of the adjoining single-family homes, as well as the apartments; that the proposed use was incompatible with the existing land uses in the area due to the noise of vehicles being started and the hours of arrival and departure; that the proposed use would create a severe loss in property value of the adjoining residential uses; that the petitioner was providing less buffezing between the proposed use and the residential use than the Commission required where multiple-family and single-family uses abutted each other; and that the proposed use was a much more intense use than residential uses exist- ing in the area. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call, the Commissioner,sfurther discussed comparison of the uses within the existing C-1 Zone compared to a travel trailer oark development, Commissioner Seymour being of the opiaion that he could not imagine any C-1 use abutting the R-1 that would be as offensive as a travel trailer park; that just because the parcel had a particular zone did not mean the Commission should consider alternate uses since that was the wrong way to approach development of the parcel; and that the Commission should not be negative because of the zoning on the property. Commissioner Allred noted that there was little R-1 immediately adjacent; that there was R-3 and C-1 to the west and the flood control channel and Lincoln Avenue and a church to thb, south and east; whereupon Commissioner Seymour said that although there were 36 apartments to the west, if anyone would live around the travel tsailer park with people leaving at odd hours, he would not be able to have liis proper rest, and even Mr. Eonadiman agreed that guests at a travel trailer park left at all hours, and he would hate to live on Yale Avenue when people came in with their trailers if a bedroom was located immediately adjacent to the gark, having to listen to the motors being revved +ip, backing up, and even people talking would be disruptive to the general health. peace, and welfare of the residents o£ this area. ~ ~ ~ MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-299 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1309 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow^.ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, He~'~st. Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN BIBLE SCHOOL~ 1345 PERMIT N0. 1312 South Hurlington Avenue, Los An,eles, California 90006, Owner; HOWARD M. ULBERG, 1934 Queen Anne's Walk, Pomona, California 91767, Agent; requesting permi~~io~i to ESTAE:.I~„ A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WITH WAIVER OF (1) MAXI~IUM BUILPING HEIGHT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (2) MINIMUM SETBACK Fi20M RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO THE PARKING AREA on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 337 feet on the west side o£ Western Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 618 feet, and being located ayproximately 345 feet south of the center- line of Orange Avenue and further described as 63Y South Western Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Maynard Force, President of California Lutheran Bible School, appeared before the Commission and noted that their present location was in Los Angeles and their enrollment was 150 students; that their school was 21 years old, and they thought of moving into this area having approximately 5 acres; that this would be similar to a junior college, being a two-year school; that the boys' dormitory would be in nearest corner and the girls' dormitory at the opposite end, and at the very top would be the gymnasium, library, and administration building. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted that it appeased there was a lack of consideration of the single-family homes around this proposed school in the design since nathing was provided; whereupon Mr. Force stated that they planned to have only one-story buildings adjacent to the R-1; that the architect had designed in accordance with the rules; and that two-story buildings would be located toward the center. ' Chairman Farano i.nquired where the one and two stories were proposed and how high were those buildings; whereupon Mr. Force indicated where these buildings were, and Chairman Farano then stated that the residents to the west would have a 10-foot building facing them - would these buildings have any windows there? Mr. Force replied that they had not gone into the details, but he was sure there would be buildings with windows. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the reason for the height waiver was not because of the dormitories bet because the gymnasium was located at the property line and would be approximately 20 feet high, while Code re- quired that any building 20 feet high would be required to set back 40 feet. Commissioner Herbst observed that a gymnasium would create a considerable amount o£ noise because of ~he screaming during participation of any sports, and he would not like to livt next door since no buffering was provided. Mr. Force then stated that he saw no reason why the building could not be moved farther to the center, with additional open space being provided between the building and the fence. Commissioner Gauer observed that with Western Avenue on the east and the Oran3e County Flood Control District on the north, it would appear that the buildings could be relocated and an attempt made to preserve the residential integrity of the area. ~ .,~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-300 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1312 (Continued) Commissioner Rllred stated that he would presume that in the future there would be an increase in enrollment, and this facility might be inadequate. Mr. Force replied that they were a bible school with college subjects, each student given specialized training, therefore, they did not want this school to become too large; that they taught on the college level, a regular curricu- l+im, study of the bible, public speaking, etc. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the petitioner would be agreeable to a one-month continuance to work out the problems mentioned by the planning staff. Mr. Force noted that they had just graduated their most recent class, and they were through for the summer, therefore, he did not think tney would be able to have anpone present since he was leaving town for the summer. The Commission then inquired whether or not Mr. Force could have some responsi- ble representative be present and have this continued in order to have the plans redrawn; whereupon Mr. Force agreed to said continuance. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue c~nsideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1312 to the meeting of June 12, 1972, in order to allow the petitioner time to meet with st~~.ff and xevise plans so as to relocate the buildings and prevent any undesirable encroachment on the single-family environment to the west. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT S. TOUSSAU, P. O. Box K. Piru, NO. 71-72-45 California 93040, Owneri COVINGTON BROTHERS, P. O. Box 3128, Fullerton, California 92634, Agent; property VARIANCE NO. 2364 described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.5 acres, having a frontage TENTATIVE MAP OF of approximately 503 feet on the east side of Sunkist TRACT NO. 6931, Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 633 feet, REVISION NO. 1 and being located approximately 250 feet north of the centerlir..e of Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A~ AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIr2CATTON: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND (2) MINIMUM LOCAL STREET SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A 22-LOT FOURPLEX SUBDIVZSION. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: Lander Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, Califo'rnia 92801; proposal to subdivide subject property into 22 R-3 zoned lots. Chairman Farano inquired whether anyone was present in opposition, and a show- ing of hands indicated five persons present. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximitp, previous zoning action on the property, noting that a reclassification and conditional use permit for a 166-unit planned residential development had been deniei. in 1968, and as a result o£ that request, General Plan Amendment No. 110 and Area Development Plan No. 45 were ir.itiated by staff; that the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 110, Exhibit "C", which reflected the area in question as being appsopriate for low-medium residential development, and the General Plan currently reflected that designation; that Area Development Pian No. 45, Exhibit "A", was adopted by the City Councii reflecting the extension of Hilda Street from its present terminus to Sunkist Street; that in 1969 a reclassi- fication and variance were approved establishing a 35-lot, single-family subdivision on the property, however, an ordinance had never been read; that further reclassification to R-3 zoning with the construction of a 157-unit apartment complex had also been denied in 1971; that the applicant was pro- posing to reclassify this property to the R-3 Zone and develop it with a ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI4b1ISSI0N, May 15, 1972 72-301 RELCAS~IFICATION N0. 71-72-45, VARIANCE NO. 2364~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6931, REVISION NO. 1(Continued) 22-lot, fourplex subdivision, plaas indicatiag that all units within 150 feet of the single-family residential zone wculd be one-story structsres, and the remainder would be two-story structures; that the entire project would be developed at a density of 14.1 dwelling units per net acre or 3097 square feet of net land area per dweZling unit; that the proposed density was within the designated low-medium density of the General Plan, however, the zoning requested would allow densities greater than that proposed; that the plan also reflected the extension of Hilda Street in canformity with the adopted area development plan; that waiver of the minimum building site width was requested for one lot on a straight street and one lot in a knuckle, or two lots in the 22-lot sub- division, and the reduction in lot width would not appear to be detrimental in this instance; that the reduction of the side setback was being requested in three instances where the applicant was proposing open parking stalls adjacent to the garage in the side setback area; that the applicant was proposing a 7-foot green area between the parking stall and the right-of-way line, and in one instance the garage was within 10 feet of the right-of-way line, with the entire 10 feet being landscaped; that the Commission might wish to consider these two waivers to be appropriate in light of the recent approval of similar requests on the south side of Ball Road for the same developer; and that the Commission might wish to consider this proposal to be in conformity with the projected development for the property. Mr. Dick Edge, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, representing the agent for the peti- tioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the project before them was similar to the many requests before the Commission by Covington Brothers with one exception, those units adjacent to the existing R-1 properties would be single-story construction, and this represented half of the density of the remainder of the tract; that each building shown represented four separate units, one of the units would be single-story and the others would be two-story; that the entire four units would be sold to one party; that the property would be maintained by the property owner; that it was not intended to have a home- owners association for this complex; that Covington Brothers had been develop- ing similar projects for the past twelve years and had developed more than 2,000 units in Orange County; that they had maintained a vacancy factor of their fourplexes which indicated a vacancy of approximately 1$, while other apartment units had a 10+t factor; that he had lived in one of these fourplex apartments and found it to his taste; that this type of development was far superior to large apartment complexes; that in the laycut of the tract they had tried to take into account all of the requirements set forth by the City staff - they were providing a street through the project leading from the R-1 to Sunkist Street, however, they would be happy to cul-de-sac this street so that it would not run into the R-1 area; that buildings adjacent to the R-1 were single-story; that there would be fewer residents in those units immediately adjacent to the R-1 than if the property were developed for R-1 purposes; that they were provid- ing a 20-foot buffer strip between the R-1 and the R-3; and that the remainder of the development was in accordance with Covi.ngton Brothers standards, and he was available to answer questions. Mr. Don McGuire, 1161 South Hilda Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that although staff had indicated the R-1 Zone had been applied £or, this was never acted on or finalized by the petitioner; whe~'eupon 7,oaing Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that in 1969 a reclassification to the R-1 Zone, subdividing the property into 35 single-family lots, had been approved, however, the petitioner had never proceeded with development of it. Mr. McGuire stated that the area in question was primarily single-family homes except to the west side of Sunkist Street and on the south side of Ball Road, therefore, he would request that the single-family 2one be continued because of the existi.ng land uses; that the developer had indicated they would cul-de- sac Hilda Street where it was projected northeasterly, however, there already was a semi-cul-de-sac there and was buffe.red with a£ence and inquired that if the petitioner was prooosing to place a cul-de-sac on his property, would the existing cul-de-sac remain. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-302 RECLASSIFICATION I30. 71-72-45, VARIANCE NO. 2364~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6931, REVISION N0. 1(Continued) The Commission advised Mr. McGuire that Hilda Street deadended at subject property line and did not have a cul-de-sac. Mr. McGuire then inquired whethex the street wuuld still deadend since they were single-family kiomeowners anfi were concerned about the traffic that would be coming from the southwest, and, of course. he would not want to see a trailer park as was previously proposed to move next door to them in the event the Commission determined they wanted to continue sub~ect petition for revised plans. Mr. Roberts noted that the plans indicated Hilda Street extending through subject property and connecting with the stub end of the existing Hilda Street. Mr. McDaniel noted that the developer had stated that if the City were willing he would cul-de-sac the street only. Mr. Roberts noted that the City Council took action on the area development plan in 1971, establishing the fact that this street should be extended from its present terminus to Sunkist Street. Furthermore, the area development pian depicted low density, but the General Plan depictel low-medium. Chairman Farano noted that the Planning Commi.ssion had proposed commercial along the frontage of Sall Road, then a tier of R-2-5000 between commercial and the extension of Hilda Street, and R-1 to the north of this extension; and that the Planning Commission in 1968 had proposed low density north of Hilda Street. Mr. Roberts noted that in order tc implement the R-2-5000, subject property would have to be reclassified to the R-2 Zone. Chairman Farano further noted that General Plan Amendment No. 110 indicated what the Commission's intent was and took into consideration the fact that apartments were developed to the west on Sunkist Street and on the south side of Ball Road; that the Commission in the past had attempted to protect the single-family properties, and he hoped the Commi.ssion would continue to limit multiple-family homes to the south side of Ball Road and the west side of Sunkist Street. Mr. Edge, in rebuttal, stated that it would appear to him that the project they proposed in itself represented a buffer from one density to another; that they were proposing single-story within 150 feet of the single-family homes, which represented about S units per acre, while the remaining units would be approxi- mately 14 units per acre and would be adjacent to the commercial property; that it would appear undesirable to have single-family homes adjacent to the C-1, therefore, it would seem that the proposal was more logical from a density standpoint than one from R-1 to commercial property, and regardless of whether these were 5000-square foot lots or 7000-square foot lots, the properties would be purchased, and they were offering an option to the people to move, whereas if the homes were parchased, this would be more difficult, particularly where homes woald be adjacent to the C-1 property - furthermore, these homes would be more dif£icult to sell after the owners of these properties found out they could not stand the noises frum being adjacent to C-1; that the owner of these units wou].d usually be in the front apartment facinq the street, and the balance would be rented. Commissioner Herbst noted that there would be four families backing up to the single-family homes; whereupon Mr. Edge stated that there would be two families adjacent to the R-1 and two units to the rear of these, therefore, there really would be only two families facing them. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Thompson noted that the statement made by Chairman Farano that the uses depicted along Ball Road were C-1. then low-medium density and low density was correct. ~ ~ MINU'CES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-303 RE,.ASSIFICATION NO, 71-72-45, VARIANCE N0. 2364, AND TENTATIV~ MAP OF TRACT N0. 6931, REVISION NO. 1(Continued) Chairman Farano then noted a statement was made that the area development plan did not provide for low density but only as far as the Hilda Street portion north~ that pr~perties to the north of Hilda Street should be R-1, and if this were to be changed, then there should be another public hearing on the General Plan Amendment No. 110. Mr. Roberts noted that if the Commission so desired, they cou13 approve densi- ties greater than low density for subject property. Commissioi~er Rowland noted that it might ba a proper procedure, but from a standpoin: cf policy, it would be rather unique; that Area Development Plan No. 45 established circulation from a sing'_e-family through multiple-family, and, historically, the City had never oonnected sinq~e-family and multiple•- family circulation elements, and he could e•ren point to a simi.lar situation in the development proposed at Kellogg Drive and Orangethorpe Avenue wherein C-1 was proposed at the corner and low-medium density with R-2-5000 development around it, and he felt that was the thinking of the Commiss9.on when this was considered previously; that he had a well-known aversion to standard R-3 develoFment; that the Commission had a choice since Area Development Plan No. 45 was approved a year ago, and the City Council had confirmed the Commission's action on General Plan Amendment No. 110, which reflected the Iow-medium density adjacent to the commercial and low density north nf Hilda Drive extended; that the Commission had some very specific ideas about circulation and the principle the Commission had adhered to with reasonable consistency in the past and had been evidenced in 1971 where R-2-5000 was proposed as a buffer for C-1. Chairman Farano nated tliat in reviewing the minutes of the action on subject property which occucred in 1968, these reflected that about 75 persons were in o~position to heavier ~':.nsity, and the City Council had affirmed the Com- mission's position of retaining low density on the east side of Sunkist Street, and ~:h~ only reason a change was considered for the property adjacent to the commercial use was the fact that a service station had been approved at that corner with a narrow commercial strip adjacent to the freeway o£f-ramp, there- ~ore, the Commission felt that a low-medium buffer would be acceptr.ble below Hilda Street. However, everythinq north of Hilda Street would remain low ciensity. Com•uissioner Herbst noted that the propo~al was multiple-family residential us_> adjacent to single-family homes; that trash storage areas were adjacent to tne :.ingle-fam:ly homes; that there would be four units with their trash next to the single-family h~mes; and that he could see nothing different in chis proposal from previous proposals - there were too many people and not sufficient buffering between the R-1 and the R-3. Commissioner Giuer inquired whether the petitioner would be willing to consider R-2-5000 for subject proper*_y; khereupon Commissioner Herbst stated that in his own mind there was no reasor for continuance of the petition since anything north of Hilda Street should remain R-1. Mr. Edge advised the Commission that if the Commi~sion were considering low density for the property, the ~eople he represented were not interested in building R-1 since Covington Brothers built only apartments. Chairman Farano noted that according to all documents connected with this property, namely the General Plan amenfi.~,ent which depicted land use and the area development plan which provide3 cir~~^'.~L•,'.^n, botn indicated commercial uses along Ball Road anci R-2-5000 :z? to Hilda btree~, •aith R-1 to the north of Hilda Street all the way to abutting the R-1 to tha north uf subject pro~,erty; and that although medium density, R-3 had been discussed, it was never seriously considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Herbst offered Reso'lution No. PC72-106 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Reclassification No. 71-72-45 on the basis that no land use change had taken place since the Planning Commissiun and City Council had considered General Plan Amendment ~ * ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-304 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-45~ VARIANCE NO. 2364, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6931, REVISION N0. 1(Continued) No. 110, which projected C-1 for the Ball Road frontage, low-medium density or R-2-5000 abutting the C-1, and single-famiiy, 7200-square foot lots north of Hilda Street; and that no land use change had taken place to warrant favorable consideration of a heavier density for subject property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolut±.on No. PC72-107 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2364 on the basis that the existing zoning would aot permit the waivers being requested. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca.ll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONF.RS: Allred, Farano, Ga+ser, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissio~.er Kaywood offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 6931, Revision No. 1, on the basis that the existing zoning would not permit sub- divison as proposed. Commissioner Seymour seconded the a~otion. MOTION CARF.IED. RECLASSIFICnTION - PUBLIC HEARING. MARGA:2ETE L. NIQUETTE, 2224 South Spinnaker NO. 71-72-4E Street, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage VARIANCE NO. 2366 of approximately 105 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 115 ieet, being located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Spinnaker Street, and further described as 707 East Orangewood Avenue. Property presentiy classi.fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (2) VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN ALLEY ONLY TO ESTABLISH A 9-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and two persons indicated their presence. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and noted that no previous zoning actions had been initiated on the property; that the petitioner was proposing to reclassify the prcperty to R-3 and construct a 9-unit apartment building; that the three floor plans being provided would contain 700, 840, and 850 square feet of floor area; that four of the proposed units would be above garages, two of the units would be above an additional two units, and one unit was proposed as a studio-type apaxtment; that the major parking areas were provided off Spinnaker Street and the existing alley to the north; and that five oE the proposed parking stalls would take direct access to Spinnaker Street; Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the Anahein~, General Plan designated the area in question as being approp::iate for medium density resi- dential development; that the R-3 Zone would implemer.t the General Plan desig- nat~.on; that waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-305 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-46 AND VARIANCE N0. 2366 (Continued) R-1 was being requested because the applicant was proposing 5 two-story units within 105 feet of the single-family residential developmeat to the south; that this development was proposed at a density of 32 units ger net acre and a coverage of 47+k; that waiver of the location of the vehicular accessway was being requested because the applicant was providing direct access from Spinnaker Street to the 5 stalls frontinq Spinnaker Street; that the Code would require access from the alley in addition to not allowing the setback area along Spin- naker Street to be paved; that the surrounding development to the west and north was multiple-family consistina of fourplexes and sixplexes on similar size lots, and it would appear that this proposal of 9 units would be inappropriate based upon surrounding land uses, and by reducing the density to more in keeping with the surrounding densities, the applicant could eliminate the two requested waivers, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider the appropriateness of cor.tinuing this request so that the applicant might redesign the plan to conform with the R-3 standards. Chairman Farano noted for the representative of the petitioner that he undoub±- edly heard the comments of the Commission and the views expressed 1+y the Commission regarding the R-3 standards, therefore, any presentation should be limited to explaining the proposal as it pertained to the evaluation of the request. Mr. Allan Nel, 12791 Newport Avenue, Tustin, appeared before the Commission and noted that according to the evaluation, paragraph 7, this proposal met the intent of the Generalp-an, although they were infringing on the single-family units to the south; that instead of applying for 10 units allowed by the R-3 density, they proposed 9 units in order to present a more aPSthetically pleas- ing development and better vehicular functioning; that he could not find any sixplexes on 7000-square foot lots in the area, and if that were so, then since subject property was 12,000 square feet, it would appear they were only l~s the size of those lots having sixplexes; that as to redesign, they were proposing tile roofs and privacy along the main street, and if single-story were required along the frontage, this would present a rather flat-roof, unattractive appear- ance to the single-family homes to the south; that if the development were re- located farther to the north, this would destroy some rather old, existing trees, and since he was ir.terested in the ecology, he decided to de~ign around these trees and retain them; that there was a trailer park to the east, there- fore, the use they proposed would not be objectionable; and that he had slides that would demonstrate what his plans proposed. Commissioner Rowland observed that the plans presented demonstrated the con- clusions and thinking of the developer and inquired whether Y.a had ever devel- oped in Anaheim before, and received a negative response. The petitioner further noted that the old house had been condemned •snd should be torn down, and by permitting the variance, they would be improving the area; that he did not intend to have any windows facing the trailer park to the east and toward the R-1 this would be landscaped; and that he felt they had done an adequate job in providing buffering as it pertained to this odd-shaped parcel. Mrs. John MacY.in, 2102 South Spinnaker Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that their home was located on the southeast corner of Spinnaker Street and Orangewood Avenue, directly across from subject property; that she had a petition from the residents on Spinnaker Street with 22 signa- tures representing 22 homes, however, she co~ild not get all of the people residing on Spinnaker Street to sign the petition; that she was opposed to the variance request but not opposed to the R-3; that they felt the property should be reclassified to R-2; that nine apartments on a parcel of land approximately 105 x 115 feet when compared with other apartments in the area was too great; and that the R-2 would permit 2400-squaYe foot units xather than the 1200 square foot pro~: sed; that she was opposed to two-story construction within 150 feet oE single-family homes; that although the petitioner stated the two-story would be 130 feet from the R-1, subjer.t property rose approximately 3 feet above tlie street, leaving a grade differential and making the property higher by looking dowr. on their property; that when developers built the existing apartments on Spinnaker Stxeet, they placed a duplex on the northwest corner, at which ~ .~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 19i2 72-306 RECLASSIFICATTON N0. 71-72-46 AND VARIANCE NO. 2366 (Continued) time they had also offered a reasonable price for the property under considerati so that the property would be similar and uniform, therefore, she could see no reason for approving the variance request since all apartments along Orangewo Avenue snd Haster Street had to meet R-3 standards. Mr. Nel, in rebuttal, stated that one home in the R-1 had its zear yard approxi- mately 150 feet from subject :~erty, and the only one that was affected would be the Mackin property, however, there was going to be landscaping, and the Mackin property was also densely landscaped; that mention of the apartments on Haster and Orangewood Avenue was rather far-fetched since these were a censider- able distance away, and some of those apartments were two and three stories in height with R-1 across the street, however, this was done while the properties were still in the County; and that they planned to retain these apartments and did not plan to sell them. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Commission had not deviated from the 150-foot setback except for one recently located o1 La Palma Avenue where e corner of the apartment projected is.:to the setback area. Chairman Farano noted that the waiver was permitted only where property adjacent to the residential use, although occupied by single-family residents. w~xs pro- jected on the General Plan for commercial or medium-density residential use, or where an R-A parcel had a resolution o£ intent to R-3. The petitioner noted that there had never been an offar to purchase subject property, as had been stated by the opposition, but he wanted the Commission to take into consideration what they were proposing, and if they were immediately adjacent to the R-1, then he would not consider building two-story structures, but since they were across the street and the landscaping was so dense one could not see through it, the need foi the height limitation appeared negligible. The Commission discussed the proposal, noting that there was no opposition to the R-3 since that was the proper zoning for the property, however, the peti- tioner had not demonstrated a har3ship existed as to irregularity of the property or a deep narrow parcel, just the convenience of the applicant to waive this setback. Chairman Farano inquired of the petitioner whether he wanted subject petitions continued for the submission of revised plans; whereupon Mr. Nel stated that if the waivers were denied and redesign would be require3, then the trees that he had spoken of would be destroyed since they couid not plan around the trees, stating that there were approximately 30 palm trees an~ 2 large berry trees which made their property very attractive. Commissioner Gauer inquired how many units would be lost if the petitioner were required to provide single-story within the 150 feet; whereupon Mr. Nel replied they would lose three apartments. Chairman Farano noted that 32 units per acre appeared to be quite dense; where- upon Mr. NeI stated that there were 6 units on 7000 square feet, and this property was 12,000 square feet, therefore, he felt the density Has approximately Che same. Commissioner Herbst noted that those lots having 6 units on 7U00 square feet were not within 150 feet of the single-family zone, and the property on the west side of Spinnaker Street had complied with the requirements of the zone, building single-story construction within 150 feet; and that the petitioner was requesting a variance and not meeting the Code as the Commission was requesting. Commissioner Seymour noted that the property to the west had only 3 units compared to the proposed de~elopment of 9 units; whereupon Mr. Nel r^nlied that the 3 units that would be two-story would provide some sort of '~uffering from the more intense uses in the R-1; and t:iat the other apartme':tt elopments had minimal landscaping. ~ ... ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-307 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-46 AND VARIANCE N0. 2366 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Reclassification No. 7Z-72-45. Discussion was held by the Commission regardinq the motion by Commissioner Rowland, and several Commissioners noted they preferred to see development plans rather than granting blanket R-3 zoning for the pxoperty; whereupon Commissioner Rowland withdrew his motion of approval. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-108 and moved Eor its passage and adoption to recomraend to the City Council disapproval of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-46 on the basis that the density proposed was greater than projected in the area; that the proposal would be encroaching upon the residential integrity of the single-family homes to the south; and that the petitioner was reluctant to meet Code requirements by declining to have a continuance of the petition in order to resolve the questions brought before the Commission. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pzssed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONIiRS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-109 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2366 on the basis that the petitioner declined meeting the one-story height limitation ~vithin 150 feet of R-l, and that the peti::ioner had not demonstrated a hardship existed to warrant favorabie consideration of the waiver. (See Resolution Book) On roll call *he foregoing resolution was passed by the fallowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIOP:ERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. PTOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. THOMAS SARAC, JR., 849 Roxanne Avenue, NO. 71-72-47 Long Beach, California 90815, Owner; JAMES L. GLOVER, 9763 Candlewood Avenue, Cucamonga, California 91786, Agent; VARIANCE N0. 2369 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of ap~,roximately 108 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 450 feet and being located approximately 1,015 feet east of the centerline of Knott Avenue and further described as 3340 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSZPICATION: R-3~ MULTtPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OP A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (71 MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUC'SION OF A 32-UNIT APARTMENT COMPI,EX. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. James Glover, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he was the proposed builder of the project and was available to answer questions. TH~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, May 15, 1972 ~Z ~v8 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-47 AND VARIANCE NO. 2369 (Continued) Mr. Glover noted for the Commission the purpose for asking for waiver of the one-story height limitation was the fact that a similar variance had been qranted the property to the west a short time ago. A gentleman in the audience indicated that this had been considered by the City Council over a year ago because a request for an extension of time had been requested of the City Council. The Commission reviewed the previous action in granting waiver of the one-story height limitation and noted that the findings of the Planning Commission indi- cated that only one part of a unit on the southerly tip of the proposal which was adjacent to the flood control channel was waived, but nothing had been waived from the R-1 property to the nortii, and then inquired whether the peti- tioner would prefer a continuance in order to revise plans. Commissioner Rowland noted that the petitioner or his agent was taking a calculated risk by asking for the variance under consideration, and this was, in his estimation, a big fishing expedition, and the Commission might be able to lower the number of fishing expeditions if these waivers were not granted - perhaps there would be more realistic presentations te the Commission. The Commission noted that the reclassification of the property to R-3 appeared to be appropriate, and since the size of the land was sufficiently large to develop in accordance with Code, perhaps the Commission should grant only the reclassification, and if the petitioner still wanted the variance, he would have to ask for these waivers. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions fer Reclassification No. 71-72-47 and Variance No. 2369 to the meeting of May 31, to al'.ow the petitioner time to revise plans. Upon being informed by staff that plans would have to be submitted by Friday o£ this week. Commissioner Seymc>ur withdrew his motion. Commissioner Seymour then in~xuired whether the petitioner tiould comply with meeting the one-story height limitation on both the north and south Boundaries; whereupon Commissioner Allred noted that the petitioner would have to request a variance in the event one unit infringed within 15 feet of the required one- story height limitation. Mr. Glover advised the Commission that the waiver of the minimum distance between buildings, in his estimation, was not necessary since this would have a roof extending across the buildings; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that there would be no roof as this was a hallway. Commissioner Kaywo~~d inquired whether or not it was intended to r•~tain the euc~is~~e~es.,',w iereupon Mr. Glover stated they would • Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-110 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petit?on for Reclassification No. 71-72-47 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Ieesolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by t;ia following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-111 and moved £or its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2369 on the basis that the proposed two-story units at the north and south ends of the property will disrupt the residential integrity of the adjacent single-family residential uses; that granting the waivers without sufficient substantiating evidence would be granting a privilege to the petitioner not enjoyed by othezs; ~., l~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITF PLANNING COMMISSION, May 15, 1972 72-309 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-47 AND VARIANCE NO. 2369 (Continued) that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi*.ions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question; and that the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property os improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. (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: COMMZSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t:0. 1301 (Ledger Smith- Anaheim Tennis Club) - Property located at the northwest corner of Katella and Howell Avenues on the north side of Howell Avenue, approximately 835 feet west of Katella Avenue - Request for review and approval of proposed uses. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted for the Commission that the use proposed by the tennis club in accordance with Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. PC72-71 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1301 required the submission of a list of specific uses to be approved by the Planning Commission, and these uses were as set forth in the Report to the Commission and were the s°.me uses as had beer submitted with the apglication except that jai alai, roller derbies and mini-rodeos had been deleted, and that the petitioner had stipulated at the April 17, 1972 meeting that both jai alai and roller derbies would be deleted, as well as those games where gambling would be invol.ved. Therefore, the Planning Commission would have to determine whether or not these uses should be approved. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve the submitted list of uses as required under Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. PC72-71 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1361. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1225 (Brookhurst Apartment Fand, Ltd.) - Request for an extension of time - Property located on the south side of Crescent Avenue approximately 400 feet east of Brookhurst Street and developed with an apa.:ment complex. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the request for a five-year extension of time for the operation of a child care center serving primarily the tenants of an apartment complex, said use being approved by the City Council on April 20, 1971; that Condition No. 6 of City Council Resolution No. 71R-150 stated that the conditional use permit was granted for one year subject to a request for renewal by the petitioner, and this condition further stated that the use may be reviewed and considered for an additional period if the Planning Commission determined that the use had had no adverse efEects upon the surround- ing area; that a field inspection of the site was made, revealing that the present day care center was utilized by 20 children; that an enclosed area had been set aside adjacent to the day care center for outdoor recreation; that the area was well maintained, containing various outdoor play equipment; that the indoor area was neatly arranged and appeared to afford an adequate area for the children's activities; and that the day care center was licensed by the State and was supervi~ed by at least two instructors who wc:re on the premises at the time of the inspection. Therefore, in the staff's evaluation of this inspection, ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. May 15, 1972 72-310 ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) it would appear that the day care center had no adverse effects upon the sur- rounding c.rea, rather it provided a needed service to the occupants of the apartment development. Therefore, the Commission might wish to recommend to the City Council that a five-year extension of time be granted, to expire on April 20, 1977. Commissioner Rowlanft offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that a five-year extensic•i of time be granted for the use of the prop~rty for a child day care center approved by the ~i~p Council April 20, 1971, under Conditional Use Permit No. 1225; that a field inspection had been made in which it was determined that the day care center had no adverse effects upon the surrounding area and provided +i needed service to the occupants of the apartments. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Chairman Farano voted no.) ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-20 (Boisseranc - Westfield Urban Company) - Request for approval of revised plans - Prop~rty located at the southeast corner of the Artesia Freeway and Dale Street - Proposing to establish a planned residential development. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed ~he ~ocation of subjer.t property, uses established in close proximity, previous Commission action on the p~operty, noting that under the reclassification and the conditional use permit the petitioner had proposed to establish a 179-unit planned residential develop- ment; that the conditional use permit was granted in part, subject to condi- tions; that Waiver 1-d, minimum distance of two-story structures from R-1, was denied, and the City Council, upon its own motion, elected to review the action of the Plann~.ng Commission at a public hearing held on January 11, 1972, and granted the conditional use permit with all waivers as submitted; that tkee property's westerly bo,undary was located adjacent to the City of Buena Park, and that city would be Lhe jurisdiction that would provide utilities and services to the project, however, the City of Buena Park had expressed concern regarding the fiensity and traffic that would be generated by this development; that the petitioner had submitted revised plans which indicated a reduction in the number of units from 179 to 160, the density per net acre being reduced from 12 to 10.75 units, and an increase in the number of guest parking spaces from 103 to 116. Furthermore, the City of Buena Pa~c, in a phone call to staff, ;~ad indicated that they would supply the necessary utilities for this project if the plans were reduced to 160 units. Therefore, the Commission might con- sider trese revised plans to be substantially in accordance with the approved plans and with the requirements o= the City of Buena Park for serving of utilities. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that revised plans under Conditional Use Permit No. 1277 (Reclassification No. 71-72-20) be approved. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~'~v.~ ~-~-~,~..~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim Ci.ty Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMiNG SERVICE, INC. .,,.,, .. q n:c. ??5-32?~ ~.r ~'~e~m, f,el~lomia