Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/07/24~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California July 24, 1972 A REGULAR MEETINr OF THE ANF~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR of the Anaheym City Planning Coma~q - A regular meeting Was MEETING y called to order b Chairman Se mour at m uorum 2:00 p. being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour. - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Directo r: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Doi~ McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the July 10, 1972 minut.es was deferred to THE MINUTES August 7, 1972. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -(1) Gilbert Street and Crescent Avenue (Sidewalks on STATEMENT the east side of Gilbert Street) Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission had several environmental impact statements to consider which should be taken up prior to the regular public hearing. Mr. Victor Rollinger, Environmental Studies Section of the Engineering Division~ indicated his presence to answer any questions. The Commission noted that the study had been submitted to them in sufficient time for the Commission to review it and arrive at a decision. Furthermore, the report also presented several alternatives, and that the sidewalks would be provided for children living north of Crescent Avenue attending Juliette Low Elementary Scnool. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioa~r Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, to accept the Environmental Impact Statement for Gilbert Street for the establishment of sidewalks along the east side of Gilbert Street, in that there will be no substantial, permanent, adverse, environ- mental impact, nor would there be any adverse, irreversible changes involved in the project. (2) Urange Avenue Arterial Highway System Orange County wideninq of the street to four travel ianes, and to construct approximately 300 feet of storm drain from the north side of Orange Avenue to the Carbon Creek Channel. Mr. Victor Rollinger, Environmental Studies Secti.on of the Engineering Division~ ir.dicated his presence to answer questions. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIELI, to accept the Environmental Impact Statement for Orange Avenue wherein it is proposed to widen Orange Avenue from Beach Boulevard to the west city limits - a distance of 1.38 miles, and for the construction of 300 feet of 48-inch storm drain £rom the north side o£ Or.ange Avenue to the Carbon Creek Channel, in that there will be no substantial, permanent, adverse environmental impact, nor would there be any adverse, irreversible changes involved in the project. 72-444 i ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 72-445 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HAROLD M. WILLIAMS~ MARTIN S. NO. 71-72-53 ROBERTS, AND FRED M. KAY, c/o Fred M. Kay, 220 Laguna Road, Fu.llerton, California 92632, Owners; BUTLER HOUSING CORP., 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Agent; requestinq z~hat property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistang oY approximately 10.5 acres having a fr~ntage of approximately 785 feet and being located approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Ave.nue be reciassified from the COUNTY Al, AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF Ar7AHEIM R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. ~ubject petition was continued from the June 26, 1972 m:etinq for the sub- rnisyion of revised plans. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:04 p.m., noting that because of possible conflict of interest due to other business interests with one of the petitioners, he would withdraw from any considexation of this petition. Several persons indicatad their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the request to reclassify the property from County A1 to City of Anaheim R-2-5000 Zone, noting that the petitioner had submitted a prelimi- nary sketch as to the proposed metnod of subdividing the property, and this sketch indicated a 43-lot subdivision in addition to aii a~proximate 140x330- foot oil well site along the north boundary of the property. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the Anaheim General Plan indicates the area in question as being appropriate for low-medium density development, and the requested zone would be one of those zones that would implement the low-medium density desiqnation; that ba~ed on the submitted sub- division sketch and the submitted floor plans of the units, it would appear that the applicant would be unable to meet the new RS-5000 zoning regulati~~ns as adopted by the City Council; that the applicant, in all likelihood, would have problems with the maximum coverage allowable as established in the new ordinance; that a major concern in allowing this property to develop as RS-5000 was the fact that the parcel to the west was located at the intersection of two arterial highways and it was of insufficient size to be subdivided into single-family or RS-5000 lots independent from other parcels in the area; that the owner may feel the property was appropriate for other than residen- tial uses, and this was particuxarly true if subject ~etition were approved; that the revised sketch has provided tw~ stub streets along the westerly boundary of subject property to provide for future development of the adjacent property; that th= Commission may wish to consider the location of the rail- road right-of-way to the south of the proposed single-family development since a letter from a resident of the adjacent tract indicated t:~at the noise was so intense that it made living in that single-family tract virtualiy impossible, and the applicant should be well-advised to consider appropriate screening or buffering measures for his proposecl single-family tract; that the Commission may wish to consider the provision oE the frontage road and landscaped median as indicated on the revised sketch as providing an adequate buffer between the homes and the railroad; and that the Commission would wish to consider the appropriateness of approving this request for R-2-5000 zoning in light of the above mentioned problems. Mr. Douglas Kuesder, representing Butler Housing Corp., 2283 West Lincoln Avenue. agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they were aware of the new requirements of the RS-5000 Zone, however, their plans complied with the old ordinance, but with the new zoning require- ments, they would have to revise their house plans, reducing the size and reducing the price; that r.o matter how the property was developed, there would always be a problem in developing the property to the west - the property ov:ner did not want streets to be stubbed into his property - he had discussed this with him, and he preferred to develop in his own way; that as far as the noise problem of the r.ailroad was concerned, they were proposing a 6-foot masonry wall and also redesiqning the front, providing a frontage road and a land- scape3 median, which should resolve the noise problem; and that he hoped that what was presented to the Commission would be acceptable. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 72-446 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-53 (Continued) Mr. Richard Ganong, 2307 Myrtle, Bakersfield, representing his wiEe 'xho was the executrix of the Myrtle Koch estate, which in this instance was the northerly 6 acras, appeared be°_ore the Commission and stated they were not in opposition to the subdivision of subject praper*_y except a portion of the development which could be violating the City's and County's codes as it pertained to oil drilling sites along the north property line; that if the drill site was not a part of this consideration, his comments were not perti- nent, and he would withdraw until said drill site was planned for the property; and that if this tentative map indicated a drill site, then his comments would be pertinent. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner had submitted a sketch of what was proposed for development on ~he pi~pesty. Mr. Ganong then stated that if the drill site was indicated on the plar~, this would not lead to the orderly and maximum use of the property; that it would be in violation of special requirements betwecr, residential uses and a drill site and a minimum 5-acre sites that there were other drill sites available which were more desirable from the viewpoint of development of the property; that there were three drill sites to the north, and the principal reason for his presence was if a drill site was proposed, it would diminish the value of the property to the north because a 1.75-acre site was not included in the existing drill site; that at the last public hearing the petitioner was pro- posing a drill site at the northeast corner of the subdivision, and since then they had propcsed this farther west, just within the Oil Overlay Zone - which was a matter of 15 feet - and that a portion of the site would be outside of the Oil Overlay Zone. ~ Mr. Kuesder, in rebuttsl, stated it was not their intent to drill a well bt-.t just to reserve the location as part of the present lease of the property; that it was possible to dril~ on the site under very stringent regulations of tYee City of Anaheim and encroaching into the Oil Overlay Zone; that the well to the north was in the same predicament, however, it was not their intent to have a drill site - just the subdivision. Chairman Seymour noted that a11 the Commission had before them was a sketch and not a subdivision map. The Commission noted that the petitioner would have to come in with a reqular subdivision map, and if subject petition were approved, it should be continqent upon development in accordance with the exhibits submitted. Mr. McDaniel stated that the recommended conditions have the requirement of development in acaordance with plans submitted. Mr. Kuesder noted that Condition No. 6 required payment of street tree fees, and he would assume that since they planned to landscape the median, this fee would not be required; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that the street tree fees were for Orangethorpe Avenue and were not part of the planting of the median strip, which would be separated from Orangethorpe Avenue. Commissioner Rowland note3 that street trees were planted at 40-foot centers and were planted by the City in the public right-of-way of Orangethorpe Avenue. however, this did not constitute the entire landscaping requirement. Mr. Kuesder advised the Commission that they were not aware that this was a requirement, but they did plan to plar,t trees. Commissioner Rewland noted that when a tract map was submitted, thi:~ would also be a condition of approval because of the separation from the envir.~onmental impact of the railroad, and the developer.would~probably be required to prepare an environmentai impact statement since this was a requirement of HUD before a t.:ntative tract map was considered. Mr. Kuesder noted that although they indicated a stub street as part of the general layout, they planned to dedicate for said street, but it was not their intent to ianprove this portion if the property owner to the west did not intend to use the street. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-447 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-53 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the proposed landscaped median and frontage road were sufficient buffering, and pezhaps a berm and wall should be required; whereupon Mr. Kuesder stated that they had originally proposed a wall. Chairman Seymour noted for the agent that Commissioner Gauer was referring to a berm 5 feet high with a 6-foot wall on top of the berm, or a total of 11 feet which would be used as a buffer. Commissioner Gauer stated that perhaps the developer should contact the adjoin- ing property owner, who could tell him about the noise problems they had encountered from activity of the railroad. Mr. McDaniel noted that he did not know of the ramifications of a berm in tne public right-of-way, but the Engineering 'Division had never approved a berm in the public riqht-of-way in the past. Chairman Seymour inquired whether the agent had reviewed the new ordinance sufficiently to determine whether they could comply with it; whereupon Mr. Kuesder stated Y.e had read notes on it but no~ in detail, however, the coverage, from his understanding, was reduced to 35$, the maximum house size would•be 1750 square feet, and if more than three bedrooms, th~en addieional square foot- age would have to be added, but if they intended to have more than three bed- rooms, they planned to go two-story, thereby reducing the house size for more open space. Commissioner Kaywood inquired how many bed.rooms wexe pr~oposed ior a two-story structure; whereupon Mr. Kuesder stated there would be four bPdrooms since the new code would require an additional B50 fe~t far more bedrooms auove the minimum, and if they proposed a two-story, then they would have 1750 square feet - this was his interpretation. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission reqarding Mr. Kuesder's interpretation of the new RS-5000 2one requirements, it being n~oted t'itat the intent of the Commission was to provide an additional B50 squar~e feet of lend =or each additional bedroom over three bedrooms in order to increase~ the cpen space - this was brought about by S& S Construction Company with six-bedroom, two- story homes on 5000-square faot lots - these lots lacking something in the physical amenities for that size; however, if the intent of the Planning Commission was not written into the new code, then perhaps the Commission should request that the City Council amend this section so that it would be perfectly clear as to the intent of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Kuesder stated that as he read the ordinance, the Commission wanted to increase the open space of the lots, but he 3id not understand that this would apply even though the house size was smaller because of two-story construction proposed fur more than three bedrooms. Lengthy discussion was continued about the interpretation presented, and at its conclusion it was determined that the City Attorney should review this and prior to final implementation of the new standards, the City Council should amend the ordinance for proper clarification of the intent of the Commission wk~ich was that regardless of the fact that there would be one or two stories, whenever there were more than three bedrooms, th~ developer would have to increase the square footage of the lot by 850 square feet for each bedroom. Mr. McDaniel noted that the second reading of the ordinance had already occurred, but there was a thirty-day re£er~ndum perio3. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the wozding referred to open space requirements, and the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council was tc increase the lots by S50 feet for each bedroom, however. in going tu two stories and reducing the actual coverage of the lot while still providing the :ame amaunt of open space, 3id not a;eet the intent of the Commission or the Council, there£ore, it might be necessary to amend the code to clarify the intent of the code. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNI.NG COMMISSION~ July 24, 1972 72-448 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-53 (Continued) Chairman Seymour then inquired of the agent whether it was possible that an actual tract map could be presented to the Commission for consid.eration so that the Commission could act on the zoni:_g request, since if this tract map could be submitted to the Commission for consideration in two weeks, then subject petition should be continued. Mr. Kuesder advised the Commission that a tract map coul~ be filed; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that the tract map would have to be in the Development Services Department no later than Friday noon of the week of July 24. Commissioner Farano offered a motion ta reopen the hearing and continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-53 to the r~eetinq of August 7, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to submit a tentative tract map. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR RS-5000 ZONE CLARIFIC~.TION Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissiur~er Farano an~i MOTSON CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the new standards adopted for the RS-5000 Zone be reviewed in order to take any necessary steps to clarify any discrepancy in the interpretation of requiring an increase l,, ~he lot size of 850 feet for each bedroom propesed over three be3rooms on the RS-5000 Zone lots, and that the City Attorney in redrafting this amendment submit copies of the amendment to the Planning Commission for perusal. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WESTERN AVENUE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH OF PERMIT NO. 1289 ANAHEIM, 219 South Western Avenue, Anaheim, California (READVERTISED) 92804, Owner; DONALD J. FEARS. 1477 South Manchester Avenue, Suite 360, Anaheim, California 92802, Aqent; requesting permission to DEV~LOP A 179-UNIT, THREL•'-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE WITH WAZVER OF (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA~ (2) MAXIMUM BUILDZNG HEIGHT, (3) MAXIMUM PROJECTION INTO REQUZRED YARD, (4) MINIMUM OFF- STREET PARKING~ (5) REQUIRED STORAGE CABINETS IN EACH CARPORT, (6) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER UNIT, AND ('1) VEHICULAR ACCESS REQUIREMENT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting o£ approximately 4 aczes, having a frontage of approximately 285 feet on the west side of Western Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 617 feet, and being located approximately 1,030 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 219 South Western Avenue. Property pres~ntly classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minuCes. Mr. Donald Fears. architect and agent for the petitioner, appeared ',afore the Commission and stated he concurred with somy of the qtatemegts mad}^'ny staff in the Report to thF Commission in that the were re uestin that 10 covered parking spaces removed from the north property line not be required to be replaced elsewhere on the property but to remain as open spaces; that during the public hearing held on subject petirion in February the developer and hihim- self had left with the understanding that the covered oarking spaces along the north property line had to be modified and the maintenance building had to be moved to the south property line, and with this undezctandinq, they then pro- ceeded with the financing of this development, but upon filing for a buildino permit, this appeared not to be the understanding of staff; that ha had contacted the property owner to the north to determina if he was satisfied with the re- visions as discussed at the public hearing, at which time he had requested that these covered parking spaces remain open, and he ~tated that this was his under- standing since this would leave the swimming pool with more open space; that under the original Conditional Use Permit No. 1140 approving the same total number o£ parking spa,:es, 46 in all were covered while they now proposed 43, and at the same time were reducing the number of apartment units, there£ore, he felt they were providing something better with only a reduction of 3 co~~ered parking spaces from the original; and that the site was increased by 75$ in land area and the height was considerably reduced. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24, 1972 ~Z'~7,49 CONDITZONAL USE ^ERMIT NO. 1289 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offer~:d Resol;~tion No. PC72-162 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Resul+ation No. PC72-23, Finding No. 5, deleting reference to relocation of the garages from tha north side and amending Condition No. 4, deleting requiring the garaqes along the north property line being relocated. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ts.e following vote: AYES: COMMISS]:ONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLZC ;?EARING. ANTAONY AND VICTOR DI DODO, 2175 West PERMIT NO. 1331 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Ownera; requestinq permission to ESTABLISA ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangLlarl;•-shaped parcel of land haviny a frontage o£ approximatel.y 135 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth of. approximately 150 £eet, being located approximately 210 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2175 West Oranqe Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public 1:earing, it is referred to and made a part of the mi.~•ates. . Mr. Anthony Di Dodo, oae of the petitioners, indicated his presence to answer questions, and then in response to questioning by the Commission, stated ±hat the restaurant was part of the delicatessen, and he did not intend to have the bar because there was insufficient space for a bar; furthermore, on-sale beer and wine would be sexved in coajunction with the serving of food. THE HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-169 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to grant Petition for Conditi.onal Use Permit No. 1331 subject to conditions and the stipulation by the petitioner that there would be no bar and that the on-salP b_er and wine would be incidental to the serving of food. (See Resolution Sook) On roll call the foregoing resolation was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herhst. Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at• 2:50 p.•m. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GREGG T. AND LHUREL M. PAMSON, 12341 Delta PERMIT NO. 1327 Stree:., Garden Grove, California 92640, Owners; HAI C. TAid. (READVERTISED) 4100 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California 92633, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE SCHOOL ALONG WITH A SINGLE DWELLING AND ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS ', WI?F WAIVER OF (1) MAXZMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND (2) PROHIBITED USE OF SIDE YARD FOR PARKING on property described as: A rectangularly-s~aped parcel of land ha~?na a frontage of approximately 135 feet on the south side of Oranqe Avenue, havin3 a maximua depth of approximately 230 feet, and being located approximately 700 feet west of the centerline of Gilbert Street. Property presently classified R-A. AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. One person indicated her presence in opposition. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1972 72^4:"_'-. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1327 (Continued) Assistant Zoning Sup~rvisor pon McDaniel review~d the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a private school ir. conjunction with a single-family dwellinq and accessory living quarters, further noti.ng that a reclassification to the R-3 Zone was denied in 1958, and a planned unit development was withdrawn by the property owner in 1962~ that the petitioner was pr~posing to construct a single-family dwelling, accessor living quarters, and a private school for ten gifted cha.ldren on this large R-A parcel; that the submitted plans indicatecl two drive ap~roaches from Orange Avenue an3 a circular dri~e with ocen o£f-street parking in the vicinity of the classroom structure; that a two-car garage was also shown providing parking for the single-family residence, and based on the elevation from Orange Avenue, the structure would appear to be a single-fam::ly residence only; that the classroom was so designed as not to be visible as a classroom from Orange Avenue, and the accessory living quar~ers were to the rear of the proposed single-family dwelling; that the private school classroom portion of this proposal would ~ontain approxi- mately 1254 square feet of floor area, and the balance of the site was proposed to be developed with a large pool, patio and outdoor play area; and that the applicant indicated there would be a maximum of 10 students that would be attend- ing the school and would be attending during normal school hours. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the eqaluation, noted that the Commission would recall that private schoois and nursery schools did not have specific parking require- ments, but the Commission, in the past, had required such schools to provide one stall for each instructor and required the provision of a circular drive for the picking up and dropping off of students - this proposal indicated compliance with those requirements; that waiver of the maximum buildi.ng height was being requested because the proposed classroom buildinq, although one-story in height, was a 10-fuot high building within 10 feet of the easterly property line, while Code would require it to be 2J feet £rom the property iine, but it should be pointed out that a two-story residential structure could be located within 10 feet of this property line, therefore, the Commission might consider this waiver appropriate in light of the proposed layout and design of the classroom building; that waiver of the required parking in the side yard was necessary because two of the three open stalls would project into the 15-foot special side yard setback, and the applicant had shown the area between the parking stalls and the property line as being landscaped, consequently the Commission might consider this a suitable proposal; and that the primary question before the Commission would be the appropriateness of allowing the combination of this private educational facility for gifted childYen in conjunction with the proposed single-family residential structure. Mrs. Laurel Pamson, one of the petitioner~, appeared before the Commission and stated that since she had been a teacher ;:or four years in public schools, she had developed some ideas on how to teach, in that not more than ten students could be handled by one t=acher; that the reason they proposed the school in conjunctioa with their home:was because they could not, at the present time, afford to have two separate iacilities, and the architect had developed a build- ing on this large R-A parcel that would meet their needs; and thpn reviewed the manner in which the facility wauld accommodate the various teaching principles s}:. proposed to initiate in this private school, concluding by stating that the children would not be housed there, and that numerous field trips were also proposed. A lady in the audience indicated she lived next door to subject property and was opposed to the combination of uses pr^poset.for subject property. Mrs. Pamson, in response to questioning by the~ Commission, stated that she only planned four to six students in the beginning a~nd an increase to ten students, teaching them through high school. Commissioner Rowland noted that the plans indicated a bedroom, kitchen, and living room to the rear of the property and inquired what was proposed for that building; whereupon Mrs. Pamson stated this would be for auailiary help who would teach art~ and crafts, and it would also serve her mother who would assist in handling children during recess and playtime; or when someone was teaching a foreign language and was from another country, this unit would be used for living quarters; and that she, her husband and five-year-old son would live in the home. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1S72 72-451 CONDITIONAL U~E PERMIT N0. 1327 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano expressed *.he opinion that a condition of approval should be a limitation of the number of children in this private school to a maximum of ten students. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-164 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1327 subject t~ conditions and limiting the maximum number of students to ten, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst. Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE NO. 2402 - PUBLIC HEi9RING. RAYMOND MASCIEL, 1127 West North Str~_t, Anaheim., California 92801, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT THAT GARAGE ACCESS BE FROM AN ALLEY ONLY~ (2) MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK, AND (3) MINIMUM NUMSER OF PARKING SPACES TO ESTABLISH A DUPLEX BY ADDING A UNIT TO AN EXISTING SINGLE DWELLING on property described as: A reatangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 48 feet on the west side of Sabina Street, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 115 feet, being located approximately 178 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further described as 713 North Sabina Street. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Raymond Masciel, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the property presently did not have a garage, and with the addition to subject property, this would provide for a two-car garage. however, there was insufficient space between the property line and the existing nome to permit access from the alley and also provide an additional covered parking space. THE HEA2tING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the coverage of the proposed property, it being determined that the coverage would not be any greater than that which existed in the area. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that based on the existing duplexes on both sides of Sabina Street, one could assume tlie coverage would be about the same, but this would be based on unit size. Commissioner Herbst oifered Resolution No. PC72-165 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2402 subject to conditions on the basis that the existing developments in the area werealso developed with duplexes. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Aerbet, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 72-452 VARIANCE NO. 2397 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALDOR CORPORATION AND ALDOR PROPERTIES CORP., 363 South Main Street, Suite 208, Orange, California 92668, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT PROPERTY ?,BUT A PUBLIC STREET TO ALLOW APPROVAL OF A PARCEL MAP on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.8 acres, havinq a frontage of approximately 225 feet on the north side of Lincoln AvenuE, having a maximum depth of approximately 288 feet, being located approximately 175 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2623 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENE!4AL COMMERCIAL~ 20I3E. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. A1 Fishman, representinq the petitioner, appeared before the Comnission and stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman Seymour inquired what the netitioner proposed for the rear portion of this property; whereupon Mr. Fishman stated that at the present time they had no plans, but the school to the north owned by the church had expressed an interest in purchasing the property ~.o enlarge Lheir facilities. The Commission further inquired whether this would be a landlocked parcel; whereupon Mr. Fishman stated there was an easement proposed along the north property line to the 30-foot easement between parcels 1 and 2 where access would be qained to Lincoln Avenue; that if the church/school did not purchase the property, it could be used for storage purposes; that he had purchased the property to develop it for commercial purposes, however, there now was a walk- up restaurant and a dairy on parcels 1 and 2, and the northerly parcel would have no exposure to Lincoln Avenue, therefore, it would be extremely di.fficult to develop for commercial purposes, and if the church did not purchase the property - although they had indicated they were interested - they would "sit tight" on any future development. Chairman Seymour noted he had great concern about the proposal as to how it would be developed when there was only one small accessway running between two parcels which would not be permitted to have any signing and no street frontage and inquired what was the intent by the petitioner. Mr. Fishman replied that the only reason they were before the Commis~ion was because they were not able to deed the 25-foot access to the rear property, providing access to Lincoln Avenue, therefore, they were requesting the easement since they had been negotiating with other tenants, however, it was found that dedication could not be obtained, therefore, they were requesting approval of the easement rather than requiring dedication; and that the parcel adjucent to the service station was the Tastee Freaz and the parcel was not proposed to be sold. Commissioner Herbst noted tha't this would k.e acceptable so long as the property remained under one ownership, but if the petitioner proposed to sell a portion, then the rear portion would end up as a landlocked parcel; whereupon Mr. Fishman stated they proposed to create a perpetual easement, which was already recorded and which would run with the land and should be the same as dedicating a driveway access. Chairman Seymour expressed concern that prior t~ development of parcel 3, parcel 1 would be sold - then where would signing be placed for parcel 3- would the petitioner request a variance claiming a hardship because the Commiseion had created a hardship; whereupon Mr. Fishman stated that signing would be waived by him. Furthermore, they had almost completed negotiations on the property when it was found out that dedicatior. for the access would be needed and inquired whether there was any practical way this situation could have been resolved without this type of easement. Beputy City Attorney Frank Lowzy stated he had no answer to that question without research being done. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-453 VARIANCE NO. 2397 (Continued) Commissioner Farano inquired why the school to the north would need an access to Lincoln Avenue if they acquired the property; whereupon Mr. Fishman replied that when they first went into negotiations, it was with the intent to sell pazcel 3 to the school. Commissioner Farano expressed concera that the request before the Commission was to approve it, allowing an easement from parcel 3, but if the school purchased the property, and since he was not in favor of creating an easement, it was possible that this easement would be impugned upon; whereupon Mr. Fishman replied that the easement would be there regardless of development on parcel 3 since they wera proposing commercial uses for parcels 1 and 2. Commissioner Farano requested that the petitioner explain the entire problem or story of why all of these entrances were necessary to the property. Mr. Fishman stated that one driveway on the easement portion was shared with the Shell service station; that the 30-foot easement proposed would be shared with the Tastee Freez restaurant and on the westerly 40+ feet, the access easement was shared as a driveway with the commercial property to the north, and the entire 40-foot shared was on their own property, while the same was true about the easement on the east property line; and that 112~i feet of the 250-foot £rontage on Lincoln Avenue was shared with other developments. Nov~ they planned another 30-foot ea~ement though the two parcels, which would serve both parcels 1 and 2 as well as parcel 3, with the Tastee Freez traffic being able to come in on the easement shared with the service station on the east and exiting on the center access, while the dairy wot+.ld have access from the westerly side and exiting on the center drive - thus there would be four driveways of which three were shared in common. Commissioner Farano observed that regardless of ~ahether or not the church purchased parcel 3, the petitioner wanted this proposal to work in the manner proposed, but the Commission still would be creating a landlocked parcel unless the easement were granted; whereupon Mr. Fishman statad that there was one access to Magno].ia Avenue, but another was needed to Lincoln Avenue for parcel 3, and no additional driveways would be created, nor would traffic problems be encountered with the three driveways. Furthermore, the 40-foot easement only extended about 50 to 60 £eet north, and so long as construction occurred behind this 40-foot easement, it would be shared by the adjoining commercial property. Commissioner Farano then °_nquired whether the church-school needed a 30-foot wide easement for parcel 3; whereupon Mr. Fishman stated that he would stipulate that if the church purchased parcel 3, he would relinquish the easement to Lincoln Avenue. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission and staff, summarized as follows: 1) Parcel 3 was a very difficult parcel for possible consideration of develop- ment for commercial uses since it was prar,tical2y worthless by the fact that it was extremely limited as to access and signing, as well as not having Lincoln. Avenue exposure, thus if favorably considered, the hardship already existed and ' the Commission would not be creating any further hardship; 2) that signing would not be the prerogative of the Planning Commission but the City Council who made the final judgment on signing except that the petitioner had just stipulated that if this lo~: split were granted, he would waive any signing for parcel 3; 3) that the minutes clearly indicate the potential of the signing hardship being created for any future commercial development for parcel 3, which had been very thoroughly discussed by the Planning Commission with the property owner, warning him of possible commercial use in such a way to preserve for future public record the fact that the Commission recognized the problem and no hard- i ship could be claimed in the future b~cause the petitioner had been so warned; 4) concern about the leqal interpretation of a landlocked parcel which the Commission could be creating on a 1+ acre parcel not havinq frontage on a dedicated street, but instead granting an easement to a public street; 5) the Commission had the prerogative of granting the request for waiver of the zoning code to provide ingress and egress which would run with the land; 6) concern about the possibility of a prospective purchaser of parcel 3 proposing to sub- divide said parcel with C-1 uses and having only one 30-foot accessway available to Lincoln Avenue, in addition to no signing available; 7) signinq would not be permitted in the roadway easement nor in the public utility easement area; 8) potential R-3 request with a 30-foot easement or a more intense commercial use on parcel 3- several industrial developments had similar narrow easements which had created a monume:ital problem on these narcels; 9) the possibility of ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1972 72-454 VARIANCE NO. 2397 (Continaed) addinq a condition that ihere be no free-standinq signs permitted on Lincoln Avenue or Magnolia Avenue for parcel 3 and makinq it part of the deed restric- tions so that any future purchaser of the property would be fully aware of this restriction; 10) signing on parcel 3 could only be accomplished by variance, and the easement would not allow siqninq by right; 11) avoiding the possibility of opening the door to creating problem parcels with a narrow access, which was not good planning; 12) the petiti~ner had indicated he proposed to sell off.a portion of the property, even though he presently owned the property, and stated ~ that the only use which could be made of the rear portion if not sold to the church aould be for storage purposes; 13) consideration of changing the zoning on the rear portion to R-A as a condition of agproval to insure that no commer- cial or other type of development would occur on the property without Commission and City Council consideration of the intended use; and 14) the petitioner had suggested that parcel 3 could not be sold or developed for commercial purposes, and because of that, the property should revert to R-A. Mr. McDaniel advised the Commission that the R-A Zone permitted very few uses, but a nursery would be allowed for storage as a noncon_orming use, hawever, any future storage would require zoninq action since the meaning of "storage" had a rather wide range. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-1G6 and anuved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2397 subject to conditions and the further conditian thac parcel 3 be reclassified to the R-A Zone prior to approval of a parcel map, and further provided that if parcel 3 were to be sold to the church property owner to the north, that the 30-foot access easement to Lincoln Avenue shall be revoked for parcel 3, as stipulated to by the petitioner, and the stipulation by the petitioner that parcel 3 woulcl have no.signing. (See Resolution Book) On roZl call the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hexbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ASSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECESS - Chairman Seymour declared a ten-minute recess at 3:40 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymaur reconvened the meeting at 3:50 p.m.. Commissioner Allred being absent. VARIANCE NO. 2398 - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE T. REEVE, c/o Washington Laboratories Inc., Pier 66, Seattle Washington 98121, Owner; WYN HOLMES, TENTATIVE MAP OF 802 South Wayfield, Orange, California 92666, Agent; TRACT NO. 7940 requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND (2) MINIMUM SETBACK IN A CUL-DE-SAC TO ESTABLISH A 6-LOT~ SINGLE-FAMILY TRACT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.8 acres having a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the south side of Cul-De-Sac Avenue, hacing a maximum depth of ~pproximately 280 feet and being located approximately 530 feet south of the centerline of Riverdale Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: S& W ASSOCIATES, 802 Wayfield, Orange, California 92666. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805; proposing subdivision of 1.8 acres into 6 R-1 zoned lots. One person indicated his presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to complete a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Starling Way in addition to a modified cul-de-sac to be provided on Beauty Drive. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-455 VARIANCE NO. 2398 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7940 (Continued) Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the waiver for the minimum lot width in the cul-de-sac was being requested because the applicant was pro- posing four of the six lots with less than a 60-foot minimum lot width - all four lots, however, would be greater than 7200 square feet in land area; that waiver of the minimum building setback was requested on one lot where a 10-foot setback in a cul-de-sac was being proposed, whereas 15 feet would be required; that it should be pointed out that in this p~rticular instance, the setback was to a side yard rather than to the front yartl and might be considered appropriate; that waiver for the lot width on the straight street was being requested for one lot - 65 feet being proposed and 70 feet being required - this lot also contained 7200 square feet of land area; that in addition to the wa3vers fxom the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18, the submitted tentative tract map indicated non- compliance with sections of tr Subdivision Ordinance - the Subdivisior, Ordinance which was amended for the Scenic Corridor would require that lots adjacent to the Riverside Freeway be a minimum of 150 feet d~ep or provide a 50-foot building s~tback. The applicant has shown neither of,~these on ~he map - one of the exist- ing homes would be located approximatzly 20 feet from Lhe freeway right~of-way Iine; that the Subdivision Ordinance also required the installation of a 6-foot high earthen berm along the freeway prope~'t~y, and the applicant had indicated a 6-foot high concrete wall, and based upon the 2:1 slope requirement, a 6-foot high berm would require a minimum of 24 feet horizontal land area, thus estab- lishing the berm in the one 20-foot rear yard woLeld be impossible; that another consideration in the develop~nent of the property was the extension of Beauty Drive and the potential access to the property to the east of this proposal since if the subdivision was to be developed as proposed, Beauty Drive would be termi- nated in a modified cul-de-sac and Starling Way would be terminated in a cul-de- sac - the property to the east would consequently be requized to take access from Riverdale; that considering the size, snape and location of the property to the east oE this proposal, it could be assumed that it would be proposed for some type of commercial development unless access were provided to it through this particular property, therefore, the Commission may wish to consider the circulation and access problems in this particular area of Santa Ana Canyon to be af significant nature to require an area development plan, said area develop- ment plan would take into consideration the circulation through the existinq tract, the extension of Beauty Drive, and the possibility of providing access to the property to the east. In addition, the Commission may consider it appro- priate to request the applicant to redesign the tract map so as to conform with the current provisions and regulations and--to take into consideration any area development plan that may be accomplished for this area. Mr. Wyn Holmes, agent for the petitioner and developer of the tract, appeared before the Commission and stated that after having received the Report to the Commission, he visited the property and took pictures which indicated the distance of the freeway on-ramp and the freeway travel lanes and their relation- ship to subject property, noting that there was a chainlink fence 105 feet from the on-ramp, while an additionall 35 or 40 feet remained to the freeway travel lanes - this would mean a distance of approximately 155 feet from the freeway itself. Mr. Holmes then noted that subject property was a hardship parcel, and there was no way to develop the property; that if the Commission wanted Beauty Drive extended through the tract to the other parcel, then the property would be useless to the developer; and that if the Commission had any technical questions, he would appreciate having the enqineer answer them. Mr. Richard Waterbury, 4621 Cul-De-Sac Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated his property was immediately adjacent to subject property; that he was not in opposition to the plans, since it appeared it would be an acceptable development of the property, however, he was concerned about the value of the structures proposed and whether they would enhance the value of the adjoininq properties which ranged in value from $35,000 to $40,000; that according to information he had received, these homes would range in price from $29,OOG to $33,000 without providing any landscaping or built-ins, and he did not want these homes to be similar to those built just northeast of the Riverside-Newport Freeway interchange, which in his estimation were a very poor development and decreased the valu of the adjoining homes along Riverdale Avenue. Furthermore, did the developer ~ropose to cut down the eucalyptus trees alonq the easterly ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 197'L 7::-456 VARIANCE NO. 2398 AND TENTATIVE MAP ~F TRACT N0.7940 (Continued) property line, and he would request that these not be removed because they enhanced the area, however, he had been told by the developer that the City was involved in whether these could be retained. Mr. Holmes noted that the homes would sell in price ranging from $29,950 to $33,950, and it was huped to sell the larqer lots at $39,950, however, these prices did not inc:tude landscaping or drapes, but there would be built-ins, such as dishwashers, etc. Furthermore, in referenece to the trees to the east, he, too, was in favor of retaining them and planned to have a tree surgeon trim the trees. Chairman Seymour inquired of staff whether the City would prevent retaining the eucalyptus trees just discussed; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that there was nothing in the code that would require removal of the trees. Mr. Holmes noted that the eucalyptus trees in question located at the 2asterly end had nothing to do with subject property a:..i belonged to the owner of that property, but the cost of removal of the trees ~:as more than the owner wanted to spend. Mr. McDaniel noted that he could see nothing in the proposal that would require removal of the trees, and a variance did not typically involve improvements, however, !:e would hate to mislead the residents there by stating the trees were not goinq to be required to be removed since there were other things beyond the City's control, such as insurance not being obtained because of these large trees. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if the developer wanted to retain the trees, that would be his prerogative. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired as to the type of buffering proposed for the home that was located only 20 feet from the propexty line and which would be closest to the freeway right-of-way line. Mr. Helmut Stolpp of Anacal Engineering advised the Commission that when the State acquired freeway property, they took considerably more than they.had planned to use, and the westbound freeway lanes were 150 feet from the west- bound on-ramp; that when the freeway was completed, it was 4 feet below the level of the adjoining land, and if a 6-foot high berm was intended to filter out the noises from the freeway with the distance of the freeway from the property together with the 6-foot wall proposed, this should be adequate pro- tection since this wall would be along the freeway right-of-way line - however, no berm was planned due to the fact that the prc+perty line did not represent the actual travel lane of the freeway. The Commission inquired whether ar not it was planned to widen the freeway, because if this happer.ed, this could bring the freeway traffic closer and increase the no:.se level; whereupon Mr. Stolpp replied that the freeway was already complete3 with four tr.ave.l lanes each way in addition to the on-ramp, and any widening would be in the very distant future. Mr. Thompson noted that the State would allow one-half of the berm to be on the freeway property and inquired as to the grade difference between subject property and the adjacent freeway property; whereupon Mr. Stolpp stated that the berm could not be placed there because there was a large concrete drainage ditch at the property line. Deputy City Attcrney Frank Lowry noted for the Commission that the requirement of a 150-foot deep lot or a 50-foot building setback was a requirement of Title 17 an3 was not waivable by the Planning Commission or City Council, short of amending Title 17 by the City Council, and the provision of an earthen berm was also a requirement of the Subdivision Section which permitted a wall under certain circumstances, and such a wall could be designed to satisfy City Council policy on this in lieu of the earthen berm, but there was no way the 150-foot lot depth or 50-foot building setback could be waived. • r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 72-457 VARIANCE NO. 2398 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7940 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that the tract map should be amended to take into consideration the Scenic Corridor requirements before the Commission should give any c~nsideration to it. Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that the primary reason for requiring the buffering and setback was for homes proposed immediately adjacent to the freeway travel lanes, and perhap~ thi~ development could provide a combination of a berm and wall above the on-ramp so Y.hat the wall and berm would be provid- ing a protection from the line-of-sight of the homes, which he felt would meet the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance if this subdivision could be developed in that manner. Mr. Lowry noted that only one lot was affected by the 150-foot lot depth or 50-foot building setback, and berming was an alternative. Commissioner Herbsc inquired whether or not the developer could provide the landscaping required by the Scenic Corridor 2one since the developer indicated there was no room to place the berm for sound protection above the level of the roofline, which was the intent of the Scenic Corridor requirements, and that if the developer were willing to stipulate to that, staff could work with him to assure that the homes had adequate buffering. Chairman Seymour inquir2d wheth~.r the developer understood the discussion by the Commission, and would he so stipulate to such a requirement. Mr. Holmes stated that there was such a difference between the freeway travel lane: and the on-ramp - perhaps 105 feet - and still more distance between the on-ramp and subject property. Commissioner Rowland noted that staff indicated the State would permit one-half o£ the berm to be placed on the State property, however. it would appear it would be very difficult to do so on subject property. In addition, there should be a combinatio~ of earthen berm and wall, which wauld be elevated at least 5 feet above the travel lane or place the line-of-sight above the house - rhen the Commission could be assured the noise problem wou l be minimized; whereupon Mr. Holmes stated that he would do whatever staft suggested if it was at all possible. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-167 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2398 on the basis that i.his was a hardship parcel, and the petitioner had submitted evidenae to that effect, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7940 subject to the following conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7940 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-13 and Variance No. 2398. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta- tive form for approval. (3) That a 6-foot high earthen ~erm shall be provided adjacent to the Riverside Freeway. (4) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~ ~ MINUTE~, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24, 1972 72-458 VARIANCE IdO. 2398 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT. NO. 7940 (Continued) (5) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. '~) That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. f7) That a modified cul-de-sac with a 27-fo~t minimum radius curb shall be provided at the terminus of Beauty Drive as required by the City Engineer. VARIANCE N0. 2395 - PUBLIC HEARING. RONALD R. COSBY, ET AL, 2230 North Westwood Street, Santa Ana, California 92706, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED MASONRY D7i.LL ENCLOSING OUTDOOR STORAGE TO ALLOW USE OF CHAINLINK FENCING ZN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 330 feet on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 607 feet, being located approximately 325 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue, and further described as 1265 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (PARCEL 1) AND M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE (PARCEL 2). One person indicated his presence in opposition. Assistant i-:ng Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property. :..ses established in close proxi:.nityr ?"~ the proposal to expand an existinq industrial facility occupying the building on the front portion of the property and utilizing the rear area £or storage of mobilehomes that were manufactured in the building. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the M-1 chapter of the Anaheim Municipal Code allowed for outdoor storage o.f products being manufac- tured on a~.articular site. The Code did require, however, that the outdoor storage area be screened by a 6-foot high masonry wallp that the applicant proposed to store the mobilehomes to the rear of the existing manufacturing building and proposed to provide only a 6-foot high chainlink fence around said storage area; that the Commission would recall in similar situations in the past where outdoor storage had been requested a E-foot high chainlink fence with opaque slats and landscaping on tha interior of the chainlink fen.e lsad been required in lieu of the masonry wall, and a recent approval in the Northeast Industrial Area of the waiver of the 6-foot high masonry wall to estahlish an outdoor stora.ge for travel trailers in conjunction wi*_h the manufacture of travel trai.lers required the i..:tallation of landscaFing in the f~rm of fast growi:~g trees planted at ~30-foc•;:: centers with tall growing shxubbery planted between the tre2s along the property lines, and the trees were to be selected from the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone suggested tree and shrubbery list, and, further, that the irrigation facilities would be provided for the required landscaping - the fence in this particular approvai was allowed to remain as an open chainlink fence. Mr. McDaniel further noted that the proposal, being to, the rear of the existing building and hav~ng the potential of being surrounded by other industrial buildings and uses, the Commission might consider it to be appropriate in this case to allow the open chainlink fence provided screen landscaping were installed as in the previous approval. Mr. McDaniel also noted that subsequent to the filing and acceptance of this petition, staff had learned that the applicant proposed to do minor installation and repair out-of-doors in addition to the outdoor storage, therefore, the Commission might wish to have the applicant stipulate to only outdoor storage as a variance would be required for the outdoor manufacturing or installation as proposed. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-459 VARIANCE N0. 2395 (Continued) Mr. Ron Cosby. the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that they proposed a chainlink fence as being necessary in order of its importance: 1) the cost; 2) repair of the wall where trucks would be running would be a continual repairing proposition; 3) there was no protection or security with a 6-foot masonry wall which a chainlink fence with barbed wire provided; that they.presently had the curbs and gutters installed on the property, and there was no room for landscaping; that they wruld lose part of their`drive to the rear if landscaping were required; that they had a 250-foot depth where storage of trailers was proposed, and they would suggest that the Commission permit slatted fencing on the 40-foot deep portion; that they had outstanding land- scaping oa the front portion; that they would also propose a portion of the rear fence to be slatted; that if they were required to install the landscaping, they would have to saw-cut the asphalt and gutter in order to provide proper irriga- tion, and future development in the area would be backing up to their storage area; that they proposed the slatted fence to within 40 feet of the rear of the building, and the balance, 247 feet, and across the rear would only be chain- link. Mr. Don Lucero, 10382 La Pat P13ce, Westminster, representing the owner to the north and adjacent to subject property, appeared befere the Commission and stated they were not in opposition to tre chainlink fence since the Anaheim Municipal Code required screen-type landscaping, therefore, he would address himself to the screening requirement; that the petitioner indicated there would be slat screening only about 40 feet ".o the rear of the building, and since he did not have a map of subject property, he did not know if this extended beyond his client's property; and then in answer to a question by Chairman Seymour, stated that they were partially in opposition to just a chainlink fence, and he wanted the Commission to enforce the Code requirement and screening techniques so that the property which he represented would not have to face the storage to t.ie rear. The Commission then noted the building on subject property was set back 50 feet from the front property line and was 257 feet long, making the storage area about 350 feet from Kraemer Boulevard or about 340 feet beyond the lot line of the man in opposition. Mr. Cosby, in rebuttal, stated they wanted to have a nice appearance by pla~inq the slatting on the portion previously mentioned, and that the landscapinq would be hidden from view eventually. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Lengthy discussion was held between the Commission and the petitioner regarding the method of shielding from view the outdoor storage, the Commission noting that there were alternatives which the petitioner could avail himself of if he did not want to construct a masonry wall, since landscaping would more adequately acreen the mobilehomes from view than a 6-foot wall or even a chainlink fence with slats, however, the petitioner indicated he did not want to place any landscaping because of his inability to provide irrigation facilities, and he also did not want to completely install slatting in the chainlink fence. At the completion of this lengthy discussion, the Commission noted that it was apparent the petitioner was either not able or not willing to take advantage of the alternattves offered 'nim and appeared not willing to comply with these alternatives, and that granting the waiver request would be grantinq a privi- lege to the peti£ioner which the Commission had not waived in previous similar requests for outdoor storage in which landscape screening was required to be provided. A gentleman in the audience suggested to the Commission and the petitioner that if t!?e petitioner was having a problem in getting the irrigation facilities to the rear of the property, the petitioner could place the water line along the fence since he did not think there was anything in +:he Anaheim Municipal Code thut would require it to be placed underground. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-460 VARIANCE NO. 2395 (Continued) Chairr~an Seymour inquired of staff whether there would be any problem in placing the irrigation line along the fence as sugqeste3 by an interested person in the audience; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated there was nothing in the Code, although he was not thoroughly familiar witih the Building Code, that would require under- grounding the irrigation facilities. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-168 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2395 on the basis that the. petitioner was unable or unwilling to agree to onp of the alternative methods of providing outdoor screening of storage suggested by the Planning Commission, and that approval of this request would be establishing an undesirable precedent in the industrial area where other industries were required to provide the necessary screening. Furthermore, that approval of subject petition would be granting the petitioner a privilege not enjoyed by adjoining industrial uses; that the petitioner had created his own hardship by erecting a building without taking into consideration all of the site development standards of the M-1 Zone; and that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed to warrant favorable considaration of the waivers requested. (See Resolution Book) On •roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tY,e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE NO. 2401 - PUBLIC HEARING. FOREST LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION~ 1712 South Glendale Avenue, Glendale, California 91205, Owner; FULLERTON SAVINGS & LOAN, 200 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California 92632. Lessee; AMERICAN SIGN & INDICATOR CORP., Attention Ed Duin, 1635 west 135th Street, Gardena, California 90249, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDI.TG SIGNS AND ~2) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ALLOW ERECTION OF TWO NEW SIGNS IN CONJUNCTZON WITH A PROPOSED SAVINGS & LOAN BUILDING on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 27 acres, hacing frontages of approximately 1500 feet on Lincoln Avenue. 900 feet on State College Boulevard, and 750 feet on Peregrine Street, and further described as the East Anaheim Shopping Center. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Ed Duin, representing the lessee and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they proposed a sign within 300 feet of the Jolly Roger Restaurant to the west, and in order to make this sign attrac- tive, they had tried to design a low-profile sign which offered both time and temperature, and that the American Sign & Tndicator Corp. were the original developers of the time and temperature signs. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the distance between the two signs was 214 feet, and that the petitioner had withdrawn the request for the minimum height of a free-standing sign. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-169 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Varianc~~ No. 2401, in part, deleting the request for waiver of the height of a free-standing sign, on the basis that the location of the proposed building and sign for said building was too far removed from the balance of the shopping center to successfully incoporate the sign within the existing shopping center signs, and subject to conditions. (See Resolutton Book) ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1972 72-461 VARIANCE NO. 2401 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONE:RS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DAGOOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 1322 East PERMIT NO. 1328 Edinger, Santa Ana, California 92705, Owner; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEc~R IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ENCLOSED RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED ICITCHEN AREA on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontaye of approximately 280 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 384 feet, being located at the northweat corner of Katel'a Avenue and Claudina Way, and further described as 1759 South Claudina Way. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Frank Moss, 888 North Main Street, Santa Ana, attorney representinq the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and statcd ther.e were several smaller industrial uses in the area, and this conditional use permit would allow an on-site pub; that this would not be the typical beer bar but would be a first-class restaurant; and then presented pictures of the exterior and ir.terior of the premises and a large rendering of the proposal to the Commis- sion, noting it would be similar to the one they now had in Santa Ana. The Commission inquired how the petitioner could state this would be a restau- rant without indicating any kitchen area. Mr. Moss replied that tk aould have an outside service, the Township Food Service, which also served other restaurants such as Mannings and Lorenzo's and other facilities i~ Orange County. Mr. Larry Souzi, Vice President o£ the proposed facility, appeared before the Commission and stated that according to the County Food and Health Department, the same type of facility located in Santa Ana was considered a full type restaurant with the exception of a cooking area; that the concept that the food must be prepared on the premises was erroneous in that the proposed facility would have special equipment on the premises for heating the food. The Commission inquired whether the bar was also considered the cooking area; whereupon Mr. Souzi stated this was correct, except that they needed 100 square feet f~r storage space, which was another thing required by Code; and that they had permits from the Orange County Food and Health Department for this operation. The Commission inquired who declared what determined the amount of kitchen area needed; that the City of Anaheim Municipal Code required a gi~~en per- centage of square footage designated as a kitchen area, and the petitioner would have to indicate a kitchen which the Commission could understand. Furthermore, how did the petitioner intend to cook the food since the peti- tioner indicated the food would be cooked at the bar, but the plans did not indicate a food preparation area; whereupon Mr. Souzi stated there would be micro-wave ovens. The Commission noted that most food serving facilities provided ranges, kitchens, sinks, dishwashing equipment, refrigerators, etc. Mr. Souzi stated that they would have two micro-wave ovens, a refrigerator, and a large cold table in order co supply these lunches. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JuJ.y 24~ 1972 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1326 (Continued) 72-462 Commissioner Farano stated that before he could act on subject petition, he would have to see more specific plans of what,was proposed for the kitchen area because the material presented and explana~ion made by the petitioner was not sufficient, therefore, he would auggest that the Commission not spend any more time on this petition until the petitioner could present adequate kitchen plans of what was oroposed. Chairman Seymour concurred with statements made by Commissioner Seymour and further stated that the Commission .in the past had been lulled into a sense of security when.people stated verbally what was proposed instead of present- ing specific plans as to actual food preparation, and later found these verbal statements were not met. Comn:issioner Gauer inquired whether any of the petitioner's establishments had gone into the sale of hard liquor, and if so, the Commission's policy required separation of th~ bar from the dining area so that families with children would not be exposed to a bar area; whereupon Mr. Souzi stated their request was for on-sale beer only. Chairman Seymour noted that before the Commission could proceed any farther with the petition, he would suggest that the petitio:.ers go back to their office and obtain the plans that were approved by the Oranqe County Health Department regardinq the kitchen facilities, and this pet:tion would then be deferred until the evening meeting so that the Commissiol could have a better picture of what was proposed. Commissioner Kaywood noted that in very small printing on the plans it indicated sale of sandwiches and drinks; whereupon Mr. Souzi stated the.=.e were not ordinary sandwiches. (See page 72-468). RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT~ NO. 72-73-8 Attention of C. R. Nelson, 400 Civic Center Drive, Santa. Ana, Calzfornia 92701, Owner; PACIFIC AMERICAN PROPERTIr.• CONDITIONAL USE INC., Attention of Bernard Perlin, 3670 Wilshire Boulevard, PERMIT N0. 1330 Los Angeles, California 90010, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of VARIAtiCE NO. 2403 approximately 3.8 acres having a frontage of approximately 600 Eeet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, he:•ing a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, and being lccated at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue. Prope:~ty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO CONSTRUCT THREE OFFICE BUILDINGS ON PORTIONS B AND C. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A CARWASH ON PORTION A. No one appeared in opposition. P.lthough the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Harry Knisely, 1741 South Euclid Street, attorney representing the appli- cant and proposed developer of the facility, appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that the architect and enqineer were present to answer questions if the Commission had any; that the Report to the Commission made reference to a service station, to which they took exception since this would be a carwash; whereupon the Commission inquired what was the primary business, a carwash or gasoline sales. Mr. Knisely stated that, of course, it was gasoline sales; that this carwash would be enclosed and the sound would be muffled, while the appearance would be different than ordinary carwashes, and then presented a large rendering ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1972 72-463 RECLASSIFICATION i~10. 72-73-6, CONDITIONAL USE YERMIT NO. 1330~ AND VARIANCE N0. 2403 (Continued) of the proposed facility, noting the landscaping proposek, and stated they would stipulate to providing landscaping along tne golf course in the same manner as proposed for the street frontage. Mr. Knisely then noted that staff had suggested that only three accessways be permitted on Brookhurs*_ Street, however, they wou13 prefer five and needed at lea~t four; that there would be only one access to the office complex, and at least ~wo were needed, and if only one were permitted, this would create a traffic problem; that the entire architecture woul.d be Spanish throughout, and all merchandise would be of top quality; that there were several very unusual things about the property that other properties did not have - 1) the applicant was the County of Orange Plood Control District, and subject property was sub- ject to a trade for land near the Yorba Linda Reservoir which was designated as a County park; 2) that there were two drainage channels below the carwash site which precluded any struaturps on them. 9'he Commission inquired whether or not there was sufficient room to place the tanks underground if there were two channels; whereupon Mr. Knisely stated that fhe corner would have limited use, and one of the trees would have to be relocated, and there was sufficient room for one of the tanks; that they had the February traffic counc report for Brookhurst Street, and the circulation proposed would be adequate because of the lighting at the intereection of Crescent and Brookhurst. Chairmar_ Seymour expressed concern regarding th= proposed carwash-service station since the City had been experiencinq a great deal of trouble lately with closed service stations, therefore, how would the agent for the petitioner feel about s~ tny service stations in the City; whereupon Mr. Knisely stated that he was ;.ully aware of the fact that the Commission was unhappy with the service station situation in Anaheim; and that he did not look at this carwash- service station as a separate item but as part of the whole package. Commissioner Gauer stated that the Commission had advised Mr. Yellis, owner of the•property on the aast side of Brookhurst and Crescent, that they would not consid~r a service station for his property; whereupon Mr. Knisely stated that the Yellis property was projected for residential use on the General Plan. The Commission further noted that the General Plan also projected subject property for a park area. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether these office buildings would have the same architecture as the office buildings farther south; ~.vhereupon Mr. Knisely stated that they would be Spanish architecture but still would be of a different type. Commissioner Kaywood observed that she had drivc^. down Brookhurst Street from La Palma Avenue to KateI.la Avenue and noted there were 21 service station sites, three of which were closed for years, and in no way could she consider approv- ing the establishment of another service station; that there was also an exist- ing carwash just to the sou~h at Lincoln Avenue, and across the street from subject property was a Tic Toc Market, thus she could not see approving a 7-Eleven Market that close to the other small market. However, if just office buildinas were proposed, that would be something very beautiful, and she would be glad to see something beautiful presented instead of the types of develop- ments that had been presented in the past. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer stated that subject property was formerly a dump site, now fil.led with all types of debris, and the proposed structure would require considerable piling to find a salid area; t~at he was not in favor of a car- wash or servfce station at this location; that it was just what Anaheim did not need - more gas stations - and he could not understand why 1lnaheim was select-ed as a city where more gasoline would be sold than throughout the entire United States. Then in response to Commissioner Farano's question regarding the zoning request, stated he would like to see subject property zoned for C-0 uses rather than C-1 iises. ~ -... ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. July 24~ 1972 72-464 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-8, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330, AND VARIANCE N0. 2403 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst then noted that the parcel where the carwash-service station was proposed was a difficult parcel. The Commission then continued reviewing the plans presented. Chairman Seymour inquired whether the petitioner would consider a continuance in order to bring revised plans, del~tinq the carwash-service station at that location. Mr. Bernard Perlin, representing the engineer of this project and agent for the petitioner, advised the Commission that tiiis project was not feasible without the carwash-service station because there was a larger picture to consider; that this was not the normal carwash but would be operated as a carwash with sales of gasoline only, and none of the other usual service station uses; and that it was proposed to exchange subject property for an 87-acre parcel. Commissioner Farano inquired whether the agent for the petitioner meant to infer that these office buildings and retail sales all revolved around approval of the carwash; whereupon Mr. Perlin stated that the value of the property was too high to consider just the office buildings. Commissioner Farano then inquired whether this would be a regulation carwash where vacuum cleaning and detailing was contemplated; whereupon Mr. Perlin stated this would be the typa of carwash where one stayed in his automobile and drove through the carwash cycle. Commissioner Kaywo~d inquired what would happen to the facility - the carwash- service station - if it was not successful - would it be closed down; whereupon Mr. Perlin stated that the carwash-service station would be owned and operated by.Shell Oil, who would be spending $300,000 to $400,000 on the prcject, and they had done an analysis of the area which indicated there was a need for this type of facility at this location. Commissioner Kaywood again stated there w~are numerous service stations and a carwash within a mile of subject property; whereupon Mr. Perlin stated that they proposed to have their facility sesve the Brookhurst Street traffic, while the other carwash served the Lincoln Anenue. traffic, and that the manner in which this facility was designed, a prospective customer would have to get a carwash in addition to purchasing gasoline. The Commission observed that many carwsahes these days were offering a free carwash with a fill-up of gasoline, therefore, these so-called carwashes were becoming gas stations instead of carwashes; whereupon Mr. Perlin replied that they would only go to a carwash when the car needed a wash because the gasoline generally was more expensive than the regular gas station, and this would be a marketing feature. Mr. Perlin further noted that the carwash and office buildings were all tied in architecturally, and that the office buildings to the south were very attractive and well designed. Commissioner Farano expressed surprise that three two-story office buildings and a retail store all revolved around approval of a carwash - that seemed utterly incredible; whereupon Mr. Perlin stated that the value of the land was at the intersection, and because of that, it was proposed to trade it for 87 acxes of land for a park. Comnissioner Gauer was of the opinion that more study wa.s needed for this entire area on both sides of Brookhurst Street, south of Crescent, since one parcel requested a service station while ~he other requested a carwash-gasoline sales; and that for the County to place a value on the property was incredible when the property was formerly just a dump site. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted £or the Commission that an area development plan was primarily to establish circulation in an areat that perhaps an environmental impact study should be made by the applicant as his responsibili'.:y since the department did not have the sta.ff or money to do this type of study. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24, 1972 72-465 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-8, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330, AND VARIANCE NO. 2403 (Continued) Commissioner Farano stated the Commission needed some type of a tool to review both the prcperties under consideration and that parcel on the east side of Brookhurst Street, as to what could be done since what was done with one property would have to be done for the other. Commissioner Rowland observed that the proposal did not conform with the General Plan, therefore, a General Plan amendment might be considerad. Commissioner Gauer observed that the buildinqs already developed on the south- erly portion of the dump site were very attractive. Chairman Seymour stated he personally felt neither an area development plan nor a General Plan amendment was needed since everybody in the City knew What should he proposed for the property, particularly after the City decided not to take the property for a park expansion when it became available, but the Commission did not want either a carwash or a gasoline station at this intersection. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Reclassification No. 72-73-8, Variance No. 2403, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1330 to the meeting of August 7, 1972, for further study and for staff to schedule subject petitions together with the reclassification petition on the Yellis property. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CAEROKEE MOBIZE GARDENS, 235 South Beach NO. 72-73-9 Boulevard, Anaheim, Califorr.ia 92804, Owner; ELIZASETH OR LIGGETT LANCASTER, 235 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, VARIANCE NO. 2394 California 92804, Agents; property described as: A tri- angularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 1.3 acres, having a frontage o£ approximately 264 feet on the west side of Beach Soulavard, having a maximum depth of approximately 420 feet, and being located approximately 670 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFZCATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE PERMITTED USES TO ALLOW SALES~ SERVICE~ LEASE, AND STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TO ALLOW USE OF A MOBILEHOME AS AN OFFICE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Liggett Lancaster, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he represented the Cherokee Mobile Gardens and the lessee of the property; that they concurred with the staff report recommended conditions, and he would not give any contrary comment on the fence or landscaping. Chairman Seymour inquired why the petitioner could not provide a break-up of the stark appearance of asphalting this entire area, providing some landscaping, because the site plan indicated very attractive landscaping on the exterior. Mr. Lancaster replied that be.cause o£ the lengths of the mobilehomes and trailers and motorhomes, ranging from 28 feet to 55 feet, it would be difficult to turn around if landscaping were required, and that they planned to provide additional landscaping around the office strueture. Commissioner Farano noted there was ample room foTOtosedatouretaintthe2eucalyptus homes; whereupon Mr. Lancaster stated that they p P trees which were very large. Commissioner Parano ther. inquired what tne exterios material would be of the mobilehome to be used as ar, of£ice; whereupon Mr. Lancaster stated this would be simulated wood; that they would be carrying several different types of ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 72-466 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-9 AND VARIANCE NO. 2394 (Continued) mobilehomes, some being double wide, and then in response to further questions by tha Commission, stated that they would provide landscaping in whatever way staff would require on the plan, and that they did not plan to sell boats, only mobilehomes and trailers and motorhomes. Further discussion was held between the Commission and the agent regardinq landscaping, length of the block wall, and difficulty in placinq the large mobilehomes to the rear. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Seymour noted that if subject petitions were considered for approval, one of the conditions of approval should be staff approval of the landscaping plan. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion tha*_ this type of sales use of the property would be zather unsightly if one had ever viewed similar operations in Huntington Beach and Santa Ana, because of the storage of mobilehomes along Beach Boulevard. Mr. Lancaster stated that they planned to store these mobilehomes, trailers and motorho~:es to the rear of the property and display of new facilities would be toward the front. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner was proposinq landscaping only on one side, and at that, only low-type landscaping which would not shield from view the storage area. Mr. Lancaster not.ed that there would be retail sales in front where trees were located, and that one of the mobilehomes they proposed to sell was the Cabana Escapator which ran as high as $30,000. Furthermore, any storage would be a :onvenience foL their customers of trailers and motorhomes. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that if motorhomes and trailers were proposed to be sold, this should be done in the C-3 Zone rather than the zone requested. Commissioner Gauer observed that since the petitioner was selling immediately adjacent to a mobilehome park, the appearance of motorhomes was not much different than a mobilehome since it ~va~ big, square and formidable. Commissioner Herbst felt the proposal was not compatible with the area, parti- cularly where storage was proposed, and motorhomes required more servicing than mobilehomes, and he had felt that in a short time the petitioners would be back requesting permission to service these motorhomes which were biqger than many trucks. Furthermore, it would be a nonconforminq type use. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-170 and moved for its passage and adoption to recom~end to the City Council appsoval of Pp*_ition for Reclassi- fication No. 72-73-9 subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-171 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2394, in part. since the pecitioner withdrew his former request for servicing of the vehicles, and subject to conditions and the stipulation by the petitioner that the landscaping plans would be subject to approval by staff. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoirg resolutioa was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-467 VARIANCE NO. 2396 - PUBLIC HEARING. CLARENCE AND RHEA L. MEDDOCK, 1731 South Euclid Street, Suite F, Anaheim, California 92802, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ALLOW MOBILEHOME SALES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 14.6 acres, having a Erontage of approximately 1,100 feat on the east side of Haster Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 615 feet, being located approximately 150 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1844 Haster Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGR2CULTURA:,, 20NE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearir.3, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Clarence Meddock, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated they were requesting permission to'sell trailers on vacant lots in their mobilehome park; that these would be f~r the smaller lotst that said smaller trailers would be special-ordered from the manufacturer; that this was an open park, and any mobilehome dealer could sell mobilehomes for the park; that most of their spaces accommodated up to 20-foot wide mobilehomes, and in rare instances, 24-foot ones could be accommodated; that they had quite a number of vacancies during the past six months, and the dealers in the area did not stock these small mobilehomes; that they would sell the mobilehome and rent the space on which it was located; that they did not plan to order mobilehomes for all of their vacant spaces - presently there were six spaces vacant, but they planned to order only two mobilehomes for two of the spacesi that they had mobilehomes in their park with 10, 12, and 20-foot wide spaces, and t!:e manufacturers were still making the 20-foot wide mobilehomes, but most of the present-day mobilehomes were 24 feet wide. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether these mobilehomes wou13 be rented; whereupon Mr. Meddock stated that under State law, they could not be rented. THE HEaRING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer observed that approval of this petition was one of the things that had to be done for the older mobilehome parks because of the fact that they could not accommodate larger mobilehomes - otherwise, these could be converted into travel trailer parks. The Commission inquired as to the reason why mobilehome sales had to be added to the existing sign, and would sales also include removal from the site; whereupon Mr. Meddock stated that signing would be needed because they would have to get permission from the State, as well; and that although they would sell to anyone who wanted to take the mobilehoae off of the lot, they preferred to keep the park filled. Furthermore, many of the residents in the park had passed away, and then he sold their homes and some of the purchaserswould take these homes off of the lot. In addition, the State at the present time did not permit quoting a price on mobilehomes that were available on the lots. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-172 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2396 subject to conditions on the basis that a hardship existed because the mobilehome manufacturers did not manufacture these smaller homes except by special order, and since this was an older mobilehome park with smaller spaces, it was important to keep the empty spaces filled. Prior to roll call, Chairman Seymour expressed further concern regarding the signing on the property and the proper method necessary to correct this if Mr. Meddock turned this into a regulation retail mobilehome sales facility, even though he stated his intent was to keep the mobilehome park spaces filled. Commissioner Herbst then amended his motion to require review of the petition and property in two years to determine its effect and whether or not this had turned into a mobilehome sales lot. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~ ~ ;4ZNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-468 RECESS - Chairman Seymour recessed the meeting for dinner a~ 5:58 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 7:48 p.m., Commissioner Allred being absent. RRCLASSIFICATION - PUSLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS/TEXACO VENTURES, Attention NO. 72-73-11 of James Barisic, Vice President, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners; property described as: CONDITIONAL USE An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- PERMIT N0. 1332 mately 30 acres, having a frontage of approximately 742 feet on the east side of Nohl Ranch Road, having a maximum TF..NTATIVE MAP OF depth of approximately 1,700 feet and being located approxi- TRACT NO. 7929 mately one-half mile north of the centerline of Serrano Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 162-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT~ WAIVJ:NG (1) REQUIREDSENT THAT LOTS ABUT A PUBLIL STT.<EET~ (~) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA, AND (3) DiINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS/TEXACO VENTUR^.S, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806; ENGINEER: VTN, 2301 Campns Drive, Irvine, California 92664; proposing to subdivide 30 acres into 162 R-2 zoned lots. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner was requesting a two-week continuance. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-11, Conditional Use Permit No. 1332, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7929 to the meeting of August 7, 1972, as requested by the petitioner. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1328 (Continued from page 72-462) Chaisman Seymour noted that one of the items of the afternoon agenda had been continued to the evening session to allow the petitioner time to obtain draw- ings of his proposal, and the Commission, therefore, would consider Conditional Use Permit No. 1328 prior to other items. Mr. Moss submitted a copy o£ the kitchen plans, noting that page 2 of the plans was as approved by the Orange County Health Department, indicating there were two micro-wave ovens. Chairman Seymour stated that it would be helpful to the Commission if the petitioner would explain the types of food proposed to be served. Mr. Souzi advlsed the Commission that they would be serving many different types of sandwiches, but that they could cook any type of food, and this proposal would be serving a broader tppe of food; tnat this would be the second restaurant ^ the first one was presently serving ten types of sand- wiches - chili and crackers; that according to the Orange County regulations, they must be-able to serve any type of ineal under "Type 20" regulations, which would mean full restaurant service in order to comply, but if this were a beer bar, then they would need only a 750-square foot area - but this proposal would be required to have the same facilities as Lorenzo's Restaurant had; that they proposed a similar type £acility With the new motel at Katella and State College Boulevard, and they presently had the Sandman Motel at Lincoln and Western Avenues where a similar operation would be established. Furthermore, they did not want to be classified as a beer bar since 60+t of their sales would be food, and he felt that a businessman should have the right to go into a place where good sandwiches were served. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1328 (COntinued) 72-469 Chairman Seymour noted that staff had done some quick calculation to determine the square footage, depending upon what could be called a kitchen, a bar, a cooler, and sto~age area, and it would appear the total wa~ only 674 square feet, wh3.le the Coinmission required a minimum of 600 square feet for the kitchen alone - which would be a food preparation area. Mr. Souzi advised the Commission that they had already spent over 57,000 for outside modifications on this industrial building. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commissian was having a difficult time in determining whether this was a restaurant or a beer bar, and statements and plans presented had not been helpful to make th~s clear to the Commission, therefore, if the petitioner had anything to say that could solve this, particularly when one saw pool tables and dart board £acilities on this plan, this would be helpful. Mr. Souzi stated that they belonged to the American Congress of Dart Throwers, and the pool tables which they had purchased was a growing thing because today almost 6 of the 15 restaurants had pool tables. Chairman Seymour noted that there were areas that were suitable for beer bars, and the question before the Commission was whether or not they should approve what appeared to them to be a beer bar in a place where a restaurant was beiny proposed. Mr. Souzi stated that this was not a beer bar; that they had a full coffee machine and drink dispensex, and he would zather sell a glass of coke than beer all day long. Commissioner Herbst inquired how many full-fledged restaurants had pool tables in them; whereupon Mr. Souzi stated that this was quite common, however, he did not know where there was one in Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst then stated that since the petitioner was in this business and stated many resta~irants had pool tables, perhaps he could tell the Commission of these restaurants; whereupon Mr. Souzi stated that they were proposing to open one next to the Jo11y Roger Restaurant in Dana Point. Commissioner Rowland noted that this waa in a building four buildings away from the Jolly Roger Restaurant. Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission had presented to them a rtumber of beer bars in previous years, but he had never seen a restaurant plan as was being presented with this petition, therefore, he would suggest that the petitioner try to convince the Commission that this was not a beer bar. Commissioner Gauer suqgested that subject petition be continued for two weeks to allow the Commission time to view a similar operation and inquired of the petitioner where a similar uperation could be located; whereupon Mr. Souzi stated their Tweeds Pub Ltd. No. 1 was located at 1300 East Edinger Street in Santa Ana near Grand Avenue, and that the food sezved at Lorenzo's and Manny's was similar to what they proposed. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, secor.ded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the hearing and continue Petition £or Conditional Usa Permit No. 1328 to the meetina of August 7, 1972, to allow time for the Commission and staff to visit similar establishments as indicated by the petitioner for first-hand knowledge of the proposal. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24r 1972 72-470 RECLASSIFZCATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES E. JORDAN, 420 South 72-73-2 NO Euclid Street, Suite E, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner; . K. V. DILLS, 420 South Euclid Street, Suite E. Anaheim, VARIANCE N0. 2393 California 92802, Agent; property described as: ~l (READVERTISED) rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 103 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 234 feet and being located approximately 580 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ 7.ONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) REQUIRED TREE SCREEN A7.ONG RESIDENTIAL ZONE BOUNDARY~ (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, AND (3) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF SLOCK WAiL ABUTTING RESIAENTIAL ZONE TO CONSTRUCT A COMBINATION RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL OFFZCE BUILDING. Subject petitions were continued £rom the meeting of July 10, 1972, in order to allow time for readvertisement of additional waivers. A showing o£ hands indicated five persons present in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mcnaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to construct a combination retail and commercial office building in the ~-1 Zone with waivers of the site development standards of said zone in order to proceed; that the plan indicated a two-story building would be located in the center of the propert~i with 16 parking stalls located in the front along Brookhurst Street and the remainder of the 38 parking stalls would be located in the rear of the property; that the floor plan indicated the first floor woul.d be devoted to retail-commercial uses, while the second floor would be devoted to office ases. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluationr noted that the applicant was re- questing waiver of the sc:reen landscaping along the southerly boundary line because the driveway to gain access to the parking in the rear would abut a major portion of the southerly property line~ and based on the submitted plan, providing tree screen landscaping along this border would make the driveway extremely narrow and hazardous; that tree screen planting was provided for in the remainder of the parking area alony the southerly property line; that the request was also being made for a portion of the westerly property line, and t:~e Commission would wish to determine the appropriateness of allowing the proposal without the required screen landscaping in these two particular areas; that the waiver of the maximum building height was requested because the appli- cant was proposing a two-story building within 21 feet of the southerly property line; that at a setback of 21 feet, a 10-foot building would be permitted, and the applicant was proposing a 29-foot high building; that based on the existing convalescent home to the south, the Commission might consider this request as being suitable; that the waiver of the minimum zone boundary wall height was being requested because there was an existinq 5-foot masonry wall along the southerly boundary, and Code would require a 6-foot high masonry wall separat- ing the commercial uses from the residential uses - again, the Commission might wish to consider this appropriate because of the development of the convalescent home to the south; and tnat the Anaheim General Plan indicated the area in question as being suitable for general commercial use, while the C-1 Zone would implement this General Plan designation. Mr. Kenneth Dills, agent for the petitioner, advised the Commission that he would request to defer Commission consideration until he consulted with the persons present in opposition. (See page 7y-479~ • ~ s MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ July 24~ 1972 72-471 VARIANCE N0. 2399 - PUBLIC HEARING. THELMA SLOBODIN SLOAN. 1748-D Via Mirada Street, Fullerton, California 92.633, Owner; JOHN W. ZYLSTRA, 710 North Euclid Street, Suite 220, Anaheim, Cali£ornia 92801, Agent; requestinq WAIVER OF (1) REQUIRED TREE SCREEN ALONG RESIDENTIAL ZONE BOUNDARY, (2) MAXTMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE~ (3) MINIMUM NUMBER GF PARKING STALLS, AND (4) MAXIMUDI HFIGHT OF WALL IN THE FRONT SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING on property described as: A rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the north side of Linccln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 226 feet, and beinc located approximately 770 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearin9. it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. John 2ylstra, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the pT'~posal and the various methods they used to arrive at what was before the Com^iss9on, noting that they had attempted to design a building with conventional parki:,g, but found there would be traffic problems with vehicles going in both ~lir~ections and finally decided to have parking beneath the build- ing where they Nould have concrete columns and qirders, said building providing covered parking, however, as they went further into the project, it was deter- mined that waivers would be necessary to construct the proposed building, as well as making it possible for trash trucks to serve this building; that since Lincoln Avenne have a 35-foot _etback instead of the usual 10-foot commercial setback, they proposed to have a 6-foot wall enclosing and screening the trash area within said 35-foot setback; that they were proposing to have raised planter areas in the front; that although he was a proponent for landscaping and trees, it was decided that screen trees would make it difficult for vehi- cular maneuvering in the rear of the parking lot; and that the waiver of the height limitation was adjacent to an R-A parcel which, in all likelihood, would develop for commercial uses as well. Furthermore, they were proposing off- street parking stalls at 4 space~ per 1000 square feet, and from their experi- ence in the other building they owned, 20 to 25+t of the tenants were corporation type who required only 3 spaces per 1000 square £eet, since they did not expect outside customers but would represent branch offices, however, in designing the parking there was 3/4.space short of the requirement; and that they would agree with all recommended conditioiis except Condition No. 7 since they hail an ingress in line with the median divider on Lincoln Avenue which would allow left turns into this ingress drive. Furthermore, that the third drive proposed was only for the trash truck because the turn-around would require pulling out into the street after picking up the trash, and that may have been one of the reasons why staff recommended only two drives be permitted, b~_cause this drive was proposed for less than 20 feet, however, they would stipulate to a 25-foot minimum drive; and that they could also move the westerly drive farther west. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether there was any reason why staff suggested requiring only two driveway access points; whereupon Assistant Zoning Super- visor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that because these drive approaches were only 20 to 22 feet apart and also because this third driveway could be used for a short-time parking zone, thereby prohibiting any trash truck pick- up with turn-around, and could lead to trash trucks backing into the public right-of-way. In addition, there was another conflict in the parking under the building wherein the Engineering Division requested that a minimum of 22 feet be provided between the drives. The Commission inquired whether the plans could be redesigned so that those exiting would use the other egress and also changing the landscaping in the front; whereupon Mr. Zylstra stated that suggestions by the Commission might destroy the focal point of interest in their building, and then reviewed this upon request by the Commission as it appeared on the plan. Mr. Zylstra stated that they would control the third access by working through management of the building and posting a sign for the area marked "no parking". ~ .~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1972 ~2'4~2 VARIANCE NO. 2399 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-173 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2394 subject to conditions and the stipulation by the petitioner that the westerly drive would be relocated farther west, and that the third access would be for trash pick-up only and would be posted with a"no parking" sign. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOE:S: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILTOWER PROPERTSES, 1010 Wilshire Boule- PERMIT NO. 1329 vard, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owner; SHELL OIL CO., P. O. IIox 4090, Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; request- ing permission to RE-ESTABLISH (1) A CARWASH AND (2) AN AUTOMOHILE SERVICE STATION WITHiN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: An irregularly-shapad parcel of land having frontages of approximately 180 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 180 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, being located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and State Colleqe Boulevard, and further described as 201 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property presently classified C^1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONES. A showing of hands indicated seven persons present in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in cl~se proximity, previous zoning action on the ~roperty, the latest being Conditional Use Perffit No. 1311 approving the re- establishment of a carwash and service station on this property several weeks ago; that although this request was simi].ar in many respects to the recently- approved conditional use permit, staff considered this proposal to be of sufficient difference to require a new conditional u5e permit and reconsidera- tion by the Planning Commission; that the applicant was proposinq to demolish the existing service station on the property an3 ~.~-establish a carwash and service station by redesigning the entire site; that the plans indicate the carwash would be fully enclosed, providing exterior carwash only, and there would be no detailing or vacuuming of automobiles on the site; that the pro- posed carwash building would be located in the same general area as the existing carwash structure; that the pump islands and canopy for the serviTesentll~exist- portion would be located also in the same general area as those p Y ing, however, oriented so as to run perpendicular to State Colleqe Boulevard rather than parallel with State College Boulevard; thst the site plans indicate the provision of 8 off-street parking stalls, 2 drive approaches to State College Boulevard and 2 drive approaches to 7incoln Avenue; that in addi.tion to the drive approaches on Lincoln Avenue, the plan indicates a 39-foot wide opening to the existing alley to the west; and that the openinq would be near the entrance to the carwash. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that tne existing carwash and service station on subject property had been in existence for a number of years and had recently created various problems to the adjacent homeowners to the west, primarily due to the antiquated design of the existing facility, the noise and general upkeep of the property having presented a nuisance to these singie-family homeowners; that the re-establishment of a carwash and service station utilizing contemporary standards and techniques would appear to be an improvement of the praperty; that as in the previous request, a major con- sideration in the application was the site desiyn; that the primary difference between this application and the previous application was the nature of the primary business of the applicant; and that the previous applicant was in the carwash business using gasoline sales as a secondary service, while this petition was requesting gasoline sales business and providing a carwash as a secondary servica to the customes. Furthermore, that the major difference in the two carwash facilities was that the previous carwash would give a full interioY-exterior carwash with detailing and vacuuming, while the proposed carwash would have exterior only, where the sutomobile would simply be run through the machine to be washed and driedt that a recent field inspection ~ .~.~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 72-473 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1329 (Continued) of a similar establishment in another city b}• a member of the Development Services staff indicated that due to the design of the building, the major sound emission came from the exit to the carwash; that the sound emission from either side was rather negligible, and the sound from the entry was considerably less than th_ average carwash; that this particular carwash was so oriented that the major sound emission would be in a southerly direction toward an existing commercial use to the south; that it would appear that the single-family residences to the west would be protected by means of landscaping and walls from any sound that might occur from blowers within the carwash; and that the Commission may also wish to have the applicant stipulate to being aware o£ the Municipal Code limiting the sound emission at the property line and request the stipulation to conform with that code. Furthermore, a findinq to the effect that the submitted plans indicated the construction of two price signs, one along State College Boulevard and the other along Lincoln Avenue. The signs, as proposed, would not be legal signs under the Sign Ordinance of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and the applicant had made no specific request for a variance from this sectiou, therefore, it might be appropriate to advise the applicant of the illegality and have him stipulate to providing signs in conformance with the Municipal Code. Finally, that another recommended condition be attached in the event subject petition were approved, that being that the hours of operation be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and the petition shall be reviewed at the end of one year to determine whether any detrimental effects to residential uses have been detected and to determine whether the hours of operation should be amended. Mr. Michael O'Mahoney, representing the Shell Oil Company, aqent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was somewhat surprised at the number of opposition since staff stated that the proposed development appeared to be a better site plan than previously proposed, and the Commission was concerned with what types of uses that were proposed adjacent to residential uses, and then presented a colored rendering of the proposal, noting he had no objection to complyinq with Code requirement for the price signs. Mr. 0'Mahoney then stated he wou].d prefer that the hours of operation be changed to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for the carwash and the gasoline stacion would be a 24-hour operation, and because of the State College Boulevard traffic, there appeared to be no sound problem since he had a sound man take a rea9ing along State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue which indicated the decibel reading of 73 decibels 10 feet in from the property line - although they had no reading of a similar one since their other operation had 160 horsepower blowers, whereas they were proposing 120 horsepower blowers; and that the decibel reading would be less at that intersection, although he was fully aware of the City's ordinance regarding sound readings. The C.ommission inquired whether or not the petitioner aould be able to meet the 65 decibel reading at the R-1 property line; whereupon Mr. 0'Mahoney stated that they had a leeway of S+k. The Commission noted that if one wou13 check the sound decibels, the decibel reading inside would be 97 for 160 horsepower blowers. Commissioner F~_ano noted that an increase of 20$ reading in decibels meant over 40 decibel reading more, not necessarily 20 decibel reading more, and the increase or decrease could mean a difference of 40$ to 50~ in sound level. Commissioner Gauer inquired that since this was adjacent to a 6-foot masonry wall, was there any landscaping proposed adjacent to the wall and the alley. Mr. O'Mahoney replied that all of the openings would be closed and the noise level would be negative at the exit, and most cars would be exiting by way of Lincoln Avenue adjacent to commercial uses. Mr. Robert Neamy, 212 South Ash Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting his property was directly behind the carwash operation, and that he spoke for most people in opposition who had previously appeared in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1311; that he would like to out- line the basic problems which the opposition had with the old carwash with C~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-474 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1329 (Continued) water draining into the alley, people living in the carwash at niyht, and lights shining into the yards of the single-family homes at niqht; that thzy had withdrawn their opposition to Conditional U~e Permit No. 1311 because the agent met with the property owners and agreed to locate the carwash toward State College Boulevard; that he would place sound-deadening devices on the blowers if they exceeded the decibel reading; and that hours of operation were also agreed to, since the residential area was immediately adjacent to the property, and these residents wanted to enjoy their rear yards. Mr. Neamy further noted that the present proposal would be immediately adjacent to the wall of the alley, and if the 3ecibel reading were made at the wall, there would be a considerable difference. Chairman Seymour noted that the representative had stated they had taken their decibel readinq about 10 feet from State College Boulevard, therefore, t-e apparently was aware of the decibel limitations above the traffic noise level at night which could mean additional sound buffering or limiting their hours of operation. Mr. Neamy noted that the plans indicated a portion of the existing wall was proposed to be removed in order to provide additional access, however, there was more than enough traffic using the alley from the other commercial business in the area, therefore, they did not want to have traffic from the carwash or service station. Furthermore, any type of improvement on that corner would be better than what had existed there before. In addition, he did not visit any of the other carwash operations to determine the noise level. A petition of opposition was then presented by Mr. Neamy signed by 22 adjoining property owners• Chairman Seymour noted that he did not understand what happened to Conditional Use Permit No. 1311 since the last time Mr. Neamy was present in opposition, because the Commiss=on was fully aware of the concern of the homeowners; therefore, he would suggest that the agent for the petitioner under this petition meet with the single-fami?.~• homeowners adjacent to subje:t property to resolve all the probl~ms that had been presented since the agent appeared to demonsi:rate a sincere interest in trying to iron out the noise problems. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIEr, to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1329 . to the meeting of August 7, 1972, to allow time for the agent for the peti- tioner to meet with the adjoining single-family homeowners to resolve problems presented and for the submission of revised plans that would incorporate these recommendations. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK R. KROGMAL7r 1572 Clearview Lane, NO. 72-73-12 Santa Ana, California 92705, Owner; SUNBURST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.. 9502 Greenwich Street, Anaheim, California VARIANCE N0. 2400 92804, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.1 acres TENTATIVE MAP OF having a frontage of approximately 520 feet on the south TRACT NO. 7932 side of Wagner Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 177 feet and being located at the southwest corner of Wagner Avenue and Sunkist Street. Property presently classified R-A. AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFZCATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEPITIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE (1) LOT SIDE-ON TO ARTERIAL HIGHWAY~ (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ AND (3) MINIMUM I:OT WIDTH. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Co.. 222 East u ncoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805; proposing to subdivide a 2.1-acre parcel into 9 R-1 zoned lots. One person indicated his presence in opposition. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CSTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24, 1972 72-475 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-12, VARIANCE NO. 2400~ ANU TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7932 (Continued) Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify the property to the R-1 Zone in order tc subdivide and construct a 9-lot subdivision tract; that two stub streets from the south were proposed to extend in*_o subject property, the easterly one cul-de-sacing and the westezly one was proposed to extend to Wagner Avenue; that the lots ranged in size from 5605 square feet to 6560 square feet and range3 in width from 50.5 feet to 51.7 faetf and that the extension of Ambridge Street through the tract would separate the tract map from a"not-a-part" portion which was originally a part of the total property and contained a single-family residence. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that tne General Plan designated this area for low density residential development, and the requestefl zoning would implement that designation; that the waiver involving the requirement that lots abut arterial highways, should rear on those highways, was requested because the applicant was proposiny three lots that would side-on Wagner Avenue, and due to the existing development in the area and the long, narrow nature of this parcel, it would appear difficult to develop the property without having side-on lots, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider this request appropriate in this particular instznce; that the remaining two waivers would not appear to have justification since no hardship had been shown to justify the reduction in the lot area in addition to the lot width; and that if the Commission considered these waivers inappropriate, then the tentative tract map would also be inappropriate. Furthermore, the owner of the property in question formerly owned the "not-a-part" parcel shown on the westerly edge of the submitted tentative tract map -'that particular owner sold the not-a-tart parcel to a third party without benefit of a parcel map,-and in so doing, the not-a-part parcel became an illegal R-A parcel in that it had insufficient frontage - 140 feet being required - and was not a minimum one acre as required in the R-A Zone; that in addition to the creation of an illegal parcel, there might be some difficulty in obtaining the required street improvements in front of the not-a-part parcel, and the Planning Commission will recall similar circumstances with a multiple-family subdivision on South Euclid Straet wherein the applicant proposed not to include a not-a-part parcel, and as a part of approval of subject petition, the not-a-part parcel had *o become a part of the original request in order to obtain street improve~. therefore, the Comnission might wish to consider it appropriate in this instance to require similar action by this applicant. Mr. Lawrence Hill, representing the agent for the petitioner and the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted staff apparently agreed that one of the waivers appeared logical because of the size ~f thE parcel; that the other waivers, too, could be considered appropriate because this was a hardship parcel to subdivide and which presently had little value to the City; that they proposed to develop it into a residential neighborhood, however, because of the economics and the fact that the property had a frontage on Sunkist Street of 175 feet and on Wagner Avenue of 500 feet, together with the fact that both streets would have to be improved with a cost of $45,000, making a per lot cost of $7,500 if subdivided into only 6 lots; that the maximum marketing value of an R-1 lot was $8,000 to $9,000, which would mean the homes would range in price from $36,000 to $40,000; that they felt in order to satisfy the need of the greatest majority of the market in Anaheim and Orange County the median price would have to be between $33,000 and $3Q,000, and it was their intent to build homes in that price range; that the hards}~ip for.development of this property could be the large improvement cost per lot if only 6 lots were permitted to be developed; that they felt their proposal was a reasonable solution to a prablem parcel by developing the pr~oerty with 9 lots with the waivers requested, although staff indicated lots ranged in size from 5605 to 6560 square feetr i there were 3 lots under 6500 square feet and 2 lots with 6100 square feet, with 1 lot being 6300 square feet, which would leave 3 lots at the lesser size under 6000 square feet, however, there would be no lots of the required 7200 , squaze feet; that reference made to the not-a-part parcel by staff was some- what of a problem to them, as well, because it was not the petitionPr's property except that thep had agreed to incur the cost of improvement by posting a bond, but they were unahle to reach an agreement with the present owner that woumadee satisfactory to him and to themselves due to the additional demands being which were unacceptable to the developer, although they would agree to take care of the street improvement costs for that property; and that if the Commission had questions, he would be available to answer them. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 2A~ 1972 72-476 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-12~ VARIANCE NO. 2400~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT I N0. 7932 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer observed that the not-a-part parcel was causing all of the problems the developer was facinq; that the original owner of the property had created his own problem by withholding the 'rontage pxoperty in order to develop it for some commercia] u_e, and the problem was further increased by the sale of the portion on which the owner's home was locatedj that the Planning Commission for years had been trying to discourage property owners retaining a portion of the property for their own use or for aome more intense use; that because the petitioner elected to retain this property for some mnre intense use did not mean the Commission should be granting him a privilege of • proposing 5000 square foot lots in this area. The Commission then inquired as to what the developer planned for the homes that were less than 6000 square feet; whereupon Mr. Kit Kenyon, one of the developers, stated they proposed to develop two-~tory, four-bedroom homes on 1900 square feet and that the land coverage for most of the lots would be less than 35$. Then in response to further Commission questioning, stated that the larger lots would have the four-bedroom,.i950-square foot coverage, while the balance would have three-bedroom homes. Commissioner Farano inquired how these homps oompared wit:~ the requirements of the new RS-5000 standards with lots ranging from 5600 to 6500 square feet and homes ranging in size from 1562 to 1950 square feet; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that these would all fall within the ran~e of the RS-5000 standards since a four-bedroom home was required to have a 5800-squsre foot lot with a lot coverage from 1600 to 1650 square feet, including the qarage, which would mean a 3~$ to 33+t coverage. Mr. Kenyon noted that there were R-2-5000 homes south of the school to the south of subject property, which could be considered already having established a precedent. Assistant Developmeat Services Direvtor Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the R-2-5000 homes were about 1000 feet south of subject property but wera also adjacent to multiple-family residen- tial development. The Commission was of the opinion that this could not be considered as having established a precedent. Mr. Kenyon also noted that about 600 to 700 feet to the west on the north side of Wagner Avenue there also were R-2-5000 homes; whereupon the Commission noted that they reqretted even having considered that property for F.=2-5000. Mr. Hill advised the Commission that they were trying to help the property owner, but they were only small developers, and large developers would never touch a parcel of this size - parhaps the Commisaion had some opposition to the owner himsel£. Commissioner Farano noted that the petitioner-owner had created his own problem, and the developer was placing the Commission in the position of making a decision in his favor based on the problems created by the owner, and that the Commission should only consider the appropriateness of land use and could not consider the economic problems of parcels of land. Furthermore, if a developer wanted R-1 zoning, the Commission should recommend approval of this, but the variance request placed this property comparable to RS-5000 zoning, and if the developer had proposed RS-5000, he would not have had a chance before the Commission. Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner originally had three acres, but by selling the not-a-part parcel, this had created a problem parcel, and thus created his own hardship. Mr. Frank Krogman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had purchaseo three acres of the land seven years ago and built his home on the westerly portion; that he had tried to obtain C-i zoning on the balance. however, because the surrounding property owners were opposed to commercial zoning, he did not apply for C-1; and that he had a chance Lo purchase seven acres but did not take advantaqe of it, therefore, he could onl,y purchase three acres later or„ thus he was "stymied". ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24, 1972. ~2-4~~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-12, VARIANCE N0. 2400~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 793~ (Continued) The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner had sold off the not-a- part parcel since he had created an ille,gal parcel. Mrs. Ann Madison, realtor, appeared before the Commission and stated that Mr. Krogman, like many people who own property in Anaheim and then sold off a portion of their large parcel, thought by ~elling off the portion of his home he was proceeding properly; and that he had tried to sell the property for a number of years, which included the homesite, but could only sell the homesite. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Commission had before them a parcel on which there was moze than one problem: 1) in having executed the not-a-part parcel map, and 2) the problem of street widening which would increase the hardship on the City, and he would not vote on subject petitions until the petitioner resolved these problems, particularly since the not-a-part parcel jutted out into the street and would be the only parcel between Sunkist Street and State College Boulevard not fully improved; and that wlien these legal problems develop, it should not be presented to the Commission for them to resolve. Mrs.~Madison noted that the developer had agreed to install the street improvements and construct a retaining wall, but the owner of the not-a-part parcel wanted more - now he wanted the developer to move the 150-foot block wallj that the developer's lot costs were already $4500 per lots and that the developer was hoping the City would take advantage of the street improvements for street widening purposes. The Commission was of the opinion that the taxpayers of +he City should not be required to conie to the rescue of the petitioner to resolve an economic problem since he had created his own problem in creating the not-a-part parcel, while the Commission was required to render decisions on zoning actions. Mr. Krogman noted he had purchased the property while it was still under the jurisdiction of the County and had constructed his home on the westerly portion, and since annexation to the City, he had tried twice to have his property rezoned. Continued discussion was held by the Commission, Mr. Krogman, and Mrs. Madison regarding the problems established oa the property by the creation of the not- a-part parcel and the problems encountered with the propert owner on said parcel. Mrs. Carol Wagner, 2338 East Wagner Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that she and her husband were the owners of the not-a-part parcel and were in the middle of the entire pr~blem; that they 3id not object to develop- ment of the property to the east, 1?~,:c she would hate to see the row of eucalyp- tus trees removed or to have Ambridge Street extended to Wagner ~venue; that the existing wall was 2p feet from the wall to the southwest; that although at the.present time there was no problem with cars on Katella Avenue because the high school to the west had no summer school, during school hours the street became very crowded, therefore, she felt the retaining wall should be required, which would keep children off of. their property; and that the home to the south of their property projected farther out than their wall, while the street terminated at the rear of their property. The Commission noted that the not-a-part parcel was a substandard lot and then incuired when the Wagners had acquired the propertys whereupon Mrs. Wagner stated it was two years ago to the month. T:~e Commission further inquired whether the Wagners were aware of the fact that their lot was substandard since under the ordinance of the existing R-A. 2one on the property, a parcel must be a minimum of one acre, and the lot split was created illegally, and did the Wagner's title report from the previous oWner of the property so indicate it. ~ ~ ~ MINUT'~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 ~Z'4~a RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-12, VARIANCE N0. 2400~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7932 (Continued) Mrs. Wagner presented some documents and upon examination, Commissioner Farano noted that this had been prepared by a civil enqineer in November, 1955, and inquired whether the petitioner had acquired the Qroperty in 1955 or 1956. Mr. Krogman replied that tha dc+cument had been given to him when he purchased the nro~erty in 1956. Commissioner Farano suggested that Mrs. Waqner bring her land title policy for him to review so that he could determine what this policy stated regardinq the lot split. Mr. Kit Kenyon, representing the developer of the property, appeared before the Commission in rebuttal and stated that the developer had offered to improve the frontage of the not-a-part parcel, even to installing a retaining wall; that he would continue to make that offer to the Wagners, however, anythinq additional would have to be resolved between Mr. Krogman and the Waqners since he was at the limit of what he could offer to the owners of the not-a-part parcel, and as a developer, if he were required to spend more, it would not be worth it economically because of the size of the parcel; that it would be almost impossible t~ develop subject property with less than nine lots, and whether the petitioner had created an existing problem or not, it was his belief that they could develop good homes; that although the lots in the sub- division would not be 7200 square feet, they would provide adequate recreation open area since most were over 6000 square feet; that he would not be present £or the hearing if the other problems could not be worked out; that none of the other larger developers would attempt to develop this property, therefore, if subject petitions and tract were not approved, the property could remain undeveloped for a long time, thus leaving the streets, which needed widening and improvement, in the existing manner; that he did not feel anyone would be harmed by the proposed subdivision and homes planned for the property since it would be a great improvement and asset to the City; and that th~:re was no way to resolve the problems presented at the public hearing or the fact that the lots were less than Code requirement unless Mr. Krogman would reduce the price of the land so that compatible subdivi~ion and homes comparable with the existing homes could be constructed. The G~~mmission inquired whether it would be possible to cul-de-sac AmbriBge Street ratner than ~xtending it to Wagner Avenue - would this help; whereupon Mr. Kenyon stated that there would be some savinqs, and he had discussed this with the City Engineer. but they would prefer that Ambridge Street extend to Wagner Avenue since this would create an undesirable cul-de-sac. Commissioner Farano stated he was more concerned with the deviation from the site development standards of the R-1 Zone since the City had a number of these undesirable cul-de-sacs; that there had been many requests presented to the Planning Commiseion in the past with every type of argument given that a similar request would not establish a precedent, however, he was r.ot sure that approval would not be setting a precedent since the Commission during the past four to six weeks had maintained that R-1 zoning should retain 77.00 square foot lots; and that he wondered whether the developer had any idea of the number of times people in this general area had been present at public hearings - more times than he cared to count - to oppose any waivers from the existing develop- ment in the area, and he did not feel the area deserved any waivers from the requested zoning, which would be detrimental to the area, and this proposal was :antamount to the same thing. Mr. Kenyon noted that the City Council had already given R-2-5000 zoning in this general area. Coinmissioner Farano noted that the Planning Commission was well aware of that, but this did not affect the Commission's consideration of subject petition. Mr. Kenyon then inquired what would happen if subject property coulc~ not be developed with 7200 square foot lots; whereupon Commissioner Farai~o stated he would rather see the property remain vacant than to deviate from the site development standards of the R-1 2one. • ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1972 72-479 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-12, VARIANCE NO. 2400, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7932 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer observed that the Commission did not 2ven want to grant waivers from the site development standards in the canyon where lots were proposed having 8400 square feet because of the access problems. Ccmmissioner Farano noted he was trying to keep from establishing a precedent because all of the developers were just sitting, waiting for any crack in the Commission's waivers of maintaining the site development standards o£ the R-1 2one. Mr. Kenyon indicated that he did not think the asking price for the property was excessive, but with the price of the land and cost of improvements, there was no way a small developer such as he, who worked out of his home without any overhead, would be able to touch this property unless nine lots were developed on the property. Commissioner Farano then inquired whether it was reasonable or practical to cul-de-sac Ambridge Street, and if so, would this permit only a small deviation from the 7200-square foot lots; whereupon Mr. Kenyon stated he could see no way of subdividinq this property for all 7200-squaze foot lots a:~d develo~ a reason- able stuc~ure; and that they had tried to cul-de-sac the street but were unable even to have all lots 7200 sguare feet. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-12, Variance No. 2400, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7932 to the meeting of August 21, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to resolve illegal problems in creating the not-a-part parcel and for the cieveloper to revise the tract map, eliminating Ambridge Street exiting to Wagner Avenue, in order to reduce the deviations from the site development standards of the R-1 Zone. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-2 AND VARIANCE t30. 2393 (Continued from page 72-470) Mr. Dills advised the Commission that after discussing the proposal with the opposition, it was decided to request a continuance of subject petitions. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commission Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-2 and Variance No. 2393 to the meeting of August 21, 1972, at the request of the petitioner. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-17 AND VARIANCE NO. 2215 - Property located at the southeast cornar of Orange Avenue and Beach Soulevard - Request for interpretation to permit 6-foot high masonry walls within tne required building setback along arterial hiqhways. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close rror,imity, previous zoning action on the property, and the request for interpretation by the Commission in order to permit 6-foot high, slumpstone walls within the required building setback along arterial highways. Mr. McDaniel noted that in the original staff report on the zoning petitions on this apartment project, attention had been called tc, the facr that wh.ile not indicated on the plan, the building elevations indicated that the applicant proposed a 5-6-foot high fence around the patios located in the front setback along Beach Poulevard and Orange Avenue, however, the applicant at that time indicated these ~~ould not excee3 Code heights, therefore, the waiver would not be necessarys further, that it was staff's understandi.ng there was a new developer on this project who was desirous of providing 6-foot high patio enclosures within the required setback. • i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24, 1972 72-480 ITEM NO. 1 (Conti.nued) Mr. McDaniel further noted that the R-A, R-0 and R-1 Zones, as well as the General Section of the Anaheim Municipal Code, contain provisions which would permit an 8-foot high wall and/or screen type landscaping within the front setback to the rear of the ultimate right-of-way line where a single-family residential structure fronted on an arterial street. This was a provision that had been adde3 to the sinqle-family residential zones after adoption of the Study of the Problems of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways, and the purpose of this provision was to provi3e some means whereby the resi- dential environment for homes fronting on arterial highways could be retained ar.d possibly reduce the number of requests for residential structures for rommercial uses. Mr. McDaniel concluded by stating that the applicant was requesting the Commission to make an interpretation that this masonry wall provision in front yards along arterial highways be extended to include developments in the R-2 and R-3 2ones as well. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, secc,id~•d by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to approve plans o.f the petitioner under Reclassif.ication No. 70-71-17 and Variance No. 2215 which would permit encroachment in the front setback to within 15 f.eet of the ultimate right-of-way line in order to provide 6-foot high, slumpstone walls enclosing the patio areas along Beach Boulevard and Orange Avenue as Heing substantially in conformance with plans submitted with the original request. ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 AND VARIANCE NO. 2384 - TRAVELAND (Primus Holding Company and Anaclara Properties) - Property located on the south side of La Palma Avenue east of Shepard Street - Request for earlier re-hearing of subject petitions. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted for the Commission that the petitioner was requesting an earlier hearing on subject petitions on the basis of the statements made in the Report to the Commission. Chairman Seymour inquired whether the report requested by the Commission regarding the North~ast Industrial Area was ready for consideration; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that it was not complete. The Commission noted that another petitioner had been continued for the same reoort and one petitioner could not be given preferential consideration over the other. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to deny the request for scheduling an earlier hearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 1323 and Variance No. 2384 on the basis that the report requested by the Planning Commission was not yet available for consideration. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1127 (Wrather Hotels) Request for an extension of time. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximicy, and the use permitting out- door banquet facilities on subject property which was granted by the Planning Commission on July 28, 1969, with two previous extensions of time having been granted, the latest to expire July 27, 1972, and the request was Eor a one•• year extension of time. Furthermore, no complaints had been received at the Development Services Department regarding these outdoor banquet facili;:ies, and staff would recommend a one-year extension of time. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time for the uses established under Conditional Use Permit No. 1127, said time extension to expire July 27, 1973. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 24~ 1972 72-481 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1259 - Expansion of an existing convalescent hospital - Request for an extension of tim<. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request for an exten- sion of time for the completion of conditions under Conditional Use Perm;.t No. 1259, permitting the expansian of an existing convalescent hospita on the basis that the applicant stated the approved expansion req,uired approval of the Southern California Comprehensive Health Planning Council which was reorganizing to the Orange County Council, and that the reorganization had used the delay in processing of plans. Commissionei Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time for the completion of conditions of Resolution No. PC71-153, said time extension to expire September 20, 2973. ITEM NO. 5 Request for permission to include a massage parlor at the Royal Inn, 1855 South Harbor Boulevard in the C-R Zone. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to determine whether or not a health spa, including saunas, whirlpool, exercise area, swimming pool, and massage parlor, were compatible accessory uses to a hotel in the C-R Zone; that massage parlors, Turkish baths, and saunas were per- mitted in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 Zones, however, the existing list.of acces- sory uses permitted in the C-R Zone were drug stores, clothing stores, day nurseries. barber shops, beauty shops, auto rental agencies, dog kennels, etc.; and that staff would recommend that health spas, including nassage parlors, Turkish baths, and saunas, be included in the list o.f permitted accessory uses in the C-R Zone provided they were in conjunction with hotel or motel complexes only. Chairman Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTIOI3 CARRIED, to include health spas, including massage parlors, Turkish baths, and saunas, as a permitted accessory use in the C-R Zone, provided that they were proposed to be in conjunccion with hotel or motel complexes only. ITEM NO. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY REPORT ON ANAHEIM HILLS. Commissioner Farano noted that each of the Commissioners had received a ccpy of the Environmental Impact Study for Anaheim Hills (Nohl Ranch) from the Grant Corporation; that he had reviewed about two-thirds of this substantial documentation, which was very technical; that he would suggest that each Commissioner read and review this document, and since there were a number of questions he needed clarified, he would suggest that staff schedule a work session with Anaheim Hills and include a representative of FHA and the Public Works Department to answer Commission questions. r Chairman Seymour inquired whether a representative from FHA and the Public Works Department and Anaheim Hills could meet with the Commission at an even- ing work session. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson stated a meeting could be schedule3 for August 3, 1972, if the Commission so desired. ~ ~ MINIITES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 24~ 1972 72-482 ITEM NO. 7 LAND USE MAP. Cornmissioner Rowland offered a,motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRZED, to direct staff to commence preparation of a wall map on land use which should be updated on a continuing basis, particularly as it represente3 development in the Santa Ana Canyon, since it was felt something monumentally large was needed - with so much policy making happening, it was necessary to look at a map to orient any new petitions with possible informa- tion on flood conditione., even though there were conflicting reports from the U. S. Corps of Engir.eers. ITEM N0. 8 ZONING ENFORCEMENT. Chairman Seymour noted that he would like to qo on record that in the zoninq enforcement of signing in Anaheim as well as in the zoning regulations, some assurance~ be given both by the Commission and the City Atto.rney's office that would reinforce and back up the Zoning Enforcement Officer's endeavor to enforce these regulations. ITEM NO. 9 RFCLASSIFICATIOtd NO. 70-71-53 - Amendment of legal description. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that in the preparation of the resolu- tion for approval of Reclassification No. 70-71-53, a small portion of the property had been omitted, and he would suggest that the Commission amend Planning Commission Resolution No. PC71-155, nunc pro tunc, amending said legal description. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-174 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Resolution No. PC71-155 legal description, nunc pro tunc, approving Reclassification No. 70-71-53. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~OMMISSZONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Alired. TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to adjourn the meeting to August 3. 1972, for a work session with Anaheim Hills, FHA, and the Anaheim Department of Public Works, a~ well as the Planning staff regard- ing the Environmental Impact Study of Anaheim Hills (Nohl Ranch). The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~i~fi~//~/V ~%%r~'"'~r~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. :O1D t.aci F:c. i'b~3220 Annhe~.rt~, Cecfi,.nia