Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/08/07C~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California August 7, 1972 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Seynour at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour. - COMMISSIONERS: All.red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland (who enrered the Council Chamber at 2:05 p.m.) ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ PRESENT - Assistantt Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City At::orney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Raberts Assistant 2oning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTES of July 10, 1972, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, subject tu the following corrections: pq. 72-403, last line: Commissioners Herbst and Gauer abstained. Pg. 72-404, insert paragraph 4: "Commissioner Farano seconded the motion." pq, 72-404, para. 9, line 2, insert: and "moved" that.... pq. 72-404, para. 13, app~oval of June 12 minutes: (not 253) pq, 72- _ Pg. 72-355, para. 8, line 3, should read as follows: "a Z50-foot tower would have a somewhat different impact than conventional outdoor lighting. If any- one wanted to ntount the lights at that height,on a building, the City would welcome the project." pq, 72-407, pera. 4, line 1: delete last word "the" " ) pq. 72-407, para. 4, line 2: "be" (t~ot "been pq. 72-407, para. 9, line 5: "be" (not "been") pq. 72-407, last line, add: "subject to abandonment of the " . alley, and resolving trash truck problem pq, 72-416, para. 7, line 17, insert: wauld "be" insufficient " pg, 72-419, para. 6, line 2, insert: subject to "olans and conditions; pq, 72-422, last para., line 2, insert: from the premises "forthwith". (strike rest of sentence) pq, 72-424, para. ~, line 2: epoxy chem- " " via as pg, 72-424, para. 5, line 11, insert: as ~ell " " the ) pg, 72-425, para. 2, line 10, last word: "their" (not pg, 72-425, para. 2, line 11, should read: "facility. They . had received approval previously, but retail sales were excluded as...." pq. 72-427, para. ~, line 1: "Commissioners want," " ' s pq, 72-430, ~ara. 2, line 2, insert: ize "Brookside Wine=y successful.... pq. '72-430, para. 10, line 1: Const•ruct a"361"-unit (not 371) pq, 72-430, para. 11, line 1: TT No. 7915 -"63" R-2 (not 62) " (delete pq, 72-439, para. 7, line 4: "judqment and therefore. "will,") pq, 72-439, para. 8, line 24: "be exposed who would...." (delete "to") 72-483 ~ • ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAN NING COMMISSION, P.ugust 7. 1972 72-484 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 72-73-B NO DISTRICT, Attention of C. R. Nelson, 400 Civic Center . Santa Ana, California 92701, Owner; PACIFIC AMERICAN Drive 2403 VARZANCE NO , PR~?ERTISS, INC., Attention of Bernard Perlin, 3670 Wilshire . Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010, Agent; property CONDITIONAL USE described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con- 1330 PERMZT NO sisting of approximately 3.8 acres having a frontage of ' . rookhurst approximately 600 Eeet on the west side of B Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, and bei.ng located at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTE~ VARIANCE: WAIVE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SI•NGLE- - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO CONSTRUCT THREE OFFICE BUILD INGS ON PORTIONS B AND C. REQUESTED CONDZTIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A CARWASH Q`: PORTION A. Subject petitions were continuel from the meeting of July 24, 1972, for further study and possible revised plans. Chairman Seymour noted that a letter was received from the petitioner's agent requesting a two-week continuance to allow time for preparation of the revised plans. However, since the August 21, 1972 meeting was already filled, he would entertain a motion to continue subject petitions until September 6, 1972. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-8, Variance No. 2403, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1330 to the meeting of September 6, 1972 to allow the petitioner time to prepare revised plans. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Row'.and abstained from voting.) RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HAROLD M. WILLIAMS, MARTIN S. NO. 71-72-53 ROHERTS, AND FRED M. KAY, c/o Fred M. Kay, 220 Laguna Road, Fullerton, California 92632, Owners; BUTLER HOUSING CORP., 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 785 feet and being located approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEZM R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the June 26, 1972 meeting in order for the applicant to revise plans per the Commission's suggestions and for the sub- mission of a tract map. Chairman Seymour noted that a letter had been received from the petitioner requesting a two-week continuance in order to complete preparation of the tentative tract map, hewever, because the August 21 meeting was already filled, he would entertain a motion to continue subject petition to the September ~i, 1972 meeting. Commissioner Allred offered a motion„ seconded by Commissioner Kaywood a MOTION CARRIED, to continue consid~r.ation of Petition for Reclassificat.,.~ No. 71-72-53 to the meeting of September 6, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to finalize his tentative tract map. VARI:~NCE N0. 2383 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. K.EITH J. MAHONEY, ET AL~ 543 South West Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners; HERMAN R. GALLARDO, 17272 Meadowview Drive, Yorba Linda, California 92686, Agent; requesting permission to WAZVE (2) PERMITTED USES AND (2) hSINIMUtd PARKING AREA TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO REPAIR GARAGE on property des- cribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 50 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, being located approximately 244 feet north of the centerline of North Street, and further described as 816 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20N~. s .~. ~ MINUTES~ CITY °LANNING COMMISSION, August 7. 1972 72-485 VARIANCE N0. 2383 (COntinued) Subject petition was continued from the July 10, 1972 meeting to allow time for staff to review plans submitted at the public hearing. A showing of hands indicated six persons present in opposition. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon MeDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses estabiished in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize an existing building on subject property as an automobile repair garage; that the plans indicate the building would be converted by cor.structing a 1Ox14- foot overhead door in the front of the proparty and providing a new concrete drive for access from Anaheim Boulevard; and that the applicant had also shown three 9x22-foot parallel parking stalls within the existi.ng building - these , parking stalls were shown in add?.tion to three repair bays in the existing building and five repair bays in the proposed addition. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the petitioner was requesting waiver of the permitted uses in the C-2 Zone since an automobile repair garage was not permitted in said zone; that the area along both sides of Anaheim Boulevard was currently being used for various automobile-oriented uses, most of which had been established by variance, and the use of the property as an automobile repais garage wholly within a buildxng may, conse- quently, appear to be appropriate; that the C-2 2one required that 66-2/38 of the total lot area be devoted to off-street parking, and with this 7480-squaie foot lot, 4981 square feet of off-street parking would be required; that the revised plans indicate the waiver for the parking was still necessary because the applicant was only providing 1750 square feet of outside off-street guest parking area, and this 1750 square feet was located in such a manner, however, so as to preclude access to the repair bays in the proposed building; that although the plan indicates three 9x22-foot parking stalls within the existing building, it could be anticipated that these stalls would be used as repair bays since they were already within the buildinq, and the revised plan indicated that the roof and wall wauld be removed for a small portion of the existing building (360 square feet) - this area, being in the southeast corner of the buildinq, was large enouqh to accommodate one additional parking stall, and i£ this area were included, the total area devoted to pa.rking would be 2110 square feet, although three of the four proposed stalls would be illegal stalls because they would occupy the back-up space required by the repair bays in the proposed building; that it should be pointed out t~hat this particular site design provided limited, outside, off-street parking, and in the event that the use were con- verted at a later date to another use permitted in the C-2 Zone, a parking problem could arise; and that while this may be an agpropriate location for an automobile repair shop, it would appear that too much building was proposed on this SOx149-foot parcel. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:10 p.m. Mr. Herman Gallardo, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that staff hud indicated three of ttie parking stalls proposed outside of the building would preclude entrance to the building, however, these spaces were laid out and they had tried using them with regular passenger cars to see whether this was a fact and found that they could very easily have cars parked there and still maneuver the cars out of the repair bays; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated the cars parked in these spaces would be those which would be next in line to be repaired. iurthermore, he would like to have a real estate broker present some statements regarding parkinq in this general area. Mr. Fred Galloway, real astate broker with Associated Hrokers, 1854 Tustin Avenue, Orange, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had made a study of the existing parking for the various businesses on Anaheim Boulevard between La Palma Avenue and North Street, and then proceeded to review the parking~ for these various businesses, concluding by stating that the petitioner proposed about the same parking as presently existed in establishments in this general area. Mr. Galloway also noted that his home was to the rear of commercial uses, and he had been asked to sign a petition of opposition when Mark C. Bloome proposed to establish an operation in this commercial center; that he had refused to ~ .~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7, ].972 ~2'485-a VARIANCE I~O. 2383 (Continued) sign since it would be better to have a commercial business that would have hours from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.,r,,, titan a McDonald's hamburger operation. Mr. Paul Halliday, 114 Mills Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion and stated that he was opposed to breaking down the integrity and site development standards a.f the C-2 Z~~ne; that there was an apparent change in the area as a result of the existing businesses, having received approval of variances, but to approve any a~ore waivers of the required parking could have an overall eEfect upon the entire area; that the statements made by Mr. Galloway regarding the lack of par~king on the existing facilities was further proof that any further waiver should not be granted; and that there were a number of very fine C-2 uses in tne area, such as Avco and Coco's, which were much more desir- able businesses which should be encouraged and which wuuld upgrade Anaheim Boulevard instead of the proposed use where the parking problem would increase. Mrs. Virginia Palmeri, 118 Mills Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that anything that would deteriorate the neighborhood, making it unsafe and hazardous to drivers and pedestrians, together with the noises £rom cars and motorcycles beinq tested on this residential street, should be taken i~ito consideration, particularly sinae this area not only had children but many elderly people residing in the guest '~omes in this general area; that as taxpayers they should be afforded the rignt to have a residential area that_ was quiet, and the proposed use would add to an already noisy situa- tion; and that because of the various businesses permitted in this area, the residents had to replace ~heir curtains every two year~, particslarly from smoke and fumes emanating from the hosiery mill. Mrs. Doris Hain, 915 North Claudina Street, appeared before the Commissio:z in opposition and stated that she concurred with the statements made by the previous opposition in that the area did not need the type of business pro- posed; that she was trying to rear her children in this neighborhood; that the existing alley was practically in her kitchen, an6 the employees of these businesses parked their cars all day in their street, making it impossible to have any visitors because there was no parking available on the street; that these employees even parked in the alley, preventing her from backing her car out of the garage; and that at times these people even parked their cars in front of her garage, making it necessary to call the Police Department to remove the cars. A letter from Rutan & Tucker was read ':o the Commission regarding the legality o£ the request before the Commissian. Mr. Gallardo, in rebuttal, stated their hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and they would be closed Sunday and Monday; that he presently operated a repair garage at 930 North Anaheim Boulevard and had been there for the past seven years and no one had ever indicated there was any problem with the neighbors during that time, therefore, he did not expect any problems in the proposed location; and that they had checked other garages operating in this general area, and the parking they proposed was comparable to that permitted in the other facilitiAS. Then, in response to Commission questioning regarding his present operation, stated they haz three parkinq spaces at the rear of the building, and they also shared a driveway with a restaurant and used their parking since the two did not have conflicting hours because the restaurant was closed most of the time they were in operation, only openin^y in late afternoon and evening. Chairman Seymour inquired of staff whether they had any knowledge of granting parking waivers in this general a~ea; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that without reviewing all of the variance petitions granted in this area, most of the variances were granted for the use, but if the Commis- sion wanted staff to analyze the variances granted, he would suggeat deferring further consideration while staff made an examination of the petitions to determine ii parking waivers were granted. Commissioner Farano noted his major concern was whether similar waivers of , parking had been granted. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Auqust 7, 1972 72-486 VARIANCE NO. 2383 (Continued) Chairman Seymour then stated that any further consideratic•:~ would be deferred until later while staff examined the variances granted to determine if parkinq waivers were granted. (See page 72-489) Commissioner Herbst returned to theCouncil Chamber at 2:15 p.m. VARIANCE NO. 2388 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. BROOKHURST INVESTORS, c/o Grubin, Horth & Lawless Properties, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94.:~94, Ownerst TARA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, c/o Mike Shatsky, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90212, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AREA OF "FOR LEASE" SIGNS, (2) PERMITTED SIGNS~ AND (3) ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT TO ALLOW DISPLAY OF SIGNS, FLAGS AND BANNERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING 228-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: An irreqularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 463 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 1242 feet, being located• approximately 46C~ feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, and further c:escribed as 1250 South Srookhurst Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDr;iVTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued frum the July 10, 1972 meeting for the petitioner to be present to answer Commission questions. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner had been requested to be present at this public hearing and was further in violation of the Sign Ordinance, even after having requeated that the signs, flags and banners be removed, and he, for one, wuuld be in favor of con~acting the petitioner to find out whp he was not present at the public hearing so that the Commission could have some answers to their questions. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that since the petitioner was not present at the las~ hearing and was not now present, even after staff had advised him to be present, he would suggest that subject petition be considered now. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer noted that the petitioner wae in violation of the Sign Ordinance and the variance was requested to correct this violation, however, if the petitioner could not be present to ask for a continuance, there was no reason why further consideration should be given. Commiseioner Kaywood noted she had checked the y~roperty on Saturday, and there were 12 flags on Brookhurst Street and 5 flags on Empire Street, which would indicate there was no attempt to remove the flags. Commissioner Herbst then inquired by what means did staff contact the petz- tioner; whereupon Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel stated that immediately after the last pubZic heasing he had contacted the petitioner by telephone, telling him the Commission requested that the banners and flags be removed immediately, and that his presence was requested at the next public hearing. This telephone call was then followed up with a letter to confirm these Eacts,•however during the telephone conversation, the petitioner indicated he did not think it was necessary for him to be present because the request was just a formality and then assured him that he would be present at this hearing. Commissioner Herbst then stated that since the petitioner had indicated he would be present,'perhaps staff should contact him to determine whether or not he would be present and any further consideration be deferred until staff had reached the petitioner. (See page 72-489) ~ ... ~ MINUTES~ CITY PL'ANNING COMMISSION, August 7~ 1972 ~2-aa; RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. THOMAS E. YF.LLIS, 510 NoYth NO. 72-73-3 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92801, Ownert re3uesting that property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.7 acres, having a frontage of approximately 603 feet on the east side of Brook- hurst Street, having a maximum depth of aQproximately 270 feet, being located at the southeast corner of Brookhurat Street and Crescent Avenue and further described as 510 North Hrookhurst Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZQNE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish a aervice sta:.ion and supermarket on the property. Subje~t petition was continued frotn the meeting of July 10, 1972, for curtl~er study. 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. Thomas Yellis, the petitioner, indicated one of the proposed tenants would present the proposal ar;~ be able to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. P. J. Lippert, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, representing Atlantic Richfield Company, appeared before the Commissi~n and presented a colored rendering of their proposed service station, noting that the petitioner had a zone change request hefore the Commission; that they had negotiated a lease for the south- east corner of the rroperty for a service station site which would be a new concept in the major petro.leum market; that this would be a self-service operation which wo~~l%. be desirable to the City because they would not have the usuaZ service st~f~on repair work, outdoor display ar.d noises but would be a service station without bays, and the only thing would be a cash booth in the center of the island with a smaller building in the rear where there would be vending r.~achines and the sale of oilt-that this would be a very clean ogeration, and it was anticipated this would be the "coming thing"; and that they anti- cipated selling a million gallons or more than 80,000 gallons per month of gasoline. Chairman Seymour inquired whether thexe were any vacant Arco service station sites elsewhere in Anaheim where the developer could he locating~this proposal since 9naheim was fa~ed with a 15+k to 20+k service station vacancy factor; whereugon Mr. Lippert stated they were one of the few oil companies that did not have these large vacancies; and th~t during the next few years the cities and counties would see a change where many of these service stations would be converted for other types of uses. She Commission noted that in the past the Fire Chie£ did not approve self- serviae gas stations; whereupon Mr. Lippert stated that the Los Angeles Fire Marshal approved their proposed type of service station several weeks ago. The Commission inquired what wc_ld hapgen in the event of a serious accident where a careless smoker could nlow up an entire service station; whereupon, Mr. Lippert stated that chi~ could happen even if this were a regulation service station. The Commission f.urther noted that Mr. Lippert had statec'. that the total galloa sales for this service stz.tion would be between 30,000 and 80,000 gallons per month, which could solve some problems, but it could also increase the problems of the indEpendent service station operator and possibly increase the number of vacant service stations. Mr. Lippert noted that their self-service ntation wou13 be a co^.pany operation, while most other service staY.ions were run by independent operators, and there was no guarantee that the indapendent operator would make a dime if he went into business for himself, but if he were a good businessman, he could sell as muct~ as 30,000 gallons per month even though there was no hard and fast rule that would reveal to them that a lessee would make a successful businessman. The Commission further observed that in eruer to have an increase in gallon sales, it would mean a considerable increase in business that would be taken away from othezs, therefoLe, the oil company may have solved their uwn problem, bu`, they were directing their efforts to takP away business from their competi- tors, and the proSlem of vacant service stations could be great]y increased. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-488 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-3 (Continued) Mr. Lippert replied that an increase in population would increase the demand for gasoline, and with the close proximity of a freeway and an increase in traffic flow, this would mean an increase in the number of customers for this facilityt a:id then in response to questioning by the Commission, stated that the vending machines would be only for soft drinks and the attendant would make every attempt to keep the place clean. The Commission fnrther noted that the appearance of Brookhurst Street was quite acceptable now, and they did not care to see it become littered with empty bottles. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission recently had an application where it was proposed to sell convenience items with a self-service station, such as bread, milk, toothpaste, etc., and inquired whether this was planned by the petitionert whereupon Mr. Lippert stated they did not intend to sell those items. Commissioner Kaywood noted that she had checked a one square-mile radius of Srookhurst Street and it contained 21 service station sites with 3 of those stations being closed or abandoned; that in a one-mile area either direction of Brookhurst Street there were 33 stations, with 5 of those being closed, and within a one-mile radius there were 6 Arco stations - obviously, this could mean more abandoned and unsightly, cl.osed service stations in the area if subject petition were approved. Mr. Lippert stated that they tried to locate their service stations to service. people where they travel, particularly on major streets, spacing them to serve custamers in the area, and they did not particularly like placing their service station where there already were three other service stat,_~ns located. Commissioner Gauer noted that at the Arco station which he patronized at Anaheim Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, the operator informed him he was having a very difficult time in making this a good station; whereupon Mr. Lippert stated this site was one of their marginal stations and had been under survey for a possible change, however, that station was placed there a number of years ag,o when perhaps the traffic pattern and conditions justified placing the service station there, therefore, there could be a different criteria for a service station that was not present when the station was first placed at that intarsection. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted that the proposal was to introduce a very high land use density with an extremely high volume of automotive use in an area having a very high concentration of residential use= that the Commission recognized the automobile was here to stay in Orange County, and it was also the number one air pollutant and the number two noise pollutant, but it did not make sense to combine the two problems. Commissioner Rowland ofiered Resolution No. PC72-177 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council denial of Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 72-73-3 on the basis that the General Plan projected this area for medium density residential land use and not a commercial use; that other devel- opment in the area had been in c~nformance with the General Plan, and to approve subject pQtition would establish an intrusion into this existing multiple-family residential area; that this commercial use for subject property would generate higher ].evels of air and noise pollution; and that the approval of subject petition would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests for other vacant parcels in this general area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pa:;sed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSION~RS: None. ABSENT: COMMISS70NERS: rone. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:58 p.m. ~ ~ ~ MINDTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7. 1972 72-489 VARIANCE NO. 2383 (Conicinued fzom page 72-486) Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that after having checked the variances on properties in the vicinity of subject property, there was only one waiver from the parking granted and that was for a radiator repair shop located at Anaheim Boulevard and Mills Drive where not all types of automotive repair work was proposed, and the waiver of the parking was based on the size of the structure, waiving 5 of the 13 spaces requixed; that another automobile repair shop south of North Street was granted the use by variance, however, that operation had adequate parking; and that all other variances granted were for the use, how- ever, it would be staff's assumption that other operations had been established as nonconforming uses for a number of years and prior to the e~tablishment of thP parking requirements in the C-2 Zone. Commissioner Farano noted that from information supplied by staff, it was clear that the petitioner would, if this were granted, enjoy a right other property owners in the area did not have - even though he had no opposition to the use of the property - he could not 3eviate from the required parking which was too substantial to consider the use favorably; that he was quite familiar with repair garages, and the parking spaces indicated by staff could too easily be taken, and he douuted very much if these three spaces would be available tc the customer and inquired whether the petitioner would cons~.3er a further continuance to review the plans again to see if there were some way parking could be brought up to standards.' Mr. Gallardo advised the Commission that when the application was first filed, staff had advised him about the parking shortage and since that time he had been trying to find a way to resolve this shortage, bv.t he was unable to find more than what was proposed on the revised plans. Commissionex Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-175 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2383 on the basis that although the use proposPd for the property might be acceptable, since similar develop- ment had occurred in this general area, the petitioner could not provide the nacessary off-street parking due to toa much land coverage, thereby creating an undesirable situation for adjoining business establishments and residents in this general area; that although the Commission requested that the petiti~ner submit revised plans that would incorporate adequate parking, the petitioner's revised plans did not reflect having provided parking in accordance with iche Commission's request; that the parking proposed on ttie plans woul.d create 4 stalls which would be illegal stalls because they hould occupy back-up space for repair bays; and that approval of the proposed site design would allow development with inadequate off-street parking which co,~ld create a serious problem in the event the use now proposed were terminated and another automati- cally-permitted use was established that would require parking in conformity with the C-2 parking requirements. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. VARIANCE NO. 2388 (Continued from page 72-486) Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at 3:02 p•m• Mr. McDan?el advis~d the Commission that upon contacting the petitioner, he had indicated that he did not know he was supposed to be present at this meeting, however, staff's letter to him had confirmed the teleptone conversa- tion that requested he appear before the Commission; and that because of this, the petitioner was again ;:equesting a two-week continuance. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to continue consideration of Variance No. 2388 to the meeting of September 6, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to be present to answer questions. The aforementioned motion lost by a 5 to 2 vote. Commissloner Gauer expressed the opinion that an additional continuance was not in order since it was apparent that the petitioner was avoiding the issue because of unfavorable circumstances. ~ .~ ~ MINUTiS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7~ 1972 72-490 VARIANCE NO. 2388 (Continued) Commissioner Farano noted he had req~~ested staff to instruct the petitioner to correct the existing problems and violations forthwith at the last public hearing, and if the petitioner was avoiding the issue, the Commission should extend themselvesabove and beyond the circumstances since he felt if the City Attorney brought criminal charges, the Commission would have done everything possible to afford the petitioner the opportunity to present his viewpoints. Commissioner Gauer. offered Resoluticn No. PC72-176 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2388 on the basis that although the petitioner had been contacted by teleph~ne and letter during the interim between the PSanning Commission hearing datea, he again failed to appear before the Commission as requested to answer questions regarding subject: petition; that staff had advised the applicant by telephone and letter to remove the existing illegal flags, banners and signs immediately, however, thi~ was not done; that granting of subject petition would be granting the petitioner a privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and that the petitioner had flagrantly violated the Sign Ordinance and was not comply ing with the iiirective of the Planning Commission to remove the signs forthwith. (See Resolutian Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioners Allred and Fz.rano noted that their vote of "no" did not mean they were in favor of the application, just that they wanted the petitioner to have one more chance to appear personally. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUSLIC HEARIIvG. FLORIENE SANDERSFELDr 525 North NO. 7G-73-6 Gilbert Street, Space 150, Anaheim, (~"'ifornia 92801, Owner; PETER S. GIOVANNONI, 1784 West Alomar Avenue, Anaheim, CONDITIONAL USE California 92804, Agent; property described as: A rectangu- PERMIT NO. 1325 larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acres having a frontage of approximately 207 feet.on the west side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 371 feet, being located approximately 665 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue and further described as 9621 Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified COUNTY OF ORANG'3 100 C1-10,000 DISTRICT. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: CITY OF ANA':EIM C-1~ GENE:2AL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. REQiIESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PORTION A- EFiTABLISH A 58-UNIT MOTELj PORTION B- ESrABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH COCKTAIL LOUNGE. Subject petitions were continued ±rom the meeting of July 10, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to meet with the adjoining property owners to resolve setback problems. No one appeared in upposition. Although the Reporr to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the mir.utes. Mr. John Swint, designer of the motel, appeared before the Commission to represent the petitioner and agent and noted that since the last public hearing on subject petitions, they had met with the adjoining propertY owners to the south and haC redesigned the project, increasing the setback to 39 feet, whereas formerly it was only ll feet, thereby removing the furmer opposition made re- garding the setback; and that they had also submitted pl for the restaurant which reflected the bar screened. from the dining area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7~ 1972 72-491 RE~CLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-6 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1325 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-178 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 72-73-6 subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-179 and moved for its passage and aduption to grant Petition for Conditional Ose Permit No. 1325, subject to conditions. (See Resolution E~ok) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~ vote: AYES: Cv21MISSIQNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymuur. NOES: COM;:ISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL• USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DAGOOD CONSTRUCTIO*I COMPANY, PERMIT NO. 1328 1322 East Edinger, Santa Ana, Califoxnia 9?.705, Owner; requesting permission to ALLOW ON-SALE SEER IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ENCLOSED RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED KITCHEN A;tEA on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximateiy•280 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 384 feet, beinq located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Claudina Way, and further described as 1759 South Claudina Way. Propertp presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZOPIE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 24, 1972, for further study. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, i: is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Herbert Moss, agent and attorney representinq the petitioner, appeared before the Commi::sion and stated that the purpose of the continuance was to allow the Cammission time to visit the Tweeds Pub Ltd. No. 1 operation in Santa Ana, and it was hoped that the Commission had an opportunity to visit this establishment. Commissioner Gauer noted that he had attempted to visit the place on Sunday, but it appeared to be closed; whereupon Mr. Moss stated that theirimaril of operation were 11:00 a.m. Y.o midnigl~t, Monday through Sat~zrday, p Y because they catered to industry in the area, and thexe was very little Sunday business; and that most of their business came from industry and the apartment development about a block away. Mr. Moss further noted that it was his opinion this would be a first-class restaurant; that th~y catered to husbands and wivess that about one-half of their business at lunch time were women employees in the area; that although some of the Commission were of the opinion that this was a beer bar, it was their opinion this was a restaur.ant; that the facility would serve a need in thie area sir.ce there were only two restaurants in the area; and that he would like to assure the Commission thac this would not be a"dive" but for all intents and purposes would be a regulation restaurant. Then, in response to Commission questioninq, stated that the Tweeds Pub Ltd. No. 1 had been open for the past three to four months in Santa Ana, and this facility would not be a franchise ope~ation, such as McDonald's or Colonel Sanders. Commissioner Rowland noted it was a matter of definition, and the proposed use qualified by definition as a beer bar, however, he did not know that it was important to waive the definition section of the Code. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7. 1972 ~2'492 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1328 (Concinu~d) Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that this section was included in the waivers because the petitioner proposed this as a restaurant, however, it did not qualify as such by definition. Discussion was held by the Commission and staff regarding whether or not this should be considered a beer bar or a restaurantj the fact that because of the size, it would be difficult to screen the bar from the dining area, as proposed; and the fact that the M-1 2one Conditional Use Permit Section described an en- closed or semi-enclosed restaurant with or without cocktail lounc~e, but made no specific provisions for beer bars. Mr. Roberts then noted that if it was the Commission's desire to approve the use as proposed, the Commission could do so under the conditional use permit with waiver of the definition section. Commissioner Farano indicated he was opposed to approving subject petition in the manner proposed by Mr. Roberts, noting that this would have to be for the present and the future, and he did not feel this facility should be called a restaurant, particularly since the Commission was very close to so many of the problems of zoning, even though he did not object to a beer bar. Mr. Roberts then suggested that perhaps this should be readvertised as a beer bar. Tha Commission inquired whether or not the pet•ltioner was agreeable to consider- ing this as a beer bar and continuing the petition for readvertisement, or did he want the Commission to take action this date; whereupon Mr. Moss stated that he did not care what the Commission called this operation so long as they were permitted to opesate this facility at this location, and if that were the on~y ~vay approval were to be given, then they would agree to a continuance, even though there would be no change in the operation to what they already proposed. Mr. Moss, in reply to Commission questioning, stated that their family trade came from husband and wife but no children, nor werc there any minors on the premises. Mr. Roberts then stated that if the Commission did not want to grant the conditional use permit as proposed for an enclosed rastaurant with waiver of the kitchen area, it could not be approved without being readvertised. Chairman Seymour stated that the Commission had three courses of action: approval, denial, or readvertising it as a bar - and inquired what the Commissioners planned to do'. Commissioner Farano then stated that he had always considered the request before the Cornmission as a beer bar, and a beer bar was noc that objectionable; that from the plans it would appear there was some similarity to a hofbrau and would cater to the same kind of clientele; that there was a hofbrau not too far from City Hall that served very good sandwiches, but he would like to have the Commission consider subject petition in that light. Commissioner Herbst then stated he wanted the C~mmission to be honest with themselves and the petitioner - if they were not in favor of a beer bar since there was no assurance if subject petition were readvertised as a beer bar that it would be approved. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Gauer voting "no") to continue Petition for Coaditional Use Permit No. 1328 to the meeting of September 6, 1972, in order to readvertise subject property and the request as a beer bar. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-493 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILTOWER PROPERTI~S, 1010 PERMIT N0. 1329 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owneri SHELL OIL COMPANY, P. O. Box 4090, Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; requesting permissi.on to RE-ESTASLISH (1) A CARWASH AND (2) AN AUTOMOBILE SERVZCE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having approximate frontages of 180 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 180 feet on the west side of State Collaqe Boulevard !, beinq located at the south- west corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, and further described as 201 South State College Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ AND C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONES. Subject petitien was continued from the meeting of July 24, 1972, to allow the agent for the petitioner time to meet with the opponents in the single-family residential homes to the west and to incorporate any revisions into revised plans a~ agreed to with said homeowners. A showing of hands indicated ~ persons present in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established ia close ~roximity, previous zoning action on the property, i:he reason for continuance, and the proposal, noting that the peti- tioner proposed to demolish the existing carwash and service station and re- establish a carwash and service station by redesigning the entire site; that the applicant indicated this would be a fully enclosed, exterior only carwash with .no detailir_g or vacuuming of the automobiles; that the carwash would be located in the same general vicinity as the existing carwash structure, while the pump islands and canopy for the service station portion would be located in the same general area except that they would be oriented so as to run perpendicular to State College Boulevard instead of parallel with said street; that the plans also proposed 8 off-street parking stalls, 2 drive approaches to State College Boulevard, and 2 drive appxoaches to Lincoln Avenue, and the orevious 39-foot wide opening to tne alley was now eliminated; and that dense landscaping was proposed along the westerly boundary of the carwash. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the existing carwash- service station which had been in existence a number of years had created various problems to the adjacent single-family homeowners due to the noise and general appearance, while the re-establishment of these facilities would utilixe contemporary standards and techniques which would appear to improve the property; that the major considesation with this request would be the same as for the previous carwash - gasoline pump request under Conditional Use Permit No. 1311, where the primary difference between this request and the previous request was the nature of the primary use - the present one being the carwash being secondary to the sales of gasoline, the primary use, while the previous one had a carwash as the primary use and gasoline sales as a secondary use; that the previous carwash p~oposed full exterior and interior carwash services, while the present petition proposed only exterior cleaning of the vehic!,es; that a recent field inspection by a member of the Development Servicas Depart- ment of a similar establishment indicated that due to tl 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 the average carwash; that the carwash proposed for subject property was so oriented that the major sound emission would be in a southerly direction towsrd an existing commercial use to the south; and that it wou13 appear that the single-family residences to the west would be protected by means of landscaping and walls from any sound that may occur from blowers within the carwash. Mr. McDaniel also noted that the plan submitted indicated the construction of two price siqns, one along each street frontage, and said signs cvould not be legal sig:~s under the Sign Ordinance, and sirice the petitioner made no speaific request £or a variance from the Sigr. Ordinance, it might be appropriate for the Commission to advise the applicant of the illegal signs and have him stipulate to providing signs in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Zn addition, the Commission miqht also wish to have the applicant stipulate to being aware of the Anaheim Municipal Code limiting the soun~ emission at the property line and request his stipulation to conform with Co&~. s ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auatlst 7. 1972 72-494 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1329 (Continued) Mr. Michael O'Mahbney, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had met with the adjoining sinqle- family homeowners and had agreed to their requests, which could be verified by Mr. Neamy; that they had agreed to caxwash houra of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. and if sounds emitting from the carwash did not meet the City standards or the agreement made with the homeowners, then the carwash would be closed at 6:?4 ~•w.; that they had also agreed to the aervice station hours of operation Lrom 7:00 a.m. tu 10:00 p.m.; that they had also agreed to adding additional scund-deadening devices to the blowersr that the operation they had in Hawthorne met the city's sound levels, and they proposed a similar installa- tion for subject properky; that they now olanned to have the wall along the west property line extending from the sauthwest to the northwest corner; that there would be no lights at the rear of thE buildings that he would stipulate that the signs would conform to the City's requirements - this included the price .:igns; and that their landscaping plan indicated the type of shrnbbery that was proposed for the property. Mr. Bob Neamy, 212 South Ash Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that all of the property owners had agreed with the changes just set forth by the agent for the petitioner, but all of the property owners wanted to make sure that the Commission inserted con~itions to remedy any violation of the sound decibel reading ordinance. Chairman Seymour n~ted that this was an ordinance which the Planning Commission could not waive since it did not apply to zoning, therefore, the pc~titioner would have to meet this requirement. Mr. Robert Burglin. 511 South Archer Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating he was a professional carwash operator, and he wanted to emphasize the point whick~ Mr. Neamy had just made regarding the noise level, particularly at Mr. Neamy's rear yard where it could not reach higher than 55 to 60 decibels, since in the sixteen years he had operated carwashes, he had become very Eamiliar with noise-deadening dev:.ces, and it would be totally im- possible to meet the minimum 70 decibel reading set forth in the Code. Mr. O'Mahoney, in rebuttal, stated that the City had a right to close the car- wash operation if it was in violation of the sound decibel ordinance. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-Z80 and moved fo ~ passaqe and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 329 sub;ect to conditions, on the basis that the petitioner. had met with th ingle-family property owners and had stioulated to the hours of operation for the carwash from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and if the sound level did not meet the maximum permitted by Code or that agreed to with the homeowners, the carwash would be closed at 6:30 p.m.; that the hours of operation of the service station would be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; that additional sound-deadening devices would be placed on the blower uni*s to further reduce noises emitted from the blowers; that the westerly wall would be completely closed for the full distanc~ of the west property line; that landscaping as proposed on the exhibit would 'r~e pro- vided; and that no lights would be on the westerly structure that would affect the single-family homaowners (See Resolution Book) , AND the applioant und~ds the Oity Ordinsnae re sound emissions. On roll call the foregoing resolution ~aas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-495 VARIANCE NO. 2404 - PUBLIC HEARING. VERGIL O. AND ARLINE G. RUSH, 4825 Reese Road, Torrance. California 90505, Owners; AUGUST VILJBK, 511 North Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; requesting WAZVER OF (a) MINIMUM FRONT SETHACK, (b) MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS, (c) MINIMUM DIST~,NCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (d) MIhIMUM PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING AREA~ AND (e) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO Pr^,RMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A S-UNIT APARTMENT SUILDING on property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land having a£rontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Lemon Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 133 feet, and being located approximately 156 feet south of the centerline of Adele Street. Property presently classified R-3, bfULTIPLE-FAMZLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. A showing of hands indicate3 eight persons present in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish four-unit, two-story apartment with seven waivers as set iorth in the Report to the Commission. Mr. N.cDaniel, in reviewing the~evaluation, noted that waivers "a", "b" and "c" related to setback requiremen±s, with waiver "a" requesting a reduction of the front setback from 15 to 9 feet; that the petitioner was also proposing to set back from the northerly property line where the main entrance to the units was located, whlch was a distance of only 8 feet; tliat it was further proposed to have tha garages along the northerly property line to be only 3 feet, while one unit would be 4 feet from the rear property line where, as in both instances, a 5-£oot setback was required; that the petitioner was also proposing to have the garage located in the front of the property only 8 feet, 6 inches from the apartment units, whereas 14 feet would be required; that the petitioner was also proposing a reduction in the minimum outdoor private recreation area, both for the first and second floors, as also set forth in the Report to the Commis- sion; and that the £inal waiver was to reduce the number of off-street parking by one covered stall. , !.r. McDaniel, in summation, noted that the combination of these waivars could be an indication that there was an attempt to place too many units on this smaJ'i existing R-3 lot, and by reducing the number of units, the waivers requested, in all likelihood, could be eliminated, therefore, the Commission would wish to determine the appropriateness of allowing subject property to be developed as proposed with seven waivers of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Mr. August Viljak, agent for the petitioner, appea~d before the Commission and noted there were several discrepancies between his figures and staff s findings, and then reviewed r.he differences, noting that when he had purchased this land, the depth of the land was indicated as 140 feet, therefore, the setback as set forth by staff would be incorrect. However, it appeared that Engineering would require additional land for street widening purposes, which might account for this discrepancy. Then, in response to questioning by the Commission, stated that the property was in escrow, pending the zoning action; that he felt the property had similar problems as others he had presented for waivers in the past - this being the fifth site that he had worked with; that he was only proposing a two-story structure across from Pearson Park, and the reason for proposing the garages on the Lemon Street frontage was because of the heavy traffic on that street. Chairman Seymour advised the agent that in the past the waivers requested by him on petitions had been justified because similar waivers had been granted to oroperties in the same general vicinity, therefore, he would suggest that the agent present evidence to justify the waivers being requested on subject property; whereupon Mr. Viljak noted that the property to the south was granted a variance, and it Mas also developed with a two-story structure. Commissioner Allz•ed noteu that the petitioner could argue indefinitely on the variances granted, but he would rather have the pet~.tioner give concrete evidence of a hardship before he could consider granting the waivers requested since it appeared to him the petitioner was proposing to overbuild this parcel. ~ .~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7~ 1972 72-496 VARIANCE N0. 2404 (Continued) Mrs. Marshall McFie, 302 North Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission i,l opposition, stating she represented the property owners in the 300 block of Lemon Street and the 100 block o.f West Cyprass Street, noting that the residents of the area were interested in maintaining the dignity of the area without permitting waivers of all of the existing requirements of the site development standards of the zone; that they were particularly o?posed to the waiver of the front setback since there was a uniform setback in the 300 block which should not be violated; that the minimum stardards should be upheld Eor any property development across from Pearson Park in order that a more attractive area might be presented :.o visitors to the park; that the waiver for distance between buildings should not be granted because this ~etback was necessary for health, safety and general welfare of both subject and adjoining pr~perties, as well; I that there should be no waiver of the required parking since Lamon Street was already being taxed for parking from the visitors to the park, as well as the many employees of Pacific Telephone;•and that her main interest after havinq lived in this area for twenty years, was to maintain the integrity of the area - although she was not opposed to progress, she felt the neighborhood should be given some protection. The Commission inquired of staff whether there was an additional requirement from subject property as to setbacks than from other properties in this area; whereupon Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission chat as properties along Lemon Street were psoposed for more intense development, the requirement for additional property for street widening was made, therefore, there may be a different setback than presently existed. Mr. McDaniel reviewed one of the deviations which the agent mentioned was in error, that being in paragraph 2 of finding No. (6), the setback should be 16 feet rather than 23 feet, however, the waiver of the front setback did not change since staff took into consideration the requirement of dedication for street widening. Commissioner S?erbst noted that perhaps the proposed building would be ~et back the same as the others; whereupon Mrs. McFie atated that after viewing the plans, the proposed structura would be extended into the setback ceyond those already in existence. • Mr. Viljak, in rebuttal, stated that it was his opinion they were providing a sufficient distance between buildings since there was an 8~i-foot wide parking space, together with a 6-foot wide sidewalk, and that he did not know whether his proposed building would be set back the same distance as the adjoining properties. Commissioner Gauer observed that the Commission in the past had considc:red other properties pr-asjer.ted by the agent for the petitioner wherEin waivers were requested and yranted, however, none of those properties had ever come before the Commission without a number of waivers; that these waivers had been granted on neighboring properties, but *.his was not the case with subject property, and he was not in favor of permitting garages and parking in the front setback area, particularly across from a very attractive park; that subject property was a very attractive parcel and had very attractive apartment buildings in very close proximity; and that the Commission should not grant the waivers requested because they would be affecting the adjoining properties. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Seymour stated he agreed with Commissioner Gaues's statements that subject prop~rty was entirely different than othPr neighborhoods which the Commission had c~nsidered before when the agent for the petitioner proposed apartment develoPment, particularly sznce similar waivers had been granteZ in the area, but the area in which subject property was located was different, and to approve the waivers asked for would be unfair to the neighborhood which had tried to maintain the integr?ty of th° area; and that since no waivers had been qranted, the petitioner would be enjoying a privilege not enjoyed by others in the area. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 ~2'49~ VARIANCE NC. 2404 (Continued) Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-181 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2404 on tr~ basis that the petitioner had not submitted substantiating evidence as to a hardship to grant favorable consideration of the requested waivers; that approval of the reque.~tEd aaive.rs would be granting a privilege to the petitioner not enjoyed by other property owners in the area; that the applicant was proposing tc overdavelop the property by placing too many units on thi.s relatively smhll R-3 rercel; ai:.d that in order to accomplish acceptable development of those proP~rties oci the east side of Lemon Street across from Pearson Park, land assembly could be accomplished since most lots were exceptionally narrow and did not lend ttcein- selves to acceptable development without numerous waivers. (See Reso2ution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauc:', Herbst, Kaywood, Ro.:!.and, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nane. RECESS - Chairman Seymour declared a ten-minute re~:ess at 4.10 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting a~. 4~23 p.m,• all Commissioners being present. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBZIC HEARING. SARA ORR, 428 North lOt'h Street, Montebello, PERMIT NO. 1333 California 90640, Owner; T. E. LEWIS, 105~00 Dale Street, Stanton, California 90680, Agent; reqLes'c:ing permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING CONVaLESCEPIT HOSPITAL on property described as: A regularly-shapEd parcel of land having a frontaqe of approxi- mately 127 £eet on the west side of Hasbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 226 feet, and being located approximately 338 feet north of the centerline of Vermont Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 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. T. E. Lewis, agent for the patitioner, inCicated his presence to answer guestions and noted they were in agreement with the findings and co:iftitions of i.he Rnport to the Commission. The Commission inquired why three stories was proposed fc^ a convalescent hospital; whereupon Mr. Lewis stated that they were tryin~3 to cut down on thi>ir welfare expenses and had changed the tppe of car.e, having maximux~:, i.:itermediate, and minimum care, with the minimum care being litrle more than housing for the people, however, they had *_o provide for other needs; that his organi~ation t.ad four convalescent hospitals and were building two more; that the propo,~ed addi- tion would be under the same ownership as Casa Pacifica on the adjoini.c: property; and then in response to further Commission questioni:ig, nc:~ed thac they had no patients who were not incapacitated, however, they did have some in their home in Santa Ana; and that they planned to have a dining room, whereas the therapy unit would be in the other buildiny. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-182 and moved for i.+.s passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1333, subject to conditions, on the basis that the use was a logical expansion of an existing use to the north. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AlES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSION~RS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ • MINUTE:, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-49e CONDITI~NAL USE •• PUSLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. JiJAN 4AAATTINI, 1415 Lexington PERMYT NO. 1337 #5, E1 Cajon, California 92021, a.nd N.F. AND MRS. RAY BICKNELL, 9081 Lampson Avenue, Carcie:i Grove, California 92641, Owners; REVEREND HARL'EY S. D: 2RAY, Westezn 'venue Southern Baptist Church, 219 South Western Avenue, a::a1.F,~; California 928Ca, Agent; requesting nermission to ESTABLISH A C~!'U~:~.G 'A7i~;; A PRE-SCHOOL FOR 100 5TUDENTS WITH WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM PERM7T'iED H:r'LC'ii. PtJD (b) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK on property ~iescribed as: 2.' ar_ses, cnn;~st:. 3 of three parcels, described as a;, irre5ularl,y-s!:aped paxcel of. ?aa7 nt.v,.nq a£rontage of approxi- mately 204 feet on ~l~e: :ZOrth side of Bail it~~~.9: having a maximum depth of approximately 636 r:•.L, and being loc-ited a~~i~:-'•x:~.mately 1,130 feet we~t of the centerline of Knott S~.reet and being ~ontigu.:~~ to the boundary line ~f the City of Buena Park. Property presently classi~ued R-A, AGRICt;LTURAL, ZONE. One pe.rson inuicated his presence i:~ oppositi.on.. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon escra.~iei r;v:Lewed the ]ocatian of subject property, uses established in cl~s~~ proximity, noi:iny that the property was P.ivided by the city boundary lir.e ~i Anaheim and Buena Park; that it was staPs's us~derstanding tha•: the applican'c pro~osed to annex to the Cit:y of Anaheim ~end- ing appxoval of tb,is conditianal use permit and de-annexat.ion from the City of Buena Park; that it was proposed to co:istriict a churc:', ancl provide yre-school facilities for 100 stu~arts; that th.e ~.hurch building wou:ld be locate~ totally within property present]; in the City ot Tsuena Park; that :•he in~itial building would set back appsoximate,ly 130 f-:ft frcm Ball Road, howe~.~~z, Phase ~,:on- struction was indicated to be 3ocated approximately 20 feet from Ball P.~~ad; and t'~at the pcirtion of the property within the City of Anaheim c~as sY.own as being utilized for parking area. Mr. McDaniel, in revieweing the eval•aation, stated that the first and ~,ritiiary consideration before the Planning Commission w?s tne suitability of the use at this location along Ball Road rsince a c:~ei •:;. and pre-scb.ool under an ap~.r.oved c,onditional usa permit was permicted in almos'c. any zone; t:za.t the primary con- sideeation in grenting said con3itional use [ rmit would 1>e the assoc~ated traffic proble.^•..s; that it woul.i appear ~ince ~he petitionar propu~cfl to provide one drive i.i.iti.aZly and adeqL%ste park~_r~g on the s.ite was pr.•p~:zed, as we11 as adequate circul.ition, there would k~ no cause for any confli~•ts of traffic,flow along Bail Road; that the Coramission .:'.nuld also wish to consider the appzopri.- ateness of gr.~nting two waivers, ~`.he f:.r:t i,eing because thF ~etitioner was proposina to } a.,Y a 1`-fcot hiq?~ r~`a'? 1~~ :S' within 20 feet of tl:e west property line, whereas ..u: wuul.i rec;uire s 24•~fout ~Qtback, therefore, i:ie Con.mission might wish t< request that the bc.ilding be moved farther e.ast in o•rder kr, accommodate a wider drive a~~d la:ndscape bu£fering for the single-family hames to the west; that th~: R-A Z~~ne required a 25-foot setback fram Ball Roa.d, whereas the p..titioraer was proposing a 20-foot setback; and that the Comm:ssion would have to d.=termine whether the requesced uses were appropriate a~.o;ig Na11 Road and whether the plan suLmitted was suitable with respect to Lhe :~urzounding land u~es. Mr. Don Fears, ar:hitect of the oroocsed development, appeared hef:,re the Commission representing the agent and stated they had reviewed tne Report to the Commission in re`erence to the maximum permitted t.eight, r~herein staff indicat.ad only 12 feet was proposed, however, *hey proposed a heiyht of 24 feet. Mr. McDaniel noted that ~he Repor.t to the Commission indicat~d the setback ~ rPqui:ed for the he~qltt af the buildiny, and w:.+:h a 12-foot higb b'.:.i•lding, this would reYuire a 24-i•-:ot setback, however., if what the architect stated was cor~~ect, the~. a 48-foot setback would bP ;:Cquirad for a 24-Eoot high building. Tne Cc.mmirsion inquired whether the architect had discu:.sed tnis proposal w.h the Planning D?.rer,t~r of '.:he City of Buenr ~ark: whereupon +".r. Fears stated that they he.' dis~ussed ihis with Mr. Hietala c,f the C~ty of Buena Park Planning Department. ar.d the sav~e prcposal was being considered by the Buena Park Planning Commission the fo].lo:~i.J~g Wednesday. howeve :, he had not seen Buena Park's staff rep~rt; that in dis-~i::sions with representatives a` the City of Buena Park, they did no: exrrass a.n; concern as to the setbaak, s~ating that if the sanctuary was set back 14 feet f.rom t:.e westerly pro~erty lin.e, this would be con~idered r.easonable. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7~ 1972 ~2'499 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1337 (Continued) Mr. Fears then stated that it was the church's intent to set back 25 feet from Ball Road, therefore, he would mithdraw that waiver from oonsideration before the Anaheim Planning Coa~mission. In additi~n, it was the church's intent to de-annex the westerly portion of the prcperty to the City of Anaheim since the pastor of the churcn and the church memnership were desirous of using the City of Anahe+.~^ address; and that the City of Buena Park indicated ihey would be in fa•:or of de-annexation to Anaheim after occupancy of the building occurred in order to be assured that there would be no problem to the residents to the west. Mr. Fears r. :d that Condition No. 7 of the recommended conditions required annexation L~ the City of Anaheim grior to final building inspection, which. of course, would be contrary to the wishes of the City of Bueroblemkareadfor that i.f these p~rcels were developed, this would clear up a p both cities, however, the•; would req~xest that Condition No. 7 be changed to read af~er occupancy of the building rather th4n final buildinq inspection. Mx•. Mil:.on Locke, 6724 Sequoia Drive, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission in oppo~'ition and stated he realized these were problem parcels because of beinq rnd~:r *.-'~ao separate jurisdictions; that he was not actually in opposition to th~ prnposal but wanted something done with the traffic problem on Ball Road and ~.:as requesting some assurance that this v~ould be resolved since he had contacted the Traffic Department and City Engineer of both Buena Park and lnaheim to get some actinn - particularly when three months ago he had an a+atomobile leave the streE:t and go through his home, all the way to his bed- ruom - and that the City ef Buena Park indicated they had ve~^y littie juris- di.^tion because the City of I+naheim had jurisdiction over."~ra~ of the traffic lanes o:~ said street. Mr. Fears, in rebuttal, stated that with the requizement of dedication and street widening and i.mprovements, this would add additional lanes and should resolve any traffic Froblems; :hat in the plot plan he had indicated a double d:iveway system, with the main entry at the easterly end of the property and traffic would exit at the we~terly enJ; and that said traffic pattern would r::solve any heavy after-churcti traffic problem. 7.oning Supervisor Charles Roberts nut~d that if the petitioner proposed to have the wesrcr'y drive as a one-way drive, it was very nar.~ow; whereupon Mr. Fears stated this was done intentionally at the request of the City of Buena Park staff to ;s~roid two-way drives. In addition, they did not want any parking in front of the church because this w2s a family-::ype membershi~, and ~the c:ne-way drive wou.id permit people to leave i~: an orderly manrier. The Commis:ion inquired whet'?er it was intec~ded to hsve front drop-off. of thet~_ school chil~ren; whereupon Mz. :'ea.rs rtated that sin~e ti~e school was located at the rear of the pa~::el ai•ci since these ~roul.ri a11 be small children, it would app~ar unlikely t:~at parer.ts wa+~lfl drop off their crildren in front of the chi r~ ~raYerty. Furthermo're, the hours t:~at they wou~d be c Prating would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., witri school h~~ur.a3 act•aally n~eeting t~ve_n 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., anil the extended hours would bc: for th~~ conven~~ttce of workir~g parents. Mr. Roberts further :zoted that there was addi~io~.al concern regarding th: h2ight of the building since a 24-foot hig': building aould be located on17 21 fee',: from the *•~esterly property line; where~~:~on Mr•. Fearz stated that the front portion of the building would contain reGtroo-~s~ thar the main tuii`ing wou~d be 24 Eeet high, and the elevations indic:teE: said 24-foot heigh*_. Mr. Roberts then sugyested that if subject petition were ap~roved, the waiver shocld be amended to reflect a setback nf 48 feet rather than as indicated in the Report to the Cocrmiss_on since tY.e ma+cinum permitted height stru•.,ture was based on the setback propo~ed. Mr. Roberts then inquired of the architect what tha Y.eight of the future sanctuary was proposed to be, and was it pr~pose~ to be any closer to the we~terly boundary line than the p<esent buildina - what •aould be the distance between the highest par= of the spire and the westerly property line. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMSSSION, Auat;st 7, 1972 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1337 (Continued) 72-500 Mr. Fears noted that the peak of the sai:ctuary would be about 34 feet high, however, this height would not be 14 fee~: from the property line but would be in the center of the building, and it was proposed to set back 20 feet from the west property line, with the spire being a considerable distance away - approximately 70 feet. Mr. Roberts then noted that the plans also indicated future parkiny spaces for the office, and because of the width of the proposed drive, it would be extremely difficult to back out of these spaces; whereupon Mr. Fears stated that these parking spaces would ba moved farther east in order to obtain a 25-foot :adius return. Chairman Seymour noted that the Suena Park Planning Commission would have to determine the distance betwean the proposed structure and ti.ie single-family homes to the west - perhaps the Commission would prefer that the Buena Park Planning Commission approve these plans be£ore the Anaheim Planning Commiseion took action; whereupon Mr. Fears stated that the petitioner was not as much concerned with approval of the conditional use permit as with Condition No. 7 set forth in the Anaheim Report to the Commission and requested considerati.on that this be changed to require approval of a conditional use permit by the Suena Park Planning Commission. Commissioner Herbst noted that i£ this were proposed for property within the jurisdir,tion of the City of Ar.aheim, he would not be in favor of the proposed setback from the R-1 properties to the west, and he would suggest that perhaps the plans cuuld be reversad so that the buii.ding would be on the far eas.:erly side of the property, particularly since he felt that these residents should be afforded some protection, just as the City of Anaheim afforded protection to their single-family residents. Commissioner Rowland concurred with Commissioner Hesbst's comments but stated that this was a problem for Buena Park to resolve, even though the Anaheim Planning Co~mission felt that the city boundary sliould not be the limitations for qood planning, and i: this v;ere discussed with the single-family homeowners, then whatever the City of Buena Park had as their community standards should be adhered to. Furthermore, there was a traffic conflict, and b~- locating the drive away from Yosemite Drive, this would improve this trafffc con£lict point. In addition, he would be willing to apprnve subject petition suuject to the petitioner ~btaining approval of the conditionsl use permit from the City of Buena Park. Chairman Seymour observed that it was very likEly the petitioner would have a similar problem when his request was presented to the City of Buena Park, therefore, he felt the Anaheim Planning Commission shoulQ perform their duties by recommending that the Buena Par}: Planning Commission settle the setback problem on the westsrly property line, and that he would be will+.ng to accept the proposal subject to approval of waiver "a" only. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts noted that the plot plan submitted with the petition did not reflect the height set forth by the architect, therefore, the plans should be amended to more closely reflect the manner in which the property was proposed to be devel- oped, and that the plan then could be approved as a master plan so that the petitioner need not appear before the Commission when they built each phase of development. Commissioner Herbst stated his reason for continuance o'~ subject petition was based on the fact that the City of Anaheim had only . driveway to approve, since this was the only property within the City's jurisdiction and action by the City of Buena Park as to the conditional use permit and de-aanexation should be taken care of before any consideration by the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion *.o continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1337 to the meeting of August 21, 1972, for action by the City of. Buena Park. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-501 CONDITIONA7~ USE PERMIT 140. 1337 (Continued) Reverend Harley Murray advised the Commission that staff had recommended they file a petition in two separate cities, anZ that time was of an essence because they presently were meeting in less than desirable facilities and were anxious to get ~ne project enderway. Conmissioner Farano noted that the Commission did not have complete plans for consideration befcre them, however, even if the City of Buena Park did not approv~ their plan, the applicant was fully aware of the Anaheim Plann.ing Commission's concerns. ~ Mr. Roberts suggested to the Commission that if the use proposed for both cn~rch and pre-school for 100 children was acceptable, the Commission cou:~d approve, subject petition this date, permitting the builfiing to be construated for the first phase only within 20 feet from t:~e westerly pzoperty Iine, and that prior to issuance of a building permit, specific plans of development be submitted to the Anaheim Flanning Commission for review and approval and also subject to whatever approval the City of Baena Pzrk made - this, then, would avoid a`wo- week continuance. Commissioner Herbst reiterated the fact that he wanted to see that the R-1 homes to the west of subject property were given protection, and if this were approved subject ~o approval by the City of Buena Park, it would mean the Anaheim Planning Commission had approved plans, and if they wanted to annex to Anaheim, then Buena Park could say, "Let Anaheim have the problem". Chairman Spymour was of the opinion that if subject petition were continued, ther_ the City of Buena Park would have no expression from the City of Anaheim regarding this proposal, and at least thE Anaheim Planning Commission should indicate that if the City of Buena Park were satisfied with this proposal, then :he City of Anaheim, too, would be happy. Commissioner Kaywood withdrew her motion of continuance. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-183 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Cond.itional Use Permit No. 1337, subject to conc._tions, amendinq Condition No. 7 to read subject to the approva~. of a condir.ional use permit by the City of Buena Park for the use, and that specific development plans of this proposal be submitted to the Anaheim Planning Commis- sion for review and ~pproval prior to issuance of a building permit. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gacer, Kaywocd, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. F.BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. SPECZAL DIRECTIVE - Commissioner Seymour offered a motioci, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Police and Traffic Departments review the traffic situation at Ball Road and Yosemite Drive to detarmine what remedial action could be taken to resolve these problems. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WOODMAN FARMING CO., 3214 Waverly Drive, NO. 72-73-10 Los Angeles, California 90027, Ownerj JOHN F. HANSCOM, Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 3501 South Harbor VARIANCS NO. 2426 Boulevard, Santa Ana, California 92704, Agent; property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land coasisting TENTATIVE MAP OF os approximately 36 acres, being the northwest corner of TRACT NOS. 7945, Cerritos Avenue anc? Walnut Street, with re~pective frontages 7946, 7947, 7948 of 1206 feet and 1315 feet. Property presently classifiecl R-A~ AGRICUL°URAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULT7PLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (a) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAV~ FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, (b) MINZM['M FRONT SETBACK, AND (c) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO ESTAB7.ISH A 552-UNIT STATUTORY CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITl' PLANNING COMMZSSIO.I, August 7~ 1972 72-502 RECLASSZF'CCATION N0. 72-73-10~ VARIAP:CE N0. 2426~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS 79s~, 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Cuntinued) TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ES~GINEER: LArDER ENGZNEERI!JG, 1728 West Lincoln Avenue. Suite H, Anak:eim, ~~alifornia 92801j proposing the subdivision of this 36-acre parceZ into four tracts having one R-3 zoned lot in each tract. No one appeared in oppusition.. Although the RE~ort to the Commissi~n was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutas. Mr. Robert Kindell, representing the agent and de~veloper of che project, appeared before the Commission and stated that the company was a California company based in Santa Ana, having developed both multip~e-family and single-family residential uses in Orange County and Los Angeles County; that they presentl•~ had plans for various housing developments in varying stages fc+= San Diego, Capistrano, and other cities in Southern Cali£ornia; that thei.r present proposal before the Commission was for a 552-unit, fee-ownership condominium; that they had analyzed the property and the market, and buyers would be looking for housing in thi~ area; that they understood that Anah~im was "a no man's land" among the avail- able zoning classicications a~ well as technical problems; that this proposal wnuld provide-^~,.nething unique for the buyers of these units, and an apartment project would b: a better use of the land than single-family homes; that in the survpy which they had had conducted for them, they had assumed that the buyers of these units would. be similar to buyers of det.ached homes, however, the survey indicated 40$ of the purchasers had no children, and those that had ~hildren resulted in a.8 child per unit in their projects, with only .3 children of school age; and that Stewart woodard Associates would describe the specific des,ign of the project. Mx. Stewart Woodard appeared before the Commission as architect of the proposed de~+elopment, indicating that they were somewhat perplexe3 by statements in the Repnrt to the Commission since considerable time had been spent with staff to determine what the City of Anaheim allowed as it pertained to condominiums. Chairman Seymour advised Mr. Woodard that the Planning Commission was quite familiar with condominiums because the City had already approved them, and tne architecL did not have to p!'ovide the desirability of a particular design, theref~re, he would suggest that the architect review what they proposen and the reason why waivers were beinq requested. Mr. Woodard then reviewed the proposal, indicating the various open spaces, private patio areas, and common areas, and then in response to Commission questioning, stated that each section of the entire proposal would be built in the same manner as the exhibits presezted to the Commission; and that they would have 40+t of the units that would be one and two-bedroom units, while the balance would be three-bedroom units. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advise3 the Commission that he was q:.~ite surprised when the Chairman asked if anyone was pr~senf in opposi*_ion and no one responded, therefore, he had checked the mailing list of property owners within 300 feet that shoul.d have hu2n notified, and it would ap~.ear that none of the single-family homecwners to the west and north had been notified. Chairman Seymour inquired whether the Commissioners were desirous of continuing subject petitions in order to allow time f.or the .''joining property owners to be notifiedj whereupon the Commission agreed that since this was a City Council policy, the Commission had no other choice. A gentleman in the audience advised the Commission that he resided south of the proposed project and was present to hear what was being proposed, howevez, the way he had known of it, he had noticed signs that had been posted, but by the time he went to look at the signs, they had been pulled down, evidently by children. Mr. Roberts noted that subject petitions did not have to be readvertised, however, notice would be sent to the single-family homesowners affected by this proposal. ~ ... O MINUTES, ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7. 1972 72-503 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-10, VARIANCE N0. 2426, AND TENTATZVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7945, 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued) Mr. Woodard requested that subject petition be considered as the first item because they had a rather lengthy presentation of the proposal and wanted to be able to answer any questions that were presented. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARR'fED, to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73- ':, Variance No. 2426, and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7945, 7946, 7947, and 'i~48 to the meeting of August 21, 1972, as the first item on the evening agenda at 7:30 p.m., and that staff should notify the affected single- family homeowners of the public hearing. RE^.LASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. STATE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, 120 South N0. 72-73-15 Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Owners AMERICAN NATIONAL HOUSING CORP., 9092 Talbert Avenue, TENTATIVE MAP OF Fountain Valley, California 92708, Agent; requesting that TRACT N0. 4693, property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of REVISION N0. 4 land consisting of approximately 12.3 acres having a frontage of approxima~ely 710 feet on the north side of Cresthill Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet and being located approximately 1,050 feet east of the centerline of Kellogg Drive, be reclassified from the CITY 0'F ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICUL'fURAL, AND COUNTY OF ORANGE! A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM RS-5000~ SINGLE-FAMILY, ZONE. Tentative Tract Request: DEVELOPER: AMERICAN NATIONAL HOUSING CORP., 9092 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, California 92708. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineerinq Companyr 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805; proposing to subdivide a 12.3-acre site into 60 RS-5000 zor~ed lots. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at t`~e public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Cal Queyrel, representing the engineer of the tract, appeaiTOVedfalonththe Commission and stated that subject tract had been partially app 9 re@ line as indicated on the wall map, and that above said line was an additton which they had acquired from the State; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated that with exception of the berming or the 6-foot wall, they could meet the RS-5000 standards, nowever, because of the ele~ation of the freeway, about 30 feet above the house pads, it was requested that this be waived since neither would provide the noise buffering techniques required to reduce freeway noises. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-184 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassi- fication No. ?2-73-15 subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolucion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred, Farino, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMZSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to grant Tentative Map of Tract No. 4693, Revision No. 4, subject to the following condirions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4693, Revision No. 4, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-32. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7, 1972 72-504 RECLASSIFICATZON NO. 72-73-15 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4693, REVISION NO. 4 (Continued) (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative f~rm for approval. (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (5) That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. (6) That Cresthill Drive shall be extended through Lot 61. (7) That Lot 61 shall be added to adjasent Lots 50 through 54 to the west. Or, should the developer of Tract No. 4693 acquire the parcel adjacent to the east, Lot 61 may be developed as a part of that parcel. COZIDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY~ PERMIT NO. 1335 610 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90014, Ownerj KATELLA RAIL'ROAD RESTAURANT CORP., 2977 Redondo Avenue, Long Beach, California 90806, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND A RAILROAD MUSEUM WAIVING (a) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK AND (b) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, located at the northwest corner of Lewis Street and Katella Avenue, having frontages of approximately 228 feet on the west side of Lewis Street and 320 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Althouyh the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Miss Lynne Paxton, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 240, Century City, architect of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission representing the Specialties Restaurants Association, owners of the proposed development and agent for the petitioner, and reviewed the proposed development, noting a similar facility was being constructed in the City of Claremont near the City Hall, aad then submitted photographs of the interiors of the proposed develop- ment. Miss Paxton, in response *_o Commission questioning, stated that customers would be dining in the various cars; that they were attempting to create an atmosphere of an old railroad depot; that tha water tower also was an integral part of this atmosphere and would be the location of their sign; that the bar would be sepa- rated from the dining area; that the depot would be the waiting room; that the landscaping progosed along the frontage would be about 23 feet, utilizing the parkway, and they would have low shrubs interspersed with trees; and that a portion of this would be bermed. The Commission inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus what berming would be permitted and what would be the setback requirement; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that so long as there was adequate site distance at the corners, berming would be satisfactory. Miss Paxton, in response to further Commission questioning, stated this would be a fine dinner house, and it was hardly likely thPre would be many children as patrons. The Commission noted that their policy was to require any bar proposed in conjunction with a restaurant to be screened from view from the dining area, therefore, they would like to know if the holding area would be screened from the lounge area or the dining area. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-505 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1335 (Continued) Miss Paxton replied that there would be a holding area with a bench, as well as seating in the lounge; that the dotted lines indicated where the rail cars would be located; and that the service area would separate the cocktail lounge from the dining area. The Commission further inquired as to the proposed signinq; whereupon Miss Paxton stated that they were not advertising any specific railroad, but the water tower would be used as a sign and would be similar to water towers that hung over steam locomotives; and that it was also hoped to obtain a steam lccomotive for decorative purposes. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired whether the signing on the railroad cars would be advertising the restaurant; whereupon Miss Paxton stated they would use names of the different railroad lines, and the cars would be painted, but the signing would not be that of the restaurant itself. Mr. Roberts. in response to Commission questioning, stated that the height of the sign would be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Discu~sion was held between the Commission, staff and the architect regardinq the manner in which the planter area would be maintained, the drainage of water since the architect indicated it was proposed to have railroad ties for bumper stops and railroad ties around the planter area, and at its conclusion, Mr. Roberts noted that sheet overflow of water could be controlled by having the planter area sunken and redwood headers around said planter area to prevent spreading of overflow water from draining into the parking area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-185 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1335, granting waiver of the required front setback and sign location on the basis that the setback and signing would not affect the adjoining land uses, nor would it establish a precedent since these were part of the architectural features of the proposed facility, and subject to conditions, waiving the requirement of concrete bumper stops and concrete planter area to permit continuation of the railroad motif with railroad ties, provided, however, that adequate protection was incorporated to prevent any planter area water from draining into the parking area and street. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ADJOURNME:IT FOR DINNER - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to adjourn for dinner at 5:40 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m., all Commissioners being present. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Au3ust 7, 1972 72-506 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANI~HEIM HILLS/TEXACO VENTURES, NO. 72-73-11 Attention of James Barisic, Vice President, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, Cali£ornia 92806, Owners; property CONDITIONAL USE described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land con- P~RMIT NO. 1332 sisting of approximately 30 acres, having a frontaqe of approximately 742 feet on the east side of Nohl Ranch Road, TENTATIVE MAP OF having a maximv.~ depth of approximately 1,700 feet and T'tACT NO. 7929 being located approximately one-half mile north of the centerline of Serrano Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTRAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE= MENTBWAIVING16a)UR~QUIREMENT THATDLOTSAABUTVALOP- PUBLIC STREET~ (b) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA~ AND (c) MII4IMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGIN~ER: VTN, 2301 Campus Drive, Irvine, California 92664; proposing to subdivide 30 acres into 162 R-2 zoned lots. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 24, 1972, at the request of the petitioner. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner had again requested a continuance for two weeks, however, because the August 21 aqenda was completely filled, a four-week continuance would have to be considered. The Commission ±hen inquired of Mr. James Barisic, representing Anaheim Hill~, Inc., whether a six-week continuance would be objectionable. Mr. Barisic stated that they had a number of escrows, subject property being one of them. that were awaiting Commission and Council action on the PC Zone and the Zoning Element of the General Plan Amendment No. 123-A, which he hoped would be resolved in less than six weeks, therefore, he would suggest a four- week continuance. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Reclassification No. 72-73-11, Conditional Bse Permit No. 1332, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7929 to the meeting of September 6, 1972r at the request of the petitioner. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-11, Conditional Use Permit No. 1132, ann Tentative Map of Tract No. 7929 to the meeting of September 6r 1972, as requested by the petitioner. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATIQN, N0. 72-73-14 1111 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Owners; JAMES W. MC AliVIN, 1111 West La Palma Avenue, CONDITIONAL USE Anaheim, California 92801, Agent; property described as: PERMIT N0. 1334 An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 10 acres having a frontage of approximately 870 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, haviny a depth of approximately 715 feet, being located approximately 50 feet north of the center- line of La Palma Avenue, and further described as the nort3iwest corner of La Palma Avenue and West Street. Property presently classified R-A. AGRICOL:URAL, ZOP1E (PARCEL A) AND R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PARCEL B). REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCELS A AND B: C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: WAIVINGTHa)EMAXIMUMNBUILDINGXHEIGHT WITHINA30C FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (b) • PERMITTED SIGNS. Chairman Seymour noted that the applicant had submitted a request £or a four- week continuance on subject petition due to conflict of vacations. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRZED, to continue considerati.on of PEtitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-14 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1334 to the meeting of Septembes 6, 1972, at 7:30 p.m., as requested by the petitioner. ~ .~. ~ MINUTES, CZTY 2LANNING COMMISSION, August 7. 1972 72-507 VARIANCE NO. 2Q05 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERi S. TOUSSAU, 3851 East Howe, Piru, California 93040, Owner; SUNBURST DEVELOPMENT, INC., 9502 TENTATZVE MAF OF Greenwich Street, AnaYieim, California 92804, Agent; TRACT NO. 6931. property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of REVISION NO. 2 land consisting of approximately 7,8 acres having a frontage oE approximately 504 feet on the .~ast side of Sunkist Stree~, having a maximum depth of approximately G78 feet, and being located approximately 205 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQt1ESTED VARIANCE: TAAIVE (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (b) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (c) MAXIMOM LOT COVERAGE, AND (d) FRONT SETBA.:K TO A GARAGE TO ESTABLISH A 40-LOT, RS-5000 SUBDIVISION. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, Z22 iast Lincoln Avenue. Anaheim, California 92F'S; proposing to subdivide 7.8 acres into 40 RS-5000 ~~ned lots. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commissioa had received a letter requestinq a two-week continuance on subject petition in order to allow the engineer time to redesign the tract. However, because of a full agenda for the August 21 meetinq, he would entertain a motion to continue subject petition and tract to the September 6 public hearing. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Variance No. 2405 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6931, Revi.sion No. 2, to the meeting of September 6, 1972, at 7:30 p.m., as the seconl item on the agenda. GENERAY, PLAN AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANI4ING NO. 123A(READVERTISED) COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider amendments to General Plan Amendment No. PC, PLANNED COMMUNITYr 123A to establish a Zoning Elett~ent and to consider ZONE amendments to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.57, PC, Planned Community, 3one, incorpor'at- ing the Zoning Element into said zone. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that he :vould review the amendments to the PC, Planned Community, Zone before giving any coasideration to General Plan Amendment No. 123A because any action taken on that amendment might have an effect upon the General Plan amendment, and then noted that sub- sequent to the adoption of the PC Zone, the City Attorney had informed the Devel~pment Services Department of his concern regarding the legality and en- forcement of certain portions of the existing PC 2one and was of the opinion that the zone should be amended to .include two major sections, namely, the requirement of a zoning plan or eleA.ent which would designate the City of Anaheim zoni~g that would be utilized to implement a planned community; that the City Attorney felt the flexibility and potential lack of !tniformity within the current PC Zone could present legal problems because of t•he alternate of designating either City of Anaheim zoning or having approval o€ specific site development standards for a particular phase or type of development within a planned com- munity; and seccadly. that planned residential developments should all be con- sidered under a conditional use permit because it was the City Attorney's opinion that these involvt~d postage-stamp lots, open space, common areas, and slopes outside of individual lots which could best be handled from a legal as well as an enforcement standpoint by having such developments considered under and approved by conditional use permitj and that a copy of the amended PC Zone had been submitted to the Commission, and if tt..e Commission wished, he would go into greater detail on these changes, however, the previous statements rather clearly outlined the proposed changes. Mr. James Barisic, Vice President of Anaheim Hills Corp., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, appeared before t!ie Commission and stated that they were very surprised when the proposed change was presented to them since they had felt the PC Zone allowed the flexibility for individual builders in this large land mass and changes now included a Zoning Element; that they had held a number of discussions with Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson, Mr. Roberts, and the City Attorney, Joe Geisler, and Anaheim Hills had finally reached an agree- ment, even though they were not very happy with the chanqe since there still was • ~ ~ MZNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-508 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 123A (READVERTISED) AND PC, PLANl1ED COMMJNITY, ZOi~E a possibility there would be flexibility in the zone, which was viable enough to establish a Zoning Element using thE existing zoning on specific parcels, and in cases where a builder wished to have a planned deve7.opment, he would file a conditional use permit under which he could be allowed some of thaL flexibilityt that the builder could fi.le for a variance to try to guarantee some of the flexibility; and that any additional comments wocld be reserved for builders who wanted to build in Anaheim Hills. 7Che Commission inquired whether Anaheim Hills Corp. felt there was sufficient flexibility under the proposed changes; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated there were setback modifications and heights included. The Commission noted that this was already available by variance anywhere in the cityi whareupon Mr. Sarisic stated that if one had a standard R-1 develop- ment, then he could obtain a variance which would guarantee this builder more flexibility. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that he could not see this flexibility in the proposal, and the developer had "bought" into a set of handicaps on precise zoning. Mr. Roberts noted that construction could be accomplished with a given amount of flexibility, and as it was propUSed now, a public hearing would be held at the outset of a development considered to give the different zones to be estab- lished within a large area, for instance, in the plan there were 18 areas with different City of Anaheim zones, and assuming the Planning Commissicn and City Council approved the zone as projected, they could then develop after having an ordinance read. Commiss.ioner Rowland noted that i£ the developers wanted to build cluster housing in suitable areas, they would have to file and receive approval of a conditional use permit, and in other clusters there was no opportunity for a planned community in this ordinance as proposed to be amended - it was wiped out and destroyed, therefore, he felt this hearing was a nice exchange of words only. Continued discussion was held by the Commission and staff, summarized as follows: 1) the densities for Anaheim Hills (Nohl Ranch) were established when the PC 2one was adopted te continue from here on, and if any change wa~ considered, then they would have to obtain approval of a variance from those densities; 2) that the spirit and intent of the PC Zone was destroyed since it was the Commission's intent to control the density in the canyon by permitting certain flexibilies; 3) that under the existing zoning, the alternatives that were available were: they could designate the existing City of Anaheim zoning within which the developer intended to comp~ys or, deviations which they intended to make, or which would be considered at the time the PC Zone was requested, and before any building permits coild La issued, the developer must present final specific plans for approval; that the other alternative was for the developer to present his own design criteria which the developer proposed to utilize and which could be submitted te the Planning Commission and/or City Council for approval, and if said approval were given, they could develop under those standards - however, the City Attorney expressed the opinion there was too much fl.exibility in this zoning which shculd be uniform, and everybody should be covered by the same standards, which could not be accomplished under the present PC Zone; 4) that the present PC Zone was so structured that it was a development zone, and the standards established under this framework would be the standards that would be applicable to the developers who would come in and develoF, how- ever, the regulations did not apply to homeowners nor would there be any enforce- ment of the zoning; 5') ti~at the County of Orange had the same standards as was being proposed now £or ~naheim - Laguna Niguel developed under a PC Zone, or a planned development zone, but the PC Zone was similar to what Anaheim presently had; 6) that there was not too much difference between Hnaheim and other cities, and many cities had developed PC developments which were highly successful; 7) that the Planning Commission had spent considerable time and effort. and perhaps an outside, legal opinion was needed but not from a developer; and H) that if this change as proposed were required, it would mean the Commission had little recourse - that it would appear they had wasted valuable time and effort in the establishment of the original PC Zone. ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7~ 1972 72-509 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 123A (READVERTISED) AND PC, PLANNED COMMUP:ITY, ZONE Mr. Roberts noted that he h"ad presented the eoncerns of the City Attorney, and perhaps the Commission should meet with the City Attorney to determine his reasoning behind these concerns. Commissioner Rowland notecl that the Commission had had many disagreements in work sessions on what could and could not be done, but it resulted in a con- structive attitude on how to loosen things up, and that he did not care to adopt these amendments without further information. Commissioner Herbst noted that the City Attorney was one legal mind, and other cities had been functioning in hill and canyon areas, and he doubted that flat land zoning could be applied in the hill and canyon area of Anaheim - this area was unique to Anaheim, and with all the time and eff~rt the Planning Commission had given to the PC Zone, perhaps another step should be taken by asking for an outside, impartial opinion. Chairman Seymour then noted that perhaps the Commission's course of action should be to continue consideration of the PC Zone and General Plan Amendment No. 123A in order to allow time for further xesearch by staff as to the manner in which other cities resolved problems in their PC Zone. Mr. Roberts noted that other cities handled the PC 2one in the same manner as the City of Anaheim did at the present time. Chairman Seymour noted that perhaps the Commission should meet in a~vork session with the City Attorney. Commissi.oner Farano inquired what was the difference from the manner in which the PC Zone was previously handled and was the Commission subject to being placed in the same position that from now on the concept of the PC 2one would be under attack. Mr. Barisic noted that the Commission was no more disappointed than his compar.y since they represent~~d a significant portion of the hill and canyon area, not only in land area, btit when they had first heard that the PC Zone was an invalid zone was when Grant cf California proposed to file their plans; that Anaheim Hills was deeply involved in the sale of larqe lar.d parcels, and one of the greatest assets a builder found in the PC Zone, and which Anaheim also felt was necessary, was to know what was proposed to be developed across from a prospective piece of land a developer was intezested in; that it was also important to know there was some kind of zoninq rather than R-A; that his company was very deeply concerned regarding this change and had talked with other attorneys, engineers, and planners and the Anaheim staff, who had been very cooperative, but they were now at an impasse and at a critical stage since they had one sale of three million dollars pending, and they, too, did not like the way the PC Zone was turned around, but since they were stuck with it, even though they would prefer the original method, they would request that the Commis~ion consider the Zoning Element of the General Plan amendment, and although they were aware that the actual requirement should be within the PC Zone, it was necessary to have something upon which they could depend in the pending sales of land that the5~ had; and that they would be willing to work with staff and the Commission to bring the PC Zone back to its original intent, however, if the Commission did not act on the Zaning Element, they would have difficulties in Anaheim Hills. Commissioner Rowland noted that all that had happened so far in t;~e hills was mass movement of earth; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that they had zoning density, which was one step uf the PC Zone, and that they would like to work with the Commission on the balance, but needed action on the existing proposal undex GPA No. 123A. Commissioner Rowland noted that Anaheim Hills wer2 taking a step backwar.d with that statement. Chairman Seymour inquired whether approval of~the Zoning Element under GPA No. 123A would give them sufficient development fur the next ten years; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that there were 660 plus acres involved with varying densities; that he was not or.ly talking about S& S Construction ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1572 72-510 GENERAL PLAN ADIENDMENT NO 123A (READVERTISED) AND PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE Company but other major builders, and if they could not go forward, they uould be in trouble since the first question asked was what the zoning was on the property, and therc was no zoning presently on the property. Commissionez Farano abserved that perhaps there was no specific zone on the property. but when specific plans were submitted for an area established under a conditional use permit or variance regarding ..uacks, this would be the same legal document by which a developer would be bound as would be the City, and the developer would be bound by the density indicated, which could only be changed at a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Ceuncil. Mr. Barisic noted that the City Attorney had ruled :Y.at the PC 2one was not a legal zone, and a resolution of intent for a zone mrst be approved or~ a specific area of the property, therefore, this Zoning Elem~nt would be a step in the right direction. Commiesioner Farano inquired of staff, that if the City Attorney ruled the PC Zone was not enforceable, wasn't the objective to establish the maximum densitias which had to be binding7 Mr. Roberts advised the Commissi~n that the Land Use and Density Elements were binding documents wnich would establish the maximum number of units that could be built in each area, however, the City Attorney felt that each area must have some City of Anaheim zoning in order to devPlop and which had enforceable site development standards. Chairman Seymour cibserved that Mr. Barisic stated he could not tell a builder what could be developed in a yiven area, however~~zoninq would give this information. Mz. Barisic ad~~ised the Commi~sion that th~ Land Use and Density Elements were not wrong - these were legal - but the City could not effectuate it until there was a legally effective zone on the properY.y, and that he did not want to debate the City Attorney's reasoning. Mr. Roberts, in response t:o qu~~stioniag by the Commission, noted that the PC Zone was a development zon2 and :•:es not enforceable; that this was technically used by the City Ar.torney, and he had indicated the flexibility built into the PC Zone by the establi~hment of development standards within the existing zone and if a given zone wa~ not availakile, then the zone proposed would not be enforceable beyond the development stage - beyond the time when people owned these homes and wanted to add a room to the existing building, there would be no zone ~in effect by which this could be Fermitted. Commissioner Herbst observed that,instead oF a development zone, these home- owners would not be able to construct additions until a conditional use permit or variance had been considered at public hearing and approved. Mr. Roberts, in response to further Commission questioning, stated that staff took the position that development standards created at the time the PC Zone was approved would be binding on the property owner after a property was developed, however, this was not the same posftion of the City Attorney, and the manner in which the proposed change would work was that it would expedite matters in a way the City Attorney felt should be done and which Anaheim Hills now wanted. Mr. Barisic advised the Commission that they had "gone so far down the road" that they could not backtrack, and their backs were aqainst the wall and they could not go any farther for a planned community - this was their reason for submitting the 2oning Element - this was what the City Attorney requesteci, and they needed this element approved. Coiamissioner Rowland observed that it was his opinion the developer was playing in a straight-jacket. Commissioner Farano then inquired why the R-1 Zone could not be placed on the entire ranch - ther, waivers requested from that zoning; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that the Grant Corporation had acreage overlooking the golf course in ~' J ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7~ 1972 72-511 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.,7.23P, (READVERTISED) AND PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, 20NE which they proPosed a density of 10 units per acre, and they could not develop under the R-1 Zone which permitted only 4 units per acre - there aould be a considerable conflic`.. Commissioner Farano inquired whether Analieim Hills could provide zoning applica- tions for the density areas; whereupon Mr. Roberts noted thac. the colored rendering presented to the Commie~ion was adopted as the Land Use and Density Element of the housing types to be developed in the sub-areas in acccrdance ~aith the City Attorney's rule; that the second dccument before the Commission was the Zoning Elenent, which would conform to the existing City of Anaheim zones for these sub-areas - this was what was proposed, and Anaheim Hills would have to comply with whatever conditions necessary to have an ordinance read if the Zoning Element were adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council - in other words, R-2 would be adopted for a given area, R-1 for another area, etc., and that they would have to present their specific plans for those areas. Commissioner Farano inquired what would stop a builder from developing a higher density if a given area were zoned R-2 and the dev~:loper decided to build smaller size lots and homes on the rear portion o~ the R-2; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that this wuuld have to be controlled by the maximum number af units permitted within the density element which contr ! d the number of units for a given area. Commissioner Rowland observed that the zoning referred to overall density of a given area, however, this would apply flat land ~tandards to the hillside areas so that it would appear to be both a reasonable and unreasonable request to flatten the world to accommodate this zoning as proposed, and which would be honored by the Cit7 Council because they would be stuck with every kind of hardship. Mr. Roberts, in respons2 to Commission questioning, stated ~that where a developer had applied for R-3 zoning and planned to develop with flat land standards, he could develop thP property so long as no more units were built than the density element provided for a given area. Commissioner Farano noted that within the PC Zone, Section 18.57.050, required final specific plans to be submitted and approved - didn't this establish the criteria - wouldn't ttiis be effectual'zoning; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated this was a development criteria of the underlying zone. Commissioner Rowland observed that Anaheim Hills could be developed in the same manner that commercial-recreation had been developed - under variance. C~R in the Disneyland area Mr. Roberts noted that he had attempted to outline the City Attarney's concerns, and sta£f's positica was not in line with the City Att.orney's position, having argued in the sane manner which the Commission had done and without avail. Commissioner Farano inquired whether this prr;,osal would provide the protecti~n and manner of development evEn though it was Froviding the necessary vehicle. Commissioner Rowland stated he was absolutely certain there were more cities in the United States where zoning was not established in the City Attorney's office, and he was personally willing to expedite a smsll p~rtion of this area ko allow Anaheim Hills to proceed, but he would not vote for the PC Zone as presented. Mr. Barisic noted he could ~ell understand Commissioner Rowland's feelings, but they were in a bind, being in escrow, and it was a very costly situa~ion, how- ever, if they could go ahead with a portion, this would be helpful, but this need not apply to the entire ranch. Commissioner Rowland stated that if that meant adopting the PC ordinance change as preseni.ed to them, he would not vote for it; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated he would su:/gest adopting the Zoning Element as it applied to the 660 acres pzopose~i previously under General Plan Amendment No. 123A since they could not proceed c,t :erwise. ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7. 1972 72-512 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NJ. 123A (READVERTISED) AND PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE Commissioner Rowland stated he would not build-in a hardship on any property out on the ranch or in the canyon. Mr. Roberts atated that Mr. Barisic had expressed their concern over having zoning applied on a portion of tne PC area, and if the Commission was of the opinion that the zoning request on the proposal cesigned by architect Burkis, in which t,e stated that the manner in which the GPA was advertised, it would be within the discretionary power of the Commi~sion to recomwend R-2 zoni.ng on that specific area, maybe not over the ent:re area and aqain maybe over only certain areas to assist Mr. Barisic. Commissioner Rowland stated he did not feel the Commission should be forced to give relief from a decision of the City Attorney's office. Mr. Barisic state~ that they could get into a thx~ee-month disagreement which was very difficult to take at this stage. Commiss;'oner Rowland observed that the press~ire sh~uld be placed where it belongad - on the City Attorney, not on the Pla.nning Commission. Mx. Sarisic noted that Reclassification No. 72-'3-11 was the area in which they were primarily concerned at this time. Mr. Roberts state3 that this was the property he had just referred to as the Burkis area, and Grant of California had asked for R-2 zoning on that portion based on this problem before the Commission, and then in resp~nse to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated that if the Commission felt the zones that were being proposed on the Zoning Element for GPA No. 123A were appropriate, this would act as a resolution of intent for those zones on the property. Mr. Barisic then inquired whe':her it still would b.e.'_.necessary to introduce the resolution of intent to create zoning on the ;,~roperty, or would this be a resolution of intent; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the General Plan amend- ment before the Commission would establish a resolution of intent within the planned com+aunity, however, the Commission was not willing to maY.e such a recommendation and deny the General Plan amendment Zoning Element - this would still be considered by the City Council; and that the zones proposed came closest to the densities proposed on the Density Element. Mr. Roberts, in further response to Commission qustioning, stated that the Conmission ha~ adopted the densities under GPA No. 123A, however, the City Council had not taken any action ~n that recommendation. Comnissioner Farano observed that perhaps the Commission should adopt the Zoning Element of GPA No. 123a, except fos three areas - this, then, would reflect the densities established except that Area 3 oE Northridge, Eastridge, and Area 2 of the Lakeside Development should be designated as R-1 rather than RS-5000. Commissioner Kaywood observed that of the three areas mentioned by Mr. Roberts, Lakeview and Northridge overlooked the qolf course, and in her wildest dreams she could not envision RS-5000 or R-2 and R-3, and this should be done with R-1 because this was a beautiful view overlooking the golf course - it was a two-way view, not c:aly looki.ng down but looking up - this was an area for estate lots of not less than 10,000 square feet, and what was being planned was "junk" - did the developer propose to utilize this area for its beauty - it was tnere and should be utilized as such. Furt-hermore, Parcel 3 on the Northridge area purtion could be proposed for R-1 instead of RS-5000 and should be geared for larger lots wh:ch would be in keeping with the densities ap~roved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tom Sifferman, S d S Construation appeared beYore the Commis§ion. He said zoning is overy- thing in the Canyon. They a^e in esorow for $3,000,000 for 107 acres to inc:!Lde 6000-square £oot homes and town houses. The area approved fcr 718 units - he is proposing under 600. Tn e.nswer to Commissioner Kaywood's question, he said ~he single-family homes would h~ve 3, 4, or 5 bedrooms. Mr. SifPerman admiti;ed the bonuc room could be oonverted to 2 ex~ra bedrooms. fia £urther stated they had developed un3er the PC Zone in Irvine and Mission Viejo and had nevsr heard anything like this before. Commissioner F'arano ofte..~a a motion to approve the 2oning Element ef General Plan Hmendment No. 123E except for three areas, Northridge, Eastridge, and Area 2 of Lakeview be amended to permit R-1 zoning. Said motion lost by a vote of six to one. Continued discussion was held by the Commission, Mr. Barisic and staff regard- ing the 2oning Element and the PC Zone proposals, and upon its conclusion, Co~missioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of the amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.57, PC 2one and General Plan Amendment No. 123A, Zoning Element, to the meeting of August 21, 1972, to allow time for the Commission to meet at a work session with the City Attorney's office on August 14, 1972. Commissioner Farano saconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 7, 1472 72-513 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MR5. DONALD L, MC ZNTOSH~ 109 NO. 72-73-16 South Gilb~rt Street, Anahei:, Ca]:f~rnia 92804 and - MRS. HAZEL R. EPKENS, 3151 Terani. .i• Drive, Anaheim, VARIANCE NO. 2406 92804, Owners; BILL ASAWA, 806 S~:.c: Seach Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92804, Avent; property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feat on the south side of Li:~coln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 174 feet, be?ng the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street. Property present7.y classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL„ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. RcQUESTEJ VARIANCE: WAZVE (a) REQUIREMENT THAT ALL PARKING BF. PROVIDED TO THE REAR OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, (b) MINIMUM 8-FOOT SEPARATION FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, (c) MINIMUM 2~ INTERIOR PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING, AND (d) P.EQUIRED 6-FOOT SOLID llASONRY WALL ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO ESTABLISH AN OFFICE IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND A CONVEN~Y~NCE MARKET. One person indicated his presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning action on the property, noting that a variance to construct and operate a retail grocery store on a portior. of this property was denied by the Planning Commission and Cit~ Council in 1960; that a reclassification and conditional use permit to establish a take-out restaurant with outdoor patio were denied in 1970, however, the City Council had approved C-G zoning on the northerly half of subject property; that an ordinance had not been read for said C-O zoning, and in deny- ing the C-1 zoning in 1970, the City Council referred the request back to the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate zoning and use for the property, at which time staff had prepared several alter.native metl:ods of developing the northerly portion of the property and suggested that C-O zoning be adopted, which, subsequently, was adopted by the Planning Coramission and City Council; that the applicant was proposing to reclassify two lots of the existing single- family subdivision. the lot at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert being vacant, howecer, the lot immediately to the south contained an existinq single-family dwelling, and the proposal was to construct a convenience-type market on the first lot and utilize the existing home as an office building; and that the submitted plan also indicated three drive approaches to this relatively small property, two being on Gilbert Street and one along Lincoln Avenue. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the waiver for the parking area in the front setback was requested because the applicant proposed to park automobiles on asphalt paving in the front yard of the existing single-family homc on the southerly lot, whereas Code would require that the front area of an existing single-famil•:• home b_ utilized as landscaped area and parking be pro- vided to the rear of the residential structure when the residence was being converted to a commercial use; that waiver of the minimum 8-foot separation between buildings for pedestrian access was being requested because the appli- cant proposed to locate the convenience market within 5 feet of the existing single-family hone; that waiver of the 2~ landscaping on the interior of the parking area was being requested because the applicant had provided no interior landscaping; that periphery landscaping had been provided in the form of a 3-foot landscape strip along Lincoln Avenue and an approximate 5-foot landscape strip along Gi;bert Street; that the applicant al~o showed screen landscaping along the south and west walls adjacent to tha existing single-family residential home; that waiver for the required 6-foot high, solid masonry wall abutting a residential zone was n=cessary because the applicant was proposing to utilize the existing 5-foot, 6-i~ch block wall along the westerly and southerly boundary lines; and that in light cf the history on a portion of this property and the recorded CC&Rs, the Commisaion might wish to determine whether or not the proposal of the conveniencE~ market and a single-family conversion for office purposes was appropriate or suitable on this property. ~ ~ MINUTES, CI:Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Auqust 7~ 1972 72-514 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-16 AND VARIANCE NO. 2406 (Continued) Mr. Bill Asawa, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that considering the history of zoning since the last time zoning was applied on subject property, there would appear to be a number of changes, namely, commercial and apartment developments to the north of subject property; that t::~y had a lease for the 7-Eleven food store which had a very specific plot plan, therefore, this would indicate that they had a tenant for the property, provided the zoning was obtained; that traffic circulation for this facility was adequate since there was a left-turn signal at Gilbert Street; and that there also was a change from the previous zoning request in that they were now proposing utillzation of the single-family home to the south for office purposes. Mr. Dean Graham, 133 South Gilbert Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting his property was the sixth lot from the intersection of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue; that he was opposed to a convenierzce market in the center of the fine residential area; that there was a letter on file from Mr. Riley, owner of the single-family property to the west of the proposed facility, and in discussing this with the other neighbors, it w3s their feeling there was no change in land use in this area to warrant consideration of the proposal before the Commission; that the children sonth of this proposed use would have to pass it daily to elementary school, junior high, and high school, and presently these children were using the street because there were no side- walks for them to walk on - this, then, would add to the confusion, as well as the two accesses being proposed on Gilbert Street; that the access on Lincoln Avenue would provide for only eastbound traffic, therefore, it could be assumed that most of the traffic to and from this facility would be from Gilbert Street. a residential street; that msny of the residents living in this area have been there since 1956; that there was more than adequate commercial property only one block to the west and one block to the east to discourage any additional commercial uses in this residential area; that signs, lights, and litter from this proposed use would be detrimental to the residents of the area since homes in this area had floor-to-ceiling windows; that although there was no one present other than himself in opp~sition, a petition of opposition would be signed by the majority of the people in this area. The Commission Secretary noted there was a)etter on file from tdr. Riley in opposition. Mr. Asawa, in rebuttal., stated that they realized the one lot was insufficient to take care of the needs proposed, and the plot plan indicated adequate parkinq by utilizing both lots with the existing building to the south and west having diagonal parking p~ojected on the lot; that waiver of the landscaping was proposed since the southwest corner was already heavily landscaped, and the reason they did not provide it in the parking area was that there was in- sufficient space; that they could not place landscaping along a wall because of the need of providing adequate parking; and that there was a need for a convenience store in this area to serve both the residential uses and the apartment projects in th:~s area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED Commiss:oner Kaywood noted that e/ery 7-F~even store she had seen had signs indicating they were open 24-hours-a-day, which could have a detsimental effect upon the residential character of this area. Commissioner Gauer observed that the lot at the southwest corner of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue had been held out from the original subdivision in order to obtain the best poss~}g commercial zoning for the proper•ty - now the City was being asked to "$~i~ them out" because they could not do anything with it; that he had not changed his mind since the last time a restaurant was proposed; that aonvenience markets were nothing but litter areas with children purchasing somethinq and throwing the paper or cups down, and he had not seen any of these market areas cleaning up the debris; and that he could not see how this use would benefit chis neighborhoad. ~ r . . • • MINUTES~ CITX PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7. 1972 72-515 RECLAS6IFICATION NO. 72-73-16 AND VARIA'',~E NO. 2406 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Reso'lution No. PC72-186 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Petition fos Reclassification No. 72-73-16; that the proposed reclassification was not in conformance with the land use deaignation of tha General Plan; that no land use changes had taken place on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and no evi.dence had been presented to warrant consideration of changing the existing zoning on the property; that the proposed commercial zoning would be an encroachment into a primarily low-density residential area; that subject property was not in an area considered by the Planninq Commission and City Council in "The Study of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways", therefore, the commercial uses proposed would be contrary to said studyt that the proposed C-1 zoning was contrary to the resolution of intent,to C-O zoninq that the City Council placed on a portion of subject proper.ty in 1370; and that the proposed reclassi- Eication of subject property was not necessary and/or desizable for the orderly and proper development of the community. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-187 and moved for its passage and adoption to der~y Petition for Variance No. 2406 on the basis that since the Planning Commission had recommended disapproval of the reclassification of subject property, the variance could not be exercised within tl~e existing zone on the property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call th_ foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1202~ VARIANCE NO. 2356, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7875 - Request for approval of revised plans (Calprop Corporation) - Property located on the west side of imperial Highway, approximately 1800 feet south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a resolution of intent to R-2. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, an3 the request of the peti- tioner to revie~a and approve specific plans for development of Phase II of the planned residential development approved by the Planning Commission and City Council under Conditional Use Permit No. 1202; that subsequent to approval of the conditianal use permit, a variance application to permit two-story structures within 150 f:eet of an R-A Zone had been approved;. that conditions of approval of TentativE: Map of Tract No. 7875 on June 12, 1972, required that the applicant submit final specific plans for the proposed townh~uses, including the treatment of the setback along Zmperial Highway to staff for!approval by the Planning Commission and City Council, and of importance was the requirement that no lot be located closer than 30 feet from the right-of-way line along Imperial Highway; that the applicant was submitting a landscape plan for the Avenida Bernardo South frontage and the Imperial Highway frontage; that a plot plan for. the pro- posed development, the line-of-sight plan, a plan showing the location of models, and bt:ilding plans of both elevations and floor plans were submitted for the Commission's consideration. Mr. McDaniel, ia evaluating the proposal, not~u that as to the site plan and plot plan, these were consistent with plans considered under Variance No. 2356, Conditional Use Permit No. 1202, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7875; that the building plans indicated the f2oor plans presently proposed were quite close to those oriqinally considered; that the important consideration . ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7, 1972 72-516 ITEM NO. 1 ~Continued) as to the proposed plans concerned the setback and landscaping proposed along Imperial Highway, and on the proposed plan, a 30-foot building setback was indicated with patio walls and dense landscaping in the setback area; and that the interior height of the patio wall was a maximum of five feet, and the exterior dimension was approximately 2 feet above a 3-foot high landscaped berm along Imperial Highway. Furthermore, staff would recommend that the final specific plans, as submitted, be approved as complying with the request and intent of the Planning Commission in approving Tentative Map of Tract No. 7875. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to approve revised plans marked Exhibit Nos. A, B, C, D, and E, amending Condition No. 9 of the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7875 to read that prior to City Council approval of subject tract, final specific plans be submitted for approval, said plans marked Exhibits A, B. C, Dr and E. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1316 (Withrows RestauraT~t) - Waiver of conditions of approval. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the approved rec~uest to serve beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant; that Condi- tion No. 1 of the resolution approving the conditional use permit required installation of street lights along Rowland Avenue; that Rowland Avenue was approximately 250 feet south of the restaurant and the majority of the traffic flow to the restaurant appeared to use the ingress/egress point on the north- erly portion of the property on Magnolia Avenuej and that the applicant con- tended that simply adding beer and wine to the menu in this existing restaurant should not require the costly installation of additional street lighting facilities. Therefore, staff wouid recommend that the street light f.ee be waived until such time as a major change in the use occurred on subject property. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the request by the petitioner, it being determined that only the City Council could waive any charges, al- though the Commission could recommend that these be waived. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Condition No. 1 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72-127 be deleted, said condition requiring street light fees be paid for the Rowland Avenue frontage, on the Aasis that no major change had occurred to warrant considera- tion of a street light fee since only a request to permit the serving of beer and wine was under consideration. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Kaywood le~t the Council Chamber at 9:50 p.m. ITEM NO. 3 VARIANCE NO. 2274 - Request for an extension of time - Property located on the north side of Manchester Avenue approximately 500 feet northeast of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in c'_ose proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the use permitted under the variance was to construct a 5700-square foot war..:~ouse with waiver of the parking requirements, said variance aFproved on December 9, 1971, and expired on June 9. 1972; that the applicant had paid the street light and street tree fees, and in so doing, had completed two of the five conditions of ~pprovalt and that staff would recommend a one-year exten- sion of time be granted, to expire June 9, 1973. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a cne-year extension of time for the completion of the remaining conditions of approval of Variance No. 2274, said time extension to expire June 9, 1973. (COmmissioner Kaywood was absent) O ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 7~ 1972 72-517 ITEM NO. 4 • CONDITIONAL USE PERDSIT NO. 597 (Marion Lindsey) - Request for termination. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity~ and the request, notinq that as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Pezmit No. 1317, grantinq the establishment of a travel trailer and zecreational vehicle park, the Commis- sion required that Conditional Use Permit No. 597 be termins~ted, thus the petitioner was complying with tsaid condition. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-188 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to terminate all proceedings of Corditional Use Permit No. 597. (See Resolution Hook) On roll call the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Aerbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywaod. ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 - Request for ar. extension of time - Property located 2.5 miles south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately one-half mile southwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoix. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviawed the location of subject property, uses established in c1osE proximity, and the request for aa exten- sion of time for the'completion of conditions to establish a commercial equestrian center and veterinarian facility, and staff would recommend a one-year extension of time. Commissioner Seymour offered a mot~on, seconded by Commi~sioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Cammissioner Kaywood being absent) to grant a one-year exten- sion of time for the completion of conditions ap~roving Co^.ditional Use Permit No. 1271, noting that none of this center, as consid•:red by the Planning Commission, was in the agricultural preserve, said time extensiun to expire May 24, 1973. Co~amissioner Kaywood r2turned to the Council Chamber at 9:54 p.m. ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCE NO. 2303 - Request for termination - Property located at the northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Cerr.itos Avenue and zoned M-1. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDan:Lel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request approved to expand the existing fertilizer warehousing and distribution facility, noting that the petitioner had submitted a letter to staff indicating he no longer intended to build the new facilities and was requesting thst the variance be terminated. Furthermore, none of the conditions of approval had been met. Commissioner Rowland offered P.esolution No. PC72-189 an3 moved for its passage and adoption, to terminate all proceedings of Variance No. 2303, as requested by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roxl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSTONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON~ August 7~ 1972 72-518 ITEM NO. 7 VARIANCE NO. 2389 AND CONDITIONAL US£ PERMIT NO. 1323 - Progezty located 'at the southwest and southeast corners of La Palma'Avenue and Shepard Street. Chairman Seymour noted that the Develapment Services Director had advised the Commission Chairman that the study requeated by ttie Planninq Commission for the Northeast Industrial Area would b~ complete in time for the August 21 meetinqt that subject petitions had b~en continued to the September 6, 1972, meeting for this report, therefore, hi~~was requesting the Commission determir,e whether or not they wished to conaidez these petitions at the next public hearing since they would have to be readvertised if the Commission so aesired. The Commission noted that they had a very lengthy agenda for the August 21 meeting; that subject petitions would taka considerable time to discuss and reviews and that there was another petition that had been continued to the same meeting, awaitinq the zesults of said study, therefore, the Commission could see .~o basis for considering subject petitions earlier. Commissioner Herbst offered a moti.on ta advise the petitioner and his agent of Variance No. 2384 and Conditio..~l Use Permit No. 1323 that because of the work load for the August 21 meeting, the Commission had determined that subject petitions be scheduled on the original date of September 6, 1972. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CAP.RIED. ADJOURNMENT - Commissiunar Fowland offered a motion to adjourn the meetinq to August 14, 1972, at 7:30 p.m., to meet with the City Attorney to discuss the PC, Planned Community, Zone changes. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ C'~-~J ~~.~,~. ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. io~:oi,~~,;,:~~ ~~~,~ro A~~:~t~~~.m, ~...~I~tnrn~n