Minutes-PC 1972/08/21~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
August 21, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIpN
REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
MEETING called to order by Chairman Seymour at 2:00 p.m., a quorum
being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour.
- COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst (afternoon only), Kaywood,
Rowland (evening only).
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
Office Engineer Representative: Robert 3ones
2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywoed led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
APPAOVAL OF - Minutes of the meetinq of July 2h, 7•972, were approved on motion
THE MZNUTES by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections:
Pq. 72-448, para. 6, line 6, insert: February, he and (delete
"and x~himself")
Pg. 450, para. 5, line 2, insert: 4-6 "year old Kinderqarten
and lst grade" students
Pg. 452, para. 4, line l, insert: Al Fishman, President-Aldor..
Pg. 452, para. 6. line 7, insert: dairy ~Proved on parcels 1
and 2
pg. 452, para. 8, line 7, insert: was to be the Tastee Freez
Pg. 453, para. 4, lin 8: easement through (not though)
pg. 461, para. 7, line 2: Manny's
Pg. 462, para. 2, line l: Chairman Seymour concurred.......
with Farano
VARIA~NCE NO. 2430 - PUBLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPANY, 461 South Boylston,
Los Angeles, California 90017, Owiier; ARNE C. BEI,SBY,
Mini Warehouse Corp., 5600 Orangethorpe, #704, La Palma,
California 90620, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE MTNIMUM NUDIBER OF REQUIRED
PARKING STALLS TO ESTASLISH A STORAGE WAREHOUSE on property described as: An
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres having
a frontage of approximately 592 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue,
having a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet, and being located at the
northwest corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues. Property presently classified
M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE.
Chairman Seymour noted that there was a letter on file from the, agent for the
petitioner requesting continuance of Petition for Variance No. 2430 to the
meeting of September 6, 1972, to submit more complete ~avelopment plans.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Variance No. 2430 to the meeting
of September 6, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to submit more complete
development plans.
72-519
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-520
RECLASSIFICAriON - PUBLIC HEARING. AUDREY L. LANG, 832~5 South Philadelphia
N0. 72-73-16 Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; property described
as: A rectangulasly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage
VARIANCE NO. 2427 of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Philadelphia
Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 154 feet,
and being located approximately 400 feet south of the center-
line of South Street, and further described as 832 South Philadelphia Street.
Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLF.-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTEA VARIANCE: WAIVE (a) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (b) MINIMCjM SETBACK FROM
ALLEY, (c) MZNIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, (d) MINIMUM
DISTANCE SETWEEN BUILDINGS, (e) MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS
TO GARAGES AND ~f) MINIMUM INTERIGR GARnGE DIMENSIONS
TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH FGUR UNITS.
No one aopeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the puL~lic hearing, it is
referrad to and made a part of the minutes.
Ms. Audrey Lang, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and advised
the Commission it was her understanding that the construction contractor would
be present to answer questions regarding the waivers, however, it was her
intent to have bachelor type apartments; that the reason for the setback from
the alley was to provide a greater distance between the buildings and the car-
port; that perhaps the 12-£oot setback could be provided and plans could be
modified somewhat; that when the plans were originally drawn, all of the parking
spaces were closed ga~sges, but now they planned an open garage with storage
and removal of trash at the rear doar of the existing home; and that she wanted
more space between the house and thz carport so that she would not have to face
the wall immediately upon stepping out of the house.
TfIE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the proposal, noting that with the waiver requested
for reduction of the size of the carport, this would preclude having any
American-made cars being parked in the carport; that the zoning request would
appear to be in conformance with the land use designation of the General Plan,
while the number of units propos~d appeased not to be excessive, but the
Commission was faced with the manner in wYnich the units were proposed to be
located on the property; that the petitioner indicated she wanted more open
space between the buildings, but in attempting to do this and because of the
location of the existing structure, it wou1F appear the number of waivers
requested would be the only way to accomplish this, and even though the use
and number of units proposed was acceptable, the numerous waiver.s from Code
would be setting a serious precedent with the neighbors who wouid be requesting
the same type of use, therefore, it would be wise for the petitioner to review
these plans again with the constractor, suqgevtitig he work with staff to re-
arrange tP.:• plans in order to reduce the number 4:~ waivers being requested.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the purpose of rezoring from R-2 to R-3 would be
to remove the older structure and upgrade the ar2a with a more modern structure
instead of the proposed type of development for the property, therefore, he
would not be in favor of the rezoning request =or that reason.
Ms. Lang. in response to Commission questioning, stated that there was one
very old garage on the property which was entered into from the street, and
there'was no exit to the alley.
Commissioner Gauer cbserved that it would be extremely difficult to turn around
from the alley since he had experience with parking from the alley, and unless
all of the automobiles proposed to be parked in the carport were small, the
tenants would not be parking their vehicles in the carport because of this
difficulty; and that those homes in his area which had parking from the alley,
their garage setbacks were from 10 to 15 feet from the alley.
~
.,..
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, August 21, 1972 72-521
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-18 AND VARIANCE N0. 2427 (Continued)
After Ms. Lang asked whether the Commission would consider subject petitions
favorably if the setback were 5 feet instead of zero feet as proposed, Chairman
Seymour stated that the petitioner was askinq for six waivers from Code, not
one waiver, and the more waivers that could be eliminated the better the
opportunity to gain her object•ive, however, the Commission could not redesign
this pro~ect at the public hearing, therefore, he would suggest that the
pet~tioner's contractor meet with staff before redesigning the proposed
development.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassifica-
tion No. 72-73-18 and Variance No. 2427 to the meeting of September 18, 1972,
to allow time for the petitioner's contractor to meet with staff and redesi.gn
the proposal.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the contractor had met with staff a
number of times, and the plan before the Commission was the best manner in
which to develop the property because the petitioner proposed to retain the
exist.ing structure on the property.
Commissioners Aerbst, Gauer and Seymour stated that it would be to the best
interest of the petitioner to plan to remove the existing structure which would
be replaced by a more modern structure and possibly eliminate the waivers
requested.
Commissioner Herbst further noted that in the past the Commission had granted
waiver of 10$ of the units having less thar, minimum floor area, while the
petitioner was proposing ~^.$ - even though the petitioner indicated these would
be bachelor units, it would be very difficult for the City to police the property
to make sure they were not being used for other than one person per unit, "~~re-
fore, he would suggest that consideration be given to increasing the unit .,ize
in order to provide a better living environment.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CENTURY PROPERTIES, 16200 Ventura Boulevard,
PEP,MIT NO. 1338 Suite 201, Encino, California 91316, Owner; THE GODFATHER,
INC., 1644 North Cahuenga Boulevard, Hollywood, California
90028. Agent; requesting permission to fiAVE ON-SALE BEER
AND WINE IN AN EXZSTING RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 66 feet on the east
side of Beach Boulevard, havinq a maximum depth of approxa.mately 302 feet, and
being located approximately 910 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
Prcoerty pr::sently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report tp the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. N. A. Muick, 1407 Flower Street, Huntington Park, appeared before the
Commission and stated the proposed operation would be part of a franchise of
Two Guys from italy Restaurant, the first one being established in Hollywood,
another in Beverly Hills, and still another in the Valley, which were all doing
well, providing good food; that the request before the Commission was to percnit
on-sale beer and wine to be served with meals in an Italian restaurant which
would appear to be almost a necessity, comparing it to serving cranberry sauce
with a Thanksgiving turkey; that in his club they had had a speaker fostering
the drinking of California wines rather than other drinks, therafore, he would
request the Commission give serious consideration to approving subject petition;
and that he would like the Commission to share a meal with him at this establish-
ment some evening.
Chai.rman Seymour inquired as to the hours of operation; whereupon Mr. Muick
stated that they would open for lunch from about 11:00 until 2:00 p.m. and
then for dinner £rom 5:00 until 11:00 p.m.
Chairman Seymour stated that one of the Commissioners was concerned that this
might turn into an all-niqht bar; whereupon Mr. Muick stated that they would be
selling beer and wine with dinner at tables, and that there would be no bar
where beer and wine would be sold, nor would there be any hard liquor sold.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 ~Z-5Z2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1338 (Continued)
~urthermore, since this was a tourist area, there was a possibility they would
be open later than 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Farano inquired whether the petitioner planned to have carry-out
service; whereupon Mr. Muick stated that they were considerinq providing this
service, similar to what they had in Hollywood, but they had not made any firm
plans regarding this phase of business.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-190 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1338, subject to
conditions, and further to the hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
and the stipulation by the petitioner that there would be no bar, and beer and
wine only would be sold as an incidental gart of the serving of food; and that
there would be no hard liquor sold. (See Resolution Book)
Prior to roll call, Commissioner Farano expressed concern regarding the comment
made as to carry-out business and inquired of staff whether the possible carry-
out business would qualify under subject petition or within the zone on the
property, and would it meet the site development standards as to the possibility
that there would be a parking pxoblem created.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that subject petition
qualified as a restaurant, and someone could call and order food to be delivered
to the home, which would not create any parking problem, but where one had a
drive-through and walk-up business exclusively, then the parking requirements
were more stringent.
Commissioner Herbst noted that subject petition requested on-sale beer and wi:ie,
not carry-out food, which would require another petition being approved.
Mr. Roberts noted the proposed restaurant met the minimum parking requirements
of an enclosed restaurant, but a walk-up and drive-through restaurant required
20 parking spaces.
Mr. Roberts, in respor.se to Further Commission questioning, stated that as
proposed under the present plans, a drive-through or walk-up restaurant could
not be operated since it was designed as an enclosed restaurant, therefore,
there could be very little carry-out business that would create undesirable
parking demands.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fai.~ao, Gau?r, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. J.A.D.E., INC., 5511 East Lincoln Avenue,
PERMIT NO. 1339 Cypress, California 90630, Owner; KIYOSHI IKAI, 2937 West
Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92804, Agent; requesting
permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION
WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 219 feet on the north side
of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, and being
located approximately 650 feet east of the centerline of Seach Boulevard.
Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
No one appea~ed in opposition.
Although the Rt~ort to th~~ Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to defer consideration of subject petition
until later in the meeting and requested staff to contact the petitioner so
that the Commission could have questions answered by the petitioner. (See
page 72-538)
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972
72-523
VARIANCE NO. 2431 - PUBLIC HEARING. RONALD R. COSBY, ET AL, 2230 North Westwood
Street, Santa Ana, California 92706, Owncrs; requesting
WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES AND (b) REQUIRF.D 6-FOOT
SOLID MASONRY WALL' ENCLOSURE FOR OUTDOOR USES AND UUTDOOR STORAGE TO PERMIT
MINOR REPAIR, TESTING FiND STORAGE OF MOSILEHOMES IN THE OUT-OF-DOORS on property
described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
4.6 acres, having a frontaqe of approximately 330 feet on the west sid.e of
Kraemer Boulevard, having a maximum depth of agproximately 607 feet. and being
located approximately 325 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue.
Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Rlthough the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Chairman Seymour noted that subject petition would also be deferred to later
in the meeting and requested staff to contact the petitioner. (see page
72-539~
Chairman Seymour noted that since the next eighteen items concerned similar
requests and by the same petitioner, the Commission would hear them as one
item unless the agent for the petitioner objected to it.
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 - PUBLIC HEARINGS. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,
THROUGH 2424 P. 0. Box 31, Long Beach, California 90801, Owner;
AMERICAN PERMIT SERVICE, P. O. Box 364, La Puente,
California 91747, Agent.
VARIANCE NO. 2407 - Property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the northeast corner uf Kac.ella Avenue
and Brookhurst Street, having approximate frontages of
17U feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and 200 feet on the east side of
BrookhurG' Street; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMi1M DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-
STANDIN. '_GNS, (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM
HEIGHT GF FREE~-STANDING SIGN TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION
WITH PN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN. Property presently classified C-1,
GENER' L COMMERCIAI,~ ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2408 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southeast c~rner of Katella Avenue and
State College Boulevard and having approximate frontages
of 143 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and 150 feet on the east side
of State College Boulevard; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINZMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS. (c) PERMITTED
LOCATZON OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (d) MII~IMUDS AEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS
TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOY SIGNS AND FOUR CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN
EXTSTZNG FREE-STANDING SZGN. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUS-
TRIAL~ ZONE.
VARZANCE NO. 2409 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard, having frontages of approximately 150 feet
on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 170 feet on the west side of Harbor
Boulevard; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-BTANDING
SIGNS. (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ (C) PERMITTED LOCATION OF
FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND ~d) MINIMUM HEZGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT
THREE LIGHTER BOX SIGNS AND FOUR CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING
MONUMENT SIGN. Property presently classified C-2, GENEFtAL COMMERCiAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2410 - Property described as: A rectangul~rly-shaped parcel of
land located at the northeast corner o£ La Palma Avenue and
Brookhurst Street, having approximate frontaqes of 150 feet
on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 150 feet on the east side of Brookhurst
Street; request~ng WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWBEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS,
(b) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 ~2'~24
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
STANDING SIGNS~ AND (d) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CQNSTRUC;T TWO
LIGHTER BOX SIGNS IN CCNJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING YREE-STANDING SIGN. :~roperty
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE N0. 2411 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parce] of
land located at the southeast corner of Magnolia and
Crescent Avenues, having frontages of 150 feet on the south
side of Crescent Avenue and 147 feet on the east ^i.~.e of Maqnolia Avenue;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-S'PANDING SIGNS, (b)
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING
SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT ONE LIGHTER BOX SIGN AND TWO CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2412 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped pb •..~1 of
land located at the southeast corner of State College Boule-
vard and Via Surton Street, havi.ng frontages of approximately
150 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 150 feet on the south
side oE Via Burton Street; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MAXIMUM NUMB~R OF FREE^STANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED
LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ AND ~d) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS
TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS AND FOUR CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN. Property presently classified M-.l, LIGHi
INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2413 - Property describ`:d as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Anaheim
Boulevard. having frontages of approximately 162 feet on the
west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 129 feet on the south side of Ball Road;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b)
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING
SIGN TO CONSTRUCT THREE LIGHTER BOX SIGNS AND FOUR CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION
WITH AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN. Property presently classified C-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
VARIANCE N0. 2414 - Property descr~~^^: as: A rectangularly-: red parcel of
land located at the southeast corner of Bail Road and West
Street, having frontages of approximately 150 feet on the
east side of West Street and 135 feet on the south side of Ball Road; requesting
WAIV~R OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SSGNS, (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF FREE-STANDZNG SIGNS, AND !c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CON-
STRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE N0. 2415 - Property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Freedman Way, having frontages of approximately 120 feet on
the east side of Harbor Boulevard and 150 feet on the south side of Freedman Way;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b)
MAXIMUM NUMHER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING
SIGNS, AND (d) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT ONE LIGHTER
BOX SIGN AND TW~ CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING
SIGN. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE N0. 2416 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
- land located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Dale
Avenue and having frontages of approximately 150 feet on the
south side of Ball Road and 150 feet on the east side of Dale Avenue; requesting
WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (d)
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS AND
TWO CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING S?~N. Prope.rty
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~
0
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CO[dMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-525
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROi1GH 2424 (Continued)
VARIANCE NO. 2417 - Property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land bounded by Wilshire Avenue on the north, Loara Street
on the west, and the Santa Ana Freeway on the south;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE SETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b)
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-SmANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MTNIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING
SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING FREE-
STANDING SIGN. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2418 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped par.el of
land located at the northwest corner of East Street and
Kenwaod Avenue, having froatages of approximately 140 feet
on the west side of East Street and 100 feet on the north side of Kenwood Avenue;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b)
MAXIMU.f NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING
SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT ONE LIGfITER BOX SIGN AND ONE FREE-STANDING SIGN IN CONJUNCTION
WITH AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING FREEWAY SIGN. Property presently classified M-1,
LIGAT INDUSTRIAL~ 20NE.
VARIANCE NO. 2413 - Property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southwest corner of Harbo.r Boulevard and
La Palma Avenue, having frontages of approximately 130 feet
on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 130 feet on the west side of Harbor
Boulevard; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS,
(b) MAXIMUM NUMBEF. OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-
STANDING SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT ONE LIGHTER BOX SIGN IN CONJUNCTION WITA AN EXISTING
FREE-STANDING SIGh. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2420 - Property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southeast corner of Broadway and
Manchester Avenue, having frontages of approximately 125 feet
on the south side of Broadway and 135 feet on the east side of Manchester Avenue;
requ~sting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS,
AND (d) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTZNG FRE:E-STANDING SIGN. Property presently classified
C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2421 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and
State College Boulevard, having frontages of approximately
150 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 150 feet on the west side of
State College Boulevard; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-
STANDING SIGNS, (b) MAXIMUM NU[dBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION
OF F12EE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (d) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CON-
STRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS AND FOUR CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXIST-
ING FREE-STANDING SIGN. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZONE.
VARIANCE NO. 2422 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and
Orange Avenue, having frontages of approximately 150 £eet
on the south side of Orange Avenue and 150 feet on the west side of Euclid Street;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b)
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-S'PANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING
SIGNS, AND (d) MINIMUM HEIG:~T OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER
BOX SIGNS AND TWO CANOPY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING
SIGN. Property presently classi£ied C-1, G~NERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE N0. 2423 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the southeast corner of Lincoln and Knott
Avenues, having frontages of 150 feet on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue and 125 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue; requesting WAZVER
OF (a) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-
STAN!1ING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDII3G SIGNS, AND (d) MINIMUM
HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNu TO CONSTRUCT TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGhS IN CONJUNCTION
WITH AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SI~^t. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ A.ugust 21, 1972 72-526
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continuefl)
VARIANCE N0. 2424 - Property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land located at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street
and Lincoln Avenue, having frontages of 150 feet on the
west side of Brookhurst Street and 140 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING
SIGNS, AND (d) MINIMUDI HEIGHT OF F22EE-STANDING SIGNS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION
OF TWO LIGHTER BOX SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN E%ISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN.
Property presently classified COUNTY 100-C-1-10,000 DISTRICT.
Chairman Seymour noted that unless the petitioner otherwise requested it, the
Commission would hear all of the discussion on the petitions simultaneously
since the Commission had reviewed all of the findings in the Report to the
Commission, and unless the petitioner had individual requests regarding the
location and the proposal, as well as additional information which the Commission
could be apprised of, the Commission would prefer to consider these as one item.
Mr. Carltcn Rodeheaver, P. 0. Box 391, La Puente, California 91747, agent for the
petitioner, af::er some discussion, advised the Commission that all items could be
considered as one item, however, he would request that each item have an individ-
ual resolution; whereupon Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry stated that the Commis-
sion would, by law, be required to take separate action on each petition.
Mr. Rodeheaver then presented pictures for the Commission to review as to what
was proposed, noting that they had started on a national program to bring all
stations up to contemporary use; that a large amount of the signing area would
be torn•down, and the stations would be rearranged to have better lighting than
they presently had, making them a more contemporary unit; that they were attempt-
ing to satisfy each of the demands for the various communities wherever they
had proposed remodeling; that they had attempted to stay within the use of the
logo rather than lettering as had been in the past with "Standard" soelled out
in the 150-foot size sign; that the large fin sign was being removed and replaced
generally with one 47-square foot sign saying "Standard", which would be placed
at the intersection and have a rotating sign; that in addition they had tried
to solve some problems, letting the people know of the services availahle at
the various service stations, this being by proposing the use of lignter box
signs 12 x 3 foet, 6 inches in size; that the logo would be about 4 square.feet,
which designated the product being sold since Standard was the national company
and Chevron produced products that were advertised in given areas; that they
had observed several statements made in the Report to the Commission that somewhat
surprised them in that the interpretation of a free-standing sig:~ came as somewhat
of a surprise to them; that they had utilized the lighter box concept throughout
Southern California, and in 50$ of their applications they were considered a
light fixture and logo; that it was not that vital to make it a sign, but the
thinking would be the same as the Ford emblem on an automobile o'r any other emblem
on an automobile which would not change the function of the vehicle, nor would
the lighter box change the function o£ the station; that it was unfortunate that
these would be considered free-standing signs; that in discussions with staff
there appeared to be a tendency to think that Standard Oil was creating a bad
precedent, but he would take the opposite position, stating that they were creat-
ing a good precedent, primarily because they were not dealing with the normal
type of operation in a normal business building which was built and which was
leased or operated by the owner, and the lessee would purchase whatever signs
he nee3ed to advertise his particular business, however, a service station did
not get this benefit as other types of businesses did, but a request must appear
before the Commission to determine if the signing was acceptable, and if so,
whatever was on the sign was then reviewed as a complete development. not on
an individual basiss that many of the signs, such as price signs, smog control
signs, etc., were required by State law; that tney had tried to uphold all codes
enacted by a city, and when a site was improved, there was an inherent right, an
unspoken agreement between the community and Standard Oil or other oil companies,
that they would provide good service and a desirable place to do good business
in the confines of that city - in addition, there was also an a?reement that
Standard oil had a right for visual communication within that tra3e area; that
it~~st important to advertise companies such as he represented wichin the
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION~ August 21, 1972 ~2-52~
VARIANCE N(~S. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
specific t::ade area since very few people consulted a phone book for the location
of a service station on their way from their home because people were an automo-
bile-orier.ted society, going to various places to do their shopping in order
to take advantage of sales; that signing proposed was done in good taste, which
led to the beauty of the city; that it brought in business to these locations
as people went by in their daily course of business; that initially they intended
to help the local '~usiness to combat inflation through increased revenues by
increasing sales; that this program was put togethec with the desire and hope
that thie type of program would be attractive to the city and cammunity and would
bring in additional revenue to the dealers in these areas; that these lighter
boxes as such should not be considered a sign, even though the City Attorney
had ruled otherwise, therefore, Standard Oil would request that these lighter
boxes be permitted as set forth in each petition.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the pictures presented by the agent indicated
before and after the proposed changes, and on the after gicture it appeared
that the word "Standard" was omitted from the lighter boxas, but the Standard
sign appeared to be on the facade or canopy as indicated on the picture, and
then inquired where the price signs were propo~ed to be located; whereupon
Mr. Rodeheaver stated the price signs, in most instances, would be attached to
the identification sign at the intersection of the service station lot, and
perhaps the Standard sign was omitted from the canopy intentionally, however,
the petitioner was requesting to have the six sites having canopy-facades, and
the other signs where lighter boxes only were proposed; and they would re-paint
these sites and landscape them and maintain them properly.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that the signs appearing throughout the city with
the name Standard "hit one in the eye" as one approached the service station
site.
Mr. Rodeheaver stated this was prevalent on the newer sites where ranch-style
architecture was employed, and this also pzesented quite a problem to them in
their conversion program because they were new stations, rand the cnst of the
building was considerable; that the word "Standard" w~»ld be the identification
sign for the company at the intersection, and in some instances it would also
become part of the canopy sign, but there would be no "Standard" information on
the lighter boxes in the depths of these stations which Commissioner Kaywood
re£erred to and which were only 3 feet x 12 feet, 6 inches, or approximately
36 square feet. ,w~
i• .~
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the agent felt that the~@hevron should be
part of the logo, as well as being the emblem; whereupon Mr. Rodeheaver stated
that not all Standard stations were Chevron dealers in California, and that the
striped emblem represented Standard Oil but nct Chevron.
The Commission inquired about the fact that eight signs were proposed at the Via
Burton Street and State College Boulevard site and inquired why this was neces-
sary; whereupon Mr. Rodeheaver stated that there would be only two canopies
facing separate streets, with one faciny State College Boulevard and the other
facing Via Burton Street, but there would be only two canopies at that site with
both sides of the canopies having the identification.
Commissioner Kaywood r.oted there were si~:ilar canopies at Dale Avenue and Ball
Road with islands and one canopy with signs on both sides, or four signs for two
canopies, as well as the lighter boxes, however, she could not ~~ having
the canopies with no name or emblem on them. a~~U£
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the service station under discussion
was a free-standing siqn at Via Burton Street and State College Bouleva.rd, and
the petitioner was placing lighter boxes beneath the canopies on which the word
"Standard" apparently appeared on both sides of each canopy.
Commissioner Farano stated that the request should be placed in a different
context because there were 18 locations undex consideration, ~ith 9 0£ the
locations already having had the lighter boxes insta?led, and the petitioner
was attempting to have these legalized along with the remaining site requests,
however, in viewing the requests as sat forth in the Report to the Commission,
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.~ August 21~ 1972 ~Z'528
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (COntinued)
there appeared to be 81 signs at these 18 locations, or 4~ times the signs
presently permitted on these sites by Code, or approximately an 800+t increase
of signing over Code - yet the petitioner indicated staff felt this was estab-
lishing a bad precedent, and he thought it was a good precedent - but when any-
one requested waivers of the Sign Ordinance as was being requested, this would
establish an undesirable precedent since all of the other service stations in
the city would be requesting the same amount of increase from 100$ to 700$ over
that permitted by Code, oz an average of 300$, and he could not see how it
could be interpreted otherc~ise, although if one viewed this on an individual
basis, it might not appear as such, but in combination the magnitude of the
requests was quite astounding; that he was only cumparing what wa~ being re-
quested to that which was permitted by the Sign Ordinance; tY.at he was sure in
the business Mr. Rodeheaver represented when an increase of 300~ in the business
was projected, this would take some thinking, and the same would apply where a
similar request was made for waivers from the Sign Ordinance - the same ccncern
would have to be expressed and serious consideration be given to such a request.
Mr. Rodeheaver replied that their thinking was not that they were increasing
the signing by 300$, but that they were increasing the lighting for security
reasons on each site, and the logo was on the lighting surface.
Commissioner Farano noted that by definition of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
these were still considered free-standing signs.
Commissioner Herbst commented that there was advertising on the logo; whereupon
Mr. Rodeheaver stated that he had had rather long discussiuns with both Mr.
Lowry and Mr. Walp on this particular facet of signing, and he couid not sub-
scribe to this as a free-standing sign, but then he did not have the final say
on that.
Commissioner Farano observed that the Commission also did not have the final
say, however, if every service station in the city wanted to increase their
signing without getting into the different types of signs, a variance granted
by the Planning Commission and/or City ;ouncil as to free-standing signs, since
there was very little which distinguished one from the other, this would mean
every station could increase their signing seven times over the present signing
permitted, and the Commission would then be placed in a very awkward position
as to denying other requests.
Mr. Rodeheaver responded by stating that although Commissioner Farano stated
there was an increase of over 300$, this did not take into considera'.ion the
existing three or four signs on the property.
Commissioner Farano stated he was only comparing what was being requested to
what was permitted by Code.
Mr. Rodeheaver noted that in most i,~stances they were reducing the square foot-
age of the sign in these location~; whereupon Commissioner Gauer noted that in
one picture presented by the agent it would appear that they were increasing
the signing from the existing one =~gn to four signs.
Commissioner Farano noted that if one compared the measured amount of signing
presently existing to that being proposed by the petitioner, one could readily
see there was a substantial increase in the amount of sign space or square
footage ar~a.
Mr. Rodeheaver .further indicated that in most instances they were reducing the
size of a sign wherein 150-foot fin signs were formerly on the property with
two such signs generally on the property, making a total of 300 square feet -
Y.hey were removing these and bringing the signing up with their national
program, and the Commission was losing sight of the fact that this was not a
building that sat out, but was a fully integrated site designed to do a speci-
fic job - to pump gasoline, service a car with oil, and provide services in the
best possible surroundings, and if a sign program appeared where a site was
developed entirely, the site would be dependent upon what was planned on the
site - r.hat there were bad signs and good signs, and a bad siqn, no matter
what its size even if sma11, would do more harm than a large good sign,
particularly where their signs were proposed to be tastefully designed within
« very low key, no flashing or glaring signs - even though the light was there
and lit t1~e station, it was hoped this would bring in customers.
0
lJ
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
72-529
Chairman Seymour noted that in a number of locations where signing was proposed
there was street dedication and improvement required, and this should be made,
therefore, he wondered whether Standard Oil was prepared to properly improve
the streets if these petitions were approved; w:,ereupon Mr. Rodeheaver stated
that they would have to check into this, therefore, they wou~d ask that these
petitions be continued to allow time for investigation of same.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission, summarized as follows:
1. Approval of subject petitions, representing 18 service station sites
of one major oil company, would mean similar requ~sts from the other
oil companies to increase their signing could be expected.
2. That this request was inappropriate, particularly since some of the
signing proposed by Standard Oil Company indicated seven times more
than permitted by Code.
3. That the Planning Commission would be placed in a very awkaard positioa-
in the future wherein they would have no justification for denying
similar signing waivers from the Code for other commercial uses through-
out the city.
9. That the City Attorney had ruled that any emblem or printed matter on
the logo would classify these as free-standing signs.
5. That the Planning Commission had indicated in their disapproval of
the signing at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, that although the
petitioner was improving the appearance of a rather old service station
site by removal of the large man located as part of the site, approval
would establish an undesirable precedent wherein other oil companies
would request similar signing.
6. That the City Council deemed the signing to be appropriate, and the
net result was the request now before the Commissic~n for additional
signing on 18 service station sites; and, further, that the other oil
compani.es were awaiting the outcome of these 18 requests before present-
ing their sign waiver requests.
7. That a view of the signing at the Harbor Bou2evard-KaY.ella Avenue service
station at night would indicate a very bright and garish appearan~e which
was a very definite detriment to the area rather than an improvement,
which appeared to be the original intent of the petitioner when it was
first presented to the Planning Commission.
8. That although the petitioner was trying to improve the appearance of the
service station sites, the signing proposed was rather ludicrous, since
the gEneral motoring public was fully aware of the loration of a service
station with only one sign - not the number of signs proposed for these
stations.
9. That the City of Anaheim was presently experiencing a 15$ vacancy factor
of service stations, and it was apparent that the oil companies would
have to upgrade these sites to attract business, but the improvement
proposed, with the excessive s~gning, was not accomplishing this so-
called improvement.
10. That other cities throughout California did not experience the numerous
requests for waiver of their sign ordinances, and it would appear that
Anaheim's sign ordinance was no more rigid than other cities.
11. That the agent for the petitioner indicated they were reducing the square
footage of their siqning, however, upon calculation, it would appear
there was a 224$ increase in the square footage of the proposed signs
over the existing signs (2127 square feet proposed - 949 square feet
existing); and that there was a 455$ increase in the number of free-
standing signs (8z proposed - 18 permitted). •
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-530
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
12. That the Commission again wanted to emphasize the £act that approval of
these 18 requests would establish an undesirable precedent for all other
service station sites in Anaheim requestinq similar waivers, and this
could further establish a precedent wi.th requests from other commercial
and industrial developments to increase the signing for their properties.
13. The petitioner had not demonstrated that a hardshzp existed in the
present signing of the properties to warrant favorable consideration
of waivers of the sign ordinaace, a necessary prerequisite by law for
approval of any variance request.
14. That in the event the City Council determines that 18 variances should
be approve3, then dedication a:zd improvement of streets of the sites
under Variance Nos. 2410, 2413, 2414, 2419, 2420, and 2423 should be
made a condition of approval.
15. That s?nce the petitioner is proposing ~sbstantial improvement= to the
property which could not be amortized over a period of ten years, it
woul~? app~ar to be justification for requiring the n=cessary street
~ed`ca*_:Lon and improvement.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-193 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2407 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Siga Ordinance.
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had deni.ed a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent foz mass signing o£ other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or c~nditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use o£ the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a sLbstantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; that the requested variance
v~ould be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located, (See kesolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Gauer. offered Resolution No. PC72-194 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No..2408 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of siqning permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier i.n 1972 he.i denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of suhject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically qranting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use oE the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-531
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
a substantial property right ;;ossessed by other psoperty in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to th~
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
loGated; and that the petitioner was proposing six signs more than permitted
by the Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost 600~ over Code, and thus he
would be enjoying a very special privilege if subject petition were approved.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMIS:.'IONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, I~aywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSI02'ERS: Dl~ne.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A].lred, Rowland.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-195 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2409 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signi3ig permitted within the Sign 0!:dinance,
and to grant subject oetition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other se~vice station in Anaheim would request similar signingt
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 h,ad denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service scations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposi~g
to increase the number oE signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
o•it the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evider.oe that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variar.ce was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a s,ubstantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicini.ty
and zone and denied to the property in question; that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located; and that the petitioner was proposing six signs more than permitted by
the Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost 600$ over Code, and thus he would
be enjoying a ver.y special privilege if subject petition were approved. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-196 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2410 on the basis that the siqn-
ing as propose~ was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to graiit subjec;t petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would requ>st similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 :~ad denied a similar request with
a Finding that approval would establish a preceflent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject ~etition; that the pet~.tioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zonet that
the requested variance was no~ necessary for the Yreservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other pr~perty in the same vicinity
and zone and deni.ed to the property in question; and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
2ocated. (See F.esolution So~k)
~
~
•
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-532
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, [ierbst, Kaywood~ Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowlznd.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-197 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2411 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planninq Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petiti~ner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments throuqh-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptiunal cr extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the reqnested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvcments in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-198 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2412 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excecs of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable prece3ent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petitiont ~hat the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by othFr commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
;enerally to tkxe property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested v>riance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located; and that the petitioner was proposing only two canopy signs, although
the staff report indicated seven signs proposed - nevertheless, this was two
more than Code would permit. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
•
r
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-533
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-199 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2413 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of siqning permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that appro~~al would establish a preced~nt for mass signing of other
service stations throuqhout the city an3 no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of sub'ject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industriaJ. developments through-
out the city; that the petitione: had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by ather property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or impxovements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located; and that the petitioner was proposing seven more signs than permitted
by the Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost 700+E over Code, and thus he
would be enjoying a very special privilege if subject petition were approved.
(Sp=. Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-200 a:id moved £or its passaqe
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2414 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within tne Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
t;?~ the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that aYproval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration o~ subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exception~al or extraordinary circumstanr.As or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property riqht possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and deniad to the property in questlon; and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public wel£are or in~urious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Bock)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-201 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2415 on the basis tha~ the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar. request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-534
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
serv3ce stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically gsanting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intendeci use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resulution was passed by the fullowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~arano, Gauer, Herbot, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-202 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2416 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service station, throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not 3ubmitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraord'.ary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or cla~s of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed ay other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in questionj that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located; and that the petitioner was proposing six signs more than permitted
by the Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost 6008 over Co3e, and thus he would
be enjoying a very special privilege if subject petition were approved. !See
Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-203 and moved for its passage I
and adoption to deny Petition for ~ariance No. 2417 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
~nd to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent I
wher.ein every other service station in Anaheim would re~'xest similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable aonsideration of subject petitionj that the petitioner was proposing
to in.rease the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-535
VARIANCE NOS. 2g07 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
qenerally to the prooerty or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property.in questiont and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property wa~
located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Faraao, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Farano offered Resoiution No. PC72-204 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2418 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establish:ng an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station 3n Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a preredent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitianer a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located; and that the petitioner was proposing a pole sign in addition to the
already existing freeway-oriented pole sign. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kay~iood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hllred, I:uwland.
Commissio~er Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-205 and moved for its passage
and adontion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2419 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planninq Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automaticall,y granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evi3ence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and fienied to the property in question; that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or imorovements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Book)
•
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-536
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 TEIROUGH 2424 (Continued)
On roll ca7.1 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst. Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-206 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2420 on the basis that the siqn-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar siqning;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no chanqes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in questiont and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-207 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition fur Variance No. 2421 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petitioa would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner ••ras proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by cther commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in tne same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located; and that tha petitioner was proposing six more signs than permitted by
the Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost 6009s over Code, and thus he would
be enjoying a very special privilege if subject petition were approved.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywoud, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-537
VARIANCE NOS. 2407 THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-208 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2422 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitteZ within the Siyn Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically grancing the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments thr~ugh-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: ~OMMZSSIONERS: None.. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allr~d, Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-209 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2423 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in excess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throughout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from four to eight
times that permitted by Code, thereby autc+matically granting the petitioner a
privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordi~~.ary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did n-.t apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone and denied to the property in question; and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvemen•.:s in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-210 and moved for its passage
and adoption :o deny Petition for Variance No. 2424 on the basis that the sign-
ing as proposed was far in er.cess of signing permitted within the Sign Ordinance,
and to grant subject petition would be establishing an undesir.able precedent
wherein every other service station in Anaheim would request similar signing;
that the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar request with
a finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other
service stations throuahout the city and no changes have occurred to warrant
favorable consideration of subject petition; that the petitioner was proposing
to increase the number of signs on these service station sites from £our to eight
•
~
e
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972
VARIANCE NOS. 240' THROUGH 2424 (Continued)
72-538
times that permitted by Code, thereby automatically qranting the petitioner a
privileqe not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city; that the petitioner had not submitt.ed evidence that there were
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not ar•ply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; that
the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and xone and denied to the property in question; and that the requested variance
would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property was
located. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1339 (Continue3 from page 72-522)
Chair.man Seymour noted that sub~ect petition had been considered earlier by
the Planning Commission but had been deferred in order that the petitioner
oz agent could be present to explain the proposal and answer Commission
questions.
Mrs. Kiyosrii Ikai, 2937 West Sall Road, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Cominission and stated that she was representing her husband who had customers
asking for beer and wine be served them prior to serving dinner, and, therefore,
their request was for same.
Chairman Seymour then inquired whether or not the petitioner proposeci a bar
in the restaurant, and Mrs. Ikai replied that there was no bar, but there
were tables and chairs, and a counter as indicated on the plans would be to
serve food to people. Furthermore, the beer and wine would be served at the
tables as part of the meal.
Chairman Seymour then inquired as to tha hours of operation; whereupon Mrs.
Ikai stated that the hours would be from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and that she
would stipulate no hard liquor would be sold.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-191 and moved far its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1339, subject to
the hours of operation being 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., the stipulation by the
petitioner that no hard liquor would be sold, nor was the counter proposed to
be used for a bar; and that beer and wine would be sold as an incidental part
of the serving of food noting that although she was not a member of Commission
in 1967 when this was previously considered by the Planning Commission, even
though a church was in close proximity, the church had not submitted any oppc+si-
tion; that Ball Road was a four-lane highway with parking on both sides; that
she could see no problem wherein someone ~ould be affended walking past this
amall shopping center; and that the petitioner indicated they would be serving
beer and wine only with the serving of food; and subject to conditions. (See
Resolution Book) '
Prior to roll call, Commissioner Herbst noted that because subject property was
backed up by R-1 properties, this was one of the reasons why it was denied
previously, and because the church across the street had presented opposition,
however, it would appear that it was a natural thing to serve wine and beer
with meals.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that since this use was set back from the street in
a shopping center and the existing alley was jointly used by both R-1 and R-3,
there would appear to be no problem as it pertained to traffic.
....
~
.~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-539
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1339 (Continued)
Commissioner Farano noted that in reviewing the previous denial, it woul3 appear
no one was present to represent the petitioner, and the church pastor had
appeared in opposition ~reviously.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
VARIANCE N0. 2431 (Continued from page 72-523)
Chairman Seymour noted ~hat subject petition had been considered earlier by the
Planning Commission and was deferred until later in order for the petitioner to
be present to make pertinent comments, however, no one had appeared in opposition.
Mr. Ron Cosby, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the
area under consideration was 350 feet west of Kraemer Boulevard; that the outside
testzng area and minor repair would be immediately behind the building and would
not be seen from either Kraemer Boulevard or Miraloma Avenue; and that Mr. Ed
Gross, President of Diamond Mobile System was present to answer additional
questions.
Chairman Seymour noted his only question was that of landscaping; whereupon
Mr. Cosby stated that they were proposing the redwood slatted, chainlink fence
together with barbed wire at the top for security purposes; that he was not
opposed to landscaping, but it was very expensive and very difficult to main-
tain, and then submitted pictures whi::h indicated the landscaping on the
property at the present time; and then in response to questioning by Commissioner
Farar.o, stated that in their previous application it was not complete - that he
was the owner of the building but did not know the mobilehome company proposed
the outdoor testing and repair work, however, this would be in a 30x80-foot area
behind the existing building, which was 213 feet wide.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to questioning by Commissioner
Farano, noted that the previous petition had been denied because the petiticner
did not want to install the redwood slats or landscaping.
Commissioner Farano then inquired whether the repair work proposed was for the
new units; whereupon Mr. Cosby stated that this was for the new units when they
were brought out of the building or when the stored units were noted to have
damaged portions, these would be removed to the rear of the building, tested,
and repair work done.
Commissioner Her',:st observed that from past experience with mobilehome manufac-
turers, and this could be cited for everyone the Commission had ever considered,
they appeared to expand, increasing the amount of grounds they occupied in their
construction work, and this would only open the door for not only minor repair
work but possibly major repair work, and he did not know how the City would be
able to enforce this, but it did create a problem when the petitioner violated
that which was granted him since when construction was performed outdoors, this
would disturb his neighbors. •
Commissioner Farano noted that he was not opposed to testing, but when was
repair work considered minor - how did one find out, and he did not want to see
any significant repair work, such as replacing siding or drainage. but how did
one determine what rep~ir work was considered minor.
Mr. Cosby noted that even though subject petition were denied, the use was there,
although it was located in another area.
Commissioner Gauer observed tlzat repair work at service station sites at inter-
sections was constantly being done, which might be considered more than what
was proposed under subject petition.
Chairman Seymour noted that he just wanted to reinforce the Commission's concern
the last time subject property was considered, wherein the petitioner ,vas un-
willing to provide the landscaping.
n
u
~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PlANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-540
VARIANCE N0. 2431 (Continued)
Mr. Co3by stated that it would be difficult to pipe water to the rear of the
property, however, he was in error the last time regarding the block wall, and
the proposal now cost about the same as a block wall.
Chairmsn Seymour noted that first the Code required the block wall, then the
Commission indicated '~+Ay were willing to forego the block wall if a chainlink
fence, slatted, and _..ndscaping was proposed - now the petitioner was proposing
no landscapino whatsoever, therefore, he was looking for justification as to why
this should be waived.
Mr. Cosby noted for the Commission that the storage area would be a considerable
distance from the street, and this would also be part of the rear working area
for other industries - that the mobilehomes were finished and not unsightly, and
that all that would be viewed from the top wouZd be the upper 13~ feet; that a
6-foot blo~;c wall was easily scaled, and the lessee's only concern was the
security of their facilities, therefore, they were proposi: the type of fence
with the barbed wire on the top.
Mr. Ed Gross, 2295 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission and stated ::hat
he was the tenant of the property; that he had other plants offered to him, but
they preferred to rent this larger building so that they could do all of their
work inside, which made for a more efficient and cheaper operation, as well as
having a better appearance from the outside; and that as stated in the petition,
they were requesting permission for only minor repair and testing outdoors.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the lessee would stipulate to ~nly minor
repair and that no construction would be performed outdoors; whereupon Mr.
Gross so stipulated.
Commissioner Herbst noted that in view of the argument presented as to hardship
caused and due to the security which the petitioner's lessee wanted, this might
be one point the Commission had missed in reqLiring the 6-foot m~sonry wall in
the past, and in past actions where requests v~ere made to place barbed wire at
the top for security•purposes where storage oi equipment was proposed, perhaps
the Commission might wish to review this portion of the ordinance to incorporate
security measures to discouraqe vandalism.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-192 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition fo~ Variance No. 2431 on the basis that in light
of the depth of the property, being over 300 feet from the street, the proposal
to have the chainlink fence with redwood slats would appear to be appropriate,
and that where an area was more than 300 feet from the street, the landscaping
of the slatted chaiiilink fence could be deleted, and subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
Prior to roll call. Zoning Supervisor Charles Robezts noted that the applicant
was requesting to use the rear portion of the property foX storage of mobile-
home units, and immediately behind the building they were proposing minor repair
and testing af the units after they had come off of the assembly line.
Commissioner Seymour inquired as to where the landscaping strip was proposed to
be placea.
Commissioner Herbst noted that in his offer of the resolution it was his intent
not to delete the landscaping and block wall from the front portion of the
property.
Commissioner Farano noted that the last time subject property was before the
Commission the petitioner had indicated he wanted to landscape a portion of the
rear area but not the entire area along the chainlink fence, and then viewed
the plans again.
Commissioner Herbst noted that it was very possable to stay within the Code
requirement, and if the applicant did not agrae to provi~le the chainlink fence
wit.h slats, then he should place landscaping, such as narrow-growing cypress
trees, with the watering pipe attached to the chainlink fence for maintenance
of the landscaping, which would be very attractive, and it would help break up
this 600-foot long fence.
..~
~
v.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-541
VARIANCE N0. 2431 (Cuntinued)
Commissioner Farano noted that the idea of landscaping was to soften the effects
of a lengthy wall.
Cummissioner Herbst then amended his motioa to have a finding that due to the
fact that the petitioner proposed to store completed mobilehomes to the rear of
the existing st;:ucture, the fact that the property had sufficient depth and the
fact that said storage area would eventually be surrounded with other in3ustrial
uses, the requirement of a 6-foot high, solid masonry wall was waived, and a
redwood slatted, chainlink fence was permitted in lieu thereoft that the peti-
tioner stipulated that there would be no storage of mobilehomes in the driveways
on either side oE the building; that the petitioner stipulated the proposed
repair and testing of mobilehomes would be only incidental and would be conducted
immediately to the rear of the existing structure; and that conditions include
that the proposed repair and testing shall be only incidental work and shall be
conducted immediately adjacent to the rear of the existing building; that no
storage of parts of vehicles shall be conducted along the fence to the side of
the existing structure. (See Resolution Book)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
RECFSS - Chairman Seymour declared a ten-minute recess st 4:10 p.m.
RE~ONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 4:23 p.m.,
Commissioners Allred and Rowland being absent.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CATHERINE A. LILES, 426 Wes*_ Alberta,,
NO. 72-73-13 Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; LEW SINOR, 504 North
East Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; property
VARIANCE NO. 2425 described as: An L-shaped parcel of land, being the north-
west corner o£ Broadway and East Street with frontages o£
58 feet on Broadway and 123 feet on East Street, extending
westerly to Rose Street, with a frontage of 48 feet on Rose Street. Property
presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ 20NE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE (a) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK ADJACENT TO AN ARTERIAL
AIGHWAY~ (b) REQUIRED 3-FOOT PARKING AREA SCREEN PLP.NTING,
(c) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS, (d) REQtTIRED
6-FOOT SOLID NASOfl RY 20NE BOUNDARY WALL, AND (e) REQUIRED
2$ INTERIOR PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING TO ESTABLISH A 4100-
SQUARE FOOT RLTAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Repc-rt to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Lew Sinor, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
noted that after having received the Report to the Commission he reviewed the
plans again as it pertained to the waivers and would speak regarding this; that
the building setback proposed wou16 be in line with the other buildinqs along
East Street, some extending farther to the east than they proposed; that the
mini:num number of garking stalls waiver was necessary because 5 spaces were
indicated along the north side of the building, however, because they had to
dedicate 2 feet for alley widening purposes, this had reduced the depth of the
parking spaces to 18 feet, and it was hoped that the 20-foot alley would provide
the necessary radius for exiting from the park.ing area, but if this were not
possible, they could reduce the width of the building by 7 feet in order to
provide the necessary parking space sizes; that with reference to the screen
landscaping, there already was a 3-foot area between the sidewalk and the curb
which he thought would be adequate as a planting area, and if a planting area
were required along Rose Street, then the parking spaces would be reduced there
also, to only 16; and that if the building were further reduced, this would mean
taking off 1 foot, 3 inches from each of the commercial units proposed.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-542
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-13 AND VARIANCE N0. 2425 (Continued)
The Commission inquired whether Mrs. Liles owned the property at the northwest-
corner of Broadway and Rose Street since if this were considered a not-a-part
parcel, this could craate a problem in future to develop the property; wher.e-
upon Mr. Sinor stated that Mrs. Liles did not own that parcel, and then further
noted that thare were 12 service stations within three-quarters of a mile of
subject property from South Street to La Palma Avenue, four of. them not being
in operation but wer: boarded up, one being across the street, and a pump
company was located on the aouth side of Broadway across from subject property.
The Commission note3 that the pump company was a nonconforming use and was there
a long time before any zoning had been established on properties in this general
are a.
Mr. Sinor further noted that within a block there was a 7-Eleven Market backing
up to R-1 and commercial uses were already established along East StreeL• to the
north; that only 600 feet from the property M-1 uses were established, and south
of the pump company property there were trucks and cranes stored; and that this
was an undesirable area for residential use, and it wouZd add to the overall
beauty of the area to provide the proposed facility.
The Commission further inquired as to what type of commercial use were planned
for subject property; whereupon Mr. Sinor stated that only those uses permitted
in the C-1 Zone, such as service shops, beauty shops, and the like, which would
be one-ownpr,operator-type uses because it would not be large enough for big
commercial uses; and then revieraed the proposed facade of the building as it
would relate to the uses established in the area.
Mr. Sinor further noted that they had examined many uses that could be placed
on the property, and the proposed use appeared to be the only thing that could
be placed on the property that would add something to the area, and by reducing
the size of the building by 7 feet, this would provide for t.he necessary park-
ing stalls unless the City required the 3-foot planter area on Rose Street,
which he did not feel was necessary; and that the only thing he could determine
was being asked £or that was out of the ordinary would be the setback along
East Street, which, of course, would conform with the setback in the areas and
then in response to further Commission questioning, stated that they had no
specific tenants in mind for this propert.y.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-211 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Petition for
Reclassification ido. 72-73-13 on the basis that the proposed reclassification
would not be in conformance with the land use designation as depicted on the
General Plan; that there had been no land use chanyes in this general area to
warrant favorable consideration of est~blishing commercial uses in an area
completely surrounded with residential uses; that approval of subje.:t petition
would be spot zoning and would have a detrimental effect on the residential
characteristics of this general area; that there were adequate commercial
facilities within close proximity of subject property, as well as the downtown
area, to serve the commercial needs of this area of the city; and that if the
proposed reclassification were approved, it may further dater any potential
redevelopment o£ the downtown area. (See Resolution Bock)
On roll call the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution I~o. PC72-212 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variar.ce No. 2425 on the basis that the
Planning Commission had recommended disapproval of the reclassification to the
C-1 Zone, and the requested waivers would not be applicable and development as
proposed could not be accomplished within the confines of the existing zoning
on the property; that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the i.ntended use of the
property that did not generally apply to the property or class of use in the
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-543
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-13 AND VARIANCE N0. 2425 (Continued)
same vicinity and zone; that the requested variance was nut necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
and that the requested variance would be materially detrimental to the public
welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property was locaten. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the fosegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymuur.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUSLIC HEARZNG. TOM I. AND EDZTH MIYADI, 2180 Brightwood
NO. 72-73-19 Avenue, Monterey Park, California 91754, AND JOAN AND HAZEL
CAMPBELL, P. 0. Box 131, Cypress, California 90630, Owners;
VARIANCE N0. 2428 THE RICHARDS GROUP MULTIHOUSIDIG WEST, INC., P. O. Box P.
Newport Seach, California 92660, Agent; property described
as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 4.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 330 feet on the west
side of Knott Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 612 feet, and
being located approximately 387 feet north of the centerline uf Ball Road.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE (a) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE AND (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
BUILDINGS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 134-UNIT APARTMENT
COMPLEX.
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. Don Kenny, representing The Richards Group Multihousing West, appeared before
the Commission and noted they were asking for R-3 zoning which would be consist-
ent with the General Plan; that waiver of two of the site development standards,
that being the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-A property,
subject property abutting R-A property to the north which was master planned
for. use for other than K-A; that Knott Street was a main thoroughfare with the
required setback which would be 120 feet; that he was surrounded by two obsolete
commercial centers, and he wanted to break with the existing setup.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that, traffic along Knott Street sometimes appeared
to be going at the rate of 100 miles an hour and wondered how the petitioner
could manage to have tenants make left-turns into the property; whereupon Mr.
Kenny stated that U-turns and left-turns would be permitted at this intersection,
hut this, again, would be up to the Traffic Engineer; that they planned to have
the parking come off of an allep; that they would be allowed to make left-hand
turns into the property; and that this was one of the accepted patterns in the
county.
The Commission noted that Marian Way dead-ended into subject property and
inquired whether this would be cul-de-saced; whereupon Zoninq Supervisor Charles
Roberts noted that one of the conditions of approval required a modified cul-de-
sac to be provided by the developer of subject property.
Mr. Buford Wilkerson, 421 Vicki Lane, appeared before the Commission and noted
he owned property at 848 and 900 South Knott Street across from subject property;
that he had come in to find out what was proposed, and they would like to see
the plans since it had been assumed these plans ::ould be shown to the general
public.
~
LJ
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-544
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-19 AND VARIANCE N0. 2428 (Continued)
The Commission noted that the petitioner was requesting waiver of the one-story
height limitation within 150 feet of R-A zoned property and inquired whether
this was to the R-A property to the east and whether or not in the future the
property on the east side of Knott Street might be developed for multiple-family
residential use.
Assistant ~~ning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the properties along Savanna
Street nad been considered for R-3 use, even though they were zoned R-A, and
that perhaps Mr. Wilkerson could give the Commission some idea as to the quality
of the homes on each of those properties and how long it was intended to retain
them on the properties.
Mr. Roberts then reviewed the plans with the property owr.ers interested, who
owned property on the east side of Knott Street.
The Commission inquired of the owners of those homes on R-A parcels on the east
side of Knctt Street whether or not they intended to retain them for single-
family use for a number of' years to come, or did they plan some more intense
use for their properties; whereupon Mr. Wilkerson replied that he had moved out
of his property because of the traffic problem.
The Commission then inquired whether or not multiple-f~mily residential use
was beina considered for these properties. .
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the General Plan indicated low density
for all of those properties on the east side of Knott Street which were of such
ftepth and width that it would not be developed for single-family subdivisions,
and it was reasonable to expect some other type of use would be proposed.
The Commission observed that there were C-1 and C-0 uses established at the
intersections in this general vicinity.
Mr. Wilkerson noted for the Commission that there were two-story apartments
along Ball Road that backed up to R-1 properties; that the convalescent home
in this area was two-story, located near the corner of Ball Road and Knott
Street.
Commissioner Herbst noted that his purpose in asking whether the homes along
the east side of Knott Street would be held for single-family purp~ses was
because of the fact that the Planning Commission and City Council had maintained
the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of single-family homes, and he
did not want to place any hardship on the petitioner if othez pl~ns were con-
sidered for the property.
Mr. Wilkerson replied that they had no answer as tu any specific development
for these properties, however, he was not marketing his property for R-1
purposes.
Mr. Wilkerson, in further response to Commission questioning, stated that it
was both the noise and the traffic that caused him to leave his home on Knott
Street since the home was approximately 55 feet from the centerline of the
street.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the ultimate width for Knott Str.eet
was 53 feet, a primary highway, and the house would then set back approximately
32 feet £rom the property line.
The Commission then inquired of Mr. Wilkerson whether or not persons present in
the Council Chamber were opposed to subject petitions; whereupon Idr. Wilkerson
stated that if the properties along the east side of Knott Street were required
to remain residential, !:hen he would object to the proposed development, one of
the main reasons being the traffic to and from this development, particularly
where left-turns might be proposed, however, if they we.re granted commercial
zoning for their property on the east side of Knott Street with parking being
off of the street, then he would not be opposed to the proposed development.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-545
RECLASSIFICATiON NO. 72-73-19 AND VARIANCE NO. 2428 (Continued)
The Commission noted that subject property and surrounding properties had been
designated on the General Plan for multiple-family residential uses; whereupon
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was opposed to traffic from 126 units, which was con-
siderably ~eore than single-family uses designated on the General Plan for the
properties on the east side of Knott Street.
Chairman Seymour noted that it would appear logical and more desirable that a
more intense use should be considered for those properties along the east side
of Knott Street; whereupon Commissioner Herbst noted that those properties along
the east side oE Knott Street backed up to R-1 properties, whereas subject
property did not.
Chairman Seymour also noted that when one considered development of these prop-
erties if they were developed individually because of their size and shape,
numerous +raivers might be necessary, and to overcome these waivers, land assembly
of a number of lots would encourage a developer to develop the property and make
it much more desirable to the city.
DIr. Wilkerson noted that all of these lots were approximately one-acre lots,
and when all of these properties were considered by the City Council before,
it was his understanding that if the rear or those portiuns of the lots to the
east were developed for resa.dential uses, then the balance along the easterly
side of Knott Street could be developed with two-story apartments, since the
convalescent hospital might be considered a borderline use adjacent ro residen-
tial uses; and that he owned two of the lots along Knott Street with a vacant
lot to the north totaling approximately 380 feet, plus or minus - in addition
there was also a real estate office on one acre, therefc,~e, there weze quite a
number of lots that would be affected.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that even though the General Plan indicated low
density residenti.al uses for the ea~t side of Knott Street and statements made
by Mr. Wilkerson regarding the noise and traffic affecting use of these struc-
tures for single-family homes, this same noise and traffic would have the same
effect upon apartments.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-213 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recummend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 72-73-19 be approved, subject to conditions, and the finding that Area
Development Plan No. 65 projecting Marian Way to be extended to Knott Street
was never acted upon by the Planning Commission or City Council, and that the
Traffic Engineer had recently done a study of this area and determined that
the extension of Marian Way was unnecessary, provided, however, t'~at thE pro-
posed development took all access to and from Knott Street; and the additi.onal
condition that subject property be developed substantially in conformance with
p.lans and ,specifications on file based on the fact that in previous R-3 develop-
ment, many times development. never occurred in the manner in which originally
proposed, thereEore, if any substantial changes in the proposed developmen`. were
contemplated, then the Commission would have an opportunit}~ to review these
plans to determine the extent of their deviation. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMIS~IONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the developers were proposing to have any
additionaz insulation to sound buffer any noises from this heavily-traveled
street; whereupon Mr. Kenny replied they proposed double insulation which would
take care of the noise; that many people chose apartments that faced on a green
area, while some preferred living away from the highly-traveled street, and
others were so convenience-oriented that they preferred parking on the str~et
or near their apartment to reduce the amaunt of walking they would have to do,
therefore, in their proposal they had attempted to provide these various living
environments.
,~,
~
.~.
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-546
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-19 AND VARIANCE N0. 2428 (Continued)
Commissioner Kaywood then stated that she was more conc~rned as to whether or
not the developer was proposing to have special sound bufferingj whereupon
Mr. Kenny stated that there would be landscaping, the patio wall and extra
insulation on the walls of the units.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-214 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2428 on the basis that the :c-A
zaned par~els within 150 feet of the proposed two-story buildings were large
parcels designated on the General Plan as being appropriate for multiple-family
residential development; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Cauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowlan3.
RECLASSIFICATiON - PUBLIC HEARING. KEITH NOSACK, 1830 South West Street,
NO. 72-73-20 Anaheim, California 92802 AND W. L. HOHENSEE, 522 West
Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners; RAY
VARIANCE N0. 2429 CHERIdAK, Sandman Motels, Inc., 2082 Business Centpr Drive,
Suite 223, Irvine, California 92664, Aqent; property
described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land con-
sisting of approximately 1.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 17H
feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 340 feet, and being located approximately 180 feet south of the center-
line of Vermont Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARZANCE: WAIVE (a) REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK FROM A 57NGLi-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONE~ ~b) REQUIRED 6-FOOT SOLID MASONRY ZONE
BOUNDARY WALL, AND (c) LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO
PBRMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 76-UNIT MOTEL AND RESTAURANT.
One person indicated his presenae, possibly in opposition, but waived reading
of the Report to the Commission.
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. Ray Chermak, agent for the petitioner and representing the Sandman Motels,
2082 Business Center Drive, Irvine, California, appeared before the Commission
and stated that the Report to the Commission adequately described their pro-
posal and their reasons for reclassification, and then reviewed the existing
uses in close proximity and stated that the waiver for the setback was necessary
because the northPrly boundary was R-A property while the southerly boundary
already had an c•xisting motel, as v~ell as an existing mobilehome park; that a
common driveway would serve both the motel and service station at Vermont and
Harbor Baulevard; that they proposed to construct a 6-foot masonry wall along
the west property line, and the only waiver being requested as far as the wall
was concerned was along the south side adjacent to the pool on the existing
motel property which had a wooden fence, and he saw no reason for providing any
additional fencing there; that there was no opening along the building along
the southerly property line; and then reviewed the recommended conditions,
indicating he had no objections to said rpcommended conditions.
M;.. Richard Taormina, 512 East Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Commission
and inquired whether the petitioner was proposing to construct a 6-foot masonry
wall along the entire west property line; whereupon Mr. Chermak advised the
Commission that there would be a 6-foot masonry wall as well as a 10-foot strip
of landscaping along said wall, which would act as a buffering zone.
Mr. Richard Broehl, 909 South Harbor Boulevard, owner of Top's Motel, inquired
when the proposed restaurant would be completed; whereupon Mr. Chermak stated
that it would take approximately five to six weeks to complete the reclassifi-
cation of the property, and as socn as plans were submitted to the Building
Department for a building permit, they would commenr,e construction.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-547
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 2429 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether the petitioner also intended to start
construction of the restaurant at the same time as the motel was being con-
structed; whereupon Mr. Chermak state3 that both the motel and restaurant wo~ld
be started at the same time since they were dealing with a restaurant firm for
leasing purposes, and said restaurant had already presented preliminary plans,
and in the very near future they proposed to submit a parcel map to provide for
a lot split for the restaurant and motel, and he would assume that within three
months they would start construction of this proposed motel-restaurant facility.
Furthermore, it was proposed to have a coffee shop from one of the better
restaurant chains in Southern California operating the restaurant portion.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not plans for the restaurant would be
submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that under the
present system, the Commission did not see the plans, but if the Commission so
desired, they c~uld make it a condition of approval since the restaurant with
the proposed zoning would only be subject to a building germii.
Commissioner Gauer then lnquired whether a bar was proposed; whereupon Mr.
Chermak stated that there would be no bar since this would be only a coffee ~
shop, and he would have no objection to presenting development plans to the
Commission for consideration.
Both Commissioners Gauer and Herbst stated that if the plans met Code and this
would be only a coffee shop and no bar was proposed, there was no reason for
submitting plans to the Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Kaywood suggested that in the design of the plans the petitioner
give more consideration to restrooms in the restaurant since it would appear
that most restrooms were an afterthouqht in the construction of the main
building.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-215 and moved for its passage
and afioption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica-
tion No. 72-73-20 be approved, subject to conditions, and the added condition
that subject property shall be developed substantially in conformance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. ~, 2, and 3. (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-216 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition fnr Variance No. 2429 on the basis that waivers
"a" and "b" would not be detrimental to the existing adjacent land uses, and
that waiver "c" was granted or. the basis that the sign would be ir. the central
20~ of thenealy created parcel as a result of th~ require~ ~arcel map, and
subject to conditions. iSee Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Rowland.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-548
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN EXTENSION
BETWEEN VERMONT AVENUE AND SOUTH STREET.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the request of the Orange County
Flood Control District regarding whether the proposed State College Boulevard
storm drain extension (E 12P01.2~) would have any significant effect upon the
environment and whether these improverents were in conformance with the City's
adopted General Plan, since the State of California Government Coda, Section
65402 provided in part that the local agency, such as the Flood Control District,
should not construct public works in any city until the location, purpose and
extent of such works had becn submitted to and reported upon by the planning
agency having jurisdiction as to conformity to the City's adopted General Plan.
Furthermore, Section 21151 of the California Public Resources Code provided in
part that a local agency such as the District should make an environmental
impact statement for any project which may have a significant effect upon the
environment, and this must be submitted to the planning agency together with the
report required by Section 65402 of the Government Code; that the Citiy of Anaheim
had previously requested that the Flood Control District continue the exter.sion
of the State College Boulevar3 storm drain upstream from Vermont Avenue because
it was urgently needed to provide relief from long-standing flood problems on
this arterial highway which occurred even during relatively light storms and
caused traffic td be seriously impeded since downstream sections had been con-
structed in prior years; and that in the October 3, 1972 letter by the Chief
Engineer of the Orange County Flood Control District, it was stated that it was
the District's opinion that the proposed extension within the existing street
righc-of-way would be beneficial to the existing environment and would have no
significant ill e£fect on the natural environment within the intent of Section
21000 of the Public Resources Code. Furthermore, the Anaheim Engineering
Division and the Development Services Department had reviewed the adopted
General Pla~i and had found the proposed storm drain extension to be in conformity
with the Master Plan of Drainage as prepared by the Engineering Division of the
Department of Public Works. Finally, although the Planning Commis~ion on
February 7, 1972, had forwarded a letter to the Orange County Flood Control
District advising them that this storm drain pr~ject was in conformity with
the adopted General Plan, the environmental inipact statement was still necessary.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-2'_7 and moved for its passage
and adoption to find tha~ the proposed flood control and drainage improvements
in State College Boulevard between Vermont Avenue and South Street within the
City of Anaheim will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that
said improvements are in conformance with the adopted Anaheim General Plan.
(See Resolution Hook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
ITEM NU. 2
CLARIFICATION OF RS-S000 ZONE.
Zoning Supervisor Charles RoYerts noted that at the July 24, 1972 Planning
Commission meeting, a recommendation was made to the City Council that the new
standards adopted for the RS-5000 Zone be reviewed in order to take any neces-
sary steps to clarify any discrepancies in interpretation of requiring an in-
crease in lot size of S50 square feet for each bedroom proposed over three
bedrooms on RS-5000 zoned lotsj that the Co:nmission further requested that
copies of the new amendment be submitted to thes for perusal prior to City
Council action; and that a copy of the proposed ordinance amendment had been
included with the Commission's packets.
Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission regarding coverage, lot area
requirements, consideration of requiring that garage space be tied into the
number of bedrooms in a home; that a minimum of a four-car garage be provided
with the seven-bedroom home and a three-car garage for a five-be@room k~ome;
that with the permitted 6 to 10-foot garage setback on these 5000-squara foot
lots, this would allow for only one vehicle to be parked on the street and
none in the driveway; that there were 100 acres being considered with similar
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNSNG COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-549
ITEM NO. 2 (Continued)
garage setback~ ?.n Anaheim Hills where parking would be at a premium because
of the requiremen:: for hillside strcets; that requiring four-car garages even
with a 70-foot lo'~ frontage would appear to be impractical, and the City
Council would not consider such a recommendation favorably; that other cities
had a form of control over acceptable garage spaces; and that the requirement
of providing a maximum of 35$ coverage with 850 square feet additional being
reguired for each bedroom over three bedrooms to a home would create a more
desirable tract development with varying size lots, even though there was
RS-5000 zoning on the property.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Chairman Seymour suygested that rather
than the Commission having a work session now, he would prefer that staff make
the necessary studies and bring this information to the Commission for further
consideration - then perhaps a work session could be set up with the City
Council.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that sir.ce Anaheim
Hilis had the PC Zone which had greater control in terms of what was required,
when the final specific plans were presented for approval, then perhaps the
Commission could recommend specific changes ss it pertained to that area.
It was then determined by the Planning Commission that the proposed ordinance
amendment met with the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council as
it pertained to clarification of the number of rooms permir~°d in conjunction
with the 35$ coverage.
ITEM NO. 3
JOINT STUDY 3Y ORANGE COUNTY AND CITIES ZN ORANGE
COUNTY AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT IN SAI~TA ANA CANYON.
Chairman 5eymour noted that Supervisor Clark had brought an item to the atten-
tion of the County and various cities to have a joint study regarding Santa Ana
Canyon, which would be considered by the Board of Supervisors on August 23, •
1972; that the City Council, as he understood it, would be considering this on
August 22 for recommend~tion; and that the Planning Commission might wish to
make a recommendation to the City Council, urging them to cc~sider this joint
study.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the City Clerk had received a
number'of letters from various citizens' groups, however, the suggestion by
Supervisor Clark had not been submitted in written form to the City Council,
therefore, he did not know whether the Council would be considering this.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to appoint Chairman Seymour to appear before
the City Council and/or Board of Supervisors to present the Anaheim Planning
Commission's feelings on development in the caayon.
Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission on the motion by Chairman Gauer
regarding its appropriateness - whether the Planning Commission's concern
should be made known to the City Council as the City's representative body and
whether a cost ratio study should be prepared by staff.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised
the Commission that the item being discussed by the Commission had not been
scheduled before the City Council - not even Supervisor Clark's letter referred
to - and that the City Council was the only body that could make any decision.
Furthermore, the City Council would have to ask for reports and recon.mendations
from the Anaheim Planning Commission if they desired it.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to table the discussion to the next meeting.
Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - Chairman Seymour declared a recess for dinner at 6:00 p.m.
FOR DINNER
RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.,
Commissioners Allred and HFrbst being absent.
• ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, August 21~ 1972 72-550
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLZC HEARING. WOODMAN FARMING COMPANY~ 3214
NO. 72-73-10 Waverly Drive, Los Angeles, California 90027, Owner;
JOHN F. HANSCOM, Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 3501
VARIANCE NO. 2426 South Harbor BouleWard, Santa Ana, California 92704, Agent;
property described as: A regularly-ehaped parcel of land
TENTATIVE MF,P OF consisting of approximately 36 acres, being the northwest
TRACT NOS. 7945, corner of Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street, with respec-
7946, 7947, 7948 tive frontages of 1206 feet and 1315 feet. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3; MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
REQUESTED VARZANCE: WAIVER OF (a) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A
PUBLZC STREET, (b) MZNIMUM FRONT SETBACK, AND (c) MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO ESTABLISH A 552-UNIT
STATUTORY CONDODSINIUM COMPLEX.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQ UEST: ENGINEER: LANDER ENGINEERING, 1728 West Lincoln
Avenue, Suite H, anaheim, California 92801;
Tract No. 7945 - one R-3 zoned lot;
Tract No. 7Q:o - one R-3 zoned lot;
Tract No 7947 - one R-3 zoned lot; and
Tract No. 7948 - one R-3 zoned lot.
A showing of hands indicated aF~proximately 30 persons present in opposition.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor po.. McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in ciose proximity, the proposal to reclassify the
property from R-A to R-3 to construct a 552-unit statutory condominium complex,
noting that the plans indicated the units would be located on the interior of
a periphery drive and arranged so as to radiate from a common, large open area
in the center of the property; that as a result of the circular periphery drive,
all four corners had been utilized as recreation open area; that the applicant
was providing 2468 square feet of net land area per dwelling unit, or 17.6
dwelling units per net acre, with a coverage of approximately 54.7~; that the
applicant was providing one carport for each unit and one open parking stall
per unit; tha~ the low-medium density category allows a maximum density of
18 units per net acre; that the medium density designation permits a maximum
of 36 units to the acre, or an average density of the total parcel of 27 units
per net acre; that the applicant was proposing 17.6 units per net acre, and,
consequently. this might be in conformity with the General Plan - it should
be pointed out, however, that the proposed R-3 Zone was not considered one of
those zcr.es ap~repriate to implement the low-me3ium densicy catagory; that
waiver of the lot abu*_ting a public street was requested because the applican*_
was proposing one-lot subdivisions that would r.ot abut a Y~blic street, and
as proposed, the lot would be integrated by a private drive sy~:em with th~
surrounding streets in Lhe area, and the Commi~sion may wish to consider this
an appropriate request in light of the proposed method of development; that
the waiver of the setback along an artErial highway was being requested because
the applicant was proposing the periphery drive to within 15 feet of the front
property line; that the drive was curved and would be 15 feet from the property
line at its narrowest point; that as the drive expanded away Prom the street,
there would be a considerable distance greater than the minimum 20 feet required;
that the average distance between the periphery drive and the p~blic street
would be in excess of 20 feet, and the Commission mi.ght wish to consider this
reduction of the front setback to be a suitable request; that the proposal, as
a statutory condominium rather than a planned residential development, had been
evaluated primarily on the Dasis of a multiple-family complex; that the major
difference between a condominium and a planned residential de•~elopment was that
the lattez was developed hy means of a small lot subdivision wherein each unit
was located on a privately-owned piece of propertyj that t'he proposal to own the
individual unit air space and a portion of the common area would not qual:fy as
a planned residential development but would be a condominium; that the typical
PRD approved by the Commission in the past had a maximum of 12 uni.ts per net
acre and had been required to have a minimum of 2 covered parking spaces per
unit, therefore, the Commission would wish to determine the appropriateness of
allowing this statutory condominium proposal to be developed under multiple-
family standards while planned residential developments had been required to
develop utilizing R-3 standards with additional restrictions; and that consider-
ing the proposal was to be developed in four phases, the Commissior. might wish
to require a temporary turn-around in the periphery drive at each termin~_~s so
that fire and emergency vehicles would have ample turn-around space if respond-
ing to a call in this azea.
~
~
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21; 1972 72-551
RECL7lSSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10, VARIANCE NO. 2426, Ar]D TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
NOS 7945 %946 7947 AND 7948 (Continued) -,
Mr. Robert Kendall, 3501 South Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana, representing the
developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that in view of the fact
that there were so many persons present in opposition, he would summarize his
previous psesentation, and stated that it was appropriate to outline what the
property ownor and developers were faced with in developing the property, and
some of the things that they considered in the area, and after reviewing all
of these pzoposals, it was determined that the most appropriate manner in which
to develop eubject property was as they proposed; Lhat they found that the type
of people who purchased attached housing were different than apartment rASidents
because they were purchased by older persons aho had reared their families and
had no children at home and were looking for comfoztable homes where no main-
tenance was required; that it was also found the baiance of the market for these
units were fami.lies in the formative stage, couples without children, or some
with very young children; that they were placed with a piece of property located
in the center of a highly urbanized area; that the site was very expensive where
development of this ty~e had occurred; that people who would purchase these units
preferred to drive one-half hour to wor;: rather than living in suburban areas;
that nearly all of the occupants of these developments lived within one-half
hour ~f their place of business; that his company had developed both apartment
complexes with 300 to 400 units; and that tenants or purchasers of these units
g~nerally preferred the ownership housing and were not the transient type
normally found in apartment complexes; even in the garden type apartment units
where the average turnover was as high as 300$ to 6~O+h per year, and when one
rented property to someone, they did not have the same intei~est in the property
as those who had fee ownership in which they had vested interest and planned to
~~*_ay there awhile and who were ones who took pride in their homes; that member-
ship in tY,e homeowners groups created great pressure to bear on owners of units
wli~ did not maintain their units; that they were faced with a very difficult
situation in that their proposal was neither ~ PRD nor an R-3, however, condo-
miniums had come into their own in Califor_nia during the past seven to eight
years; that the proposal was not a bad concept - it was worthwhile, however, to
emphasize, as set forth in the Report to the Commission, that the R-3 Zone
germitted up to 36 units per acre, while they were proposing only 17.6 units
per acre; that if there was any concern on the part of the Commission that they
would exceed the 17.6 units per acre with the R-3 Zone, they would agree to
conditions being attached in the approval of subject petition; and that controls
be included in tl~e approval so that it will not be exploited to ti~e detriment
of the City.
Mr. Stewart Woodard, 17851 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, representing the architect
of the proposed proiect, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
wished he could have more meetings w_.th both the opposition and the Commission
regarding their proposed development, because this type of unit was quite
unique, and then explained their proposal on a detailed plan, noting that there
was a difference in parking for a PRD and a condominium project, also noting
that they proposed to develop the site plan in groups of four, six and eight
units per building; that there would be a typical walkway pattern between the
developments of the units leadinq to the common area; that they had a very
flexible system with the entry being from an entry court or an individual entry
for each unit; that each unit would hav~ its own patio; that therP would be
Sx8-foot balconies for the second flonr unitsi that there would be two to three-
bedroom units with a greater portion being three-bedroom units; and that there
would bE no bachelor units since they were not catering to the "swinging"
couples.
Mr. woodard then noted that ir single-far.iily development were continued, there
would be a continuing grid pattexn of streets in order to get into the price
range that wouid be reasonable, thereby reducing the green belt a.reas. etc.;
that in their master plan they propos?d a circular road around the exterior of
the project so that children would never have t.a cross a road to get to a
neighbor ur to the recreational facilities; that they did not want this devel-
opment to be a detriment by continuing single-family development along Cerritos
Avenue a13 Walnut Street; that the proposed development would be an asset to the
city and should provide some buffering between the single-family homes and the
commercial uses; that the circular drive would be from 15 feet to a great deal
mc~i.e ir. distance from the public streets, and there would be more distance be-
twe:en the units because thEy did not intend to develop a tight complex; that it
would have a more open appearance, which would be an aesthetic improvement in
~
~
MINDTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-552
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-10~ VARIANCE NO. 2426~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
NOS. 7945, 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
the area; that the streets would be maintained by the homeowners group rather
than being an additional problem for t.he City; that parking would be completely
within the project, with private streets eliminating the problem of oublic nrea
parking, which many apartments had; that the sepia sketch being presented
indicated the different types of wood material proposed, rather than stvcco,
and they were attempting to create a variety of designs; that the maintenance
would be taken care of by the homeowners association contributions; that the
developer was proposing a development that would be an asset to the city, as
well as to the adjoining properties in the area; and that even thou3h the
density indicated on the General Plan would permit 27 units per acre, they
were proposing less than 18 units per acre.
Chairman Seymour noted that if the pet~t-ioner was inferring that he could
develop subject property with 36 units per acre, he was erroneous since the
General Plan was not zoning for the property but indicated the genezal land
use for the property, and the property was presently zoned R-A, which permitted
only one unit per acre.
Mr. Woodard stated the following: 1) the land use pattern as depicted on the
General Plan would permit 27 units per acre, while they proposed 17.5 units per
acre; 2) that the number of vehicles this development would generate for R-2
would be 1136 vehicles, while R-3 would generate 2800 vehicles and a PRD with
10 to 12 units per acre would generate 7120 vehicles on the site, therefore,
it would appear they were about equal with the number of vehicles in a PRD; 3)
that statistics an the number of children this facility would generate from
studies made of other developments and of 10,000 condominium units in which he
had been involved, indicated this project would generate approximately 386
children, primarily of kindergarten age - this mi.ght sound like it was in error,
but the type of person who would be able to af. d this type of unit had lived
in apartments but could not find a home in th~. ~rice range he could afford, there-
fore, if R-2 generated 386 children, then R-3 would qenerate 980 children, and
if one were calculating PRDs at 10 units per acre, there would be 720 children;
4) that the total population this concept would generate wouZd be similar to
other townhouse developments in which 2.7 persons per unit were projected, or
about 1500 for this proposal - that an R-3 development would generate 3300
persons, and if development were with 12 units per acre as a PRD using the same
number as single-family hcmes or 3.8 persons per unit, there would be 1642
persons, therefore, the proposal would be about 100 persons less than PRDs, which
would be an asset to the environment; 5) that they were proposing 57.S+k in open
space, whereas the R-2 2one required a 42+k maximum coverage and the R-3 Zone
a 55~ maximum coverage. In addition, he had heard comments from adjoining
Qroperty owners regarding the closeness af these units, however, these units
were only close at points, but generally speaking, the distance between buildings
would average 30 to 40 feet, while single-family homes had only a 10-foot sepa-
ration in most instances.
Mr. Woodard, in conclusion, stated that if the City was of the opinion that
subje^t property should be developed for low density developm~nt, and after
reviewing the General Plan with the density indicated, then co^sideration
should be given to higher density because of the fact that the Commercial-
Recreation Area development was just across the street from subject property,
and this development could act as a buffer between the sinqle-family develop-
ment to the west and north wherein a maximum of 4 units per acre had been
developed, and protection appeared to be the desire of everyone, however, he
would rather have the proposed development adjacent to his home than apartments,
although the developers had other alternatives; that this proposal was p.roviding
its own recreational facilities in a greater amount foz children than might
be in other developments; that because of the developments to the easi: and south,
the price of developmen*_ of subject property was such that it would never be
developed if subject petition were not approved, particularly since they were
only proposing 17.5 units per acre with private accessways in the form of a
periphery drive, while the standard PRD with up to 12 units per acre would have
public streets, which would be cared for by the City witY~ the possibility of
more children; and that he would request favorable considEration of the proposed
reclassification and condominium development with appropriate controls.
•
~
~
MINUTES, ~'TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-553
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10, VARIANCE NO. 2426~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
NOS. 7945, 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
Chairman Seymour stated he would like to clarify the statement made by Mr.
Woodard wherein it was quoted that under R-3 they could develop 36 units per
acre, whereas the proposal was for only 17.5 units per acre - namely, that the
General Plan depicted a general plan of land use for property in this area but
to be fair in this statement, the property owner, with the existing zoning on
the property, could develop the property only with one home per acre, not as
was indicated by the density depicted on the General Plan.
Mr. John R. Streng, 1400 South Gilbuck Street, appeared before the Commission
in opposition, noting his property was immediately to the west of subject
property, and a petition had been submitted having the signatures of 65 property
owners residing to the north and west, all in opposition; that most of the
residents were aware that subject property would be developed, and the property
probably was high-priced, but upon learning that the development being proposed
would mean 552 units with a minimum of two persons per unit or more where three-
bedroom units were proposed, this would i~crease the population density and
would be considerably greater when one considered the acreage involved; that
there were approximately 4 lots per acre for the single-family subdivisions to
the north and west with a density and street patterns and population mentioned
by the architect, but this was considerably less than the 17.5 proposed by the
developer by more than four times the density; that there w~uld be a considerable
traffic problem with approximately 1500 adult persons proposed for this develop-
ment, and he did not know how the existing streets could handle this traffic
since the two streets bordering on the south and east were alrea3y used by these
single-family residents for access from their tract, and traffic on these streets
was presently almost impossible; that he did not know what the capacity of the
existing schools was, or whether space was still available, but one cculd be
assured there would be overcrowding from additional chiidren proposed from this
facility; that although the architect indicated this would be a very attractive
addition to the area and to the people not ha~~ing children there was no assur-
ance there would not be many children in this facility; that he did not know the
cost per unit of this development, but he had heard it would be in the vicinity
of $18,000, considerably less than the value of the homes in close proximity,
but even at that price, he could not see a young couple starting a family being
able to afford purchase of such a unit; that many of these families could have
grown children going to college, therefore, one could expect more than two cars
per unit, and this would mean an increase in an already difficult traffic
problem; that he could not see •~rhere all of theae vehicles would be parked since
the petitioner was not providing more than the minimum required for off-street
parking per unit, and none was cons:dered for guest parking or units where more
than two cars would be owned, therefore, he could foresee parking on streets;
that he knew of a similar condominium which had a selling price of $18,000, and
the developers had a very difficult time, both in the sales and upkeep, there-
fore, it could be assumed this facility would have the same problems, and it was
also certain that these units would not all be sold at one time, therefore,
one could expect that these units would be rented; that there cou2d be problems
with the original purchasers becoming disillusioned because of the mortgage
payments, etc., and they would move out and try to sell their unit, and if
this were not possible, then they would rent the units, which would be adding
to the problems of a normal condominium; that although the developer indicated
there would be a homeowners group to take care of the maintenance, there would
be constant problems with the possible conversion of carports ~o recreational
facilities, teenagers running over lawns and being generally destructive, which
could further disillusion the older people who were more interested in a quiet
place to reside, causing them to reconsider and move from this development;
that he did not feel there would be the same pride of ownership o£ these units
as was prevalent in single-family homes; that even though the proposal might
have a good layout as to private street pattPrns, the adjacent property owners
could re faced with both the private and public streets being turned into race-
ways where it was proposed to have guest parking; that the single-family home-
owners were also concerned with two-story structure~, with residents of the
second story being ab~e to look down into the rear yards of the sinqle-family
homes, depriving them of their privacyr that although a h-meowners group was
proposed for four separate areas, the upkeep would be considera:le, and even
though it might appear to many people when one considered trying to get 133
different families to agree, with 552 unit~ this would be almost impossible,
therefore, there was no assurance that the property would be properly maintained
~
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-554
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-10, VARIANCE N0. 2426~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS.
7945, 7°46, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
in the manner anticipated by the developer, and he could cite a friend who owned
a condominium where the homeowners group had to vote on whether t~ paint their
units and to generally repair them, however, the vote failed to pass and now
many of these units were up for sale because these members of the homeowners
group did not feel strongly enough about the maintenance of the structures; that
on an overall basis he did not know how many of these types of units were already
developed in Anaheim, but there were a number being developed, and he could not
see how the population of the city could absorb all of these new units; that
after having lived in the City ef Anaheim for tei~ years, he could see a qreater
increase in population density; and that most of the residents of the a*-~a were
opposed to the condominium because it would increase an already hazard . traffic
problem, increase the school attendance beyond its capacity, add'to the noise
pollution, and if the ~etitions were approved, in time this area would recome a
blighted area with more and more people coming to the area, and the high quality
planned for the area would deteriorate to less than desirable tenants for these
units, thereby adding to the problems of the single-family homeowners, as well
as to the City of Anaheim.
Chairman Seymour inquired as to the rumber of trains that passed on the railroad
track per day; whereupon a man from the audience stated there were four to s3.x
per twenty-four hour day, some passing by at :i very rapid pace, whiie those
that were piled with lumber traveled very slowly.
Mr. Ray Alverez, 1424 South Gilbuck Street, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and inquired whether the Planning Commission took into consideration
the increase of taxing the capacity of the existing schools before this type of
project was considered to determine if the existing schools could absorb ~he
increase.
Chairman Seymour noted that it was the Commission's duty to act on land use, and
the schools were planned on the basis of the density depicted on the General
Plan.
Mr. Alverez observed that it was possible that more children than were projected
could move into these units, and the schools would be unable to absorb this
increase over that projected on the General Plan. In addition, the commercial
helicopters flew as low as 500 feet over subject property, which could be dis-
tracting; that people residing in the apartments south of Cerritos Avenue created
such disturbances that the streets were closed off by the police, and this could
also happen with the proposed unitsj that the trains running alcng the west side
of subject property had spead:c aronnd 40 miles per hour and we"e creati.ng such
vibra'tion that the homes sYiool:; that he would not like to see the proposed condo-
minium, even though the agent stated that only older people a~id younger pepole
purchased these units; that the residents in the condominiums cn Crescent Avenue
used the freeway and, in all likelihood, worked farther than one-half hour from
their homes, therefore, th~se ~.:nits would add to the traffic F+roblem on Walnut
Street, which could not handle the existing traffic, and this did not incZude
the traffic from the proposed development, as well as the Disneyland Hotel Conven-
tion Center now being completed; and that there could be a number of children
from this proposed development that would be climbing the fence between the rail-
road where considerable amounts of spray paint were used by the children, spray
painting very unsavorp sayings.
Mr. Paul Ridenour, 1403 Goodhue Avenue, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and noted that the primary exit from the tract to the north was
Goodhue Avenue exiting to Walnut Street for those wanting to make left-hand
turns, since the other exit to Ball Road was extremely dangerous and difficult
for left and right-hand turns, therefore, addin, the number of vehicles from
the proposed development would create an added traffic burden to Walnut Street
and to the residents of the tract to the nortl_• that he realized that the owners
of subject property were proposing a condominium in order to obtain the highest
and best return for their investment in the property, but his greate~t concern
was the lack of emergency exits if subjec netitions were approved, since it
would appear that emergency vehicles wc~u e using the tract streets unless
the project was developed as a self-~•~at~ d development with adeguate emergency
facilities and other services to b'z?,:'.. the. off from the single-family residen-
tial uses so that they would not be overcrowding an existing condition; that he
•
~
s
[dINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, August 21~ 1972 72-555
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-10~ VARIANCE N0. 2426, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS.
7945, 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
was certain the utilities in the area would be inadequate if higher density
were approved; that approval would also mean the streets in the area would be
torn up for some time while new underground utilities, such as gas, streets
and sewers, which had to be installed since there was no electrical substation
or water pumping station in this general area; that emergency vehicles were at
the apartment units to the south at least once a week, which was very trouble-
some for the single-family residents as well because of the traffic problem
created on the only access to their tract; that most people used Walnut Street
from the single-family tract for left-hand turnst and that the petitioner
should supply adequace streets to serve this facility without projecting traffic
to Walnut Street from private streets if subject netitions were approved.
Mr. H. R. Bartholomew, 1518 West Cris Avenue, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and stated that his property was more than 300 feet from subject
property, however, it was still close enouqh for him to make comments regarding
his experience with condominiums; that he had owned a condominium in the area
known as Gramercy Park when it was originally developed nine years ago, anZ
during the nine years, the outward appearance appeared to be adequate, however,
there was considerable internal strife; that there was a considerable turnover
in ownership of these units because of the fact that large property owners had
40 units for rental purposes; that he had served as president of the homeowners
association, therefore, he could speak from experience that it became e::tremely
difficult to yet all of the votes necessary to be able to provide the exterior
maintenance since the CC&R's required 100~ of the ownership to approve or release
money for exterior maintenance, and one had a difficult time getting 156 property
owners toqether for any consideration, therefore, with 552 units, this would be
increased by 400$, and it would be impossible to come to an agreement; that
there appeared to be some contradiction in the statements made regarding children
because he could not see selling the three-bedroom units to people not having
children - perhaps two bedrooms for childless couples but not three bedsooms;
that from his previuus experience, there were approximately two children per
unit, and it was not possible to police the children - althougn he often dis-
ciplined the children he was hated for it; that in his project they, too, had
two carports per unit, yet thP automobiles were constantly parked on the street,
even though the association rule said that these owners' cars were not to be
parked on the street, and there were at least as many cars parked on the street
as there were units; that duri~~ig the time he served as president of the homeownera
association, their project also had a nursery and many people requested permission
to convert their carports into recreation areas, therefore, he could not see
how this proposed facility could control all of the problems he had just related,
however, once the carports were converted for recreational purposes, it would
mean all the cars that should have parked in the carports would be parking on
the street.
Mr. Ken Surkindine, 1331 South Hampshire Street, appeared in opposition, stating
he was opposed to the condominium because residents could be using the flood
control channel and railroad tracks for a drag strip with people using their
dune buggies, going Lp and down the flood control channel, and children would
be climbing over the fence; that there already was a considerable problem, and
he did not want to see another 386 children added to this area, creating addi-
tional problems; that perhaps the Commission felt that they had no jurisdiction
over the schools, but resic'en*_s and property owners of the city had to vote for
school bonds for more schools; that he was not against more schools but more
taxes to build schools; that this would be adding 1,000 more cars on Walnut Street,
which only had two lanes at thz present time from Cerritos to Ball Road, because
people refused to sell or dedicate their properties to widen said =~-eet; that
every time a train passed on the tracks, the traffic was backed up to Euclid
Street nowr and it would be considerably worse if subject petitions were approved
and the property developed; that the only way to get out of the tract to the
north would be by way of Walnut Street because it was extremely difficult to
make a left turn on Feathez Street or.to Ball Road; and that the children would
be riding their bikes up and down the ~treet, and they would not be controlled
sin~e most children these days did not obey their parents, and if anyone other
than a parent disciplined them, that person could find himself placed in jail.
~
~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21, 1972 72-556
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-10, VARIANCE N0. 2426~ TENTATIVE 41AP OF TRACT NOS.
7945, 7946, 7947, AND '7948 (Continued)
Mr. Don Erle, 1431 Chalet Aven~ie, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and stated that his property was immediately to the north of the proposed
development; that one of the things that should be considered was the fact
that the properties to the west of Disneyland were very attractive and repre-
sented an asset to visitors to this tourist area and was a very definite source
of income, which was more important to the tax bas-, of the city; that it was
most important to keep this area as a sorL of a showcase for the visitors to
the city to see what an attractive city Anaheim wasr that it was very difficult
now for people to find their way around Southern California, even with light
traffic, and approval of subject petitions would compound an already serious
traffic problem in the center of the city's tourist attraction, and he would
suggest some type of lcw traffic generator use, and perhaps some cype of
tourist-oriented use should be projected since it was in close proximity to
the main tourist attraction, rather than the proposed condominium which would
only add to an already diffiault traffic pzoblem.
Mr. Harry Klinger, 1526 Lullaby Lane, appeared in opposition and stated he
thought it was the duty of the Planning Commission to control and make the
city more attractive with proper zoni:ig, and now he understood the Commission
had nothing to do with planning schools.
Chairman Seymour noted that the Planning Commission was only a recommending
body to the City Council and did not make the laws of the city but recommended
to the City Council approval or disapproval of specific development proposals,
and the City Council made the final decisions; that the Planning Commission's
primary concern was land use as it affected the living environment and preserva-
tion of property and not to bring harm into the community, but to provide an
environment that would be compatible to the surrounding l~~d uses; that the
Commission was concerned about the overcrowding of schools, but it did not have
any control of the situation - not even to recommend that another school should
be built - even though the Commission was aware of the fact that one was needed,
it ciid not mean the Commission did not pay any attention to the need for police
and fire facilities, but they would try to determine what would be best for the
comsiunity as different proposals w=re presented for consideration.
Commissioner Gauer explained to persons present the.manner in which schools
were planned for Anaheim, noting that he had been Superintendent of Schools
for a number of years, and although they purchased school sites when land was
considerably cheaper, only when the Parks and Recreation Commission an~i the
City decided to combine the schools for park purposes was the charge of a fee
for such purposes established at $25 per home or apartment unit, and with this
money, the City of Anaheim had established 37 parks in the city - only one
developer gave the City a one-acre site for a schoolj and that the only thing
the Commission could do was determine the proper land use for the city.
Mr. Klinger inquired whether the Commission would make a recommendation to the
School District regarding subject property if it was approved; whereupon
Chairman Seymour stated that if the Commission found a use projected on the
General Plan might increase the school attendance for a given area, it miqht
make a recommendation, Sut there was nothing in the school board which the
Commission had jurisdiction over, and the same applied to any traffic problem -
perhaps the Commission might 5ee there was a problem or persons in opposition
expressed grave concern about traffia lights, crossing guards, or other traffic
problems, but the Commission could only recommend that the Traffic Department
review this problem and make some recommendation to the City Council; and that
it would take considerable time to explain how the Commission made a determina-
tion on a given proposal, but he could state that schools, parks, electrical
facilities, traffic, etc., were all taken into consideration in making any
decision.
Commissioners Seymour and Gauer noted that the various departmental representa-
tives met as an Interdepartmental Committee to also review any proposal and
make important recommendations regarding an~ development, and all information
was collated into a report to the Commission as to its effects and solutions.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-557
RECLASSLFICATION N0. 72-73-10~ VARIANCE NO. 2426~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS.
7945, 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the schools were regulated by the State statutes,
and the City did not have any jurisdiction over what schools should or should
not be built or added to.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that copies of the plan were submiti:ed
to the School District and staff had not received any opposition from the
School Distrlct regarding the proposal.
Mr. Robert Truax, 1420 Gilbuck Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion and noted he was concerned with the purchase price of these units since
property to t}ie north and west could not be purchased for $18,000, and if this
price was created because of the density proposed, then the density should be
lowered so that the units would sell for around $25,000 brcause people could
purchase one of these condominiums with only a$50 deposit.
Mr. ?tobest Messey, 1523 Baylor Street, appeared before the Commission in
opposition, stating his property was southwest of the property under conaidera-
tion; that after having talked with the Traffic Engineer,Ed Granzow, he stated
that the Euclid Street and Cerritos Avenue intersection was probably the worst
intersection for major traffic accidentsj that he had attempted a number of
times to try to resolve this problem, therefore, he could see more accidents
at tha*_ intersection if subject petition were approved.
Mrs. Evelyn Streng, 1400 South Gilbuck Street, appeared before the Commission
and stated that she did not think anyone had mentioned the fact that the new
Disneyland Hotel Convention Center would create considerably more traffic to
this area when it was completed.
Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the Commission had heard a good
cross-section of opinion; whereupon Chairman Seymour stated that if all the
Commission felt that way he would close the hearing, but he just wanted to make
sure these people had an opportunity to express themselves if it took another
h~ur; whereupon the Planning Commission felt that sufficient evidence had been
presented by the opposition.
Mr. Kendall, in rebuttal, stated that the concerns voiced by the people in
opposition were well thought out, and he appreciated their comments because he,
too, would have been opposed to higher density if it were proposed next to his
single-family home, and he greatly sympathized with these people, however,
rather than respond to all of their comments, he would like to make several
general comments.
Chairman Seymour noted that no new evidence could be presented in rebLttal,
and only after closing the hearinq would the Commission ask for any additional
information if they found it necessary.
Mr. Kendall then stated that the $18,0'~ price per unit quoted by one of the
opposition was a misconception because they had not, as yet, determined what
price to establish for these units; that he would suggest that they would be
in the medium $20,000 range r~ther tt~an below $20,000; that the proposal would
be developed in four tract maps, and this was done at the request of the
interdepartmental representatives; that regarding another statement made about
Gramercy Park development, which was developed almost ten years ago when
condominiums were in their infancy, in more recent years there had been city
regulations for developers and planners, while the State of California Depart-
ment of Real Estate, as well as the land and financial institutions, had
required certain things, particularly where units did not earn money, and they
had a certain criteria, thereby setting up a stricter control by the city,
the renter, and the people residing in these units; that although there appeared
there were a considerable numSer of units, it would be helpful to understand
that a project of this size would be done in six to eight separate phases as
units were sold rather than having the units sit vacant - this would also qive
the city time to plan for this development as it pertained to schools and
utilities - since approximak~iy 70 units per phase would be developed; that
peoole purchasing these un9.ts would be paying taxes also for schools, parks,
streets, etc.; and that for further clarification in their statement that these
units would be purchased,by older and younger people was based on a study of
units in both northern and southern California which indicated a combination
of both types.
~
.~
~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972
72-55~
RECI~iw3IFICATION N0. 72-73-10~ VARIANCE N0. 2426~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS.
7:~45 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
TH: HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the developer proposed that these buildings
be entirely of wood construction and no stucco; whereupon Mr. Kendall stated
that it was intended to desiqn these units with extensive use of wood, but the
e.xterior units facing the public streets would be finished in a number of ways,
with cedar, =edwood, etc.
Commissioner Rowland then noted that what the deneloper was stating was this
would be a conventional program; wliereupon Mr. Kendall replied affirmatively.
The Commission inquired what was planned for the areas that would be undevel-
oped - when was the recreation area planned for development - how was the
undeveloped prope~cty proposed to be treated until development occurred; where-
upon Mr. Kendall replied that it would be both necessary and desirable £rom a
marketing standpoint and the £inancing institutions and Department of Real
Estate standpoint that the recreation area and some of the common areas be devel-
oped with the first units; that the land was propoeed to be developed in four
quarters, and with the first tract it was proposed to develop temporary access
as well as other access for one quarter and encompass most of the common area
as well as the recreation area in the centert that it was hoped to keep the un-
developed portions under agricultural development, and the present growers ueing
the property have expressed•an interest in so doing.
Then in further response to quesY.ioning, Mr. Kendall stated that the Woodman
Farming Company - with Mr. Shapiro as general partner present in the Council
Chamber - had been owned by them for more than ten years and was under agricul-
tural use for this length of time.
Chairman Seymour noted he had a number o£ questions he would like to have
answered: he wanted a more clear understanding that the Commission and the
developers were talking about the same development, and he wanted to kr_ow what
the developer meant by a PRD - in the City of Anaheim this could be.likened to
the Village Green in East Anaheim, the one under construction at Brookhurst
Street and Ball Road, or the development at La Palma Avenue and Dale Street.
Mr. Woodard replied that a PRD could provide the modus oHerandi that would
ailow the Planning Commission and staff to control development which was
unique to the city, as opposed to a single-lot subdivision and which would be
most beneficial if developed 10 to 12 units per acr~, which was a traditional
townhouse.
Lengthy discussion was then held between Chairman Seyinour and r,he developer/
architect ~egarding the definition and difserences between condominiums and
P RD' s .
Commissioner Gauer stated his raason for asking vrhen the property was purchased
was to determine whether the petitioner had the property in an agricultural
preserve during the past ten years, thereby being assPSSed less taxes than
properties generally were assessed, which would also r.ean the price of the
property could not be increased during the time the property was held in an
agricultural preserve. However, the contrac*_ of the agricultural preserve had
expired, and the price of the progerty was increased even though the use did
not change - this was another problem - nevertheless, he felt the northerly
nortion adjacent to the R-1 should be developed with R-1 lots and adjacent to
the railroad tracks R-3 could be permitted, but the bulk of the property was
no different than the property to the west as to the effects of the railroad
and the flood control channel, therefore, he could not see any reason why
subject property could not be completely developed with single-family homes,
even though the price per lot may have increas~d~ that there was no reason
why circular streets could not be provided since many people paid $35,000 to
$A0,000 for their homes in this area; that the Commercial-Recreation Area
ended on the east side of Walnut Streetj and that even thaugh the city was
a tourist-oriented community, as £ar as this property was concerned, the
obligation of that property to the area did not change - it was still beinq
used for agricultural purposes.
S
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-559
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10~ VARIANCE NO. 2426~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS.
7945, 7946 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
Mr. Kendall noted that there was very little agricultural property in Anaheim
that was not zoned for its highest and best use, and none that he knew of was
in the agricultural preserve.
Mr. Jack Shapiro, General Partner of Woodman Farming, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he had owned this psoperty for eighteen years and
during the past six or seven years the farm income from that property averaged
from $5,500 to $10,000 per year, however, taxes were in excess of $20.000J that
the property had not been taxed on the basis of being agricultural land but was
taxed on its highest and best use f.or the land.
The Commission noted that this had been a major problem with many property
owners owning property in Anaheim.
Commissianer Farano noted that the property was designated on the Genaral Plan
for low-medium density development and medium density, however, the petitioner
was requesting zoning classification as medium density, and in numerous reclas-
sification proceedings, it was incumbent upon the applicant to submit to the
Commission some showings that changes had occurred that would justify approving
a higher use since the Commission could not consider anything but land use, and
the economics of a project could not be considered; that the fact that the
General Plan projected low-medium and medium density did not mean this would be
an automatic approval by the Planning Commis~ion and/or City Council, therefore,
he would request that the developer not make further reference to the fact that
there was low-medium or medium density on the property but present other evidence
to justify a change in land use to what had been developed in this area.
Mr. Kendall noted that this was a vacant parcel in the middle of two distinct
uses, one commercial-recreation and the other low density residential; and that
use of the property for agricultural purposes had appeared to be less and less
appropriate because of the different uses already established in the area.
Commissioner Farano noted he would agree that perhaps it was appropriate for
a land use change, but what was the petitioner/developer's reason for this
density; whereupon Mr. Woodard stated that since the 6eneral Pla.n projected
low-medium for a portion and medium for the balance, averaging out these two
densities would equal about 27 units per acre, while they were proposing only
17.5 per acre.
Commissioner Farano then noted that perhaps the R-3 zoning request was in-
appropriate; whereupon Mr. Woodard stated their proposal was for both the low-
medium and medium density of the General Plan, however, their proposal had
sometrinq which would fall within the category of the R-3 Zone, therefore, they
had requested that zoning.
Continued discussion was held between the Commi~sion and the developer/architect
of the proposed development regarding coverage, density, number of persons within
the proposed project, number of vehicles that would be expected to be generated,
guest parking, number of trips per day based on projections by the Traffic
Division, projections of the duties of the homeowners association, date when
construction was proposed to be started if subject petitions were approved, and
type of recreation center proposed with separation of the childrens' play area
from the adult recreation area. ~
Commissioner Farano then inquired of staff what the present traffic count was
for Walnut Street and Cerritos Avenue; whereupon Office Engineer Representative
Robert Jones stated he would have to go to the Traffic Engineer's office for
these figur~:s.
Continued discussion was held regarding adequate buffering between the pxoposed
use and the R-1 properties to the west and north.
Mr. Jones advised the Commission that the traffic count in 1971 per 24-hour ay
was 7,200 vehicles on Cerritos Avenue and 10,700 vehicles on Walnut Street,
however, this did not take into account the increase in traffic due to the
completion of the Disneyland Hotel Convention Center.
•
~
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISS'~N~ August 21~ 1972 72-560
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10, VARIANCE N0. 2426, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT iJOS.
7945, 7946, 7947 AND 7948 (Continued)
Commissioner Farano noted that even though the General Plan projec`.ed certain
densities for subject property, it could be expected that with seven trips per
day for approximately 1,100 vehicles would mean that one-third of this traffic,
totaling 7,7U0 trips per day, would use Cerritos Avenue, making an increase of
about 20$ for Walnut Street from this project alone, and this did not include
the added traffic from the Disneyl^.nd Hotel Convention Center which would
primarily generate to these two streets from parking structures holding 600
vehicles. In adc'ition, one must consider the number of trucks that would be
delivering exhibits, displays, etc., for the various conventions that would be
held at this center, and with the parking structure, there did not appear to
be much room for trucks waiting to load and unload except in the street; that
he could not concur with Commissioner Gauer's statement that this property
should be developed with R-1 entirely because of the traffic generating from
the Disneyland Hotel Convention Center, therefore, it would appear to indicate
that some very low-key generator of traffic away fzom heavier density rather
than increasing the density should be considered, even though the project before
the Commission was laid out well and the petitioner indicated some willingness
to cooperate, he did not know whether the de~.eloper understood the significance
of the traffic problem.
Commissioner Farano, in response to a question by Commissioner Gauer, stated
that the density was that of R-i instead, and he could not recall at any time
where the maximum density had been allowed in any of the multiple-family resi-
dential zones.
Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission and the developers appeared to
be "hung up" on the General Plan labels, but one would have to consider the
land use and the problems that would occnr, and one he could ~ee was the fact
that this condominium or PRD was the increase in the number of people a condo-
minium projected; that the City had never approved more than 10 to 12 units per
acre for PRD's, while the petitioner was requesting the R-3 2one and projecting
17+ units per acre; that the parking requiremants of PRD's were more stringent,
even more than the petitioner was groposing, because a minimum of two parking
spaces was required per unit, and if the Zeveloper had familiarized hi.mself with
those that had heen approved in the City of Anaheim, he would have seen the
parking he pro~osed was far short of those other deveJ.opments, and he was greatly
concerned with the effects this would have on the neighborhood, therefore, if
the developer wanted to reconsider and redesign this for a PRD, he would enter-
tain a request for continuance.
Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the City should not consider this
type of density against single-family residential development.
Co~nmissioner Rowland noted that the City had a:i adopted Ger.eral Plan for poten-
tial developers to determine what could be develnped on land in the city, how-
ever, what this developer was proposing was a PF.n d~valopment using R-3 stand-
ards, and if this were an apartment project, then one could envision a garden-
type apartment complex with a 300$ to 600~ turnover, probably occasioned by the
type of renters who lacked .roots or needed mobility and couid be noving because
of the development standards of the R-3 Zone, because of the minimum parking
requirements, close living environment, more people on the ianci - apparently some
people did not care to go that route because it was not economically fair. and
the best information at this point in time in the City of Anaheim development
policy when the City had been promoting PRD's which were s.lightly different in
that the City felt a maximum of 10 to 12 units per acre provided extra space in
living area and extra space required £or extra parking found to be necese,ary,
and tY.e proposed development did not have nearly the parking te satisfy the
needs o£ this development based on the number of persons projected, therefore,
he would be willin.g to consider a continuance if the developers were interested
in redesigning this project for a PRD since the Commission had to assume with
the standards the City had, the streets projected were adequate; that the sewers
were adequate; chat the power requirement would also be aflequate: that there
was sufficient water to serve this facility based on recommendations of the
Interdepartmental Committee £or Public Safety and General We2fare, who reviewed
each project to determine these factors, and there were no nega.*.ive statements
regarding this; that the staff knew about the Disneyland Hotel Convention
Center traffic, although the Commission was not privy to hear their input; that
it would be his opinion that he would vota for this proposal under these circum-
stances and restrictions; that if this wosld be developed as a condomir.ium,
•
~
~
MINUTLS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-561
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10~ VARIANCE NO. 2426~ TENTATIVS MAP OF TRACT NOS.
7945, 7946, 7947, AND 7948 (Continued)
that the homeowners association place a special assessment district on t?:a
entire project which would make it possible for the City of Anaheim - i:i the
event the homeowners associatio~i did not take care oE this ~roperty -_- step
in and levy taxes to take care of this problem.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Loe~ry advised tSce Commi~sion that these assessment
districts had a limitat.ion of only five years accc~rdina to restarch he had dorie
on this type of assessment district.
Commissioner Rowland, in respuase to questioning by :.•ommissioner F~srano, stated
that with the normal maximum density on PRD's of 12 units per acre, a minimum of
2~ parking spaces per unit wa~ required or neede:d.
Mr. Roberts noted that under development such as P~D's,soecific plans were f
approved under the reclassificati.on, therefor~, i.i the 6:veloper were zgreeah:e
to redccing his density and tne othez requi~-:ement~ establishe~, tne~e p.'an5 4
should be submitted to the Planning Commi.~sion for con~ideration. ~~'~
Commissioner Gauer noted that at previous ~ublic heaiinqs Comanir.sioner Hn_rbr~t ~f+j
had made that very specific - that whenever a reclas~ification wa~ conszdered,
developmer_t plans should be tied into the re~iassific.~ti:+c of the propexty.
Chairman Seymour then noted that it appeared to be the cor:sensus of opinion of
the Commission that the proposed devel.opme:it had too great a density to what
the Commission would like to see, and if the petitioner were ~.r,!:crested in a
c~ntinuance to reduce the density, the C~maiission would consi~ie~ su.ch a r~cuest
for continuance.
Mr. Kenda2l advised the Commissior. that at this point in time they felt that
what was before the Commission was the best use for the property because of
the purchasing price and the market for residential use in this area, together
with what was depicted on the General Plan, they felt the proposal would be
appropriate.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-?.18 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Petition for
Reclassification No. 72-73-10 on the basis that the land use proposed was not
in conformance with the land use designation for the ent?~e parcel as depicted
on the General Plan; that the petitioner had failed Co show that ti.:: proposed
reclassification would be in the best interest of the health, safety, and
general welfare of the community in this parLicular area; that there had been
no land use change in this area to warra~:t fa~•orab:e consideration of any
increase in density for the low-medium ~:~:.sity portion of this property; that
there were no basic differences in a pla.nned residential dEVelopment and a
condominium as it was knc~n in Anaheim, and upcn viewing the existing FRD's in
Anaheim with densities of up to 12 units per acre, to apgrove the prupoaec!
reclassification would be granting a privileye not enjoyed 5y other dPVe:iopers
of multiple-family planned residential developments; t~at the t.raffic prcjec-
tion of seven trips per day for each unit wuuld result in an sncrearse in trai_°~c
on Cerritos Avenue of 33~i+t and on Walnut StrEe~ 2Gt based ~PentohtherFrolectednt
in 1971 and which did not include the increase in traffic ~
completion of the Disneyland Hotel Convention Center; an1 that evidence presented
would indicate that there should be a trend to a les,sening of density for this
area rather than increasing the density in order not to iurther conge~t the
area. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, 22owland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMZSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-219 and moved !ox ;ta pas.s«ge
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2426 on the basis tha`. dur_ to
fact that the Plannino Commission had recommended disapproval of t:~e pro;~osed
reclassification, impiementation of the variance request was den..ed si.nc~: it
could not be exercised under the exi.sting zoning.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-562
RECLASSIFICATZON NO. 72-73-10~ VARIANCF, NO. 2426~ .:'ENTATIVE MAP Q~' T:tACT NO~.
7945, 794~0, 7947, AND 7948 (Continr.~!!) .._
On roll call the foregoing resol~iti~~n w~-s passed by ,`he following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, "'a+..er~ Yaywood, kowland, Sey~:~our.
NOr:S: COMMISSION~RS: Nane.
ABSENT: COMMI~STO^;~itS: ".llre~:; 7!: rj~-.`,
.^.oc.m.t::siene~ Kaywood offere~~ a mc,~ioii, aeconded by Commissioner Gauer and
M07.~:iN ~*RRIED (Commissior~e:~i 4.11 red and Hezbst dI~SER'i) , to deny Tenta*_ive
Map of Tract Nos. 7945, 79Q6. ,~9A7, and 7948 on the b~sis that the reclas~~i-
fication of subject propF,rty ha.i been recommended for disapproval, and th4:
development and sub~livision c~ 4•.he property rould not a•z accumplished wit}iin
the existing zoning.
RECESS - Cha~rr•~a~1 Seymour dc.clare~ ~ five-m+.nute rece: ~ ~'• ?.0:25 p.~.:.
RF:CONVENE -• CYiairmar. Seymour reconv<.ned the meetinq at 10::10 p.m. ,
Commis+aConers Allred and Herbst beino, absent.
RECLBS~~r~:[CATION - GOVTTNUED PUALIC HEARTr'G. JP.MRS E.. JORDAN, 4l0 South
NO. 72-7's-2 ~'ucli3 Street, Suite E,, :•n~~ai^, Ca.lifornia 92892. Owners
K. V.. DILLS, 420 South Y.ualid Streei:, Suite E, Ansheim
VARIANCE NO. 2393 Cali.fornia 92802, Agent; property •lescr.ibec: as: A
re:.tanqularly-shaped pa:ccel of la.id having a frontage of
approximately 103 feet ~~n the west si3e of Brookhurst
Street, having a max:mum depth of approximal:ely 234 feet a~nd being located
approximately 580 feet north of *hQ centerl:_ne of Katella Avenue. Property
presently cZassifi2d R-A, AGR'CU~TUFAL, ZON'~.
REQUESTED CLA557FICATION: C-',• GENERAL COMMERCZAL~ ZQNE.
REQUESTED VARI:9NCE: ~'A.IVER OF (a) REQUIREL` ThEE SCREEN ALONG RE:.SLEN'3'I .L
20NE BOliNDARS', (b) MAXi~:1UM BUILDING I'~IGHT, ANll (c:,`
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BLOCX 'NALL ABLITTINa R`:+IDENT=Ai: ZONE
T.i ~'C::STRUCT A COMBINAT~:ON RETAIL AND CJDIME_°.JIAl> OFFICE
BT'~.';JTNG.
S_bjei:t peti.tions were continued from the ,7uly i0, 1972 mr,eting for readvertise-
ment xnd frc>m the July 24, 1972 meeting at the reruESt oi t;ie petition~:.
c,t,li'c persor..s indicated the:ir presence in opposition.
Assistant 2oning Superviser pon McDaniel reviewed thQ locat•i.on o£ subject
croperty, uses established in close proximity, previou•: zoning ac':ion on the
property, reasons for continuance from previous maeting?~; and the proposal to
construct a comi~ination retail and officr bvilding, •reqLesting waivers of the
c;-i ~ite developa~ent standards, aith plars indicatinga tWO-stv:y building in
the r.enter of the oroperty with 16 p~.rking stalls £ronting on Brookhurs* Street
and the remair.ing 38 parking stalls located to the rear of the property, and
the i_oor p~.ans submis:ted indicated retail commercia~ i:.^as fr~= the fir.t floor
ar.d off:ice use.s for the second floor.
Mr., Mc:Danie)_ then reviewe~i the evaluation, notir.g that the w:.ivex fo: the
screen 'l?^.lscapi_ig along ~he southe.rly boundar, was beiag requested in order
to provide thP driveway to gein acce~s to the parking to the rear; that
requiring the tree ~creen landscapiny along a portion cf the south boundary
could create an extremely narrow and ha~ardous driveway; that tsec screen
plant=ng was provided in the remainder cf the parking asea a'.ong the southerJy
property 1•,.ne; that the tre~. screPr. ~raiver w~.s also being applied to the west-
erly pr.operty iine, and the C~:.~~~ission would wish to determine the appropriate-
nets of alloring the proposal without t.~e required screer. landscaping as set
Eox;.h; that- waiver of the maximum building height was beinq requested because
it wa~~ proposed to have a cwo-s:.ary structure within 7.1 feet oE the south
pro;:rty line, whereas a 58-foot setback would be required for the 29-foot
nigh buildin~~; that waiver of the height of the wall along the so'~th boundazy
line was being requested i?ca+ise a 5-foot wall already existed, while Code
woulc? require a 6-foot high n~3sonry wall separatin5 commercial fram residential
~
~.w
~
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION~ AuguSt 27.. 1972 72-563
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 2393 (Continued)
uses; that the General P].an indicated thi~ area in question as being suitable
for general ccmmercial uae, and the zoning request would implement this General
Plan designation; and that the Commission may wish to consider the request for
reclassification to be appropriate, however, further consideration might have
to be given to the requested waivers in light of surrounding lsnd uses.
Mr. Kenneth Dills, agent for the petitioner, appeazed before the Commission
and stated that subject property f.zonted on Brookhurst Street which had a
traffic count of 25,000 vehicles per day, with other commercial uses in close
proximity, and the request before the Commission would appear to be logical,
and then reviewed th.e ~-aivers being requested, noting that they met all of the
requirements as thay pertained to the R-1 propertzes to the west, and as for the
south, he had a letter from the property owr_er indicating no opposition to the
wa.ivers of landscaping and setback since said orooerty was zoned R-A.
Mr. Robert Kirkpatrick, 1726 Orme Street, appeared before the Commission and
noted he was the Program Associate i.n the Envizonnental Affairs Department of
the City of Cerritos; that his property was imm~diately adjacent to the extreme
northwest end of suhject property; that other sin3le-family homes would be
affected by the proposed two-story construction; that he could not see why
waiver of the required 6-foo* wall shouid be granted ~o the petitioner for
tnE propez°y a'.ong the south property line since that property could be affecte~'
by commercial uses; that there was a chainlink fence along his property line,
altnough there was a wall along the west; that when che nroperty to the north
developed for c~mmercial uses, he was requi::ed to increase the height of the
exist.ing w,.ll, therefore, this should also ba a require~rent; and then inquired
what was proposed for the drainage channe:. along subject property lir.e.
Furtliermore, in reading the Anaheim Municipal Code, it weuld appear to require
that the apolicant must show there were special circumstances applicahle to the
prooerty tl:at did not generally apply to other properties in this area, however,
he did not fe_1 the applicant had proven this, and, therefore, he did r.ot feel
the petitionez had a right to be granted a variance from the zoning requestedt
and that he was fully aware of the fa_- that the General Plan ind~.:ated commer-
cial uses, and he ~va~ not opposed to the zone change but only to the granting
of the variance requeet..
Mr. Robert Cleaver, 2~24 Judith Lane~ appeared Y.efore the Commission in opposi-
tion and stated his property was to th.. west of suhject property; that they had
circulated a petition, contacting those persons having been notified by mail
through a legal notice, and 705c of these pcople had signed the petition in
opposition; that theY '•aere agal.nst the propoaed two-story construction which
would have windows overlooking their rear yards, thereby depriviag them of
their privacy; that a one-story b•ailding should be constructed to ass~:re the
adjoining resi~:ents of this privacy; that it vras hope3 that with the widening
of Brook:ius;•r 5treet shortly, t+~r:~ing areas to the various properties would
then ~e acc~i*~~~lished; that ~i Suc'l~i: Street and Cerritos Avenue was considered
the worst intcryection in Anaheim, then Brookhu.rst and Katella was the second
korst interseotion; that there woulc be an in -ease in the ncise for the
sinqle-family residents; t.'ia`c he felt everyone s'..ou~d be required to meet the
minimum standards establi~t:ed ::or a zrne, thexe.`ore, he wou!d recommend denial
of the variance.
Mr. Robert Pantik, 2239 West .udtth Lar.e, appeared befox~ the Commission in
opposit~.on anA stated he was no* in opposition tn the reciassification but to
t:~e proposed two-story kauildin:,; thac at the last pub'.i;: hearing he had talked
with Mr. Di11s regarding e:imi.~zc':r~ :f th•a winc~:~ws or~ thc west side, such as
was required of the Col.dwel! b:.iJ.ding to the north, if ;ubject petition were
approved, but he stated r.his was unenforceab2e; and that the only reason he
could see for proposing twi~-stor,y was because of economics.
Mr. Pursei i:och, 217'1 Wesc Judith Lane, appeared bef~re the Commission in
opposit_on and stated ;iis propertp was across the stzeet to the east of subject
property; that he had lived in this area for eighteen years and had seen the
area develop to its present urbanization; that he was not in favor of any more
commercial uses going into the area, and those that nzd been approved were not
of a permar.ancy, iao°~ing in and uut const3ntly; that there was a shopping area
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMI35ION, August 21~ 1972 72-564
RECLASSIFICAT'[ON NO. 72-73-2 AND VAP.IANCE N0. 2393 (Continued)
on Katella and srookhurst, which was Rore than adequate for all of the stores
that could be used since some were vacant; and that this entire area had alwaps
been single-family use, and those that had chanqed were while the property was
still under the ~erisdiction o£ the County.
Chairman Seymour inquired kaether Mr. Koch was sugResting that subject property
be devplaped for sinqle-family use; whereupon Idr. Koch stated affirmatively -
that this would b~ establishing a precedent with further commercial uses in tlie
area, and then what would be planned for all of the single-family homes on the
east side of the street; that tnay were constantl,r annoyed by the traffic on
Brookhurst Street until 10:00 and 11:00 o'clock in the evening, and if any
retail uses were proposed for this property, this could open the door for
additional commercial uses with hours all day and night; that properties in
this area were also a£fected b;~ the drainage of subje,:t property, itowever, hi~
main concern was the noise factor since he did not have a block wall, and even
if he did, it was not sufficient to block out all of the noises.
Mr. William C. Smith, 2231 West Judith Lane, appeared bPfore ihe Commission in
opposition and stated that mention was made of the drainage problem in this
area; that he had lived in this area for eleven years and had to call the
former fire chief into theis cul-de-sac becau~e of oil and gasoline seepage
~nto the drainage area, therefore, he wanted to know what was proposed as far
as drainaqe was concerned.
Chairman Seymour stated that after the rrebuttal was piesented, then staff might
present ~ome enlightening `iformation regarding this drainage.
Mr. Dills, ia rebuttal, stated trere w3~ a plan approvPd <.n the Enqineering
Division that required that thEy remove the existing open drain and cover it
and out in place of this a 12-inch drain that would c~rain to the north and
west to Judith T.ane for properties to the north, tl:erefore, this would be an
underground drain and not be an oFen drain ~•rtic~,.'•^:sld be hazardous to the
residents of the area, however, hP +.ould not asslre that this drainaqe would
take uare of a 100-year storm; that he wa:~ not aware of the fact that there
was no 6-f.oat block wall at the northwest corner, but that he would check with
the deve.loper of the property to the north to dete.rmine whether they were
required to install that wall, however, this would not be a problem to stipulate
tc providing it.
Mr. Dills then reviewed the method of taxation and the d'stribution of taxes
for commercial and industrial properties, noting that of the $600 psid in
taxes, $366 went ~o schoo3s, and these many thousands of dollars from commer-
cial stores and industries which d:~.d not generate children paid for the educa-
tion of children in the sinqle-family tract to the west, thereby reducing their
taxes; that they also hac: to pay sales tax for any goods so].d, as well as Qaying
for a business license; that regarding two-story c~nstruction, the C-1 2on~:
germitted two-story if the setback eras 2 feet for every 1 foot of height of
the building, and they proposed ta'Set back over 100 feet from the R-l proper-
ties to the west, and the only waiver they were requesting would be from the
property to the south, which was R--A and had a potential use for C-1; and ~hat
iY. would appear to be entirely appropriate to have the requested zoning on the
property since they were complying with all aspecc.s of the site development
standards except for that property to the south.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
CommissSoner Seymour inquired whether thr. petitioner had done a line-of-sight
study from the second story to determ~ne wh.t effect this would have on the
propertp to the west; whereupon Mr. Di.l'ls stated that the structure was 105
feet from the property line to the wes'c.
Commissioner Farano noted it would :ypear there was no question subject property
wac C-1 property, but he could finl no evide!ice of a hardship existing to
warrant consideration of the variance, and in order to waive the maximum build-
ing height of the property to :he south, the waivex would be necessary, but his
main concern was regarding a line-of-sight study as it affccted the single-
family homes *.o the West, and even though it was within Code requi.rement, it
was his nnderstanding that a two-story structure had to be 150 feet from
sinql~-family homes.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-565
RECL•ASSIFICATION_NG. 72-73-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 2393 ~Continue3)
Mr. Roberts noted that if the properties to the west were dpveloaed in accord-
ance with the City of Anaheim code, they would be r.•quired to have a 25-foot
buil•:ing setback - this would then pla.ce the propuued structure at 130 feet
fr~,m anp existing structure.
Commissioner Farano then stated he felt some cor.si~~ration should be given to
reducing the visual encroachment of the propetty to che west, such as landscap-
ing, and the waiver of the landscaping to the south was necessary only because
the petitioner wee planninq too large a building on the property, and he could
comply with the requir~ments of landscaping if the size of the building were
reduced so as to give s*3ffieient clearance for ingres:: and eyress to their
parking to the rear.
Mr. Roberts noted that the Commission had discusse3 the possible visual
intrusion of the commercial on the R-1 properties to the we~t, however, Code
permitted any commercial building t<~ be constructed on the property so long
as it set back a distance twice the height, which in this case would be 58
feet.
Commissioner Far~..;o offered Resolution No. PC72-220 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption to r.ecommend to the Ci.ty Council approval of Petition for Reclas-
siiication No. 72-73-2, subject to conditicns. (See Resolucion Book)
On roll call tti~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSEr:T: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, HerbsY.
Commissioner Gauer oEfered resolution No. PC72-~21 and moved for its passage
and adoption to ~rant Petition for Variance No. 2,393, in part, denying waiver
of the zone boundar7 screen landscaping on the basis that adequate screening
should be provided wherever commercial uses abut residential uses, and the
petitioner did not siibmit evidence that said waiver was necessary for the
pre.servation of rights enjoyed by others but denied to him; that waivers of
maximum building height within 150 feet of a single-family zone and minimum
zone boundary wall h~:ght were granted as it pertained to the south property
line only on the ba; a that the large R-A parcel to the south had been used
previously as a conv.slescent home and in all likelihood will be used for other
than residential uses upon ultirnate development. Furtherr~re, the owner of
the property t~~ thc south submitted a letter indicating approval of the pro-
posal; and subjact to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the fc-=going resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ncn°.
ABSENT: COMMISSIUNER;: Allr~d, Herbst.
RECLASS7FICATION - CONTZNUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK R. KROGMAN. 1572 Clearview
N0. 72-73-12 Lane, Santa Ana, Califorzia 92705, Owner; SUNBURST DEVELOP-
MENT COMPANY, INC.r 9502 Greenwich Street, Anaheim, Cali-
VARIANCE NO. 2400 fornia 92804, Agent; property described as: A rectangular-
ly-shapel parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.1
TENTATIVE MAP OF acres having a frontage of approximately 520 feet on the
TRACT NO. 7932, south side of Wagner Avenue, having a maximum depth of
REVISION NO. 1 approximately 177 feet and being located at the southwest
corner of Wagner Avenue and Sunkist Street. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE (a) LOT SIDE-ON TO ARTERIAL HIGHWAY, (b) MINIMUM
LOT AREA, AND (c) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEEF:: ANACAL ENGINEERING CO., 222 East'Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, Cali'fornia 928~5; proposing to
subdivide a 2.1-acre parcel into 9 R-1 zoned lots.
• i
MINUTES, CITX PLANNTNG COMMISSION, AugLSt 21, 1972 72-566
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-i3-•12, VAR7ANCE NO. 240'', AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAGT
NO. 7932, REVISION NO. i(Coni:inued)
Subj~ect petitions were continued Erom the July 24, 1972 meeting to resolve
parcel p•:oblems.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hea..rinq, it is
referred to a~id made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Kit Kenyon, developer of the project, appeared bef..re the Commission and
noted that he had a letter of agreement between the Wagners and Krogmans
regarding the proble~s presented at the previous public hearing; that he had
additional comments in relation to the density in that he had tried to re-
design the project, hoping to overcome as many objections as pcssible and still
make it acceptable to th~e Commission; that he was proposing 9 dwelling units on
2.1 acr~s, which was ex,actly 7200 square feet per lot; and then inquired about
the 6-fo,~t wall on W:gner Avenue where pedestrian access was required, wanting
to know M~hether this wall would be stepped down, and he did r.ot know whethar
this condition was lef* out hy oversiqht or intenti.onally.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that at the Interdepartmental
Committee meeting they had discussed the possibility that since the cul-de-sac
would terminate at Waqner Avenue, the requixed 6-foot wal3 along Wagner Avenue
could be reduced in height at the pedestrian accesswap to provide better visi-
bility along that accessway, and if the Commission so desired, the hPiqht at
the accessway could be reduced to 42 inches rather than 6 feet.
Commissioner Kaywood expressed concern re,o,arding the possible noise facter
from the Wagner Avenue traffic; whereupon Commissioner Rowland stated that
this was not a normai front setback, and t:he setback, in all likelihood, of
the residences would be approximatel} 40 f~>.et which would reduce the noise
considerably.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that.in view of some comments she had made previous-
ly, she wanted to make sure that this was included in the record.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-222 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclas-
sification No. 72-73-12, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONr~RS: None. .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
ABS7AIN: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-223 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2400 on the basis that the•
size and shape of tk:e parcel made it difficult to develop without granting
some relief from the existing site development standards of the R-1 Zone; 'Ghat
the proposal was now in substantial confo.rm.=:~a with the R-1 standacds because
three lots were proposed of 7200 square feet or greater, whi:e the balance of
the lots were 6000 square feet or greater; and that t?:c oppositioa that had
been presented at the first public hearing had been withdrawn after having
_•esolved differences with the petiti.oner in accordance with an ayreement on
file; and subject to conditions. ;See Qesolution Book}
On roll call the foregoirg reso~utio~t was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: t!one.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONR~S: Seymour.
Commissioner Seymour stated he al~stained from voting because he did business
with the developer.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 ~2-56~
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-12. VARIANCE NO. 2400~ AND TENTATI\7E MAP OF.TRACT
NO. 7932 REVISION NO. 3(Continued)
~~',.
Commissioner Ro~~{land offered a motion, seconded by Comaissioner Kaywood ar.d
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Seymour abstaining; Commissioners Allred and
Herbst being absent)~ to grant Tentative Map of Tract No. 7932, Revision No. 1,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tr.nr.t No. 7932, Revision
No. 1, iz granted subject to the approv~~ of Reclassification No.
72-73-12 and Variance No. 2400.
(2) That •,rould this subdivision be developed as more than one
suboi+i.sion, each subdivisior. thereof shall be submitted in
tent:,tive form for approval.
(3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall
Shall be constructed on the north property line separating lot
Nos. 1, 6 and 8 from Wagner Avenue, and on the east propexty line
separating lot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from Sunkist Street, except that a
pedestrian opening shall be provided in said wall at the terminiis
of Clarence Street to Wagner Avenue. Reasonable landscaping,
including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the un-
cemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance
of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and
subj'ect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkwz.y Main-
tenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of
Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said
landscaping.
(4) Tha- all lots within this tract shall be served by undergrcund
utilitie~3.
(5) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings to Wagner Avenue and Sunkist Street, shall be dedicated
to the City of Anahei~a.
(6) That a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of
Wagner Avenue £ronting the "not-a-part" parcel shall be dedicated
to the City of Anaheim for street widening purposes.
(7) That all engineering and st'reet lighting zequirements of the City
of Anaheim along Wagner Avenue fronting the "not-a-part" parcel
shall be constructed with the improvements of Tract 7932.
(B) That a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement shall be provided and
improved between lot Nos. 1 and 6.
(9) That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
(10) That the cul-de-sacs at the ends of Ambridge Street and Clarence
Street shall be constructed as approved by the City Engineer.
~ i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-568
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HERMAN L. LEN2, 930 South State College
72-73-17
NO Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92806, Owner; S& S
. CONSTRUCTION CO., 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills,
CONDITIONAL USE California 90211, Agent; property described as: A rec-
PERMIT N0. 1336 tangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi.mately
8.6 acre, located at the northeast corner of Waqner Avenue
TENTATIVE MAP OF and State College Boulevard, having frontages of approxi-
TRACT NO. 7878 mately 608 feet on the north side of Wagner Avenue and 618
feet on the east side o£ State College Boulevard. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED ~LASSI FICATION: R-2~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
REQUESTED CONDIT IONAL USE: PERMIT AN 84-UNIT PLANNED xtESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WITH WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (b) MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH, (c) REQUIREMENT OF FRONTAGE ON A
DEDICATED STREET~ (d) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
BUILDIN~S, AND (e) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: RONALD W. MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
2212 Dupont Drive, Irvine, California 92664;
proposing subdivision of an 8.6-acre parcel into
85 R-2 zoned lots.
Five persons indicated their presence in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify
the property to R-2 to permit establishment of an 84-unit planned residential
development with one and two-story structures; that the plan indicated no two-
story structure would be constructed within 250 feet of the northerly boundary
adjacent to the single-family dwellings, and no two-story structure would be
constructed within 190 feet of the single-family homes along the easterly bound-
ary; that a perimeter drive had been provided entering at State College Boulevard
and proceeding through the project and exitinq onto Wagner Avenue; that in addi-
tion to the perimeter drive for vehicular access, the applicant had also shown
one drive approach to State College Boulevard and two drive approache3 to Wagner
Avenue for additional vehicular accessi that the project was so designed that
each unit had direct accessibility to common open area, and it was not neces-
sary for an individual who was desirous of utilizing the recreation area to
cross any private drives or public streetsj tY.at a 25-foot landscaped buffer
had been provided along the northerly and easterly boundary lines, however, the
applicant had indicated open guest parking stalls and trash areas within the
25-foot landscaped area; that the project was proposed at 11.3 dwelling units
per net acre, or 3813 square feet of net building area per unit, with a land
coverage of 36.5~; that the General Plan indicated the area under consideration
as being appropriate for low density residential development, and the R-2 Zone
was not one of the zones that would implement the low density residential
category, therefore, the Commission may consider the requested zoning to be
inappropriate and inconsistent with the Geiieral Plan; that the B5-unit planned
residential development was the type of development where postage-stamp lots
were provided, each unit having a private patio, and a two-car garage would be
located on each of the 84 separate lots; that the BSth lot was a common, open
area lot provided throughout the project for all owners' benefit; that similar
projects in the past had been required to provide a 20-foot wide landscaped
buffer on boundaries abutting existing single-family dwelling units, and the
applicant was proposing a 25-foot wide landscaFed buffer that had provided
90-degree parking in portions of the 25-foot area, the atplicant indicating
t}:at the tatal square :ootage of the landscaping provided within the 25-foot
buffer and parking was equal to the square footage of the landscaping provided
by a straight 20-foot landscaped buffer; that waiver for the minimum distance
between buildings was being requested because the applicant proposed to locate
some buildings within 15 feet of one another rather than the 20 feet that was
required, and this waiver would appear to be justified in this particular
instance as the zeduction did not infringe on the private or common open area
provided for the owners of these units; that the waiver for the minimum front
setback was requested because the applicant was proposing the private drives
for vehicular access to the garages alonq a portion of State College Boulevard
and a portion of wagner Avenue within the 20-foo*_ required front yard; tnat
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNINu COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 72-569
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-17~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1336~ AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 7878 (Continued)
the State College Boulevard driveway was located within 3 feet of the front
property line and would provide minimal landscaping as a buffer and screen for
the garage openings along the arterial highwayt that the driveway along Wagner
Avenue was lpcated within 8 feet of the property line, and the Commission might
consider this adequate area to provide landscaping and walls to adequately screen
the qarage doors that would front on Wagner Avenue; that unless some means of
landscape screening or the use of walls and berms could be provided, the
Commission might consider this particular waiver appropriate; that the remain-
ing three waivers involved the minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and require-
ment that a lot have frontage on a dedicated street and were waivers that were
granted typically with planned residential development concept~ and had been
granted i:i the past throughont the city.
in conclusion, Mr. McDaniel noted that the primary qustion the Commission would
wish to consider in this request was the appropriateness of a planned residen-
tial development complex and R-2 zoning on the property in the center of a
predominantly single-family residential araa, since this proposal would appear
to be inconsistent with the existing development in this area of East Anaheim
and was also inconsistent with the Anaheim General Plan.
Mr. John Garcia, representing the applicant and the developer. S& S Construc-
tion Company, 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Bevsrly Hills, California, appeared
before the Commission and stated that S& S Construction Company had built
over 16,000 homes; that they had acquired the reputation of a noted builder;
that this development represented quality and would sell for $26,000 as town-
houses, which would have their own lots; and then presented renderings which
indicated floor plans and elevations of the buildinqs, reviewing the typical
elevation of a one-story structure, the square footage of the units which the
Building Department would enforce, the interior units of both one and two-story
development, and the landscaping proposed that would be in excess of that re-
quired and which would be maintained by a homeowners association; that his
company was we.ll known for~their amenities which they provided on the interior
of the units; that the parking proposed met the requirements of the City code;
that the two-story setback from the single-family homes to the north was 250
f~eet and from the single-family homes (RS-5000) to the east was 190 feet; and
that there were eight different floor plans proposed.
Mr. Garcia, in response to Commission questioning, stated that they proposed a
6-foot wall, as well as a 25-foot landscape strip, along the north property
line, and the smaller units also indicated where the garages were located.
Mr. Garcia further noted that the project was so designed for direcY. access to
the recreation area so that residents would not have to cross a street t~
reach this area; that they were providing a large recreational facility as well
as a pool and a small recreation area; that there would be landscape screening
along the perimeter streets which were indicated on two different renderings;
that they proposed a landscape buffer and 3-foot slumpstone wall adjacent to
the arterial street, with an 8-foot landscape strip along Wagner Avenue and a
3-foot strip along State College Soulevard, but there would be additional
iandscaping al~ng the interior.of the walls adjacent to the streets; that he
would prefer a na~row sidewalk with a wider landscape strip along these
arterials, however, this did not meet the City's requirements; that S& S
Construction Company had built three si~ilar projects, and the average purchaser
of these units earned $18.Ut~0 per year; that there was only one child for every
three units; that subject property was bounded on the east by RS-5000 zones and
on the north by R-1 homes; that they could build thexr units only 25 feet from
the property line, however, they proposed the one-story units 52 f~et -from the
property line; that if subject petition were developed for single-family homes,
much of the property would be used for public street purposes, while they
planned to provide streets built to City standards - they would not be public
streets; ana that this would provide a quality development which would attract
a better class of people wantinq this type of living environment and which
would bring in a better tax revenue than R-1 but still would be compatible with
R-1.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21, 1972 72-570
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-17~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1336~ AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 7878 (Continued)
Mr. John Hardke (no address) appeared before the Commission in opposition and
requested that subject petitions be continued because of the fact that the
property to the east was a new tract and few people had been notified; that
he was not notif.ied and lived one block away; that the homes were in the price
range of $33,000 to $45,000, and the price of the condominium would be consider-
ably less than the value of these homes; that in addition, they were propoaing
11 units per acre, while the RS-5000 Zone had slightly over 6 units per aczet
that he did not know ff he qualified as an Anaheim resident since he had lived
in this area on].y five weeks, but he wanted the Commission to help the home-
owners in that area; and that he had moved to Anaheim because he wanted his
children to attend Anaheim schools for a better education, and he did not want
the city schools to become overcrowded.
Commissioners Gauer and Kaywood noted that the school enrollment had been
droppinq for the past several years, therefore, overcrowdinq did not appear to
be a problem.
Mr. Don Gionetto, 925 Claytor Circle, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion, reviewing the Raport to the Commission statement regarding the fact that
the zoning ~soposed did not meet the intent of the General Plan, and the in-
consistency of price range of those unit~ did not meet the price range of the
homes in close proxim3ty.
Mr. Garcia, in rebuttal, stated that economics should not dictate the zoning
for the property; that the statistics would bear out the fact that a develop-
ment of this type would generate less children than an R-1 development; that
the front yard waiver was being sequested because they were proposing private
drives to provide for more grPen area, and the garages would be very close to
the private drives.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Seymour observed that the proposed development was an outstanding plan,
but the most important thing to consider for this property was whether it was
best to be developed for low density or low-medium density, and in answering
that, the Commission would have to look for some reason, but the only reason
he had heard was the need for greater yield because of the cost of the land,
and then inquired what other reasons were there for the Commission to consider
higher density.
Mr. Garcia noted that if subject property were developed with single-family
homes, there would be two-story homes within 25 feet of the property line,
while they were proposing only one-story within 52 feet, and that because they
wanted this development to be compatible with the existing R-1, this was the
reason fos the buffering proposed.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that although the developer had indicated there
was 25 feet of landscaping alonq the north property line, this was not the full
20 feet required by the Commission because parking was proposed in this 25-foot
landscaped area.
Mr. Garcia then presented several alternatives for this 25-foot landscape
buffez strip and reviewed them.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the 20-foot buffer strip adjacent to R-I was
intanded to minimize noise from cars parkinq in a multiple-family development.
Mr. Garcia staY.ed that they would be receptive to any of the alternatives
just reviewed. '
Commissioner Farano noted that the petitioner indicated they were providinq
this landscape buffer strip on an avarage of 25 feet, but from his review of
the plans, there was no average of 20 feet in a number of instances - it was
considerably less, therefore, the Commission could require a minimum 20-foot
bufier strip if subject petitions were approved.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AuguSL 21, 1972 72-571
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-17~ CO'.:DITIONAL USE PERMIT 4f0. 1336, AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 7878 (Continued)
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to questioning by Commissioner
Farano, stated this was the first time staff had seen Lhese parking layouts,
and then inquired of the developer as to the number of parking spaces proposed
under Proposal "C"; whereupon Mr. Garcia stated there still would be two park-
.iy spaces in a garage for each unit, hut there would be no guest parking.
Mr. Roberts then noted for the ^.ommission that there was no specific standard
in the ordinance requiring this guest parking but was a Commission policy when
considering PRD's.
Commissioner Farano noted that if Proposal "C" was considered, this would
reduce the parkinq by 43 spaces; whereupon Mr. Garcia stated those would be
the spaces that intruded into the landscape setback.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of four-bedroom units; whereupon
Mr. Garcia stated there were only two and three-bedroom units, but then noted
that the break%own of the units on the site plan indicated 8 four-bedroom units,
46 three-bedroom units, and 29 two-bedroom units.
Commissioner Gauer inquired what was so different about this property that should
make the Commission favorably consider the zoninq requested since the property
had been owned by the same property owner for a number of years, and if he
wanted to develop the propesty, it should be developed for R-1, therefore, it
would appear that the petitioner had held out this property for a more intense
use or greater return for the land.
One man in the audience indicated he was in favor of the proposal; whereupon
Chairman Seymour reopened the hearing.
Ms. Jerry Tedder, 929 Nordica Street, appeared before the Commission and stated
he was in favor of the proposed development; that the homes to the east were
very close to the property line, but his question was how binding were the
development plans, and that the development could provide parallel parking
which would still provide the buffering which the Commission was desirous of
having.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired of staff whethes or not more parking was.required
for four-bedroom units; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that in the R-2 and R-3
Zones l~s parking spaces were required for two-bedraom units, and anything above
two bedrooms were required to provide 2~ parkinq spaces, and the proposal had a
ratio of 2~i parking spaces per ~anit which would cover all bedrooms - that, of
course, was if the 43 auest parking spaces were included.
Chairman Seymour noted that althouqh this proponal was well designed and laid
out, he could not see that anything had changed in this area to warrant deviat-
ing from the General Plan; that the size and shape of the parcel was alm~st
square and would appear to be ideally suited for subdivison for R-1; that Lhe
only thing that might justify increasing the density was the price of tiie land;
that the price of the land had increased, and economically the developers could
not build the homes; that the developer had done an admirable job in buffering
the project f.rom the existing residential uses, but he could not see where this
would be sufficient justification for considezing an increase in density for
the area; and that no hardship had been demonstrated.
Commissioner Seymouz offezed Resolution No. PC72-224 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Petition for
Reclassification No. 72-73-17 on the basis that the proposed reclassification
was not in conformance with the land use designation of the General Plan; that
there had been no land use changes in the area to warrant favorable considera-
tion of an increase in density over that projected on the General Plan; that
the size and shape of the parcel was such that it could be subdivided for
development with single-family homes; that no evidence was presented to justify
consideration of an increase in density as required by Code. (See Resolution
i3ook)
~
~
I4INUTES~ CI'rY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 21~ 1972 ~2'S~2
RECI~ASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-17r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1336~ AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 7878 (Continued)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gaue~~ Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENi: COMMISSIONERS: Allre@, Herbst.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-225 and moved for its passage
and adoption tc~ deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1336 on the basis
that since the Plar.ning Commission had recommended disapproval of t',a reclassi-
fication of subjPCt ~raperty. the request~d conditional use permit, tcgether
with waivers, could nat be exercised on the property within the existing zoning;
and that waiver la was denied on the basis that a reduction in the front set-
back along Wagner Avenue and State College Boulevard to the extent requested
would not allow for adequate visual screening of the qarage doors and garage
door openings along those two arteria~ hiqhways. !See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed ay the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AB3ENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Allred and Herbst absent), to deny Tentative Map
of Tract No. 7878 on the basis that the Planning Commission recommended dis-
approval of Reclassification No. 72-73-17 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1336,
and development of the tract would not be possible under the existing zoning.
PC. PLANNED COMMUNITY,
20NE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 123A(REAPVERTISED)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenuc,
Anaheim, California to consider amendments to Title
18, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.57, PC,
Planned Community, Zone, incorporating the Zoning
Element into said zone; and to consider amendments
to General Plan AmendmQnt No. 123A to establish a
2oninq Element.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that subject code amendment and General
Plan amendment had been continued from the August 7, 1972 meeting to allow time
for the Planning Commission to hold a work session with the City Attorney to
discuss his concerns regarding the legality of the existing PC 2one; that at
the conclusion of the work session, the Commission had directed staff to obtain
copies of the ordinances under which the rommurities of Mission Viejo. Laguna
Niguel, and Irvine were developed and to report back to the Commission concern-
inq any problems encountered in the administration and enfozcement of regula-
tions applicable to these communities.
Mr. Roberts then noted that several Cali£ornia agencies were slso contacted by
telephone and ordinances from approximately 25 California agencies were reviewed
to determine whether other communities had zoning vehicles comparable to the
Anaheim PC Zone concept; that only five of these agencies, the Cities of
Fre~ont, Newport Beach and San Juan Capistrano, as well as the Counties of
Orange and Santa Clara, were found to have ordinances comparable to the City
of Anaheim's PC 2one; that these ordinances would provide for a wide variety
of land use £orms and permit the option of development either under standards
of existing zone classifications - or some modification thereof - or the
establishment of entirely new development standards tailored to the individual
pzoject; that statements of experiences in the adAinistration and enforcement
of PC regulations were limited; that San Juan Capistrano had not processed any
applications under their regulation5; *_hat in the Cities of Fremont and Newport
Beach, developments under the PC were primarily involved with the.PRD's and
limited commercial support facilities; and that no statement of experience was
obtained from the County o£ Santa G~ara.
~
MINUTES, ~ITY PLANNII'vG COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-573
PC. PLANNED COMMUNI^'Y ZONE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123A (READVERTISED
Mr. Roberts also noted~that of the agencies contacted, the County of Orange was
found to have the most experience with administretion and enforcement of PC
regulations with approximately 25 planned communities, including all or major
portions of Laguna Niquel, Mission Viejo, and Irvine planned communities
established under Con-^-t.y regulations, having formal procedure approved and
adopted within the PC District, the Development Plan, and all Standards of
Development were similar in nature to the existing Anaheim Planned Community
Zone; and that the developer co•ald choose to utilize development standar3s of
existing zones, make modifications to existing zones, or establish entirely
new development standards for a particular project - whichever development
criteria was selected must be recorded with the Orange County Recorder; that
the County's PC District was not an overlay zone since all properties within
the Planned Community area, regardless of land use - industrial, commercial,
or residential - were classified PC, and the differentiations of planned
communities was accomplished by carrying over the project name, for example,
"Rossmoor PC", "Lakeview PC", "Laguna Niguel PC", etc.; that actua2 building
construction was subject to Planning Commissi~n approval of one of the
alternates of recordation of a final subdivison map in compliance with conditions
for approval of the tentative map, approval of standards for the specific area
propo~ed for development, or approval of a conditional use permit for a specific
development which did not have standards approved when the zone was established.
Mr. Roberts further noted that staff was advised that although the County PC
District in most cases had been an effective i~plementation too7, some diffi-
culties had been experienced in administration of regulations, namely: 1)
lack of uniformity in zoning regulations caused by approval of zone classifica-
tions in individual PC's not in conformance with the requiations of established
County zones which created 25 separate zoning ordinances for the 25 developed
PC's - the City of Fremont also reported some difficulties in administration
due to the lack of uniformity in zone classifications and regulations caused by
establishment of individual "tailored" zones; Z) changes in ownership on un-
developed parcels within an approved PC had raised questions regarding the
equitable assignment of development densities to the developing parcel and to
those yet to be developed, for instance, if an overa].1 density of 4 dwelling
units per acre was approved for a 200-acre PC, making a total of 800 DU's,
and 100 acres had been developed at a density uf 5 DU's per acre, or a total
o£ 500 DD's, what portion of the remaining 300 authorized units could be
developed on an undeveloped 20-acre parcel under new and separate ownership
within the Planned Community.
Mr. Roberts, in conclusion, noted that when staff had asked for suggestions
as to what changes might be made to the PC District that would reduce ambigui-
ties and problems related to administration and enforcement of regulations, a
representative of the County Plannir~g Lepartment suggested that: a) dwelling
unit densities should be stipulated within definable areas of the planned com-
munit}! and b) established zone classifications, with variance as required, be
assiqned to all properties within the PC District rather than permit individual
zone classifications within each planned community; and that from comments of
the concern expressed by the County, it could be determined they were similar
to the concerns expressed by the City Attorney.
Mr. James Barisic, representing Anaheim Hills, appeared before the Commission
and noted he had very little to add to the investigation made by staff, however,
they would concur that at this time these was a need to establish some type of
zone as to the related use and density; that he knew the Planning Commission
was frustrated because of the zone change when it was first considered, and
the Commission was disturbed that the original intent of the PC Zone would no
lonaer be in force; that at the study session with the City Attorney, consider-
able discussion was held, however, he did not know how much had been resolved,
but it would appear from the Repozt to the Commission by staff that in order
to implement the PC Zone to some effective point, then a zoning element would
have to be established, and he wovld ask the Planning Commission to establish
this zoning element, however, this did not preclude staff, Planning Commission,
and City Council from working with Anaheim Hills to establish hillside zoning;
and that he would request the C;ommission to proceed with the establishment of
the zoning element so that they could proceed with their development plans.
u
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY •'LANNING COMMISSZON, August 21, 1972 72-574
PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123A ~READVERTISED
Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, representing himself and the Santa Ana
Canyon Improvement Association, appeared before the Commission and stated he
had thouqht all of the problems had been resolved in the PC Zone; that he was •
more concerned Mith the entire 4200 acres than the portion which Mr. Barisic
wanted to have the zoning element established on under General Plan Amendment
No. 123A; that residents now living in the canyon realized that development was
proposed with all the various densiti~:s, as well as commercial, but they were
primarily concerned that the entire canyon be developed in an orderly manner;
that it. would be for the good of the community if better homes, condominiums,
and R-2 and R-3 were considered; that the residents of the area still wanted
to see what was proposed for the entire 4200 acres; that he was aware the Com-
mission were not builders,and hillside development was difficult ,property to
develop and establish a.proposed criteria, therefore, anything that appeared
very difficult to develop should be looked at so that something good could be
proposed for those difficult areas; that if R-2 or R-3 was proposed, then the
development should be looked at on an overall picture - he would suggest that
development in the canyon, because the potential was there, should not go "hog
wild" so that three years down the road where formerly it was proposed to be
developed for R-1, R-2 was now being proposed or had been developed, and if the
balance were maintained the density still could be supported : long as it stayed
within the general concept and requirements; and that proposed developers did feel
this land would be developed, while others felt it would remain as open space,
therefore, he would suggest that somethinq be done in the canyon - if this was
tc be the future area of Anaheim - do it in a good way.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Roberts noted that he had limited his remarks to the pzoposed amendments to
the PC Zone, and the second part of the public hearing was General Plan Amend-
ment No. 123A wherein the addition of a zoning element had to be considered,
and this would be consistent with the proposed language which the City Attorney
developed; that Anaheim Hills had also requested an expansion of their planned
community - one was C-H and the other was R-2 - and since ~the last meeting
Anaheim Hills had submitted a revision to their zoning element, chanqing three
of their proposals from RS-5000 to R-1.
Commissioaer Kaywood inquired whether any of the 18-acre parcelswere in the
agricultural preserve; whereupan Mr. Barisic replied that they were not.
Commissioner Rowland noted that he may have caused as much of a problem on this
public hearing, however, he was willing to consider General•Plan Amendment No.
123A on the basis that under the ordinance presently existing and in force the
developer always had the option of accepting zoning as it presently existed in
the community or developing within the PC Zone; that for specific parcels, as
he understood it, they always had the option to state their acceptance for the
zoning standards presently existing.
Discussion was held between the staff and the Commission regarding avai].able
tools to a developer within the existing PC Zone and the City of Anaheim Zoning
Ordinance as to site development standards wherein the petitioner presently had
three alternatives for developing under the PC Zone, namely, 1) accept the site
develoFment standards of the R-1 Zone and build the area within those standards;
2} accept the site development standards of the R-1 Zone with deviations by way
of a variance or conditional use permit; and 3) establish a complete set of
development criteria that would cover development of the area.
Commissioner Rowland noted that he would not, under any circumstances, vote for
the PC Zone as now being proposed on the basis that it constituted only an
alternative because of hardships imposed, and there would be hours of admini-
strative work and time to insure the uninsurable - the perfeat zone; that the
topography of the area would dictate the densit~~ - this would hold true on 200
acres or 4000 acres, and the way it was being developed out there was one of
three ways of doing this under the existinq zone; that in the environmental im-
pact statement it was apparent physically on the land that the question was not
valid or peculiar but was an example, and it was philosophically bad - it was
not practical, and the only thing the PC ZoT~ ,~p ~com lI,ished was a guarantee that
every development would be accomplished by ~erere-"l~T~~E~~ '~-i-i°= % that it
wauld be difficult to administer; and that it was childish of the Commission to
accept something that had no more enforcement.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-575
PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE AND GENERAL PLAN A~IENDMENT NO. 123A (READVERTISED)
Cnairman Seymour then determined that action be taken on che General Plan Amend-
ment No. 123A establishing the zoning element before any further discussion was
held on the PC Zone.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-226 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption to adopt and recommend to the City Council the establishment of a
zoning element in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 123A, and that the
23.5 acres proposed for inclusion into the planned community area be included
since it appeared to be a logical extension of the existing 652-acre site
because it wa.s contiguous to said acreage. (See Resolution Boo3c)
On roll call the foregoing resolution wae passe,d by the following vnte:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
Mr. Roberts noted that the present lanquage of the PC Zone regarding certain
elements that must be submitted with the provisions was in addition to an
element for the physical development of the property consi~tent with what the
reclassification indicated, and if Anaheim Hills submitted a zoning element
which indicated they wanted to utilize X number of zones in a given number of
planning areas in which they wc~uld develop within those zone standards.- in
this way they could benefit by having the additional zoning element adopted
and all elements developed in the zoning standards - if they were ready to
develop they would have to present final specific plans, and upon approval of
these specific plans by the City Council, the ordinance could be read for a.
given area as far as the reclassification was concerned, and a PC Zone did not
chanqe; then in response to a request by Chairman Seymour, stated that the net
effect of his previous statement was that a given resolution of intent would be
acted upon if the City Council concurred with the plans Anal-eim Hills submitted -
then they co~ild come in with their final specific plan - i.e., R-1 for acreage
which would con£orm with the standards of that zone, and if they proposed to
deviate, they would have to file a conditional use permit or var.iance, and
Mr. Geisler's position was that some lot subdivisions would require a condi-
tional use permit.
;~;.
Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that this was all outmoded.
Commissioner Gauer stated that Mr. Geisler was the City Attorney, and he, as a
Commissioner, could not agree with Commissioner Rowland because the City Attorney
had to interpret the Code, although he could not understand it himself in the
first place.
Commissioner Rowland then noted that with the rulinq presented by the City
Attorney - who had stated before that nu zoning law was enf~rceable - although
it was not illegal, therefore, he could not see any reason for requiring Anaheim
Hills to develop that property with flat land standards - it would not make sense.
Commissioner Farano then stated perhaps the Commission should establish hillside
zoning.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the
Planned Community Zone not be amended on t e b.s'~s that: 1) the Planned Com-
munity 2one as presently written was as P~ as any zone within th~~ ~y or
any other city; 2) that adoption of this amendment would guarantee ae--wi+~~"~
a~i~r of variances with each and every applicztion; 3) that it would increase
the work load of every department except the City Attorney's o££ice - that it
was punitive to the people most directly involved, the developers, the planners,
and the ultimate purchasers of the property; and that it was his assumption that
the developers would provide development standards.
The fnregoing motion lost by a vote of three "no's" (Commissioners Farano, Gauer,
and Seymour) to two "aye's" (Commissione:s Kaywood and Rowland).
Continued discussion was held by the Commission and 5caff regarding the manner
in which this impasse could be resolved, and upon its conc.lusion, Commissioner
Rowland offered a motion, seconded by ComRissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED,
to continue consideration of amendments to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code,
Chapter 18.57, PC Zone, to the meetinq of September 18, 1972, to allow staff
time to make further studies regarding hillside zoning.
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 21~ 1972 72-576
TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - Commissiones Kaywood offerad a motion to adjourn the
meeting to Auguat 31, 1972, at 7:30 p.m. for a joint
meetinq with the Redevelopment Commission. Commissioner
Seymour seconded the motioi:. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeti.ng adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
Reapectfully submitted,
Q-~7~~
ANN KREHS, Secretary
Anaheim City P:anning Commission
AK:hm
0 R C 0 MICROfILMING SERVICE, INC.
io~o ~;~~; a~~~. ~~b.~zzo
Anah~• m. ~a:iternin