The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1972/09/18~ ~ i{ 1 City Hall ~. Anaheim, California September 18, 1972 ; A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY P?_2,NNING COMN.ISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anal.eim City Planning Commission was MEETING cal3ed to order by Chairman Seymour at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT - CODiM7.SS70NER5: None. PRESEI3T - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: FLank Lowry Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones Zoning supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant 7nning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE ~JF - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of the meetings of August 21 and THE MINUTES September 6, 1972, was deferred to the meeting of October 2, 1972. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. AUDREY L. LANG, 832~i South NO. 72-73-18 Philadelphia ~treet, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of VARIANCE NO. 2427 land having a frontage 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 centerline of South Street, and further described as 832 South Philadelphia Street. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE- FAMILY FESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE (a) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (b) MINIMUM SETBACK FROM ALLEY, (c) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, (d) MINIMUM DZSTANCE BETWEcN BUILDINGS, (e) MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS TO GARAGES AND (f) MINIMUM INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH FOUR UNITS. Subject petitions we_e continued from the August 2.1, 1972 meeting to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans. Chairman Seymour noted that a letter had been received from the petitioner requesting that subject petitions be withdrawn. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to grant the petitioner permission to withdraw Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-18 and Var.iance No. 2427, tk:ereby terminating all proceedir.gs on said petitions. 72-618 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhIMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-619 RECLASSIFICATZON - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ()RANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL N0. 72-73-8 DISTRICT, Attention of C. 12. Nelson, 400 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California 92701, Owner; PACIFIC AMERICAN VARIANCE NO. 2403 PROPERTIES, INC., Attention of Bernard Perlin, 3670 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010, Agents property CONDITIONAL USE descsibed as: A rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land con- PERMIT N0. 1330 sisting of approximately 3.8 acres having a frontage of approximately 600 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, and being located at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRZCULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAZVE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET UF SINGLE- FAMILY RESZDED'TIAL 20NE TO CONSTRUCT THREE OFFICE BUILD- INGS ON PORTZONS B AND C. REQUESTED CONUITIONAL USE: ESTABLZSH A CARWASH ON PORTION A. Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 24, August 7, and September 6, 1972, for further study and possible revised plans. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner was again requesting a continuance for the submission of revised plans. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts requested that the Planning Commission defer any action on this petition until a representative of the agent was present, since it would appear he was not in the Council Chamber, and that staff would contact him to determine whether he had anythinq that would enlighten the Commission as to what was being accomplished; whereupon Chairman Seymour noted this would be deferred until later.in the meeting. (See page 72-630) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, PC, PLAIdNED COMMUNITY, Anaheim, California, to consider amendments to ZONE Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.57, PC, Planned Community, Zone, incorporating the Zoning Element into said zone. Subject proposed amendment was continued from the meeting of August 21, 1972, for further study. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Commission would recall the proposed amendment changes to the Planned Community Zone were suggestions as the result of a discussion with the City Attorney as to his concern with possible legal prorlea:s due to the presenc language of the PC Zone; that the Commission had received copies as the zone was now proposed; and that he would try to explain this detail if the Commission so desired. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted that rather than adopt the changes in the PC 2one as proposed in its present form with the implications of the Commission possib.ly sitting at meetings week after week with tons and tons of figures, drafting recommendations and passing them on to the City Council to consider in the same manner, the Commission should determine that the PC Zone be re- structured and written with adequate zones, descriptions and development standards for the circumstance being met; that he considered the proposed changes a heinou~ thing to apply flat land zoning for that difficult terrain; that it would create a monumental work load fur the staff, all for the purpose of finding a posture that would be more defensible in the court of law. In addition, at the same time he would recommend strongly another procedure be con- stituted in the City of Anaheim, that of a Zoning Administrator - iic may be unpopular, but it was the on?.y way to handle a messy situatioz that wouid occur because of the City A} ~rney's office re~ommendation; that many cities throughout the United States had Zoning Administrators dealing administratively ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, September 18, 1972 72-620 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18. ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ PC, PLANNn'D COMMUNITY, ZONE through public hearings with small ordinary matters, such as setbacks, d.stance between buildings, etc. - these were normally granted; that he thought this office should be established now because with the PC Zone as set up, and if the City Council adopted it as the City Attorney wanted it to be adopted, there wot~ld be many meetings where the Commission could never satisfy the agenda - the Commission would never complete their agenda and could possibly be holding meetings until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. Commissioner Gauer observed that this 2oning Administrator position would not be a full-time job for one person to handle. Commissioner Rowland stated that this would be an additional duty to expedite zoning matters; that the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council consider t.his, but he would still pursue the Planned Community Zone, and the Commission was going about it reasonably since they were doing nothinq, therefore, they were r.ot making any mistakes; that the Planned Community Zone should be rewritten so that each e].ement had its own development standards to reflect the terrain; that he would never vote for the Planned Community Zone change as proposed; and that he thought this would be a backward step instead. Commissioner Farano inquired whether Commission Rowlan3 intended that the City establish or create hillside zoning; whereupon Commissioner Rowland stated that he felt stan@ards would be adequate. Commissioner Farano observed that he did not know whether it would be possible to establish standards without zones; tnat it was his feeling that new hillside zones should be drafted, but if ii could be handled through standards, that would be satisfactory to him. • Commissioner Rowland noted that the bulk of the hillside development would be under the planned unit development or planned residential development, and there would not be any ordinary development because of the topography. Commissioner Farano noted th~t if the standards came to pass, and assuming the City Council would adopt these hillside development standards o•r zones as the Planning Commission would recommend, wouldn't that alleviate the necessity for a Zoning Administrator, since he felt this might be outside of the framework of the Planning Commission; tliat the Development Services Department as yet had not been able to do a lot of the projects that the Commission had asked them to do, and he could not see how they could assume a new responsibility - would this be necessary? Commissioner Rowland noted that it was necessary to have a Zoning Administrator in order to allaw the planning staff time to do the planning functicns - that they were spending too much time because of these many public hearings; that the hillsides had difficult characteristicss that the easily developed land - flat land - was already 85+k developed west of the river, and any development would be on marginal property; and that east of the river, because of its difficult terrain, it would be a more complicated planning problem, and the position of a Zoning'Administrator was needed now more than before so that staff will be free to do a long-range planning work. Chairman Seymour noted that the action before the Commission would appear to be two separate m~tions: one to continue the Amendment to Title 18, PC Zone, and the other to recommend the establishment of the position of Zoning Admini- strator to the City Council, however, he would like to have staff inform the Commission as to the length of time it would take to 3raft these proposed vtandards so that the motion for continuance would be to a date certain. ~'~fter a brief discussion with stafi'., it was determined that the earliest cunsideration for the PC Zone amendment would be January 8, 1973. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and conti.r.ue consideration of amendment to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.57, PC Zone - Zoninq Element, to allow staff time to draft either hillside zonings and/or development standard:s for each element of the PC Zone. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the mc~tion. MOTION CARRIED. . w •4 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 1£S, 19~2 72-621 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE Further discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposal to recom- mend to the City Council the position of Zoning Administrator be established; that if this position became a fact, that any action taken by the Zoning Administrator would be subject to appeal to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, as were actions taken by the Planning Commission wherein the developer/petitioner would have the right to appeal any Planning Commission action. Commissioner Farano noted that he did not feel the proposed Zoning Administrator position would be contrary to the charter, and perhaps an ordinance would have to be established by the City. Chairman Seymour noted that it was his feeling the posi.tion of Zoning Admini- strator would expedite matters for applicants who could move ahead, and in the event they did not like the ruling of the 2oning Administrator, it could be appealed to the Planning Commission/City Counc.il as was the case now; and that it would appear it would not be necessary to create a new position but to re- align the existing position. Commi~sioner Rowland stated that it was his firm belief that the establishment of a 2oning P.dministrator would relieve the amount of work in the Report to the Commission. Commissioner Rowland offered a mo~ion to respectfully request that the City Council seriously consider the establishment of the position of Zoning Admini- strator to handle variarces of the magnitude that would be later designated. After further discussion with Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry regarding the motion, Commissioner Rowland withdrew his motion and continued consideration of it to the October 2 meeting for a report from the City Attorney regarding its legality. VARIANCE N0. 2385 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GILBERT U. KRAEMSR, JR.~ P. 0. Box 274, Flacentia, California 92670, Owner; JOHN G. VALENTINE, 635 East rhapman Avenue, Orange, California 92666, Agent; requescing WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED USES, (b) REQUIRED SOLID MASONRY W'e1LL ALONG RESIDENTIAL BOONDARY, (c) REQUIRED SOLID MASONRY WALL AROUND OUTDOOR USE, AND (d) PERMITTED SIGNS TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO RACE TRACK WITH VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE AND RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 526 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 690 feet, and being located approximately 2800 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Bou~evard. Property presentiy classi£ied R•-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the July 10, 1972 meeting for a ~pecial study, and frum the September 6, 1972 meeting at the request of the petitioner. Several persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location o£ subject property, uses estab'lished in close proximity, the reason for continuances from previous meetings, and the proposal to establish a recreational vehicle outlet. that was designed to offer a consistent image to the consumer in terms of appeazance and identification, as well as a complete line of all types of recreational sport vehicles under one brand name; that Fastrack was a leisure- time vehicle sales showroom center and a leisure-time racing amusement area combined; that the showroom would be used to exhibit a full line of recreational vehicles, including snowmobiles, mini-bikes, dune bugqies, motorcycles, a11- terrain vehicles, campers, boats, and bicycles~ that the applicant indicate3 the vr~*!ai•y purpose of the race track was to generate pedestrian traffic flow through the showrbom, thereby proviuing exposure to the full line of recrea- tional vehicles; that the track itself offered the opportunity for the indi- vidual to drive an automobile competing against an electronic timing device which would display the amount of. time it takes to traverse the course; that the automobile that would be used would be a Subaru sedan which had been modified to include a Fiber-glas body resembling a racing-type yehicle; that the vehicle would be powered by a. small, two-cylinder, two-cycle engine which wa~ modified to limit the speed of the vehicle to a maximum of 15 to 18 miles per hour; that the best times, therefore, were not achieved by speed racing ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-622 VARIANCE NO. 2385 (Continued) but rather by skillful drivin~, and Fastrack driving was, in essence, skill driving; that the submitted plan indicated the parking area and salesroom would be located near La Palma Avenue, with the track area being located to the south near the Riverside Freeway; and that the submitted plan also indi- cated a maintenance building located in the southwest corner of the project containing major automobile service and tune-up areas in addition to a large parts area. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evsluation, noted that the waiver for the permitted uses was being requested because the proposed use was not permitted in any specific zone in the City of Anaheim, and the standards utilized in evaluating the use wauld be the standards of the underlying industrial zone; that waiver of the masonry wall adjacent to the R-A Zone was requested because the applicant was proposing a 6-foot high metal fence along the easterly boundary of the track, separating the single-family unit on the a6~acent property from the proposed use; that the metal fence would not be oonstructed along the property boundary line but would, instead, be located from 44 to 100 feet westerly of the easterly boundary line; that waiver of the 6-Eoot masonry wall around the outdoor use was being requested because the applicant was proposing the 6-foot hiyh metal fence along the easter:ly area and also along the southerly boundary of the race track, and, again, the metal fence woulci be provided adjacent to the track and located from 30 to 190 feet north of the southerly boundary line; tha't the applicant was requesting a waiver o£ the permitted signs to establish a roof sign, whereas the industrial zone did not permit roof signs, however, the roof siqn would be the only sign on the property and would be located 8 feet above the two-story building and would contain approximately 36 square feet; that it would appear a primary considera- tion in the determining if this were a permitted use in the M-1 Zone would be the noise level created by the race trackJ that the decibel readings of com- parable facilities were not available at the time of the writing of the Report to the Commission; that the applicant indicated that information would be available at the public hearing, however; that if the figures on the noise l~vels indicate there i~ a possible conflict of the noise level of the track and the surrounding industrial properties, the Commission might consider an a7.ternative !-o the submitted plan wherein an earthen berm and landscaping c~~uld be provided in the large area between the track and the property line along the east and south; that although the freeway was located to the south across La Mesa Street, the site plan couid also be revised by shifting the track and building southerly and providing an earthen berm and landscaping along La Palma Avenue, thereby shielding the noise of. the proposed use from the proposed industrial uses across La Palma Avenue to the north; that another consideration was the propc~ed method of test driving the various recreatioral vehicles being sold in this showroom, since the track, as indicated by the applicant, was designed to accommodate one type of vehicle only, and the Commission migl:t be concerned about the additional tra£fic in the Northeast Industrial Area created by test driving of the various recreational^type vehicles. In conclusion, Mr. McDaniel noted that• the Commission might wish to determine the appropriateness of allowing the establishment of this recreational vehicle sales and service center and the restaurant and race track at this location in the Northeast industrial Area, however, the Commission :night note that the applicant had provided the `rontage road along the Riverside Freeway in accord- ance with Area Development Plan No. 108. Finally, the applicant had indicated to sta°f that after an exhaustive and unsuccessful search for property in the Commercial-Recreation Zone, he determined that the proposed location was most suitable for the proposed u=e. Mr. John Valentine, agen?: for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated 'ne would give a sliort repor~: regarding what he had accomplishe6 during the past two weeks, b~acause the Planning Commission at the last meeting stated the proposed use would be an acceptable use in the C-R Zone, however, the use was not permitted in any zone in Anahei^~ and a conditional use permit would be necessary; that in analyzing the C-R zone, the area~ under considera- tion would be around the Anaheim Stadium, the Convention Center, or Di.sneyland; that the proposed and adjoining uses were within the scope of the Commercial- Recreation Zone; that Paci£ic World had most of the property tied up along ~ ~ MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-623 VARIANCE NO. 2385 (Continued) State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue; that prope;rty adjacent to the stadium had its ownership in the East, and when he had inquirc:d, he was told he had thirty minutes to place his offer si.nce another offer was al`ceady made; that there was property available around Ball Road and Walnut'Street, but this had been turned down because an overnight camper/trailer use had been proposed, and the resident: had appeared in opposition; that property along Harbor Boulevard and Conventi.on Way had a'value of about $3.48 to $4.50 per square foot, and although he knew economics was not a factor before the Commiss~on, this price was too high and was high-rise development prices; that even chough the Commission indicated thera were 330 acres available, a considerable amount was tied up in options; and that although he had checked this out, it was not in as great detail as possible, but there was one 16-acre area that was available adjacent to the Ckristian Center, however, their needs were only for 5 acres, and the property could not be sold in portions since it was proposed to be sold for $2,400,000; that they had met with the planning staff as to possible locations of this proposed use, but with the trend established by the City Council in the area under consideration, it looked to them as though the movie studio and the golf course had established a precedent aZong the freeway south of La Palma Avenue, which would indicate the area was being converted to commercial- recreation uses. Furthermore, the biggest traffic problem in that area was from Autonetics itself, and one of the biggest problems the industrial real- tors had in trying to promote that area was the plight of the area regarding traffic problems during specific hours of the day; that traffic from this use would be a steady flow which would not be letting out at a specific time during the day, sucr as industry did; that many people had a lot of concern with reference to a race track as set forth in the Report to the Commission, but it was actually a skilled driving course with no more than three vehicles maximum that could possibll~ use the track; that they were not racing against each other, but was a course where each individual was racing against his own time on an electric time clock; that as far as the noise factor was con- cerned, the maximum noise level allowed on Yiiqhways was 89 decibels, and at the present time the Riverside Freeway was producing 94 deci.bels, whi~e the automobile they would be using on this track would produce 72 decibels, khich complied with the 1975 standards as far as automobiles were concerned, and this study was done by Cal Tech; that this course was used by driver e3ucation through all of the high schools as a skill .Sriving course, and it was an opportunity to save taxpayers money as far as having a facility in the city for the use of the younq people in driver educationj that they had a unique usage - a usage he felt there was a great demand for; that as far as testing of vehicles was concerned, ahout 60$ of these vehicles were tliose that would be allowed on highways and about 40~ were off-of-the-road recreational vehi- cles; and that as to driving the off-of-the-road recreational vehicles, thi~ could pcssibly be done with having demonstrations at Saddleback Park where these off-of-the-road vehicles could be tested, however, none of this cype would be tested on the property. Furthermore, other vehicles permitted on the road would be the same as testing an automobile from any autcmobile agency; and that the report submitted to the Commission rather adequately gave a synopsis of what a Fastrack was all about. In addition, he was happy to see the City of Orange was adopting an industrial ordinance which they had firmed up considerably on the past industrial ordinance. but they did have the foresight to look to recreational usage as a usage that was coming into effect, and he personally felt the trend had heen established in the area since he had sat through prior hearings and knew ,~hat had been said; that he had listened to a situation where Autonetics stated there was an agreement between the City and industry which should be upheld, but he knew for a fact that had Autonetics been able to release their Eacilities in Anaheim, they would have been an industry in Laguna Niquel, and he did not feel this was a tv~o-way situation; that he served on the Induatrial Committee of the Chamber o£ Commerce zn the City of Orange, and he felt he was aware of the situation and the problems and the compatibility that were necessary to make industry succeed, and this was a usage that he thought was compatible - one that would generate enough revenue for the City and one that would not cause a blight on the industrial area, but, in fact, would be a complementary situation. Mr. Bruce Kenson, General Services Department, North American Rockwell, 3430 Miraloma Avenue, appeared before the Commission in oppositi.on and stated that many of the statements of opposition expressed by a representative of his company at the September 6, 1972 meeting when Variance No. 2384 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1323 were considered by the Planning Commission, were just as ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAI3NING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-624 VARIANCE NO. 2385 (Continued) • pertinent to subject petition; that they would like to encouraa;^. the Planning Commission and the City of Anaheim to maintain the industrial integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area; and that this proposal would not be in keeping with their request. Mrs. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the ~:ommis- sion and stated she was half against and half for the proposal; that she felt a solid masonry wall should be required between her property and this proposal, not the metal fence which they proposed. Mr. McDaniel noted that the me*al fence would be set bac;,: 30 to 50 feet from the Coykendall property but would be a solid, metal-type fence. Mrs. Coykendall then stated this would be like proposing a plastic fence which would not keep the sound from disxurbing th.em, theref~re, she would urge that: a 6-foot, solid masonry wall be reqnired at the proparty line. and that ~r an E?•-foot wall were provided, this would reflect any noises from the pro*osed use back into subject property where it would not affect adjoining proc::rties -. other than that, she had no opposition to the use. Mr. Jerry Ward, representing the Zndustrial Committee of the Chambar of :'ommer::e and President of the Northeast Anaheim Industrial Association, appearec? Lefore the Commission, stating he represented both organizations who were oF•:~used to tlie proposed use for the same reasons given by the repreaentative of North American Rockwell (Autonetics) and that he did not feel the proposed .Eencing would retain the intensity of noises from the proposed use, which ~ou'Ld affect adjoining industrial propex`ies. Three letters of opposition were read to the Commission by the Commission Secretary. Mr. Valentine, in rebuttal, stated that the block wall mentioned by Mrs. Coykendall could be provided, however, the extra area between the metal fence and the property line, as they proposed, would be used for addit?~nal per.lcir.,; chat at the last public hearing he had heard both the pros and cons regarding the development of Traveland proposed to be located south ot La Falma Avenue, east of Kraemer Boulevard, and he would agree '+~ith statements made by Messrs. Kilroy and Yoder that the proposed use and the previous use would be compatible to the area and would not affect the integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area; that he would agree this integrity should be maintained; that as to comments made 'regarding noise and dust, these race cars would be operated with LPG gaa: that the track would be a paved track, therefore, there would be less noi3e and dust than that created from the Riverside Freeway; and that: he had alrea!y made comments regarding Autonetics and the other developers. THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSSD. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the proposed use would be a permitted I use in the City of Orange's new ordinance; whereupon Mr. Valentine stated that he had worked with the City of Oranqe and with a group of five persons appointeu to the Committee in drafting that ordinance, which w~uld be coming up f~r fi.~st reading Tuesday niqht, and in it it ~tated that recreational uses were subject to a conditional use permit being fil.ed and granted, however, it was a little diffic~;lt for him to state at this time that this use was allowed definitely, but he would say they had opened the door to give consideration to this; that as the Anaheim Planning Commission knew, there were several main arterial highways running through Orange's industrial area which lent themselves to dlfferen~ kinds of uses possibly; whereupon Commissioner Rowland inquired whether other commercial uses would be permitted by conditional use permit, and Mr. Valentine stated that no other rPtail uses but automobile sales would be permitted. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether Mr. Valentine had stated that all high school driver education classes used the Fastrack; whereupon Mr. Valentine stated it was available for them to use and in the past Fastrack they had used many schools' driver education, but it was a skill driving course with a maximum of three cars that would operate on the track at one time. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC~ CONiMISSION, September 1H, 1972 72-625 VARIANCE NO. i385 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood observed that this would make it non-::~abl~~ for such c, driver ~~ducat?on program. Mr. Valentine noted that it would take approximately i= ~~iiav.t:~~• to negotiate the course, and on the average of 2 minutes per parso~7, '~• wo~uld have 90 individuals testing their ekill in an h:;:r. . Commissior.er Kaywood no~s~; tts~t ~rom her underst~.rdir~7 of the high school driver education programs, t?~2s~ were geared to re;.!. :'acuations, ena the pr~posal was geared to one vehicle - the Suharu - a;!~: ?.t would be entirely different than one could finc! on city strer,ts or EYF:P"J1yS, therefore. it wouSd not be a feasible method of using it. t:.r. Valentisie noted that one of the import~;nt thiny; ~to consider, there was a r.._ed f.cr drivers to learn to negotiate z~~o.rve an' =.~arp turn, and this taught ~.r. individual how to use his reflexes and r.eacti~.-., something that wac not ie~~rt:~d on publ.ic street~ and highways. ;:omrtissioner Kaywood notud that whea c.ne ccn5idered one specif.ic car.. this was :xot so because it was geared to no mo_e than 18 rn`~les per hoir; ~th.2reupon in;. vaieatine stated that -Feed as to thP shr:rpr,ess of the curve snd its re- lat.ionship to the 18 miles pei hour when n.eo~tia'=ing said hairpin ~urns cz.r. bn a very high speed. Commissior,er Kaywood rioted that if someor.~ were testing that out and then wer.t out on the road and were doing 60 miles pe. hour, it would be a very quick ~.nd to his learning experience, and really there was no relationship between this and driver education. Mr. Valentine noted that t.est had shown *_hat there L•':-, althouqh re was not the =xpert in this - all he could say w%as what was i~~aicated on t~ze basis of the tests; ~riiereupon Commissioner Kayw~od noted tha+ ,he had taZl:ed with an ei_te.rt and found out tnis was not the 'vest method. Commissioner Herbstt inqu~red whether ur n~t a fee would'oe charqed `or driving cars; whereupon Mr. Va'.~ntine stateii that a`ee would be ci:=_r;~d far going around the track; an: that th;s was an iaterr.3i~onal facility. Cwnmissioner He;:b~*• : thac one of ~h~: rer~sor:s why the motion pict•u:~: ~tuGio tias permitted, as t1.E ~icy Council indicated, was supposedly beca.use they mar:ufactured film, cherefore, how did tha proposed use relate this operatio.n to manufacturing. *"r. Valentine stated Lhat tiiey were not in a simiiar situation, such as th~ movie studio where they were manufa~:turing film, but the movie studio also provided recreational facilities and provided t~~urs of their area, wh:le the proposed use was offering recreationa]. equipment manufactured off-site but woui.•.'. be offered to the people on the site; ihat tnere aould be no ma:~ufacturin~ on tne ~ite, but ic wa~ difficult for owners of these recreational vehicle~ to find a maintenance center for s~~meti:ing that they couid not do t;~~.mselve=, Commissio.*.2;: Y.erbst then inq4_.r~d :vhat the orime use was considered for, suhjecc properLy; whereupon t~.r. ~aler.tine stated the sale of recreational vehi~les was the grime usc; tYiac n i.xochure had been submitted to the Commission indicating the use and :ts operation; tliat it was a unique combz~ation of uses tha* were not allowed in any zone; and i:r:z when public nocices were given if cnis use i w~~ permitted •~.o be estzblished within 300 feet of v r::sid_ntial use. one could expec~ the entiLe Council Chamber to be filled wi.'eh oppo=ition. Commi~<_ioner 9e:bst noted that the petitioner had n~t related ::he us_ they were pr~ooosing as zt pertai.ned to indnstry; whereupon M_. Va~entine stated that this w-xs aii industry fas'. !~ecoming or~e of. the leading indus>tries, and the trend had ?~een escablished in this area; ~nc~. that he had listened ta tht arguments pro and con two weeks ago regardirig whether or not a`~~z~d had been established and what should be permitted in the ax•ea. Comiaissioner Gauer nu*_~d that the Flasning Commiceion had denied the golf course, tt:e movie studio, and Traveland, however, ::he Cii;~ Counr__1 had approved the golf course aild ~o•~ie scudio. C~ ~a ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, Septemb~r 18. 1972 72-6z5 VaRIANCE NO. 2385 (Continved) Coiamissioner Kerbst noted that the Planning Commission had never permitted estsblishment of any retail uses in the Northeast Industrial Area; that one c~ t:rt~ uses recently approved was sErvicing of recreational vehicles, however, no sale:s would be permitted, and if subject petition were appruved, this wou13 open uF~ the door for automobile row. Mr. Valenti*.e stated that this would be a C-2 use, and the Commission hTd stated they Woul.d consider the use favorably in the Commercial-Recreation Area. Commissioner Hezh~st ~oted that the petitioner was proposing two specific uses, one a ride and the zer a commerciaZ operat-ion of selling and maintenance of recr~.ational ve`~icles - this would be simiiar to being automobile row on South Anaheim Bou.:evard, and he could not see anythinq at all that this could be :onsictered cc.~mpatible with industrial uses. Corti:is~~on_r Kaywood inquired as to the purpose of the booklet and why was it writ~=n; w'~:ereaf~on Mr. Valentine stated that Fastrack designed the layout and operation of tn9 facility to apprise interested persons of the purpose of Fastrack. Commissioni~r ':aywood noted that there was a minimum advantage for any drivers ir. th:s tyi.c• of facility, and aft~•r having read the booklet and staff's apprai- sal on the ~aEety aspects, there appeared to be no reference to safety. Commissioner Kaywood thei: read from the brochure as to wnat could bF expected from this type of operation (copy ~n file), commenting that the broc'ZUre did nct indica*e anything about the safety factor. Mr_ Valentine then :~oted that this was a typical type of advertising literature put ont by advertising writers and H•as similar to that seen on TV, but not in actuality as it was set fcrtY: in the =dvertisements, but was necessary te try to ge± oeople interested in a product. Commissioner Seymour inquired, in tre opinion of the agent, what would be the effects cf the existing and future indastrial uses if subjeat netition were agproved; whereupon Mr. Valentine stated t.hat there appeared to be no problem for indu~try in close proximity to Disneylznd, and Disneyland appeared to be compatible with ;r.3ustry there; that many workers in industry ''ound they needed to go elsewhere fc~ relaxation sometimes during their lunch hour, and one could ~c,~t view the succ~ss of the miniature golf course in the area, which had not downgraded the area, and even Autonetics had r.ecreatio.nal facilities within their plant, therefore, it was necessary t~ •.:s~cablish an zrea where the uses cou~d •aork compat::.bly with each other; that this propos~=d use aould no~c be compatible with re:idential uses; an3 that he did not fee.l the use would be dr tri.nental to the %alues of the indu~.t.rial ar.ea. C, airman Seymour then nc+ted that ~o ti,a ::ontrary, the propo~sd use could in- crease the '%>»° ai the pro~.erty to th^ east because of the further i ~ection of commerciat-recreation u~es into the area as to pri^es of land in tiie '%.rth- east Industrial Area. Mr. Va.ientine replied that propert~~ on La Palma Aven~~e ~uas listed at $2i.0i10 per acra to $1.00 per square ioot, all within the area o~ the miniature go7..E course. Chairman Seymour then inquired of the agent, when he w~s )o~k~ng f~r a].ocatic~n in .*.iie Ccmm.>rcial-Recreation Area, it was stated he aoL ta r.c+t fin3 a piece of land of the size desired. Mr. Valentine stated that the area around AnahPim Stadium, the Convention Center, and Disneyland with the n~..mber of people who frequented the area the_E were othez types of buildings in tne area tYat supported the uses established there, he was not talking about the ~c~~tels and restslirant~ that were needed there for support. Chairman Seymour noted that he had ttot checked ~roperty values himself, but it would be logical to assume that if commercial-recreation uses were established in the Northeast Industria] Area, t;his would create ? high2r price on the properties than if developed for industri3l uses. • ...~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOh, Septembar 18. 1'd72 ~2-62~ G'ARIANCE NO. 2385 (Continued) Mr. Valentine replied that he could not vouch io~ that, but when Autonetics went into that area, the value of the property went down because there were traffic problems. Commissioner Gauer observed that the Planning Commission ha3 reviewed this entire situation two weeks ago, ar.d staff had prepared a study of the North- east Industrial Area wherein three alternati.ves had been presented, with the Commission deter7ining that alternative 1, to keep the boundaries of the area and uses as presently existed be adcpted, an3 these alternatives had been debated at length; that even though the miniature golf course was there, the general uses of the area had not changed, and the golf course was a use that could be removed e:sily if some industry wanted that sita for. the^.r purposes; and that the motion picture industry was a permitted use, although the Commission had deried the travel trailer sales and services, therefore, there appeared not to be any change from the action taken by the Commission two weeks ago. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-237 and moved for its passage and adoption to ~eny Petition for Variance ivo. 2385~,on t;ie basis that approval of subject petition would be tantamosnt to a substantial deviation from the Planning CommissAon's policy to retain this area for industrial uses; that the current, ~ong-range industrial development policy was in the best interests for the city and area in general; that the City had made commitments to indus- tries: established and being established in this general area to retain the industrial integrity of the area; that the best buffer between industrial and non-industrial uses was space, such as was provided b~ the Riverside Freeway, which served as the southerly boundary for the Northeast Industrial Area; that the City of Anahei,r,, should maintain its present policy and preserve the currc!nt boundaries of thc- Northeast industrial Area; that industrial development was now incre~sin, in the industrial areas of Anaheim rather than decreasing, and the Northeast Industrial Area could be deve?.oped to satr.ration within twenty years at its present growth rate; that Anaheim had baen one of the best balanced comuiunities in Southern California, and in order to maintain this balance, it was necessary to preserve industrial areas to provide jobs for the increased papiilation that was projected for the residential areas in Santa Ana Canyon and the =urrounding hills and to provide additional tax base for the :;o.mmunity; tha'= the approval of subject petition woula encourage the deterio-ation of the industrial zone; that the proposed use would be more appropriate in the C-R and C-3 Zones due to the sales and thrill rides proposed and should not be considered as a~support industr~; that there had been no land use changes in the area to warrant favorable consideration of breaking down the industrial area with the proposed use; that ~lthough the petitioner was ur.able to find a site in the Commercial-Recreation Area to suit his needs, *.his did not mean that the CommerciaZ-Recreation Area should be permitted to "leap-frog" across the city to be permitted in the Northeast Industrial Area, but perhaps con- sideration shoul3 be given to expandin3 the boundaries of the Commercial- Recreation Area in a logical ~:an:ier aLOUnd the perimeter of the existing boundaries; and that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the propertg invol.ved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same viciaity and zcne. (See Resolution Book) pri~r to ro11 call, the Commission discussed the motion made by Commissioner Gaui2r, it being noted that uses could not find a specific place in Anaheim because tY.ere were many land uses which the city could not accommonate; that the petitioner should be commended in trying to find a piece crf property in the Commercial-Recreation Area, even though he found that mos~: of the land was either r,ommitted or extremely limited, but this did not m~:an it wes neces- sary to hav~: the Commercial-Recreation ?,rea jump beyond its present boundaries across the city for expansion purposes, and if the Commercial-Recreation Area should expand, it should be nearer the boundaries of the Southeast Industrial Area. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: I;OMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANtING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-628 VARIANCE NO. 2430 °• CnNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPA.JY, 461 S~+1th BoyJ.ston, Los Angeles, California 90017, ~wner; ~RNE C. BEL'SBY, Mini Warehouse C~rp., 560C Orangethorpe, #704, La Palma, Cal~fornia 90620, Agent; requesting 4iAIVER OF THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIF~ED PARKZNG STALLS TO ESTABLZSH A STORAGE WAREHOUSE on property des- cribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq 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 nurthwest corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the mee~iny of Augugt 21, 1972, at the request of the petitioner, and from the Sentember 6, 1972 meeting ~or the submission of plans and elevations. 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. Arne Selsby, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had made c!tanges to his plans, increasing the landscaping from 10 to 15 feet, which would allow an area where a 3 to 3~i-foot berm could be provided which wculd, to some exte~t, block out the view of the warehouse; that he would prefer to do this and develop it as neatly as possible and hoped he would not have to erect a block wall; that he wanted to develop the lan3- scaping at a one-year interval and i£ the berm/landscaping plan was n,~t accept- able, then he would construct the wall at the end of the year; and tnat he had increased his parking to 22 spaces, but this di3 not change the layout or design of the buildings since they were provided in the 50-foot building setback. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted that one of the main concerns facing the Commission was the matter of aesthetic values at the intersection of La Palma and Tustin Avenues reaarding setback and landscaping with this particular type of building since most industrial buildings in that area ha3 aesthetic values; that thz buiidings proposed, from viewing the plans, it would appear that one could look into the warehouse doors from either street - two main streets in the indus- trial area; and then inquired whether these buildings could be rplocated so that the buildings won~d not be facing either street - that the walls of the buildings be of decorative material so that there would not appear to be a plain wall facing these streets; and that the petitioner was ~roviding only a 3-foot berm, however, the doors were 20 feet high. Commissioner Gauer observed that with the zight vegetation and plantings, this unattractive view could be blocked out. Commissioner Allred inquired how much landscaping was proposed if a 3-foot berm were proposed in lieu of landscaping; whereupon Mr. Belsby statafi that there would be a 15-foot strip of landscaping while there would be a 50-foot building setback. Commissioner Gauer stated he could not see why the berm could not be planted with trees so that the trees would hide these doors. Commissioner Herbst noted that Disneyland had a 10-foot berm upon which their landscaping was planted, but he was not talking about hiding the building but making the walls more aesthetically pleasing, and he could still have the land- scaping rather than look. at an open warehouse building. Mr. Belsby noted that the building along La Palma Avenue had entrancea on both sides of the building, therefore, it would be difficult to tuxn it around; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Allred, noted that house- hold goods, campers, boats, merchandise, etc. would be stored there, and 508 would be household goods - anything people would use occasior.ally - when people closed a business, equipment, etc. could be stored - when people moved out of their residence for several months, they could store their furniture and belongings; and that these would be tilt-ap or biock walls in 10-foot segments having doors every 10 feet. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 ~Z-6z9 VARIANCE NO. 3430 (Continue3) Commissioner xerbst noted this was the reasoa for objecting to this proposal - because it would look similar to an apartment house where carports faced the street, and if the petitioner could decorate one side of the buildina and have doors on the side not facing the street, this would be more attractive. Mr. Belsby then reviewed the manne:c in which similar types of buildings were designed and built in Texas and noted that what he proposed in landscaping would attract the eye of the viewer to the landscaping rather than the building. Commissioner Herbst noted that this landscaping would be a number of years in the future as to being an effective screen; whereupon Ms. Selsby stated they proposed 24-inch boxes o,`. Canary island palms, 15 5-gallon plants rather than 1-gallon plants. Commissioner Herbst noted that he was not opposed to the use, but wher. one drove down Tustin Avenue, he felt the building should be coastructed in such a manner that it woLld be compatible with any industrial building that might be proposed adjacent to it; and that three sides of the building would be viewed both from the north and south on Tustin Avenue; whereupon Mr. Belsby 5tated there would be only two sides since the third side would be screened with landscaping. Commissioner Rowland observed that if the petitioner had met Code parking requiremenLs, this petition would not be before the Commission, however, he was 17 spaces short; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that staff had exercised the Development Review Section of the M-1 Zone to bring this before the Planning Commission and City Council, and staff had stated that the -aiew create3 by the proposed buildings would not he consistent with developm~snt which had taken place-in the Northeast Industrial Area. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether enforcement of development standards had not been set forth in the conditions of approval; whereupon Mr. Roberts replied negativel}. ' Continued discussion was held by the Commission regar3ing berming, landscaping in other developments throughout the city, a 3-foot berm would not accomplish the int~nt of the Commission, and the height which would accomplish the intent of screening the use, and upon its conclusion, Chairman Seymour inquired whether the petitioner would have any opposition to pr.oviding a 5-foot berm if subject petition were approved, said berm planted with heavy landscaping on top of the berm; whereupon Mr. Belsby stated that the landscaping would be considerably wider than what they proposed if a 5-£oot berm were required. Chairman Seymour then inquired what the width of the landscaping would be if the 5-foot berm were required; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated this would be about 20 feet and could encroach into the parking area proposed. Mr. Roberts then stated that he would lixe the Commission to consider one thing, whether or not the waiver of the parking was of any consequence because peop:e most likely would be parking wi.thin the interior to load or unload their goods, but they could have additional p~ople helping them, and additional helpers would be parking the vel~icles somewherej that if ~he landscaping were kept to a minimum of 10 feet as provided :.n the M-1 Zone, with the remainder of the setback used for parking, then th=•re would be sufficient parking for almost any contingency experienced on the property within said 50-foot setback; that a decorative wall could be provided for one sid~; that .e view from the street need not bz of the doors; r,~nd that the plan before the Commission showed a series of buildings along the west and north boundaries of the service station which would be single doors, and the backs of those buildinqs could be solid. Chairman Seymour noted that by redesigning the structures on the plot plan, the petitioner could conforn with the suggestions made by Commissioner Herbst wasn't that so; w:~ereupon Mr. Roberts replied affirmatively. Mr. Belsby stated this would change the :oncept to utilize the buildings to t:ieir fullest since he planned to have doors at both ends because the buildings were only 10 feet wide. 0 ~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-630 VARIANCE NO. 2430 (Continued) Mr. Roberts then inquired whethPr the buildings could be constructed at 20-foot widths; whereupon Mr. Belsby stated that this could be done, but this would eliminate persons wanting ~~.ery small facilities. Mr. Roberts then r-:viewe: the plans with the agent, after which Mr. Belsby stated this coul: '~e done ~.~ La Palma Avenue but not on Tustin A~- ^ue because the 20 and 30-fo~.- wide buil]ings would be facing said street. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission had three alternatives: continue subject petition so that the petitioner could redesign the buildings as suggest- ed by Commissioner Herbst and Mr. Roberts; approve subject petition as submitted; or deny the petition. Commissioner Herbst stated that if the petitioner elected to redesign the struc- tures, he should consider providi~g a 5-foot berm and a 20-foot landscape strip; whereupon Mr. Belsby inquired what would happen to the parking proposed in said setback. Chairman Seymour noted that Mr. Roberts had inQicated some of the parking would be lost. Commissioner Allred stated it would be more acceptable if the openings to the buildings faced the interior rather than facing the street. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Lommissioner Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2430 to the meeting of October 2, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans reflecting the suggestions made by the Commission and staff. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-8~ VARIANCE NO. 2403, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330 (Continued fron page 72-619) Chairman Seymour noted that there was a request before the Commission to con- tinue subject petitions and inquired whether the representative of the r•etitioner was present. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Co;nmission and stated that since he had been out of the State, he was not fully familiar with the changes in the proposal, but he was available to answer quest.ions. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywoo~i and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-8, Variance No. 2403, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1330 to the meeting of October 2, 1972, as requested by the petitioner. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. C. W. WINGERT, JR., NO. 72-73-21 P. O. Box 24, Vida, Oregon, 97488, Owners; J. W. KLUG DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, VARTANCE NO. 2436 C.alifornia 92660, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shapez parcel of land consisting of approxi- TENTATIVE N,AP OF inately 12.7 acres, «aving a frontage of approximately 475 TRACT NO. 6569, feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, having a maximum REVISION N0. 2 depth of approxima 21y iiyU feet, and being located approximately 715 =eet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (b) MINIMUM LOT WIDTt:, (C) MINItdUM FRONT YARD SETBACK~ AND (d) MINIMUM LGT WIDTH ON A CUL-DE-SAC TO ESTABLISH A 58-LOT, SINGLE- FAMILY Si1SDIVIS20N. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: William G. Church, 's928 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660; proposing to subdivide a 12.7-acre parcel into 58 R-1 zoned lots. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, °eptember 18, 1972 72-631 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-21, VARIANCE NO. 2436, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6569. REVISION NO. 2(Continued) _ Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of September 6, 1972, for the submission of revised plans. Two persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the reason for continuance, and the proposal, noting that 43+E of the lots were proposed with 10-foot setbacks, and in light of the new RS-5000 regulations which provide for varied setbacks, the Commission might consider this a suitable request; that plans were revised to allow for on-street parking where 10-foot setbacke were proposed and on cul-de-sacs the applicant had provided 2 open parking stalls off-street in addition to the two-car garage; that the applicant had not provided for the required 150-foot lot depth along the Orange Freeway, but a hindering factor was the existing stub street - Shakespeare Street - to the north which provided only 100 feet of lot depth and must extend into subject property; that where 150-foot lot depths were not provided, a 50-foot rear setback would be required, and one of the 7 lots adjacent to the freeway there was a 32-foot rear yard, again because of the existing width of the lots adjacent to the stub street; that previous plans indicated a 5-foot high earthen berm and a 6-foot high, solid masonry wall along the easterly boundary adjacent to the Orange Freeway right-of-way; that a letter from the State indicated their plans for a drainage ditch in the vicinity of the berm, and that caution would have to be taken in designing the berm so as to prevent erosion of soil into the ditch; that in a more recent clarification letter from the State Division of Highways, it indi- cated that the berm must be constructed totally on private property, and with the proposed increase in the setbacks along the freeway, there was ample room on subject pzoperty for a 6-foot high earthen berm, however, it was not shown on the revised plans, but the applicant did submit a copy of the berm treatment earlier in the day; and that the Commission would wish to determine the appro- priateness of R-1 zoning on the property and whether or not there was sufficient justification for the requested waivers. Mr. John Klug, representing the agent/developer of the projECt, appeared be~Eore tha Commission and stated that in their revisions they had redesigned the drives and house orientation to provide at least one on-street parking space in front of each of the homes; that they had sufficient setback from the freeway except for one lot, and they were proposing a berm for the east boundary of subject property as well as an 8-foot high wall; that as to homes along the north pro~erty line, they had studied different housing types and had oriented the two-story houses so that there would be no windows on the walls adjacent to the homes to the north; that they wanted the flexibility to build some two-story homes along the north property line, but at the last public hearing he had indicated that since there were only one or two residents to the north opposing two-story homes, they would not build ~wo-story adjacent to these homes. Mrs. Eugene Brodie, 2556 East Seville Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted she lived adjacent to the north property line; that she represented five other property owners along said north property line who stated they did not want two-story homes, and since this was the agreement two weeks ago, the residents wanted this agreement to be honored by the Planning Commission. Mrs. William Landry, 2575 East Seville Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that since all of the homes in the tract to the north of subject property had a minimum of 7200 square feet, she was opposed to a reduc- tion in the size of the lots in subject tract. Mr. Klug, in rebuttal, stated that the only additional comment he had was, if they could be permitted to have two-story homes adjacent to the north property line which would be so constructed as to not encroach on the privacy of the residents of these homes, they would request the Commission consider this. Commissioner Gauer inquired about an agreement between the developer and the uwners ef the property adjacent to the drainage channel to the northwest of subject property; whereupon 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts read the agree- ment between the developer and the Cyprian family in which both parties had signed said agreement. ~J ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMt3ISSI0N, September lo, 1972 72-632 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-21, VARIANCE N0. 2436~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6569, REVISION NO. 2(Continued) Chairman Seymour noted that at the last public hearing it was his opinion that the problems on this proposal had been solved, except for three areas: 1) building setback from the street; 2) setback along the freeway; and 3) objec- tion tu other than one-story along the north property line. Ccmmissioner Kaywood inquired about the waiver of setbacks adjacent to the freeway since it appeared these had not been indicated in the Report to the Commission; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that this was a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance and could not be made a part of the variance, however, the 32-foot setback must be recognized by a finding by both the Commissioa and City Council, which might state that because the Shakespeare Street stub was only 100 feet from the freeway right-of-way line, the northernmost lut tu the east of said street exten~ion made it impossible to provide the required 150- foot lot depth. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether. the street cuuld be placed along the freeway right-of-way because residents of these nomes would be unable to uea their rear yards adjacent to the freeway. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that to realign Shakespeare Street easterly along the freeway would place these homes fronting on a free- way, wlzich was considered less than desirable. Furtherm~re, there could be a drainage problem, therefore, he did not feel this would solve the problem. In addition, with said realignment, a large parcel would be left vacant and unusable. Chairman Seymour noted that although the Planning Commission was not bound by a private agreement between L•he property owner and the residents to the north, a review of the minutes of the City Council did indicate that the property would remain R-1 as stipulated by the owner at said public hearing, and even though the Commission was not legally bound, they were morally bound by the agreement for one-story homes, therefore, he would suggest that all homes along the north property line be one-story except for the one rearing onto the free- way, however, said home could be designed to side-on in order that more space between the home and the freeway right-of-way could be provided. The Commission discussed at length the 43+E number of homes that would have 10-foot setbacks, placing more vehicles on the street, and although it was part o£ the Code, it was only there to allow the developer flexibility in developing the property, but it would appear from the plans that almost every other home would have a 10-£oot setback; that it would appear it was a very poor exchange of parking on the driveway versus on the street, allowing only a 10-foot setback; that there appeared to be very few changes except for the setback of six homes along the freeway right-of-way and rearranging the homes, while still having the same percentage of lots having less than 7200 square feet and the same number of lots with less than Code-required lot width; that it would appear the petitioner was proposing 60$ of the lots as RS-5000 rather than R-1; and that the setbacks permitted under the RS-5000 did not apply to the R-1 homes. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that when the City Council amended the RS-5000 Zone, staff was directed to prepare an ordinance that would also change the setbacks in all single-family zones as reflected in the RS-5000 which had been prepared by the City Attorney and was now being reviewed by the Development Services Department before being presented to the City Council for first readina of the ordinance. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission was fully aware of this, but there had been considerable discussion about establishing a policy allowing a given percentage of the lots to have 10-foot setbacks, with the Commission recommend- inq Co the City Council that a maximum of 25$ should be allowed, and that there appeared to be no reason why the City should allow more vehicles to be parked on the street, and the setbacks should be something both the Planning Commission and City Council should review. and amend the ordinance more realistically. Mr. Klug noted that whether the setback was 10 feet or 30 feet was no indication that people would be parkinq vehicles in the garages, and even some of the opp~sition indicated they did not park their vehicles in the garages, however, there was a way to help alleviate the situation, and that would be that they could provide a three-car garage for each lot Uaving a 10-foot setback. ~ ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-633 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-21, VARIANCE NO. 2436~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6569, REVISION NO. 2(Continued) Commissioner Farano noted that he did not want to be unreasonable about this development, aad the developer should have some latitude, however, part of the premise o£ the City of Anaheim ordinance was that a petitioner must estab- lish some particular hardship present on the property that other properties did not have, and he could not see any particular hardship to permit this number of lots proposed at less than 7200 square feet, and then inquired what hardship could Mr. Klug present; whereupon Mr. Klug stated that if the City had a Subdivision Ordinance that would allow subdividing the property without the public hearing, there would be very little problem, but the Subdivision Ordinance generally applied to large undeveloped areas and small areas as well, however, there were some very limiting factors on subject property: 1) a very small acreage, and 2) street access was such that this proposal appeared to be a reasonable solution. Commissi.oner Farano then stated that to a certain excent the developer was entitled to some relief, but not 608 of the lots being less than Code required - perhaps a leeway of 5$ to 6$ would be acceptable, but in some instances these lots were 1200 feet less than the R-1 required and meetinq Code on only 19 lots. Commissioner Gauer stated that perhaps the Commission could consider the fact that there was R-3 to the south. Com.~issioner Farano stated he did not feel this was justification, particularly since the R-3 to the south was singlo-story. Mr. Klug stated that the lot size and width was comparable to the subdivision he had developed on the east side of the freeway, although that should not be the reason for approval of subject waivers, however, that development had been a very successful one, and good values had been created. Commissioner Farano noted that he had that petition before him, and the lots had 65-foot frontages with 100-foot depths, while only 25$ were with 5460 square feet, and there was some basis foz granting some waivers because of the s;zape of the property, which was not the same as subject property. Mr. Klug stated that he had spent a lot of time trying to design this project and felt this proposal was a reasonable solution to development of the property. Commissioner Kaywood noted that where the lots abutted the R-1 to the north, these property owners had an aqreement with the wingerts for one-story for several years, and because of that aqreement, they had invested considerable money for improvements, and the two-story homes would be an invasion of the privacy of these residents, and she could not vote for that. Commissioner Seymour noted that this was a situation where the developer was caught between two separate partiesj that as to setbacks, this had been dis- cu~sed previously when Anaheim Hills was considered, and a parkinq problem appeared possible when parking on the streets, therefore, it was mandatory that the problem be ironed out with the City Council. However, in order to break the stalemate on subject property, it would appear to him that he would not favor subject petition either if the homes along the north property line were not one-story, except for the one home abutting the freeway, however, as to the parking setback, there was little that could be done because the ordinance did not specify a given percentage being permitted when only 10-foot setbacks were proposed - the ordinance also required automatic door openers, and rather than ha•::: the developer caught in the middle if single-story were agreed to along the northerly property line, as well as the statement that three-car garages would be placed on the lots for the 10-foot setioaaks, then he would be in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the developer planned to have special insulation for those homes backing onto the freewayj whereupon Mr. Klug stated that they planne3 a berm and an 8-foot wall, therefore, he did not feel the insulation would be necessary. Commissioner Rowland noted that although the Commission discus~ed off-street parking in residential areas, the Commission should not lose sight o£ the fact that the streets were designed for on-strest parking - also with parking along both sides of the street - and the only tiwn parking was not available off- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION, September 18, 1972 72-634 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-21, VARIANCE NO. 2436~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6569, REVISION NO. 2(Conti.nued) street was when a 10-foot setback was proposed, and he did not feel it was necessary to re-write the ordinance every time there was a parking problem. Commissioner Herbst noted that Commissioner Rowland was absent at the time the Commission considered a tract where there was no parking available on the streets for even one car in front of a home because of the design layout and Lhe width of the lots, and where there ware only 50 to 60-foot wide lots, it became particularly dif£icult, therefore, for any on-street parking in this particular development where 43~ of the lots were psoposed with 10-foot set- back, he did not feel a three-car garage would solve this problem; that he was not opposed to variable setbacks, but it appeared the developers were not pro- viding the variable but were proposing an excessive amount of lots with : ly 10-foot setbacks, making this development completely undesirable. Chairman Seymour noted that the developers were caught between the Planninq Commission and City Council on the setback policy for residential uses, making the developer the "fall guy"; that he had proposed at the last public hearing and was now proposing at this hearing that a work session be scheduled with the City Council to straighten out this problem, however, he coeld see no gain by constantly "tying the hands" of the developer. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not feel the Planning Commission was "tying the hands" of the developers, particularly since this developer had been fully informed of what he must do in revising his plans, therefore, why should the Commission always be redesigning plans for the developer, and that since there was no ordinance permitting this type of setback in the R-1 Zone, even though the City Council had directed staff to direct it, the Commission must make the decision on what could be permitted. Mrs. Brodie advised the Commission that because of Pioneer Park near their tract, the traffic count became quite a problem in summer and even in fall with football being played or practiced at the park, therefore, if inadequate off-street parkinq were permitted in subject tract, thQn the situation on streets in their tract would become impossible with parking by visitors to the park as well as from this development. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that two-story construc- tion could be constructed as a matter of right in the R-1 Zone, and the City had nothing to do with the agreement for one-story houses. Continued discussion was held between the Commission, staff, and the developer regarding the percentage of lots of less thar, 720~ square feet and the fact that these sizes were within the permitted ~::ize of the RS-5000 Zon,e; that the Commission had allowed some smaller lots in the R-1 2one in the past, but the overall average for the entire tract was 7200 square feet; t:.at the average for 16 of the lots was about 6300 square feet; that the agreement for single- story between the ownerscreated a hardship on the parcel in the fact that there was no physical problem with the proper.ty. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolucion No. PC72-238 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 72-73-21 be approved, subject to conditions, with findings that the petitioner stipulated to one-story construction for all lots along the north- erly property line except for Lot 28; that the petitioner stipulated to provid- ing thre2-car garages on lots having a 10-foat a~ less garage setback, and that said garages wauld be equipped with automatic garage door openersj tha:: there be an addition to Condition No. 4 requiring that all lots alonq the northerly property line except for Lot 28 shall be one-story construction; that Lot 28 shall have house plan No. 944; and that where garage setbacks were proposed at 10 feet or less, there shall be three-car garages with automatic qarage door openers. (See Resolution Book). On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: No~e. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. e .~.. ~ MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-635 RECLASSIFICASION N0. 72-73-21, VARIANCE NO. 2436. AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6569 REVISION NO. 2(COntinued) Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-239 and moved for ita passage arcd adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2435, subject to conditions, and the stipulation by the petitioner that one-story constrti,:tion would be provided along the northerly property line except for Lot 28, which shall have hnuse plan No. 944 constructed on it; and t;~at where garages were set back 10 teet or less from the right-of-way line, three-car garages with automatic garage door openers would be provided. (See Resolution Book) On roli call the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland noted that this variance should be tied into plans sub- mitted, together with the stipulations by the petitioner as to one-story construction for the northerly lotst that three-car garages with automatic garage door openers and plan No. 944 for Lot 28 so that if this plan were not developed, a new subdivison map would have to be submitted. Commissioner Herbst, in voting "no", stated that the petit~oner had not demonstrated a hardship existed to warrant waiver of r.he 7200-square foot lot size by 43+k, even though the Commission might have considered up to 15+b deviation in the past, and that this subdivision should not be considered an R-1 but an RS-5000 subdivision which had different site development standards. In addition, it was possible with three-car garages that there would be more coverage than permitted by Code. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTSON CARRIED (Commissioners Farano, Gauer, and Herbst voting "no"), to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6569, Revision No. 2, subject to the follow- ing conditions and the stipulation and agreement by the deaeloper to remove and backfill the exiscing temporary drainage structure on the north side of Street "A" and Milton Street, as well as t}ie northeast corner of the inter- section of Street "A" and Sunkist Street: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6569, Revision No. 2, is grar.ted subject to the approval of Reclassification Ivo. 72-73-21 and Variance No. 2436. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta- tive form for approval. (3) That in acc~rdance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the west property line separating lot Nos. 1 throuqh 6 and Sunkist Street, said wall to be extended along the north side of lot No. 1 except in the front setback. Reasonable landscaping, in~luding irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintend- ent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and accept- ance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (4) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (5) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and aoproved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final traot map. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-636 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-21, VARIANCE NO. 2436~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6569. REVISION NO. 2(Continued) (7) Tha~. the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate ty the City Council, said fees to be paiii at the time the building permit is issued. (8) That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. (9) That the developer shall remove and backfill the existing temporary drainage structure on the north side of "A" Street and provide reasonable driveway ac~•ess to the adjacent property. (10) That the developer shall provide 15-foot radius prope.rty line returns at the northwest corner of the intersection of "A" Street and Milton Street, and also at the northeast corner of the inter- section of "A" Street and Sunkist Street. (11) That the vehicular access riqhts, except at street and/or alley openings, to Sunkist Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (12) That a 6-foot high earthen berm be constructed on the east property line separating Lot Nos. 22 through 28 and the Orange Freeway right-of-way. ~ ,G ~ l REPORTS AND - I'lEM N0. 1 ` RECOMMENDATIONS WORK SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. ~~i ~ Chairman Seymour noted that in light of recent comments made by the City Council and in light of the abyss being created between the Planning Commission and City Council, it was mandatory that a work session be scheduled with the City Council to discuss these various items of concern so that the Planning Commission could make decisions in keeping with the philosophical beliefs of the City Council, discussing 1) parking in residential streets; 2) setback requirements; 3) siqn variances, particularly since the Commission was constantly denying them and the City Council, in turn, was approving them upon appeal; and 4) the Northeast industrial Area, particularly after having received the latest information re- garding this area and the many requests beiiig made for commercial-oriented uses for the area. In addition, he would like to state that the Planning Commission in the past had not been a rubber stamp for the City Council, but the work session was necessary so that there would be a little more cohesiveness. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts stated that staff could approach the City Manager to bring this matter up before the City Council at the Council meeting of September 19, 1972, to see when they would be agreeable to having such a meeting, and then at the next Planning Commission meeting a definite date would be established. Chairman Seymour stated that he could not see delaying this meeting since it was very important to the Commission, particularly since there was no reason for. the Commission to arque the setbacks at future meetings if this could be _esolved. Deputy City Attorney Prank Lowry advised the Commission that the Commission would have to adjourn the meeting to a date certain, a.nd since the Commission did not know when this work session would be scheduled with the City Council, no date certain was available between now and the next public hearing. After further discussion by the Commission, Chairman Seymour stated that the meeting would adjourn to September 26, at 7:00 p.~•, to meet with the City Council, and if that date was not satisfactory, then the Commission at a later date could adjourn to another specific date. RECESS - Chairman Seymour declared a ten-minute recess at 4:28 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 4:38 p.m., all Commissioners being present. • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNFNG COrSMISSI6N, September 18, 1972 72-637 RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HEARING. CARL E. AND CAROL A. WAGNER, 2338 East NO. 72-73-22 Wagner Avenue, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners; requert- ing that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 121 feet on the south side of Wagner Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 178 feet, and being located approximately 541 feet west of the ce.nterline of SunMist Street be recla~sified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE t~ the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report tc the Commission was not read at the pu'~lic hearing, it is referred to and made a part of thP minutes. Mr. Carl Wagner, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject petitioi~ was the result of conditions of approval being made of the development under Reclassification No. 72-73-12. Mrs. Ann Madison, 600 South Harbor Bouievard, repr~senting the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that the property owner and the developer agreed to all o£ the off-site impravements as pertained to subject property; that the developer was p~oviding the retaining wall in front of the property, while the owner, Mr. Krogman, agreed to provide the wall along the south and east property lines, to have the wall relncated and paying for the footing of same, as presented in an agreement signed by both Messrs. Wagner and Krogmar.. THE HEARING WAS CL~SED. Commissioner Farano o£fered Resolution No. PC72-240 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council ~na'.. Petition for Reclassification No. 72-73-22 be approved, subject to condition~. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoang resolution was passed by tkie following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INZTIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLAIiNING NO. 72-73-23 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805; proposinq that property described as: A regularly- shaped parce'1 of land consisting o£ approximately 1.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 207 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 400 feet, and being located approximately 665 feet south of the centexline of Orange Avenue be reclassified from the COUNTY OF ORANGE 100-C-1-10,000 DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that subject property already had pre-zoning for C-1 zoning on it and was known as Brookside Annexation No. 2. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-241 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the Ci.ty Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 72-73-23 be approved, unconditiozally. establishing City of Anaheim zoning on the property known as Brookside Annexation No. 2. iSee Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-638 RECLASSIFICATION - P':BLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING NO. 72-73-24 COMMISSION, 204 Eas: Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805; proposing that property described as: An irregular- ly-shaped psrcel of land consistinq of approximately 11.1 acres ha~ring a srontage of approximately 538 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 800 feet, and being located approximately 324 feet east of the centerline of Lake- view Avenue be reclassified from the COUNTY OF ORANGE A1. AGRICULTURAL, AND A1(O) AGRICULTURAL OIL, LISTRICTS to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a~art of the minutes. THE HEARING WAS CLQSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-242 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 72-73-24 be approved, unconditionally, establishin~, ity of Anaheim zoning on the propQrty proposed to be annexed into the City of ~,naheim in the near future. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tlie following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MRS. VIOLET VAN DELDEN, 230 Castle Circle, PERMIT NO. 1341 Grange, Califo;nia 92668, Owner; ROBERT E. BURGLIN, 517 South Archer,•Anaheim. California 92804, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CARWASH, WAIVING (a) OUTDOdR USES AND (b) MAXIMUM SUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY R~SIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 173 feet on ihe east side of State Co~lege Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 190 feet, and being located approxi- mately 510 feet south of the centerline of Sycamore Street. Property presently classi~fied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in oppnsition. One person indicated her presence in favor of subject petition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and r~ade a part of the minutes. Mr. Robert Burglin, 517 South Archer Street, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had reviewed the Report to the Commis- sion and in Finding No. 8 of the evaluation, he would Zike to st.ate that developers and operators of carwastes tried to locate them away from arterial intersections because of the heavy traffic conflict, noting that there was the Linbook Carwash and the new Orange ~zrwash at the Orange Mall which were not located at intersections of two arterials; that he had been in the carwash business for the past sixteen years and had two o£ the largest facilities in Southern California, one in Westminster and the other in Buena Park; and then submitted letters from the Planning Departments of ezch city, complimenting him on his carwash facilities in their cities (copies on file); that it was his opinion there would not be any ingress-egress problems since the other existinq commerrial uses on State College Soulevard had similar access problems; th;~ they had : stacking area for 9 automobiles, and the traffic signal at Lincoln Avenuc~. and State College Soulevard was a SC-•second light, which would be ample time for. vehicles desiring to make a left turn onto State College Boulevard; that he had talks with the single-family homeowners to the east of subject property, and all indicated they were in favor of the proposed facility except for one person who, after reviewinq *_he plans, indicated he did not object to the proposal; that there would be no noises generated from the vacuum blowers above the noises on State College Boulevardj that staff had recommendad screening the polishing area so that it would net be visible from State Colleqe ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-639 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1341 (Continuedj Boulevard - he would stipulate this would be done; aad that they were fully aware of the City's ordinance regardinq decibel noise levels. Mrs. John Hood, 2021 Bangar Way, appeared be£ore the Commission in favor of subject pe:ition, noting her property was immediately to the east of subject property; that she Znd her neighbors were of the opinion that the proposed carwash would be an improvement for the area; and then submitted a letter signed by eight property owners indica•~ing they were in favor of the proposed development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission in,quired whether the agent could revise the parking along the southerly boundary to provide betLer egress; whereupon Mr. Burglin stated that he would stipulate to providing 90-degree parking as suggested by staff. Office Engineer Jay Titus note@ that the Engineering Division did not have sufficient time to research subject property prior to the writing of the Report to the Commission, howevar, Engineering woulcl reaommend that an addi- tional condition be attached if subject pet'_~tion were approved, that being that the alley be fully improved to City standards and that a bond be posted to insure installation of said improvements since dedication had been acquired under the reclaseification of the pxoperty. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether or not he had specific hours of operation; whereLpon Mr. Burglin stated their plans were for hours from 8:00 a.m. to possibly 10:00 p.m.; that they pzesently operated their carwashes until 6:30 p.m., but with the trend of open carwashes 24 hours a day, they felt later hours were necessary, but, in all likelihood, the maximum time would be 5:00 p.m.; that they had a full service carwash; and that they would stipulate to 90-degree parking and to i~*proving the alley in accordance with City standards. Furthermore, lighting would be only cne light at night for security purposes un~'er the canopy, and Tieighbors indicated they would prefer lights there, but if this were a problem, they, of course, could turn them off. Commissioner Herbst offered Resoluticn No. PC72-243 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1341, subject to conditions, and the added condition that the petitioner shall improve the alley to City standards and post a bond to insure said improvements; that the parking alonq the southerly boundary of subject property would be 90-degree parking; and that the car polishing area would be screened from view from the street. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst; Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: • COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PU2LIC HEARING. ROBERT ORR, ET AL, 1931 Port tdelson PERMIT NO. 1342 Place, Newport Beach, ~alifornia 92660, Owner; ANN T. MADISON, 600 South Aarbor Boulevard, P.naheim, California 92805, Agent; requestinq parmission to ESTABLISH A CHILD NURSERY, WAIVING (a) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACKr ~b) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (c) REQUIREMENT THAT SIDE YARD NOT BE USED FOR PLAY PURPOSES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frantage of approximately 112 feet on the south s°_de of South Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 159 feet, and being located approximately 270 feet west oE the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently classif.ied R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to t.he Commission was not rea3 at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 1f3, 19'i%' 72-640 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1342 (Continued) Mrs. Ann Madison, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, agent for the petitioner and proposed aser of tY:e property, appeared before the Commission and gave a backqround synopsis of previous zoning actions on the propert} and noted that the prooerty had been placed on the market and the interest in the restaurant had been sold; that the only uses they had been receiving for the house an3 churcli was for church or day schoal purposest that the use proposed was ideal for a combination of residential and pre-school purposes since it was a lighter use than 'that recommended by the Ci ty Council and was more compatible with the surrounding residential area; that no doubt the Commission had visited the property and had noted the run-down condition, however, the proposed purchaser planned to redecorate, re-landscape, and provide a retaining wall, and with these improvements it would be an asset to the area; that with- out the proper zoning, use of the property was di£ficult to market except for rental purposes; that the present sale of the property would be at a 55,000 loss, and in addition to the previous loss on the property, ma:ie a total of $9,000 loss during the last eight years; that in reference to the Report to the Commission regarding the waivers requested, stated she wished to request the waiver regarding use of the side yard for a playground area to be deleted since it was intended to use boch the rear and side yards of the residence for the residence itself since there was adequate playground area to the rear of the church structure proposed to be used for the pre-school areas that a.lthough they did not object to paying for trash collection, the petitioner was desirous of placing tre trash for trash pick-up in the front as all other residents in the area had. THE I~EARZNG WAS CLOSED. Mrs. Madison, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the existing home would be used for a residence, and the church would be converted for the pre-school, which would be one large classroom and would not be a day school; that they proposed to have approximately 10 to 14 children at the begin:ling, with one teacher who would be residing in the residence, and she had only one car, the•refore, there would be no parking problem; that it was hoped to in- crease the attendance to 28 students; that parking would be provided to the east of the pre-school; and that the playground area would be located to the rear of the church structure while the property to the side and rear of the residence would be for private residential use. Commissioner Kaywood observed that in the 3etter which the petitioner had submitted, it was stated the State would permit only 24 students, therefore, would the petitioner so stipulate; whereupon Mrs. Madison stated that only if more teachers ann a larger facility were p.rovided would the State permit more than 24 students; that there wou13 be no residences affected by the playground area; and that etaff had recommended that a wall be required adjacent to the rear of one section. Chairman Seymour inquired whether there would be any problem if Condition No. 3, eliminating requirement of trash storage area was made; whereupon Zoning Supesvisor Charles Roberts noted that this condition should be retained, and the petitioner could discuss the trash pick-up problems with the Sanitation people since if only a limited amount of trash was anticipated, then something less than the standard enclosed trash storage area would be permitted, however, staff had no objection to it. Mr. Roberts further noted tha= the proposal, as staff reviewed it regardinq the playground area, indicated that the play area behind the house would be Por the school, and the side yard would be private. However, the R-A Zone would require a private yard area for the single-family residence, and the propert,y to Lhe south of the existing ch~irch building would be adequate space for a playground area for 94 children, therefore, theze would be no need to have to encroach into the private yard area. Mrs. Madison, in response to Commissior questioning, reviewed the parking plans for this proposal. Commissioner Allred inquired whether the petitioner intended to remove the spire on top of the structure; whereupon Mrs. Madison stated that thie would be up to the Fire Department as to its removal, however, when the church had been constructed, it met all of the requirements of the City of Anaheim. . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-641 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1342 (Continued) Commiss:.oner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-244 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1342, in part, since the petitioner had withdrawn waiver of the side yard for play purposes, subject to providing parkin5 along the east uf the school structure Nith the improvements proposed which shall be of paved material; that the petitioner stipulated to providing the retaining wall along the front property line, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 6 to add, "That the retaining wall shall be construated along the front property line, and four open parking spaces provided along the east side of the school structure; and that this parking area shall be improved ~o eliminate possible dust problems". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMI~SIONERS: None. ABSENT: GOMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2437 - PUBLIC HEARING. ARNO H. STOVALL, JR. AND DOROTHY M. WILEMAN, 1475 Santa Margarita Drive, Fallbrook, California 92028, Ownersj FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP., Attention John L. Coons, Vice President, 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, California 90028, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SPECZAL FRONT SETBACK ALONG LINCOLN AVENUE TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a naximum depth of approximately 135 feet, and being located approximately 175 feet w2st of the centerline of Western Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. James Clark, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they proposed to improve the appearance of the exist- ing McDonald's facility, making it an enclosed restaurant, however, they were hamQexed by not being allowed to expand toward the street because of the set- back requirement along Lincoln Avenue, and if they expanded to within the required setback, then the required parking would be affected by the pos~ibility of beins reduced. Mr. Don Dunkleman, franchise operator of the facility at 2310 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he resided in Anaheim and had been a businessman in the city since 1967j that he was the owner/ operator of this franchise and had been part of the McDonald system since 19'v3, having formerly been in the City of Stanton; that he was aware of the fact that McDonald's was known as a walk-up restaurant, but they had controls established on their facility which made them a different type of a drive-in restaurant; that they had no teen-age problem; that their present problem was maintaining the outside eating area, and if subject petition were approved, the outside eating area would be removed and a completely enclosed restaurant was proposed; that there would be no problem with debris on the outside since 95B of the eating would be inside the building, thereby making this a more attractive eating establishment; and that tu deny the request before the Commission wou2d be denying the facility something which other McDonald's Restaurants were permitted to have. Commissioner Gauer noted that development within close proximity very recently had developed, and they were required to meet the 35-foot buil3inq setback along Lincoln Avenue, and if subject petition were approved, tha*_ would estab- lish a precedent for similar requests from others along Lincoln Avenue for similar waivers. Mr. Dunkleman stated that there was very little property to develop along the Lincoln 9venue fruntage, particularly since they were almost at the city limits boundary, and the City of Buena Park did not require a similar setback. Further- more, there had been some exceptions allowed along Lincoln Avenue, namely, ~ ~.. ~ MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-642 VARIANCE N0. 2437 (Continued) Tastee-Freez about 250 feet to the west. THE HEARING WAS CLO5ED. The Commission inquired whether or not the Tastee-Freez was within the shoppinq center; whereupon Mr. Dunkleman replied affirmatively. The Commission then inquired of st:~££ whether parking was permitted in the 35-foot setback and received an affirmative reply. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether it was possible co expand to the rear and have the parking in the front, thereby retaining thE setback - in addition, she would like to compliment the McDonald people on the development recen+ y ~ompleted at Dale Avenue and ~JCATEL~.f~ f,ll@. Chairman Seymour requested that Commissioner Kaywood explain what she suggested; whereupon Commissioner Kaywood re-stated her request. Chairman Seymour tnen inquired whether the outside eating area was proposed to be eliminated anci whether parking could be placed in the front setback area, with any addition to the buildinq being proposed to be placed to the rear. Mr. Clark stated that this would create two problems in that there would be na area in the front setback where adequate access could be provided since there was only 38 feet in the front setback, which would allow for only one parking stall depth - in addi~:ion, if the addition ~o the building were placed to the rear, the customers skill woud have no means of picking up their food except to walk to the front area; that they presently had parking in the front, but ~~alls would be eliminated if parking were proposed. as suqgested by the Commission; and that they proposed to enclose the patio area and still retain the existing parking. Furthermore, the setback along Lincoln Avenue was formerly 10 feet. Commissioner Rowland noted that the 35-foot building setback along Lincoln Avenue had been in existence since 1959. Further discussion was held by the Cammissior regarding the request, whether additional landscaping would be needed, and wnether the petitioner had proven a hardship existed as required by the variance. Mr. Dunkleman noted that there were several other developments along Lincoln Avenue that were contrary to the 35-foot setback, and then named several of those, noting that it was his understanding that Tastee-Freez did set back the 35 feet, and those that were within the 35-foot setback had been granted since 1959, one in particular beinq Der Wienerschnitzel which was directly at the prooerty line. Commissioner Herbst ob~erved that the C-1 Zone required a 10-foot setback, however. the 35-foot setback along Lincoln Avenue had been established since 1959, prior to the setback amendment to the C-1 2one, and there was a possi- bility that others had been allowed to encroach into the setback in recent years and requested that additional information be submitted by staff so that he would not be denying a petition a right enjoyed by others. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thom~,,son noted that there may have been some encroachment at Topanga and Harding otreets, but that particular area had more buildings than the area under consideration, and that Der Wiener- schnitzel was permitted because of the size and shape of the parcel. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC?2-245 ar.d move~. for its passage and adoption to grant Petiti.~n for Variance No. 2437 on the basis that due to the £act other buildings in the immediate vicinity had been permitted to en- croach into the required setback, either prior to establi.shment of the setback or subsequent, granting this waiver would be allawing the petitioner the same rights enjoyed by others in the general area; and that qranting of the requested waiver should not be considezed as having established a precedent, ar.d every future request should be considered on its own merits, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, September 18. 1972 72-643 VAP.ZANCE NO. 2437 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMt4iSSI0NERS: Allred, Faraao, f=~uer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2438 - PUBLIC HEARING. RICARDO DURAN, 301 North Bluerock, Anaheim, California 92806, Owner; requesting WAZVER OF (a) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (b) MINIMUM SID~ SETBACK, (c) DIINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPhCES~ AND (d) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A 3-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING on p=operty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 47 feet on the south side of Sycamore Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 171 feet, and being located approximately 74 feet west of the centerline of Sabina Street. Property presently c.lassified R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZON~. One person indicated her presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request before the Commission, ncting that a 3-unit, two-story apartment building was proposed on this R-3 zoned lot; that the existing single-family structure near the front of the lot would remain, with the new addition proposed at the rear of the lot adjacent to an existing alley; that two of the units would be constructed in a two-story building, while the remaining unit would be constructed above a four-car garage; that the garage had access provided by means of the alley; and that the density proposed was 21.7 dwelling units per net acre, with a coverage of 37.4+E of the lot area. Mr. McDaniel, in reaiewing the evaluation, noted that an investigation of the surrounding properties in this general vicinity indicated that properties of the same general size and shape had been able to construct three dwelling units without the necessity of a variancet that two properties to the north of subject prapertp had constructed four dwelling units on each lot, however, they were of different size and shape; that the first and primary consideration that the Commission would wi~h to consider was the appropriateness of allowing four dwelling units on the property; that the applicant was requesting waiver of the minimum floor area because he was proposing two-bedroom•. units at 758 square feet each, while Code would require two-bedroom units to have 825 square feet of floor area; that the minimum side setback was requested because the applicant was proposing to locate the garages adjacent to the side pro~erty lina and was proposing the units to be within 5.5 feet of the side property line, whereas 10 feet would be required; that the distance between buildings was necessary be- cause the applicant was proposing two opposite walls of the same buildinq to be approximately 8 feet apart, whereas 22 feet would be required; that the parking waiver was requested because the three-bedroom, existing house and the three two-bedroom units would require 7 parking stalls, while the applicant was pro- viding only 4; and that as in similar requests in the past, it would appear that the elimination of one unit would result in the elimination of a majority of the requested waivers, therefore, the Commission may conside•r the requested waivers to establish this three-unit apartment complex in addition t~ the exist- ing single-family home to be inappropriate. Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 5:28 p.m. Chairman Seymour advised the petitioner that he would like tn give him some background information that. the Commission in the past numerous times had viewed a similar proposal and had recommended that the petitioner remove the older structure in order to eliminate the usual waivers requested, therefore, he would suggest that the petitioner consider a continuance in order to revise plans, considering the possibility of removal of the existing structure or removal of one unit of the thr~e units proposed in order to meet Code. Mrs. Vera Rumbaugh, 5772 Garden Grove Boulevard, Westminster, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that she owned property at 517 East Sycamore Street; that she was opposed to waiver of the parking spaces because ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-644 VARIANCE NO. 2438 (Continued) of a shortage of parking in.that area; that considerable parking could be found on the streets, and it was extremely hazardous because a church next door had no parking on-site. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission had requested ievised plans be submitted, which may take care o£ the concerns expressed by the oppositior. regarding the parking waiver. Mr. Duran, the petitioner, stated that he would follow the Commission's advice and reguested a four-week continuance to allow time to study the problems and prepare revised plans. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2436 to the meeting oi October 16, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans. VARIANCE NO. 2439 - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK DOYLE AND LAURANCE SHIELDS, c/o Newport Riviera, 350 Riviera Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92627, Owners; PHIL'LIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Attention of Brent Hatch, 66 Bovet Foad, San Mateo, California 94402, Agentj requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF rREE-STANDING SZGNS, (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO ALLOW TWO PRICE SIGNS ON A PUMP ISLAND IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped aarcel of land having a frontaqe of approximately 150 feet on the north side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Brent Hatch, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated this was one of the few service stations owned and operated by the company; that they now planned to change this to a self-service facility rather than a full service facility since many competitors were doing the same thing, and the signing was necessary to be competitive. Furthermore, he had checked with the Fire Chief, who had requested that they remove the automatic pump clamps, anii they would comply with that, however, although they were providing self-service pumps, this did not mean there would be a reduction of manpower, because they planned to have someone available on the premises at all times. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer inquired of staff why the Fire Chief felt removal of the automatic pump clamps was necessary. Mr. Hatch advised the Commission that the Cities of Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Buena Park required them, however, Anaheim felt that the clamp should be removed as a fire prevention so that gas would not run over. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted for the Commission that this was a requirement of the Fir.e Code. Chairman Seymonr noted that in view of the Planning Commission's pre•~ious stand on ser.vice station signs, it left the Commission no alternative but to deny subject petition, and hopefully, after the work session with the City Co'uncil, the Planning Commission and City Council would be closer i.n line with what would be permitted. Commissioner Herbst noted that it would appear that with the self-service station, it was more important that the automatic clamp remain because the owner of the vehicle could be elsewhere and gas could run over more easily than if an automatic pump clamp were attached. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-645 VARIANCE N0. 2439 (Continued) Mr. Lowry advised that he would relay Commissioner Herbst's comments regardinq removal of the clamp since other cities did require these clamps, however, the Analieim Fire Chief found it was better that these be removed and requested that it be made part of the Code. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-246 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2439 on the basis that granting subject petition would be establishing an undesirable precedent since every other service station in Anaheim w~uld be making similar requeetss that the Planhing Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similaz request with a finding that approval would establish a precedeut for mass signing of other service stations `hroughout the city, and no changes had occurred to warrant favorable consideration of this petition. (See Resolution Book) On :oll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) ITEM NO. 2 VARIANCE N0. 2322 (U. S. Factory Built Homes) - Request to continue variance for an additional six months, allowing proto-type model of factory- built home in required front netback area. ITEM NO. 3 VARIANCE N0. 2194 (U. S. Factory Built Homes) - Request to continue variance for an additional two years, allowing outdoor storage of pre- fabricated housing units. Property for both variance petitions located on the east side of Miller Street, approximately 560 feet south of Orangethorpe Avenue. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proxi:~ity, and the variance requests, noting that these had been considered at the September 6 meeting, however, the Commission determined a field check of the property was necessary; that the landscaping shrubs presently existing were about 4 feet in height and provided little or no screening; that ground cover around the display unit was very sparce and poorly maintained; that decorative trees appeared to have been set in the ground in the container in which they were grown; that the only structure in the vicinity which was in the required setback area was an existing, nonconforming residence which was several hundred feet to the south; and that staff would recommend that Variance No. 2322 be terminated and the Commission require the applicant to con£orm to the M-1 standards so as to not set a precedent, allowing encroachment into the 50-foot front setback area in the M-1 Zone, and to grant a two-year extension of t?.me for Variance No. 2194, permitting outdoor storage of prefabricated housing units. Mr. Clark Sr.yder, 2805 Inverdale Drive, Riverside, Vice President of U. S. Homes, Inc., appeared before the Commission and stated that at the prior hear- ing he had not stated that he represented three other individuals who had purchased this facility in late 3anuary of this year; that at that time the proto-type model was permitted to be located in che required setback; that he inquired as to requlations at the time the proto-type home was permitted to the former owners, who liad indicated that all conditions had been met, however, later it was determined that the landscaping requirement had not been met as it pertained to the outdoor storage; that they had attempted to meet this condition with the landscaping as was viewed by the Commission earlier in the day; that to require a 6-foot masonry wall would be a financial hardship at this time, and it was hoped that the two-year extention of time would be permitted, during which time the landscaping would grow to sufficient height to shield this outdoor storageJ and that it was hoped six months would be sufficient time to allow the modular home to be located in the front setback, after which time they proposed to relocate it elsewhere. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, September ?.8, 1972 72-646 ITEM NOS. 2 AND 3(Continued) Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission as to the manner in which subject property could be improved, it being determined that the existing wooden gate should be completely slatted to hide from view some of the unsightliness of storage equipment, and that the second driveway could be removed and curb and gutter replaced; that the petitioner should resolve the dust situation on the property, possibly with blacktopping it; and upon its conclusion, Mr. Snyder noted t~.at he would like to have the opportunity to explore the cost regarding blacktopping rather than scraping down the ground several ir.chea to place gravel there, and that it would be impossible to remove one of the driveway aprons because there were two lots owned by two separate persons, therefore, this could not be done. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a six-month extension of time for encroachment into the 50-foot building setback under Variance No. 2322, and a two-year extension of time to allow outdoor storage of prefabricated hous}.ng uni~.~,r Provided, ate re com let:i slatted;"'"Ss~as~`p'~ilated to by the however, that the sxisting g P ' Y petitioner, and tti.at the outdoor storage area be paved within six months in order to alleviate any dust problem. ITEM NO. 4 ~,,3y TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. Request for revision of conditions of approval. 2onir.g Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the request, notinq that this request was continued from the September 6, 1972 meeting to allow the Commission time to visit the property to determine the effects a chainlink fence would have on the appearance of the lots from Anaheim Hills Road; that the ccaditions of approval of the tract required a 6-foot masonry wall along the east boundary of the tract and landscaping between the east tract boundarp and the Anaheim Flood Control Channel; how- ever, the developer proposed a vinyl-covered chainlink £ence adjacent to the row of eucalyptus trees and the deletion of the required landscaping. In addition, Mr. Roberts r,oted that the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance recommended that this landscapinq requirement not be deleted but that the condition remain as is. Mr. Roberts further noted that staff had suggesteA as an alternative to the solid masonry wall that a semi-solid, decorative wall consisting of masonry pilasters with iron or wood grills be requirea on the top of the easterly slopes; and that he had discussed this with Mr. Rogers, representinq Westfield Development Company, expressing the concerns of both the Planning Commission and staff; that Mr. Rogers had indicated today that he had another alterna- tive if the Commission determined that a wall must be constructed - this alternative would be to include in the recorded CC&R's that any walls or fences that would be constructed must be of a certain type, but that the walls would not have to be constructed by the developer. Discussion was held between the developer's representative and Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry regarding the proposal to delete the requirement of the tract map and placing it in the CC&R's, with Mr. Lowry advising the Commission at the conclusion of said discussion that the CC&R's placed on the pzoperty could not be enforced by the City, since these would be private deed restric- tions even though they might be recorded CC&R's. Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission with staff and the developer regarding: the proposal to amend the requirement of the solid masonry wall and to delete the lzndscaping adjacent to the flood control channelt the suggestions made by staff as alternatives to the wall; the request of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance that the landscapinq adjacent to the flood control channel be retainedj the proposal to establish specific require- ments for walls in the CC&R's; the type of landscaping existing on the slopes of these lots, as well as the type of landscaping that would b? required for the flood control channel; the proposal by the deve.loper to replace dead or diseased eucalyptus trees adjacent to the chainlinl; fencej and the reuuire- ment of the wall for protection, preventing peopJ.~ and children havinq easy access to the channel, particularly when heavy rains made the channel dangerous. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-647 ITEM N0. 4 (Cantinued) Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded bp•Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, to amend Condition No. 8 of Tentative Map o£ Tract Nos. 6734 and 6772 to read as follows: "8. a. That the developer shall install a green, vinyl-coated, chainlink fence adjacent to the row of eucalyptus trees alonq the easterly boundarx of the tract. ~i6w u.~~l b. That the developer shall plant~eucalyptus trees on 10-foot centers along the easterly boundary of the tract from the north tract boundary to the south property line of Lo' . 27 of said tract. c. That the developer shall incorporate as part of the CC&R's for the tract a provision that the type of fencing to be al7owed at the top of the slopes along the east boundary of the tract shall be limited to decorative masonry pilasters with wrought iron grills, or equivalent, and that a gate shall be provided on each lot to provide access to the slope for maintenance purposes. d. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation £acilities, shall be installed between the east tract boundary and the Anaheim Flood Cont~ol Channel on all uncemented portions of said property. Land- scape plans to be submitted to and subject to approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping." ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1100 (Dorothy L. Brunson) - Request for termination. Assistant Zoning Supervieor pon McDaniel noted that the Planning Commission on March 24, 1969, had granted Condit'onal Use Permit No. 1100 to establish a walk- up restaurant with an outdoor eati~~g area on property that had been occupied by a service sation previously; that the restaurant use had been discontinued, and the petitioner was requesting termination of this conditional use permit since he no longer intended to use the property in that manner and intended to re- establish a service station on the property once the restaurar.t had been de- molished; and that a service station would be permitted as a matter of riqht at this location since the current zoning was C-3, therefore, staff would recommend termination of subject petition. Commissioner Kaywood inquired cvhether it was necessary to terminate this, and if it were not terminated, would the petitioner be able to construct a service station on the property since there already were Eour service stations in this area. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the City Attorney had indicated where a resolution had been exercised in approving a conditional use permit, nothinq else could be constructed on the property unless said conditional use permit were terminated, however, the underlying zone would permit a service station. Mr. Bob Keeny, 1441 Chevy Chase, representing Automated Seraices, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had made several studies and found that the site would be a good location for a service station since one had been lacated there previously; that they proposed a di£ferent market concept Eor this service station, and this would be representinq Arco products; and then presented a rendering of their proposal, stipulating to complying with the Sign Ozdinance. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to deny the request fo* termination of Conditional Ose Permit No. 1100 on the basis that there were more than adequate service station facilities at this intersection. Said motion lost for lack of a second. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-648 ITEM NO. 5 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-247 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 1100 on the basis that the existing use was no longer being exercised, and the walk- up restaurant had been out of operation. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ITEM N0. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1002 (The Salvatior. Army) - Request for an extension of time for the completion of condittons - Property located on the north side of CyFress Avenue between Claudina and Emily Streets. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request for an extension of time for the completion of conditions since it was planned to start con- struction of the new church in the fall of 1973; and that staff would recommend a one-year extension of time, retroactive to September of 1971, with an addi- tiona.l one-year extension of time to expire September, 1973. Commissioner Rowland offered a moti~in, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, that a one-year extension of time, retroactive to September 26, 1971, and an additional one-~ear extension of time, to expire September 26, 1973, be granted for the c~mpletion of conditions of approval in Conditional Use Permit No. 1002. ITEM NO. 7 VARIANCE NO. 2142 (Geraldine E. Roth, et al) - Request for termination - Propezty located south of Esperanza Road, approximately 2800 feet east of the centerline of Imperiai Highway. Assis.tant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, previous zoning action on the property, and the request to terminate subject petition which proposed waiver of the mi:iimum required lot width on the basi~ that the developer indicated a new ~ract design would eliminate the need for a variance. In addition, this variance had never been acted upon by the Planning Commission but had been continued indefinitely. Commission~r Herbst of£ered a motion, seconded i~y Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARItIED. to terminate all proceedings of Variance No. 2142, as requested by the petitioner. ITEM NO. 8 VARIANCE NO. 2110 (Joan Belisle) - Request for clarification to permit rental of small trucks - Property located on the soutn side of Katella Avenue, approximately 550 feet west of the centerline of Haster Street. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the request by the petitioner for clarification of Condition No. 8 to allow the rental of small trucks, etc.; that the variance had been granted on August 11, 1969, to establish an auto rental agency as a primary use with waiver of the location of a free-standing sign; that Condition No. 8 of said approval required, "That passenger automobiles only shall be rented from this facility, and that parking on the property shall be .`.or the rental vehicles and employee automobiles only", therefore, the main question before cha Commission would be whether or not the Commission wished to include small pickup trucks within the definition of passengpr automobiles since the peti- tioner had indicated that the specific trucks requested were smaller than many passenger cars; and that if the Commission approved the request, it was recommended by staff that the trucks be limited in size to half-ton or less. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-649 ITEM NO. 8 (Continued) Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the request and possible inclu- sion of campers and trailers if subject request were favorably considered, and upon its conclusion, Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that if the Commission was desirous of approving subject request for inclusion of small pickup trucks, they could specifically set forth that no campers or trailers would be permitted. Commissioner Allred o£fered a motion to approve inclusion of small pickup trucks with a maximum of one-half ton in size, hoaever, no campers or vans would be permitted. Commissioner Rowland noted that the approval of car rentals in the Commercial- Recreation Area was for the purpose of renting cars to pezsons visiting the Commercial-Recreation Area who did not have private means of transportation, and the rental of trucks would not be within the i~tent of uses permitted in the Commercial-Recreation •Lone. Commissioner Allred withdrew hi~ motion. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny the request to include pickup trucks in the definition of passenger automobiles, as requested by the peti- tioner, on the basis that rental of cars in the Commercial-Recreation Zone was for the purpose of providing a means of transportation for visitors to the Commercial-Recreation Area only a^~ not for the purpose of renting trucks tc local residents. Commissioner Kaywood secor~3ed the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 9 CITY OF PLACENTIA USE PERMIT 72/38 - Establish a central facility to be utilized in water drive secondary recovery oil production on the south side of Orchard Drive, approximately 180 feet west of Highland Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property and the proposal to establish a cen£ral facility which would ~~e utilized in water drive secondary recovery oil production in the City of Placentia, whose General Plan designates the area surrounding the property as being appropriate for medium density residential, while the City of Anaheim General Plan designates the area south of Orchard Drive as being appropriate for law-medium density resiZential with several residential subdivisions hav- ing been approved an3 some developed in the area across Lakeview to the east of subject property. Mr. McDaniel then noted that the City of Placentia Planninq Commission had recently approved Use Permit 72/38 and making it subject to nine conditions, which were then reviewed, based upon the fact that this would be creating compatibility between an industrial use and the surrounding residential areas. However, the petitioner was appealing these conditions of approval to the Placentia City Council. Mr. McDaniel, in conclusion, stated that the conditions as set forth in the Report *_o the Commission appeared to be designed to make the proposed oil recovery use as compatible as possible with the residential uses proposed for the area; and that staff would recommend that the Anaheim Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City of Anaheim supports the proposed conditions as bei.ng necessary in maintaining a compatible relationship between the proposed project and the residential development proposed for the area in Anaheim as well as in Placentia. . After brief discussion by the Commission regarding the conditions of approval, Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissionpr Allred and MOTION CARi;IED, to recommend to the City Council that the City of Placentia City Council be urged to retain the conclitions of approval of City of Placentia Use Permit 72/38 as being necessary in maintainir.g a compatible relationship between the proposed water drive secondary recovery oil production and the residential development proposed for the area within both the Cities;of Placentia and Anaheim. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-650 ITEM NO. l0a ENVIRONME"1vTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Rio Vista Street from 425 feet to 135 feet noreh of Dutch Avenue - Proposing to provide a separated sidewalk on the east side of Rio Vista Street for school children walking to and from Rio Vista Elementary School. Mr. Vic Rollinger, representing the Enviror~mental Impact Studies Division Section of the Engineering Division advised the Commission that this would be an improve- ment and aid the children in going ~to and from school. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to ti~e City Council that the Environmental Impact Statement for Rio Vista Street from 425 feet to 135 feet north of Dutch Avenue be approved as having no substantial, adverse environmental impact, and that there would be no adverse, irreversible changes involved in the proposed project. ITEM NO. lOb ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Magnolia Avenue from La Palma Avenue to Lincoln Avenue and La Palma Avenue from Magnolia Avenue to the west city limits (A.H.F.P. N619 and #613) - Praposing to widen said streets as part of the Orange County Arterial !iighway System. Commissioner Seymour noted that he had reviewecl the report and that trees that were existing would be removed and relocated during construction and later re- placed by tree~ in a planned pattern that would be compatible with parkway conditions, such as Crepe Myrtle, Weeping Bottle Srush, Wilsonia Holly. Magnolia or Palm. Commissioner Kaywood noted that wherever the City was proposing to relocate public utility wires and poles, provision should be made to place them under- ground. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, secon3ed by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council approval of Environmental Impact Statement for Magnolia Avenue from La Palma Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, known as A.H.F.P. #619, and La Palma Avenue from Magnolia Avenue to West City Limits, known.as A.H.F.P. #613, as there would be no substantial, adverse environmental impact, and th~re would be no adverse, irreversible changes involved in the proposed nroject. ITEM NO. lOc ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Santa Aaa Canyon Road to Nohl Ranch Road and from Imperial Highway to Royal Oak Road {A.H.F.P• Ik654) - Proposing to extend Imperial Hiqhway .51 miles and to extend Nohl Ranch Road easterly .66 miles. Mr. Vic Rollinger, representing the Environmental Studies Section of the Enqineering Division, advised the Commission that the present road was partially improved for approximately one-half the propoosedctosfinish thelpartcwhichlhad the remainder was open field, and it was prop been partially completed and to construct entirely the remaining one-half of the proposed Imperial Highway reach, providing for all appurtenant work neces- sary in the construction of a new street consisting of four travel lanes, median curbing with landscaped islan3s, storm drain facilities, and traffic signals. Commissioner Seymour noted he had rea@ the report, and certain portions indicated the eucalyptus trees would be removed; whereupon Mr. Rollinger stated that some of these would have to be removed because they were not in the centerline of the median strip. , Commissioner Seymour noted that the most southerly grove of eucalyptus trees was the one he was more particularly concerned with; whereupon Mr. Rollinger stated that a portion would not fall within the centerline of the median strip, but eucalyptus trees did present a problem even in cne median strip. Commissioner Seymour noted that there were eucalyptus trees in the median strip on Santa Ana Canyon Road. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 18, 1972 72-651 ITEM NO. lOc (Continued) Mr. Rollinger noted that most c~ the eucalyptus trees in this area were of such a size that they would not be compatible with the landscape median, which was about 14 feet at maximum and varied where a left-turn pocket was proposed, and that it was determined by Parkway Maintenance that eucalyptus trees were rather expensive to maintain. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission th~t the median strip on Santa Ana Canyon Road was considerably wider than that proposed for Imperial Highway. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motio.i, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Environmental Impact Statement for Imperial Highway from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Nohl Ranch Road and from Imperial Highway to Royal Oak Road (A.H.F.P. #654), provided, however, that underground utilities were constructed along said arterials on the hasis that there would be no substantial, adverse environmental impact, and there would be no adverse, irreversible changes involved in the proposed project. ITEM NO. lOd ENVIRONMEFTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Ball Road from Euclid Street to Brookhurst Street (A.H.F.P. #583). Vic Rollinger. representing the Environmental Studies Section of the Engineering Division, indicated his presence to answer questions; whereupon Chairman Seymour inquired whether or not a 10-foot wide sidewalk has proposed. tir. Rollinger noted that wherever commercial uses were established in the City of Anaheim, a full width paved sidewalk from the curb to the end of the sidewalk right-of-way line was provided', and where 10-foot sidewalks were provided, this would be sufficiently wide enough to allow for landscape planting, however, where this area was narrower than 10 feet, it would be impossible to plant the trees; and th~` the existing trees would be removed because of the street widening progr Commissioner Herbst inquired why tree wells could not be placed in the sidewalks; whe:eupon Mr. Rollinger stated that if it was determined that trees could be planted; they would be planted. Commissioner Rowland noted that he would not accept this Environmental Impact Report until it could actually be stated that trees would be planted in the sidewalk area; whereupon Mr. Rollinger stated that in their construction drawinqs they had areas where trees were located at 40-foot on centers, but that was only where the sidewalks wexe 10 feet wide, and that the reason they did not have a space between the curb and the sidewalk was because there was insufficient space to plant anything. therefore, they paved the entire curb to the end of the right- of-way line. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether a median strip was proposed in this area; whereupon Mr. Rollinger stated that they had not chosen to provide the median strip because of the increase in cost of construction. Commissioner Kaywood inquired why was it that neighboring cities of the City of Anaheim were su£ficiently concerned with the beauty of their cities to require median strips, while Anaheim would be known as the ugly city because they did not provide any; and then inquired about the utility poles - whether or not they would be moved back, and upon being informed that these would be relocated, Commissioner Kaywood noted that rather than moving them back, thay should be placed underground at this time, since they had to be moved anyway, they should ~I be placed underground. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the Environmental Impact' State- ment for Ball Road from Euclid to Brookhurst Streets, known as A.H.F.P. #583, provided that cree wells and trees were placed wnerever possible; that construc- tion of a median shall be planted in conjunction with the left-turn lanes; and that all telephone and electrical lines be placed underground in:ttead of relocat- ing them. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMSSSION, September 18, 1972 72-652 ITEM N0. lOd (Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that perhaps the Commission s:hould place sufficient urgency in their motion to require the removal of the poles and wires, because. if the improvement were not obtained at this time, it would never be improved. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Rollinger noted that this was aa arterial financing project, and he was not sure that the landscaping median and underground utilities would be acceptable since they weie~not part of the original proposal, and if there were any modifi- cations, the City would have to fund the cost of the difference. Commissioner Gauer noted that it still took money to relocate the polea and wires, therefore, why not take that money and add it to what it would cost to place the utilities underground. ADJOUItNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissipner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meetinq to September 26, 1972, at 7:00 p.m. to meet with the City Council ir. a work session. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the moticn. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting ad3oux~ned at 6:40 p.m. ADJOURNED PUBLiC HEARING - September 26, 1972, 7:00 p.m. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts SENT : PRE Commission Secretary Ann Krebs There not beinq a quorum, the Commission Secretary adjourned the public hearinq for lack of a qu orum. Respectfully submitted, ~!~~~~'~' ` ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. ioioi,,yn:~~. ~'~-~:zo nnnrm~m, C.J~,_mia