Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/12/27• ty Hall naheim, California December 27, 1972 A REGULAR__MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - A regulas meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commis Was RzGULAR MEETING called to order by Chairman Seymour at uorum 2:06 p.~.. a q~ being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour. - COMMISSION~RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, He~bst, Kaywood, Rowland. ASSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Pson d Deputy City Attorney: Lowry Frank Titus Office Engineer: Jay Charles Roberts Zoning Supervisor: Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Gene "Bill" Young Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - C;mmissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the f ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offer ed a motion to approve the minutes onded by Com THE MINUTES of the meeting of November ARRTED 27, 1972, subject to sec corrections: the following , Herbst and MOTION C line 4 r~ 1: delete "combined"; insezt , . pg. 72-760, pa "disbursed" line 5 ra 2: delete "could"; insert "might , . pa drive instead of walk" from.... Commissioner Rowland laft the Council Chamber at 2:10 p.m• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES~ REPORT NO. 68 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Ownerj ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P• O. Box 3668, Anaheim, Ca. VARZANCE NO. 2461 92801r Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE NINIMUM FRONT . SETBACK TO ERECT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 300 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 200 feet and being located approximately 320 feet north of t:ie centerline of Via Burton Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting ot December 11, 1972, at the request of the petitioner. • Assistant Zoning Supervisor B~11 Young advisefi the Planning Commission that the agent for the petitioner had submitted a.letter this date requesting that subject petition be removed from the agenda and reschedul~~ at a later date. Mr. Thomas Wal.ker, 2855 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, advised the Commission that he was present in oppositions whereupon Chairman Seymour noted that if subjecc petition was approved for remo~al from the agenda, when it was rescheduled for public hearing, all property owners within 300 feet would be notified as they had 1-een notified for this hearing. Commissioner Kaywood o~Fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to _~move Environmental Impact Report No. 68 and Variance No. 2461 from the agenda and any readvertisement cost to reschedule said petition woixld be borne by the petitioner. 72-803 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, DECember 27, 1972 ~Z'80~ VARIANCE NO. 2454 - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES V. THOMPSON, 1332 North Miller Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92806. Owner; requesting WAIVER OF (A) CONTINUED USE OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING IN AN M-1 ZONE~ (B) MINIMUM BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING SETBACKS~ AND (C) REQUIRED ENCLOSURE OF OUTDOOR USES TO ALLOW A WAREHOUSE ADDITION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A NONCONFORM- ING BUILDING USED AS AN OPFICE on property deacribed as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approxim:.tely 37,620 square feet having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the west side of Miller Street, having a maximum depth of anproximately 285 feet, and being located approximately 397 feet nL~rth of the centerline of. Miraloma Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT I:JDUSTRIAL~ ZONE. Commissioner Ganer entered the Council Chamber at 2:15 p.m. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young noted for t~e Commission that subject petition had been advertised incorrectly. Chairman Seymour then stated that.since it was the City Attorney's recommenda- tion that the item be readvertised, it be rescheduled for January 8, 1973. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Variance No. 2454 to the meeting of January 8, 1973, in order to allow time for correct advertisement of the petition. CONDZTIONHL USE - CUNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LEO FREEDMAN, 2346 Kerwood, PERMIT NO. 1359 Apartment 4, West Los Angeles, Ca. 90064, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH a 111-POOT HIGH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL WITH WAZVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con- sisting of approximately 8.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 470 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 660 feet, and being located south and east o£ the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Freedman Way. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 11, 1972, in order that the City Council might determine whetlier an Environmental Impact Report would be needed. 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. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission had previously reviewed the proposal at the last public aearing, at which time it was continued so that the City Council could determir.e whether an Environmental Impact Report would be re- quired, and that the City Council at their December 19, 1972 meeting determined that an EIR would not be required. Mr. Leo Freedman, the petitioner, appeared be=ore the Commission and stated that he could not emphasize enough the importance of conventions and convention halls; that the lessee, Hyatt House, was vitally interested in the convention business and referred to their operation in Los Angeles as Convention Hotel; and that the Hyatt House Corporaxinn was convention-oriented and would send conventions to• this facility. Mr. rreedman then noted in reference to the wai~ers requested, that they had reduced their ~riginal height request from 111 feet to 106.5 feet by eliminat- ing the cocktail lounge on the top floor; that the manager of the hotel had submitted typical registration evidence regarding the type of business that they had, which would indicate the majority of the business for that week was derived from guests coming by other means than their private antomobiles; that they always reserved considerable space for tourists, not only for conventions but people coming from other motels; that guests were given cards to fill out when they registered which indicated whether they were tourists or not; azd that they had a considerable attendance from both touri.sts as well as conventions. ~ ~ ~ MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~Z'8~5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1359 (Continued) Mr. Freedman, in reviewing the recommended conditions, stated he objected to the requirement of an automatic sprinkler system because the cost was pro- hibitive, and none of the other high-rise hotels in Anaheim wese required to provide them; that a further recommendation that sidewalks be installed was also objected to because *.here was no parking permitted on either side of Freedman Way, and they were required originally to plant shrabbery which now was 5 to 6 feet in height in the parkway because it was determined the street would be for vehicles only and was not intended for people to be walking, therefore, they did not plan to construct tY.e sidewalks. In addition, he would like to make a comparison of parking requirements between the Quality Inn and the requizement for subject property, wherein they were required to provide only 246 spaces under the same criteria which subject property was required to have 513 spaces. Mr. Freedman noted that time was very important as it pertained to the money market because from the last time subject petition was considered to this date there was an increase in financing costs of 1/4e, which would amount to $312,500 for a 25-year loan period. Mr. Joi~n Rhinehart, repre~enting the architect, 1000 West La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he would like to di.rect his comments to paragraph 15 of the Report to the Commission, namely, that at the last public hearing they had stated the existing palm trees would be relocated to another location on the property; that they did not feel the proposed tower would affect the adjoining two-story facility since there was about 20 feet between the two buildings, and they proposed to improve the environment by provid:ng private patios; that the parking in the front of the building was being reduced by 35 spaces and was done by design because of the operational problem being there and parking was being provided in adjacent areas; that they did not feel a large parking area in the front of the structure would enhance the aesthetics of any building; that the present proposal was not the same as the original request under Conditional Use Permit No. 1021 because it would be a much better facility and would be more functional and efficient with a common lobby between the proposed tower and the existing facility, and the restaurant would be architecturally improved; t.hat the original conditional use permit approved in 1958 provided for 156 guest rooms, and at that time it was considered a motor hotel, which required one parking space per quest room, while the plans for the tower would require 111 spaces, with 134 additional spaces for the restaurant and other facilities, totaling 433 on-site parking spaces; that on the present proposal there would be 230 guest rooms, or an additional 19 parking spaces required, making a total of 453 parking spaces, however, they proposed 511 parking spaces, even though the increase in the number of rooms was only 38, they provided 58 additional patkiny spaces; :hat this facility could be classified as a hotel, and if this were so, t.hen there would be a reduction in the number of parking spaces required; that the ~.rigi- nal conditional use permit had 142 extra parking spaces, although the present parking requirement indicated by staff was 679 - evidently, staff did •:ot take into consideration the overlapping functioning of the restaurant and ane~llary facilities since guests ~:rould primarily be using these facilities; that the parking for meeting roo~rs could reflect that 25+t of the persons using these rooms would be quests of the hotel, and figures presented with the petition would indicate the Hyatt House facilities were 7.eased 25$ of the time to conventions; that the ratio of the number of guests ar.riving by automobile, according to a regi.stration survey by the hotel staff, indicated 20$ arrived by private automobile while 80+t arrived by other forms of transportation; that they had submitted a comprehensive study of the overlapping uses and registration factors, which, if read, would have indicateu that with the 511 spaces provided, this would represent an excess of 100 parking spaces; and that they would agree with the observation of the Traffic Engineer. that conventions generated varying attendance, and people residing 500 to 600 miles away would arrive by automobile, however, the Hyatt House facility figures would indicate only 20+k of the guests were automobile-oriented. Mr. Rhinehart, in reviewing Finding No. 20 of the Report to the Commission, stated he would like to point out that they had reviewed anot}:er facility in the area where staff indicated there were no facilities in the Disr.eyland area, according to their rPSearch, in which waivers were granted from the hotel park- ing standards, howeve::, they had made a study of public files regarding the Quality Inn, which did not indicate a waiver of the parking requirements, but they also had a parking shortage if the same criteria was applied to the ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 72-806 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 (Continued) facility as was applied to the Ayatt House. Finally, the requirement of sprink- 2ers as required under recommended Condition No. 10 was one that they would like to take exception to because it was clear that the type of building they pro- posed would not require sprinklers for the type of occupants they would have, therefore, they would like relief from that requirement; and that as Mr. Freedman had nentioned, time was of the essence, and they would request either approval or denial of subject petition rather than a continuance. THE HEA^TNG WAS CLOSED. F~re Cnief Jsmes Riley appeared before the Commission and stated that although the requirement of an automatic sprinkler system did not appear to be favorably acceptible to the petitioner, the Fire Department recognized there were a number of high-rise structures in Anaheim that were not sprinklered, however, history had been tel~ing them that today's mobile method of fire protection was not adequate for high-rise towers or large areas of single-story construc- tion and most recent experiences such as in the City of Sacramento with the eight-story National Guard building whcre problems had occurred in fighting a fire; that Sacramento was a Class 3 city, the same classifica}ion as the City of Anaheim, which had a 425-man departme^*_; that the only loss with an auto- matic sprinkler system would be water and fire damage with this type of con- struction proposeii; that in Atlan•ta and Santa M~nica 25 persons died as a result of fires, one of the buildings having had a"D" occupancy rating and was relatively new, being less than eight months old, and the other having an "H" occupancy rating and was less than five years old; that they found it was difficult to operate at heights above grane, and the petitioner was pro- posing a 105-foot high tower, and the effectiveness of fire-fighting equipment and personnel diminished after leaving ground level, and when a structure reached the height of 60 to 70 feet, this effectiveness was very limited; that they would be faced with the very same situation - and he had been in the fire service about 25 years - but buildings classed "A" and being advertised as buildings being "fire proof", particalarly hotels and office s~ructures. claiming the buildings were reinforce~. concrete and safe, but after moving in drapes, carpeting, and furnishings, this became an 11-story incinerator, when originally tk:e building was constructed as iire proof, because the building was loaded with combustible materials; that it was true the automatic sprinkler :system cost money, and he did not know the cost of towers, however, he thought it would be about 60C per square foot, which could be amortized within five years; that with the automatic sprinkler system the need for fire-protected walls could be less, and this did not even take into consideration the reduc- tion in fire insurance where some rates might be reduced by 90$, such as in woodworking shops; that he did not feel waiver of this requirement should be. granted since two wrongs did not make a right; that it was hoped in the future to have a sprinkler system as a requirement in the Fire and Building Cades; and that under the conditional use permit request before the Commission he felt it was a very favorable request. Chairman Seymour inquired whether Chief Riley was familiar with code require- ments of cities such as San Francisco where the city was built of all tower structures; whereupon Chief Riley stated that some city codes required the sprinkler system and others flid not, but San Francisco codes would require the sprinkler system; and that the State Building Code for 1973, Section 18, would require the automatic sprinkler system, while the County of Orange and e:ities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach had already adopted ordinances requiring them. Mr. Freedman stated that the fire in Santa Monica was an old "fire trap", and the building should have been torn down a long time ago; that the Hyatt House was adding to their £acility in Atlanta, and the existing facility 3id not lxave an automatic sprinkler system; and that Chief Riley had mentioned a reduc- tian of 90~ in their insurance rate. which he felt should be substantiated. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Chief l:ad referred to a 90~ reduction in rate pertaining to woodworking shops, not necessarily for a building of the proposed size. , Mr. Freedman observed that the cost of an automatic sprinklez system would be ver} high, and it would mean an additional S100,000 would have to be spent for a requirement that was not required of other tower hot.els in Anaheim, and that many times these sprinklers turned on because of a a~echanical failure, resulting in considerable expense due to water dam~~ge. ~ ~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY,PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~Z'8~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 (ContinL~d) Chairman Seymour noted that one cou3d not compare the facilities proposed with other cities, but the Anaheim Fire Chief had expressed concern regarding requiring the automatic sprinkler system as being a requirement in the Building Code; that he was also concerned with other cities requiring aprinkler systems since the Hilton Hotel in San Francisco had a sprinkler system; and that before construction started on a towez such as was pxoposed, the Commiasion wanted to be assured that the City would not be faced with a tragedy. Mr. Freedman noted that the Hyatt House had opened up a new facility in San Francisco with 100 rooms, and he was sure they had that facility sprinklered. Commiseioner Kaywood noted that at the League of California Cities Convention a representative from Disney World had indicated all facilities at Disney World had been sprinklered, ar.d as a result, there were lower fire rates and a smaller fire department to handle their fire problems. Mr. Fxee6man noted that because Disney World was such a small, isolated area, they would want to put in their own sprinkler system; whereupon Commissioner Kaywood noted that whatever Disney had done, it was always the best. Mr. Freedman observed that the City of Anaheim had a very good Fire Department, and they could also call on other cities sor assistance. Commissioner Kaywood noted that there was no need to increase t.he size of the Fire Department if proper precautions were taken, and as Chief Riley suggested, it would be very difficult to get to the lOth or llth floor with existing fire- fighting equipment, then a sprinkler system was needed. Commissioner Herbst notad that recently on television wherein coverage of the large £ire in Japan indicated many J.ives were lost in a bnilding that was stated to be fire-proof concrete; that many people leaped from the seven and eight-story windows; and that there was very little that could be done in fire-fighting with high-rise buildings as suggested by Chief Riley. Further- more, at a cost of $400 per room, it would be worth it to know that lives would not be lost, and he could not see why the City should permit an antiquated building to be constructed just because the other buildings were not required to provide an automatic spri.nkler system. In addition, if one viewed what had happened throughout the world in the past 60 days in fires, one could under- stand the Fire Chief's concern with having an ordinance requiring automatic sprinklers, and if Anaheim had a problem, they should be the first to correct it. Mr. Rhinehart inquired whether this was an ordinance in effect; whereupon Chairman Seymour noted that it was not, but it could be an urgency ordinance if the City Council so determined. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that there was no ordinance presently existing, but one was being prepared to present to the City Council, however, he did not know how it would be presented, as urgency or standard form, but in all likelihood it would be in force and effect prior to a building permit being issued o~i this facility if subject petition were approved. Mr. Rhinehart then noted that he could not see how the City could estabZish standards regarding sprinklers; whereupon Chairman Seymour raoted that all types of standards could bP applied in approving a conditional use permit. Mr. Rhinehart noted that these types of buildings propoeed varied placement of sprinklers, and if there was no ordinance governing them, it would be ver~ difficult to properlp place them. Mr. Lowry noted that this was a recommendation of the Fire Department as a condition of approval; that the Fire Department made standard recom~~~e,idations for consideration under a conditional use permit, just as the City Enqinaer made recommendations. Commissioner nllred inquired whether the p~t'•.ioner could appeal a condition if it were attached to the approval of a coi,__cional use permit and the City Council did not pass the ordinance as had been discussed; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that this would be a condition of granting a conditional use permit, and the Commission was not now considering an ordinance but a condition recommended b~ the Fire Chief in consideration of approval of a conditional uae permit. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27. 1972 72-808 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 (COntinued) Chairman Seymour inquirea whether the Fire Department had given some considera- tion to an ord9.nance that could conform with some other municipal bodies; whereupon Chief Ri].ey replied that they were presently setting up work sessions with other cities in Orange County in an attempt to establish a standardize3 ordinance for developaient and living safety, and obviously th:s would be a standard throughout the County because would be uniform, and ::iat it would closely parallel what was in the California Uniform Building Code already published. Chairman Seymour then inquired how staff calculated the Quality Inn parkinq requirements since there appeared to be a parking problem with that proposed development - were hotel or motel standards used7 Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young stated there had been no zoning action for a conditional use permit or variance on the Quality Inn property, there- fore, he could not state what the parking ratio was based on, but it obviousl'y conformed to the site development standards of the Commercial-Recreation Zone. Chairman Seymour noted that the reqairements would bE detezmined by whether it was calculated as a hotel or motel; whereupon Mr. Young stated that even on the Hyatt House it was below standard for a combination hotel-motel, and calculations were also made for a hotel standard as well, having only a one-half space requirement per room plus employee parking and ancillary facilities, and the shortage would be 168 spaces for the latter calculaticn. Commissioner Kaywood noted that she had attended Zuncheons at the Hyatt House and found many people drive separately to luncheons, either from home, from work, or from staying late while others left early, and the petitioner was planning more meeting rooma in the hotel; therefore, if the Commission granted the waiver of the parking under hotel standards, the petitioner miqht later find out he would have a parking problem. Chairman Seymour noted that he, too, had attended luncheons at the Hyatt House and never found a shortage of parking because there were always parking spaces available at the rear of the structure, therefore, it would not be necessary for people to drive around looking for parking in the front - it was available at the rear. Chairman Seymour then noted that according to the Report to the Commission, if parking were calculated for subject property at the rate assigned to hotels, there still would be a shortage of 168 spaces, while if it were calculated by both hotel for the tower and motel for the balance, the shortage would be considerably greater. Mr. Young noted that the plans for the Quality Inn had just been reviewed and it was calculated as a hotel, which had 292 rooms, requiring 146 parking spaces, while 264 were provided, making a dif£erence of 118 spaces for the restaurant, meeting rooms, employees, etc. Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding the parking waiver and shortage and method of calculation, and required parking for subject proposal. Commissioner Kaywood requested that if another tower was being considered for subject property, she would suggest that the petitioner begin setting up records now wiY.h information as to the method by which the guests arrived - automobile or ath~r ~cans; whereupon Mr. Freedman stated this was already being done on . yc:ar-around basis. Mr. Lowry inqu_trs~i whether this data was maintained on a day-to-day basis or alphabetically aince the Commission wanted the report of the means of guests' arrival on a day-to-day basis for one year in order to determine whether waiver of the parking could be granted. Commissioner Farano inquired whether Mr. Freedman had statistics to present to the Commission if they were maintaining records on a year-around basis; whereupon Mr. Freedman stated only what was presented with the petition was available this date. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~2'809 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood noted it would take consi2erable time to compile statis- tics for the past year for the mode of transportation for guests of the facility, therefore, if the petitioner would start at the first of the year to compile these figures, the informat•ion would be available whenever needed to present to the Planning Commission when the next tower request was made. Chairman Seymour noted that the propos:l7 was projected for convention use, and the type of tourists that were now being attracted to Anaheim had changed and would continue *o change in greater magnitude as a result of the City's . Convention Center, and it was his feeling that hotel facilities would cater to a yreater percentage of conventionECrs, and perhaps the City might have to change its parking standards in convention areas; that h~ did n~t feel the requested parking waiver was out of line because he would be providing adequate parking space due to the convention-type traffic, but there would be a greater concern when the p~titioner presented a request for another tower, and he would agree ,~ith Commissioner Kaywood's concern because there would be motels - not only tne petitioner's - who would be required to main- tain a record of the mode of transoortation used, and he would recommend to the City Council that the Visitor and Convention Bureau have all hotel/motel owners maintain records as to mode of transportation of all guests in ordes that the Commission could base their decision on any waiver requests fAr parking on petitioner information when a development was proposed in the Commerci,~l-Recreatl:+n Area. Furthermore, conventioneers usually came in by plane and usually~ stayed in the location in '+~hich they were housed. In addition, in light of the statements made by Chief Riley, he would be totally in agreement to require automatic sprinklers for this facility, and although the petitioner found Eault with staff's recommendation that sidewalks be provided and maintained this was a street for vehicular traffic, it was possible people would be walking to nearby facilities rather than taking a cab or having private transportation. Commissioner Seymour then stated he appreciated staff's statements zegarding the Quality Inn; that the Commission had other requests from motels with the same concept and philosophy regarding the type of traffic coming into the city, and the convention site was bringing in more people by airplane. Commissioner Kaywood observed that one petitioner had maintained records for one year, and that facility diu not hava a restaurant or meeting rooms as the proposed facility would have; that staff had indicated no waiver had ever been requested from hotel standards in the Commercial-Recreation Areas and that she could not see how the Commission could state a precedent would not be established since it would be too much of a precedent. Chairman Seymour stated that the Citp had granted waivers in the past regard- less of the hotel or motel, and ~he parking requirements of the City were outmoded. In addition, standards also did not require a sprinkler system. Commissioner Kaywood inquired what would happen if subject waiver of parking were granted and a parking deficiency occurred; whereupon Chairman Seymour stated that since there was no parking permitted on Harbor Boulevard, if there was a parking shortage the petitioner would only be tiurting himself and the success of his business. Commissioner Herbst stated that ±he petitioner could convert the lot to a single-story parkir.!; structure with parking on the roof, which would provide any additional parking needed. Commiss~.oner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate to providing a parking structure if a deficiency occurred; whereupon Chairman Seymour stated that it would be difficult to determine if there was a deficiency. Commissioner Seymour offere3 Resolution No. PC72-329 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1359, subject to recommended condition~, with a findir.g that the requir.ement of a sprinklez system for this nigh-rise tower was deemed necessary on the basis that the 1973 Uniform Building Code would require it and a building permit could not be issued prior to the inception of said 1973 requirement; furthermore, upon ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 72-810 CONDITIONAL USE_PERMIT NO. 1359 (Continued) verbal evidence presented by the Chief of the Anaheim Fire Department that potential fires in tower structures were difficult to control adequately, sKid sprinkler system would be vital for the safety of guests in the •~;~werj that the petitioner stipulated to relocation of existing palm trees to another location on the property; that waiver of the required parking spacea was granted on the basis that the petitioner had submitted evidence that parking needs Lor convention-oriented facil±ties, sach as the tower was proposed to be utilized, would demand less than Code :equirement, and the Planning Commission determined that this use was a hotel facility, however, the petitioner had been advised to maintain records of daily guest parkinq requirements so that the Commission could determine if additional parking would be required when a request was made in the future for r~n additional tower structure; and that the Planning Commission determined that sidewalks would be necessary to provide a meane for the gueats who arrive by other than their own vehicles to be able to walk from this facility to other convention facilities in the Commercial-Recreation Area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Kaywood stated her "no" vote was based upon the parking waiver raquest. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the Anaheim Visitor and Convention Bureau be urged to request all motels and hotels in the Commercial-Recreation Area to compile data of the mode of transportation used by visitors to thE City of Anaheim in order that the City could deter- mine whether parking waivars in the future should be granted, or whether the parking requiraments of the Anaheim Municipal Code should be amended. VARIANCE NO. 2430 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPANY~ 461 South Boylston, Los Angeles, Ca. 90017. Owner; ARNE C. BELSBY, Mini-Warehouse Corporation, 5600 Orangethorpe, No. 704, La P31ma, Ca. 90620, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS AND Ml'NIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A STORAGE WAREHOUSE on property described 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 northwest corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUS".'RIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of August 21 at the request of the petitioner; from September 6 and 18 and December 11, 1972 for the submission of revised plans; from October 2 and 30, 1972 for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report; and from November 27, 1972, to readvertise an additional waiver. 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 Belsby, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions. Chairman Seymour inquired as to the type of material proposed for this facility; whereupon Mr. Belsby stipulated this would be of decorative masonry stone material. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the planting along Tustin Avenue would be similar to that indicated on the plans for La Palma Avenue; where- upon Mr. Belsby stated that the landscaping would be the same on Tustin Avenue and had been an oversight in drawing the plans. s .,.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 72-811 VARIANCE NO. 2430 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-33C and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2430, in part, waiver of Lhe minimum front setback having been withdrawn with revised plans, and subject to conditions and the stipulation by the petitioner that the materials would be of decorative masonry material and the landscaping along Tustin Avenue would be similar to that proposed along La Palma Aver.ue. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll:,wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMI~SIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ENVIRONMEN4'AL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBI~IC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND REPORT NO. 73 TEXACO VENTURES, ZNC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, Ca. 92806, Owners. ENGINEER: Willdan Engineering VARIANCE NO. 2451 Associates, 125 South Claudina Street. Anaheim, Ca. 92805; requesting WAIVER OF (A) REQUIk;:MENT THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS, TRACT NO. 8075~ (B) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH~ AND (C) MIN:LMUM LOT AREA TO REVISION NO. 2 ESTABLISH A 184-UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY TRACT on property described as: An irregularly-shapad parcel of land consisting of apprnximately 62 acres, having a£ront- age of approximately 2,600 feet on both s~ides of Serrano Avenue and being located approximately one mile northeast of Nohl Ranch Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition and tract were continued from the October 18, 1972 meeting for an Environmental Impact Report; from the November 27, 1972 meeting for a revised tract map; and from the December 11, 1972 meeting for further study. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Counc'I1 Chamber at 3:20 p.m. No one appear~d in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is rzferred ~o anci made a part of the minutes. Chairman Seymour requested that the representative of the developer confine his comments to the changes made to the tract map as requested by the Planning ~ommission. Mr. Horst Schor, engineer representing Anaheim Hills, appeared before the Commission and stated that they had revised the tract map, eliminating the lots that were less than 6000 square feet, both gross and pad area; that they had not eliminated the pan-handle lots or easement because this was done by nesign and allowed them to benefit from the hillside terrain ana view lots developed which they felt peoplQ would like because it gave them privacy as well as a view; that in the evaluation of subject petition, Item 15, whereln staff expressed concern regarding the 40-foot setback possibly creating problems, they had reviewed this with the engineer designing the project and determined that by a little gradir.g, Lot Nos. 1, 17 and 18 conld be provided with the proper setback; that there still was a need for waiver of. the lot area of 7200 square feet, and staff had indicated the lot areas could be maintained except that it ai~peared the developer wanted to have a greater lot yie18 - that statement appea::ed to be somewhat incongruous because the property was located in an area where they origin:.lly proposed 300 units at 4 units per acre, whereas they now proposed 184 units, or about 2.97 Lnits i~r acre - a reduction of one unlt per acre; that in a similar situation ir. the flatland area, they would have been permitted 4 t:nits per acret that these lots averaged 11,600 square feet and were comparable to R-Fi-10,000s that the PC Zone allowed for greater flexibility to the developer since the City d1d not have applicable ~oning for hillside development, and this was the reason for the waiver raquests because they were working with hillside problems; that they would comply with the engineering requirements ~ .... ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~2'812 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 73, VARIANCE NO. 2451~ AND TENTATIVE MAP UF TRACT NO. 8075, REVISION NO. 2(COntinued) regarding street grading; that they had elected to include the MWD easement with future development o£ the property westerly of the easement rather than incorporating it within subject tract; and that they also shared the Commission's concern regarding ingress and egress to large developments. Mr. Schor then indicated on a map posted on the Council Chamber wall the road system projecting extension of Nohl Raach Road to Anaheim Hills Road, extending Serrano Avenue through subject property one mile easterly of its present terminus, tying in with Canyon Rim Road which was also considered a secondary highway and would be completed by December, 1973. Mr. Schor expressed the opinion that there appeared to be a lack of communi- cation between the staff and Anaheim Hills because although the road system was still on paper, they had completed the planning study for the easter.•i;~ boundary of the golf course and planned final studies in the Spring of 1973, which would incorporate the extension of Canyon Rim Road, thereby completing a loop system, and this was one manner in which to resolve the e~:isting access problem; and that they presently were in the process of grading Nohl Ranch Road from Hillcrest Avenue, which would provide a second outlet to Santa Ana Canyon Road because the City Council had requested that the City Engineer complete drawings. Office Engineer Jay Titus stated that the road mentioned by Mr. Schor would exit to Anaheim Hills Road, and the other connection wou'_d go through Solomon Driver then to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and then in response to questioning by Commissioner Rowland, stated that this would be an actual access which could be used. Mr. Schor noted there was a short span west of Anaheim Hills Road that was now being graded and completed. Commissioner Rowland noted that the representative stated the houses in this area would be on the market one year before the road was completed to Canycz Rim Roadt whereupon Mr. Schor replied that the City Council had instructed the City Engineer to prepare plans for the extension of Nohl Ranch Road. Mr. Titus advised the Commission that the City Council had projected this as an HFP project for the next fiscal year and would be completed during the 1973-74 fiscal year. Mr. Schor noted that Imperial Highway would be completed to Nohl Ranch Road, connecting to the Westridge development; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that this would be going to bid in the spring of 1973. Mr. Schor further noted that they had graded Serrano Avenue to the Edison easement, and the County of Orange had finalized their plans for the 2xten- sion of SPrrano Avenue to the City of Orange; that after having talked with representatives of the County Road Department two weeks ago, they stated their portion of Serrar.~ Avenue would be under construction in 1974; that Anaheim Hills was planning the area in the northeast section of the rar.ch and were well aware of the fact that another major entrance from Santa Ana Canyon Road was neede3, therefore, they had made studies for a roadway just east of Eucalyptus Drive which would tie in with Serrano P.venue; that as to actual development, the units were on pa.per and none were developed, however, the first development would be the Americza nousing development which planned a maximum of 100 units to begin building in the spring of 1973, with a gradual build-up to this 100 units, and S& S Construction Company still had no specific plans and no tentative. map had been submitted because of the schedule and time involved for processing specific plans, therefore, they had no plans icr developing any units in 1973; that they had no specific builder at the present time, therefore, there would be no greater number of units developed in 1973. with a possible maximum of 350 units, and by the end of 1974, they anticipated 500 to 600 units in the area; that although the figure for 1973 was 350 units, it appeared to be somewhat high, and by the time Canyon Rim Road was completed, more units would be built; that they also propc^ed to have an access road to Mohler Drive, and there were other roads where one ~ ~ MINUTES, CI~Y PLANNING COMMISSIO:~, December 27, 1972 72-813 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NC. 73, VARIANCE NO. 2451, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8075, REVISION NO. 2(Continued) could ~•^:ve on and off the range, whicY, were graded roads maintained by the 'r~inc for the Edison ~ompany's use which could be used for emergency access sinco h~~ had driven these roads with his own vehicle from Weir Canyon to the ricy c% Orange and the map on the wall indicated where roads were a^~31ab7.~- sc t~•:••.t tY:e area woulri not be izolated, and eonstrur_ti~n of the r.adway." wxs nc':. dcn'= because the City of P.:~aheim would not acc=pt ~~3ioatier. for roadways P~ ~h!•~ poi.nt, hexaver, t.`.ey were actively pursuing ai =c~-:.~ system that ~oalr'! n i~ ar.eate any prublems in the a•~ent of a natural disaste: , and the road system ~r~sn'tci be developed to keep up with the number of units b~:ing proposed. ASS.tscant Develoomeiit Services Dire,:°vr Ronald Thompson noted that the secoadary highw~.• referred to by Mr. Schor was not indicatsd un the Anaheim Hills General =~:an as a conneGto:c, however, if the City estab7.ished the alignment of Mohler ~rive, they would be happy to connect '.t ~+izk: ~~,.,yr~n Rim Road, b~t staff ha~.l r.ot seen any precise alignment for Mohler Drive. Chairman Seymour r:h•=n stated thai summing u~ statements by Mr. Schor, the ~i.ty could expeci a maxim:tm of 35J families to be living in Anaheim P.ills with egress by way of Anahei.~ Hil?s Road and Aillcrest Drine to Sola•.non Drive; ~ahereupon Mr. :~chcr stated this was coire-`, and the de~:~•ity proposed would be close to the entrance, with a maximum o;, i00 units in or..e area near Anaheim Hi'ls and Nohl Ranch P.oad. +::hairman Seymour then noted ths~ the dev~nloper would not have presented the ~,raposed plan 3f he did not know of the Planning Commission's cencern and L•.he City of A~aheim accepting this on the basis being presented.. however, he would like to caution the petitioner tY.at what was projected v;hen building in greater volume in 1974 could be accomplished only if the coads were ~~n- structed to keen in oac~ with the development; whereupon Mr. Schor sia.tPr that a second access wa;a needed, such as a loop road, othe.rwise they coe:ld not sEll these homes. Chairman Seymour stated that an addit:i~n~l a.ccess was naeded, nuc just a loop road to Anaheim Hills Road - othexv~i~e, r~:sidents of the homra would have t~~ use emergency roads in the event of a disaster; whereu!~on Mr. Sc•i:or stated that by the time therc~ was any apprecia,•le develo~,ment of h~~mes, ~ road would be constructed fzom the L resent te>:ninu: .: °er.:anc~ A~~eT:!ia t::, tbe ~ity of Orange, which woula be 1~ iailes waster:; .,f ~ai3 street, an3 it would i,c a - duai effort between the City aF Orange :.nd the County of Orange; that all of the property cwners had indicated they would dr:3icate land for the e:•.tension of Serrano Avenue thro+:gh the City of Orar.4e; zhat th~~ Road Department felt there was a need for a c:ross-connection to Or.ange Park. Boulevard to permit resident~ of Oran~,e ::~ hav2 access to the Santa Ana Canyon Road area; and that the orange Unifi~:~ School District had asked for a street to go to Santa Ana Canyon ko:id. • Mr. Schoz i~irthec noted that because of e^~i~eering proble~s i~ivolved in having a px•imaxy `.ighway crossing the ridge, they projected to shelve having Weir Canyon Road exit to Santa Ana Canyon Roa~i, and it nay r.ut be constructed for a:iother five to ten ye3rs sir.ce Anaheim Hi.lls Road aas noh+ under construc- tion and when the road was :;ompletad to ex~:enn Serxsno Avenue ?-.o the City of Orange, this would appear. to 'ue mora J.~• ical. Commissioner Allred inquire~ wh~t the density oi lot~ weze where they w~eie 50~ under 7200 square feet .requirement, becan~e witi~ the size of this project, he would have to go cr~ record as teing opposed to lots having less th:: Code requiremer!.t siac.~_ tY.e lot.; in the hill and canyon area should be larger, and he could not see any reascn for loading up the ~roptrty wi.th the potential density .because of d reduction in ti~e size of the lots in the hill an~ canyon area which shouid be a`. least 7200 square~ feet. Mr. Schor r~eplied t!zat the PC. Zone projected this are.a for a density of 300 ~nits, while this development was proposnd witi: enl;~ 184 uni*sr tha.t cney had ittempte~~ to lower the density by one full un:~ per acre, which they thought was quite substantial; and that the o~erall de.^.~~.:.y 'aas still 3 units to the acre having avetage lot sizes of 11.000 sq~iare feet. ~ rl ~~ MINL'1ES, CI:'Y PL~~NNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 72-814 ENVIRONMI:NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 73~ VARIANCE NO. 2451r AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT T~O. 8075, REVIS:[ON NO. 2(Continued) - Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that the density should be reduced because the actual hou:.ir~g developer would ask for the iltimate density they could get; that althau3h the City did have 6000-square foot lots, *.hey were not appropri+:te in the hill and canyon area; and that he could not see loadir~g that area wi1:h lots less t:han '200 square feet - he would prefer R-H-10,000 lo ts . Commis:,ioner Herbst noted L•hst some of the lots appeared not to be very build- able, F~articu7.arly where 50-foot wide ':s wera proposed, namely, Lot Nos. 1, 17 and 18, and before he could apprnve tract map, this would have to be ,;"r.a;~g~:i; wher=upon Mr, Schor state•1 this change would not be difficult. „4g~zty cii., l+ttc_ney Frank Lowry notefl that it might be necessary to change tn_ confic3uration of r'.ze tract ma, a3ong one boundary because o£ the easement propo~~cd to 'oe used £o~ ::i~iner and riding trails in which a maintenance distrirt had been establis:ze3 ~~thin a tsaat. however, subject tract did not lnclude ~his trail in its boundarie:s; whereupon Mr. Schor stated it was p2an•• :ed to include this easement kn `.t:e adjacent tract. Mr. Lowry stated `~at this wocla c.hen remove any legal problem in the process- ing of subjeci: tract. Commissioner Herbst expresseci cancern that the tracL map indicated one l~t would provide ingre.:s and eg.ress to other lots not having £rontage on a dedi- cated street, which a•ould mean having to mainta;n the area for the enjoyment of others, and this appe~ired ta be ~,aor. planning or desi.7n, and some of the lot sizes were so small, i~:. w~uld appear that a tilt-up house was proposed, which could ?rese.nt probleins ::i±h earth mavemC:t and fires and deterioration within ter. ye3rs; that hz could see the reason for flag lots in the hill area, but to sel~ara~e one's own prope~ty to give access to someone alse seemed incongru- cus ^i~d presen, d a very puor living environmei.t because ::he accessway could b~ filled with parked cars iP one home had a party. creating a cleanup problem f.or the peraon over which these cars had parked; and that this cou?_d be the bc~~erly Hills of Anaheim i£ it were properly developed. Commissioner Farano noted that the tract map presented represented what Com~nissioner Rowland had stated woui6 happen when flat land development stan~ards were aprli?.a to hillside property, and he could see creating more oroblems if subjec:t tract were appro~vtd, and then inquired of staff how they were progre~sing w~tii the hillside ordinance that was promisea as a resule cf a joinf work session with the Cit;+ Council where the conclu~ion was reached that in view of the City e~ttorney's ooinion regarding developmant standards the Commission izaA established which could not be done since the developer would have to develop to R-1 standards .:h~ch might ve •,-:~erccme i= a hillside ordinance was ad.o_~ted. 'v;r. Thompson noted that the De -iupment Services Aepartmer.t has very short of plannet~ as the result of requiring EIR's but that after the first of the year, the de>>artment would have threp new plannprs and, hop~fully, this ozdinance wou.ld be presented to the Commission shortlX. Commisaioner Farano observed that if these standards for the hillside were not soon a:+ailable, it v~ould be too late, and tha!- it hac taY.en a lony time f.or him to ~rrive at the vie4~point of concer:~ expressed by Commissiqner Rowland. Commissioner Rawland observed tnat tne Commissior_ r_cognized the history of past actions antl ~tiewe@ the problems with the very same eyes the law bad placed an the Co*:nission over their best judgment, and :b.en inquired of the deve'loper how he liked working under the handicap an3 llandcuffs now presente; by agreeing to be permitted to ~evelop under flat '_and standards. Mr. Schor replied tY.at thay had to integrate their own guidelines and work with the other cities. Commissioner Farano suggested that the proposed ordinance be foryottan for the present, with the de~eloper presenting som~:thing to the c:ommission ~r!ierain le:;ser waivers would be requested; that he did not feel the c3ensity had any bearing with. the 3evelopment. ~ ~.J ~ s M3Nr?mES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSIO,1, December 27, 1972 72-815 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR7. NO. 73~ VARIANCE NO. 2457.r AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. E~75, REVISIOP~ NO. 2(Continued) Commissianer Rowland stated the density was not important, but the site devel- opment standards were very important, and he would much rather see higher density concentrated wi*_h more space undeveloped because it would be much cheaper for the ~ity to maintain less roads, clectrical lines, sewers, etc.; and that this Planniny Comm!.ssicn was trying to obtain the help of the I~naheim Hills t~ try to be mcre creative. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. 5chor stated that Anaheim H:.lls was tryinq to cooperate with the Planninq Commicsion and wanted to redesic~n the tract and present this to the City !:ouncil a£ter they had an opportunity to determine what should be done to the three lots and reviewing the access easement iots. Ch4i~:man 5e~mour noted that the redesign was to have been done duriny the past two weel:s when the Commission continued the petition and L-ract, but now the developer was reque~ting a"yes or no" - the Commission wanted the developer to work with them so that the project would be a go~3 developmenc for future residents in Anaheim Hills, but with the attitude of the developer that there were only two courses of action, yes or no, it left the Commission with no alternative but to let the City Council make the decision, even though the Commission was very eniphatic in their reque~t for changes to the tract, and the changes i:hat were macle were very minimal, however, the 40-foot setback now projected was not pointed out in the Report to the Commission at the previaus public hearing. Co~r:;~issioner Rowland noted that this was a requireinent of the Subdivision Ordinanoe and not a zoning waiver. Mr. Schor, in re.cponse to questioning by Commissioner Farano, stated that some actioi: was requested at t'his hearina. Mr. Thompson stated that ne would like to point ovt co the Commission t_hat ~he staff had worked diligently with represent.atives of Anaheim Hills, even if ti,here were no zones that would give a developer a greater dc.gree of flexibi]ity te come up with some kind of uniqueness for these ares3 of concern of the Cun~s~is- sion, such as easement across the lots and lots siding-on, as well as adequate depth; that staff Y~ad pointed these problems out to the representatives on several occasions, even suggesting that the. map be revised; and that from the standpoint of the developers, they were awa,re of the concern of the Planning Commission and staff. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-331 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 73 be adopted as the City Council's Environmental Tmpact Statement since there would be no significant adverse or bene£icial impact resulting from the im;olementation of the proposed project. (See Resolution Book) On ro].1 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin3 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, ?towland, Seymour. N~ES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSI~NERS; None. Commiss~_or_er F:o'aland ofi•ered a motion to grant Petition for Variance rfo. 2451. Psior to roll call, continued discuss.~on was held by the Commissio~i regarding: 1) approval of subject petition with special conditions i:icorporating the conceszs of the Commission; 2) denial of subject petition because of the devel- oper's unwillingness ta submit a revised tract map with the suggestions made by the Commissioa; 3) the statement made by the developer that 350 units would be built in Anaheim Hills during 19'73, and if just one additional unit were proposed to be built in Anahei;n Hiiis duzinq 1973, then the secondary access should be provided, not just the statement by the developer but a written agreement or requirement of approval of a zoning requestt 4) that if subject petition and tract map were denied, that findinqs be clearly spelled out so that the City Council was fully aware of the grave concern of the Commission that redesign of the tract shoul~i be presented to the Planni*+? Co~mission for Planninq Commission consid~ration in order that the City ~ouncil need not be burdened with details of design of the tract; 5) that '.tie tract proposed did ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Lecember 27, 1Q'2 72-816 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 73, VARIANCE NO. 2451~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8075 REVZSION NO. ~(Continued) not meet flat land standards im~osed by design criteria on other planned resi- dentisl developments, and Lut Nos. 1, 17 and 18 would have to be redesigned to meet Title 17 requirementsr whi].e Lot Nos. 143, 144 and 145 were totally unaccoptable becauae of the access across property to reach a landlocked lot and appeared to be very poor engi.neer.ing design and planning; anfi that side-on lots should not be cc~ne,~de,red in the canyon, particularly on arterials, since previous City exgerience would ~er.d to expect requests for commercial use of these side-on lots because of their undesirable living environment. Commi3sioner Rowland withdrew his motion of approval. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution Na. PC72-332 3nd moved for its passage and adootion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2451 on the basis ihat although the Com~iission requested that the developer request a furthar continuance to revtse Yhe tract map, redesign Lot Nos. 1, 17 and 18 Lo refZect the minimum building setback required by the Subdivisiori Ordinance and redesign Lot Nos. 143, 144 and 145 which were proposed to be served by an ensement, the developer was unwilling to cooperate snd requested that the Commission take action without any furtrier continuance; that the peti~ioner's unwillingness to cooperate caused grave concern to the Planning Cosnmission that fut+are de/elopment of Anaheim Hills would be contrary to the densities approverl in the General Plan whi•;h would conflict with established development standards, and that the living environment of said area would be less than desirablet that the density proposed would be too great and existing street patterns would be inadequate to handle this increased density; chat the proposed easement lots, although designated as "vie'a lots", would be extremely difficult to maintain since one lot would be bisected by a ro,sd, creating a public thoroughfare on private property which the property o~~ner of said lot would be required to maintain; and that several lots were proF:,sed to side-on to an arterial street, thereby creating the ,ossi- bility of conversion of these lots for commercial use in the future, based on requests that the Commission has faced in the past in similar situations else- where i.n the city. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the f~•regoing resalution was gassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER~: Allred, Farano, Gauer~ Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconde3 by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 8075, Revision No. 2, on t:ie basi3 that the Pla~ning Commission denied Variance No. 245'l, and subdivision of the property could not be accemplished as progosed under the existing zoning. ~ZE~I:SS - Chairman Seymour declared a ten-minute secess at 4:00 p.~. RECONVENE - Chaircr.an Seymour reconvened the meetinq at 4:10 p.m., all Commissioners being present. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY WESSELN, 1717 West Lincoln Avenue, N0. 72-73-28 Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Ownerj BILL PHELPS, 1095 North Main - Street, Orange, Ca. 92667, Agent; property described as: VARIANCE NO. 2962 A rectangularly-shaped parcel having a frantage of approxi- - mately 192 feet on the west side of Velare Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 266 feet and being located approxinately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTZPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZON~ (PARCELS 1 AND 2) and R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (PARCEL 3). REQUESTED CLASSIF'LCATION: PARC~L 3 ONLY - R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIIIENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIIKUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FE~T OF AN R-A ZONE TO EItECT A 33-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~2-81~ ~ECLASSIFICATION NO. :2-73-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2452 {Continued) C~airman Seymour noted that a request had. been received earlier in a~he after- noon from the agent for the petitioner requesting a continuance of two weeks, to tkze meeting of Jaauary A, 1973; whereupon the Commission Secretary noted that if revised plans were to be submitted, there would be insufficient time since these would be required by the £ollowing day and the fact that the agenda had already been prepared, therefore, she would reques= that this petition be continued to the January 22, 1973 meeting. Commissioner Allred offered .~ motion, seconded .y Commissioner Kaywood and MOTIGN CARRIED, to continue c~nsideration of petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-28 and Variance No. 2462 to the meeting of January 22, 1973, as rr,quested by the petitioner, scheduling the petitions as the first item on the agenda. VARIANCE NO. 2463 - PUBLIC HEARING. HAROLD At1D HELEN THORPE, 1055 North Harbur Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Own~srsj rec~uesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED COMMERCIAL USES OF A R~S:CDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ALLOW PET SUPPLY SALES AND DOG GROOMING IN AI~ EXISTING RESZDENTIAL STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 59 feet on the south side of Victor Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximateZy 105 feet and being located at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Victor Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. Two persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the request to rtilize a portion of the area now being used for dog grooming for the sale of pet supplies; that no structural modifications were proposed; that the netitioner stipulated to the removal o£ all nonconforming and/or illegal signa and .:Jil~ornance with C-1 sign requlations= that since a commercial use was being made of a residential structure, the maximum permitted sign area would be 8 squar~ feet; and that the petitioner stipulated that the retail pet pr.oducts business would be operated in conjunction with the "appointment only" dog groom- ing business and such service would not include the sale of live pets. Mr. Harold Thorpe, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that he had purchased the property three months ago and they were operating by appointment only for a dog grooming parlor as a home occupation-type work; that the Commission might be concerned that the four parking spaces proposed would be inadequate, however, since they planned to have appointments only, this would be more than sufficient f.or parking since people would leave their dogs to be groomed and would pick them up later, and his wife was the only one whe performed this operatzon; and that the accessories would be for sale to the ovtners of the dogs they were qrooming, and no outside sales would be anticipated. Mr. Forrest Zwiener, 512 Victor Avenue, ~aPpeared before the Commission, noting he had purchased his property in May of 1931 and hoped to stay at this address; that subject property was originally addresse3 as 502 West Victor; that there would be parking problems because the petitioner had two trucks which he presently parked in the parking areas proposed, an3 there was a considerable problem with parking on Victcr Avenue with people runn:'.ng across his yard, damaging ~he lawn and the shade trees; that there wexe dogs barY.ing at night, as well as during the day when some people had to sleep; that the proposed use wouJ.d tend to depreciate the value of his home if he wanted to sell ttis home, due to these barking doqs; and then in response to questioninq hy Commisaioner Gauer, stated that he did not object to the beauty parlor and did not object to the origi;.al use established in the building, which was an accounting office, because these did not generate any neises, but when two dogs got toqether, there was always the possibility of barking. Mr. Thorpe, in rebuttal, noted that he had three dogs of his own and had obtained the dogs to protect his propertys that when one was grooming dogs, these dog3 would be in the house for two hours, therefore, would not add to any noises out- doors; *:~at none: of the dogs were kept overniqhtr that his neighbors also had dogs; and that he had trained his dogs to bark when people came ~~rito the property. ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~Z-bl8 VARIANCE NO. 2463 (Continued) Mr. Thorpe, in response to further Commission questioning, noted that items for sale were now stored in the garage, znd if the variance wex~e approved, these items w~uld be moved into the buiiding, making space avai2able for the parking of his trucks and creating four parkinq spaces adjacent to the alley. Mrs. Zwiener, 512 Victoz Aveni:e, appeared before the Commission and noted that even though the petitic::~~r might have four on-site parking spaces, people rarely used these spaces but F':ked in the street in front of their homes, and when visitors came to visit them, they were unable to park in front of their home. Mr. Thorpe, in rebuttal, noted that they had asked their customers to use the parking spaces on the property, and the problem of people parkiag in front of the home was the fact that there was a small shopping center across the street, and they had the same problems as the Zwieners had indicated - this became worse when football games were scheduled at La Palma Stadium. anc.one could not stop people from parking on a public street. Mr. Robert Murray, 1304 South Falcon Street, appeared before the C~mmission and noted that the problem regarding parking adjacent to subject property and on Victor Avenue was because of the laundromat located in the small shopping center which required considerable parking, and for potential cuatomers to park in front of 512 Victor Avenue would mean that the dog would have to be carried 75 feet to the dog grooming place. Mr. Zwiener then stated that his primary opposition was the noise factor, parti- cularly with the petitioner stating he had trained his dogs to bark when people approached the premises - this would mean that when a dog was brought to the p•roperty, his dogs would be barking continuously. The Commission inquired whether it was the petitioner's stipulation that there would be no boarding kennels or cages, and what would the hours of operation be; whereupon Mr. Thorpe stated that they had cages for drying dogs, however, they did not plan to have kennels because the dogs would not be kept overnight; that it took approximately i~ hoursto groom one dog, and the dog was placed in a cage to dry; and that the hours of operation would be 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. by appointment only. Chairman Seymour noted that it was part of the record that the petitioner stipulated to retaining the Pour parking spaces on-site as being available for parking of the customers during the hours of operation. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of customers anticipated each day; whereupon Mr. Thorpe stated approximately two to three per day. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not the doqs would be barking if someone brought his dog to be qroomed; whereupon Mr. Thorpe stated that the dogs were housed at 502 Victor Avenue, while the entrance to the dog grooming parlor would be on Harbor Boulevard, and that customers did not sit to wait for their dogs because they would drop them off and pick them up approximately two to three hours later. Commissioner Farano stated that he could see many uses that could be made of the property other than a dog grooming parlor that would not be offensive to the neighbors; that he wanted the petitioner 'o underatand that the neighbors were very disturbed by the proposed operation because of the possibility of barki.ng dogs, however, not only did the peti i~~.ner have dogs, but sc did the neigY!bors, therefore, if the barking of dogs l+ec~me a problem, he would suggest that ~he petitioner insulate the rear af the premises as a sound barrier so that neighbors would not be disturbed. Mr. Thor~:e then reviewed for the Commission the location of the proposed dog grooming business and its relationship to the location of where his own personal dogs were maintained, and stated that he had every intention of keeping his own dogs separated from the dogs that would be coming to the grooming pzrlor; that they had a locked door, and their signing would indicate that grooming of dogs was by appointment only; and that since his wife was the only one who would do the dog grooming, their reason for asking for sales of supplies was to add to her income because it took from 2 to 2~i hours to groom one doq alone. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~Z'819 VARIANCE NO. 2463 (Continued) Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-333 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2463, subject to all dogs t•eing caged on the interior of the building; that the petitioner stipulated there would be no kennels, dog runs, or boardinq of dogs on the premises; that the hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and that parkinq would be open to customers from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. only since the retail sales were incidental to the dog grooming which would be by appointment only; and subject to other conditions, with a findinq that the Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that exemption declaration status be granted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing sesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PIISLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER, TRUSTEE, c/o Earl Miller, NO. 72-73-27 6363 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, Ca. 90028, Owner; DONALD H. YODER, 17291 Trvine Boulevard, No. 107, Tustin, Ca. 92680, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.65 acres having no frontage on a dedicated street and being generally located north and east of the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 400 feet and beinq located approximately 295 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT ZNDUSTRIAL, 20NE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood o£fered a motion, secondeu by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planninq Commission finds and determines that *he proposal would have no significaat environmental impact and, therefore, recom- mends to the City Coucicil that exemption declaration status be granted. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-334 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 72-73-27 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PAULINE E. HINRICKS, 300 North State PERMZT NO. 1349 College Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92806, Owner~ GEORGE S. HANOSH, 300 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim. Ca. 92806, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH .?,N AUTO- MOBILE RENTAL AGENCY IN AN EXISTING COMMERCZAL BUILDING WITA WAI9ER OF MINIIdUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the noxth side of Lincoln Avenue, having a mar.imum depth of approximately 129 feet and being locatsd approximately 80 feet east of the centerline of Topeka Street. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~2'82~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT_N0. 1349 (COntinued) Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part ot the minutes. Mr. Greg King, attorney represer.ting the agent for the petitioner. appea:~ed before the Commission and advised them that for the record it should be ind~cated that Pauline Hinricks was no longer the owner of. the property - since the petition was filed, Mr. Hanosh had assumed ownership. Mr. King further noted that Mr. Hanosh, the agent, would have an automobile rental agency for a leasing company and maintenance for many makes of rental cars within a year's time, and then in response to Commission questioning, noted that the only type of repairs they would do on the property would possibly be chan9inq tires, however, there would be no mechanical repair wozk, such as replacement of valves, etc.. perhaps only minor tune-ups, in the azea where thE steel building was located along the west part of the building which was not now covered. Mr. King then reviewed Paragraph 11 regarding redesigning the parking area, and Mr. Hanosh stated this would be all parking for new cars brought in to their facility where they would be parked for several days awaiting pick-up by the lessees for d4livery elsewhere. Mr. King then inquired of Mr. Hanosh tnat if cars remained on the premises for an extended time, would they then go to auction; whereupon Mr. Hanosh stated that the used cars would be taken every week for auction and would be traded, however, these would all be trade-ins from leased cars on which the lessees would have an option to purchase them or take t:~em on consignment, but they would be disposed o~ to wholesalers at an auctiont that sales would be at the end of a lease, and the customer also had the option to purchase the vehicle after a two or three-year lease; and that they also leased cars for six months at a time and had a program in cooperation with Chrysler Corporati for ieasing of their vehicles for six months at a time. Commissioner Farano inquired what was planned for the display area; whereupon Mr. Hanosh stated that this would be for the storage of cars; that he worked with various dealerships in Southern California and had offices in San Diego, Santa Ana, and Los Angeles. Mr. King then noted that these leases were pa~er sale types similar to brokeraqe services. Mr. Hanosh noted that there would be approximately 20 cars stored on this facility awaiting delivery to the lessors. Commissioner Herbst observed that from conments made by the agent for the peti- tioner and his attorney, it would appear these were paper sales and there would be no othar sales on the lot; whereupon Mr. Hanosh stated that was correct - that this would not be used as a used car lot since he already had one on South Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not a lessee, after having leased the car for six months, would have the option to sell, purchase, or re-lease it; whereupon Mr. Hanosh stated that he could either purchase the car or re-lease the car, and these were all options available at the time of leasing. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Sill Younq noted that on the basis of the applicant's most recent statements, that if the area designated as a shed became a service area, this would further reduce the parking deficit. Commissioner Allred advised the pe*_itioner that there would be a deficit of 16 to 18 cars if a portion of the parkinq area were converted into a service area. Mr. Hanosh replied that when they developed their service department, there would still be sufficient space for overnight parking of these leased vehicles until picked up by the lessee. Commissioner Farano observed that since the primary use proposed was the leasing of cars, not the conducting of sales at this location, it would be up to the applicant to dispose of used vehicles at this location, as well as the new cars which were being leased. ~ ~ - ~- ---. • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27. 1972 72-821 CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1349 ~Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that if the petitioner advertised the facility, retail sales would limit him to the leasing of cars only; whereupon Commissioner Farano noted that the petitioner would be advertising this business, an3 the leasing contract will continue with an option for the lessee to purchase the car so that the transaction for all (lease and/o: purchase) could be consummated at the time the leasing of the vehicle was established, and, therefore, there was no need for having a showroom or display room. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the manner in which subject petition should be approved and the limitations thereof. Mr. King advised the Commission that the credit union or school districts would refer the lessees to the petitioner, advising the petitioner what type of vehicle and options that were wanted on the vehicle being leased. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-335 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Perinit No. 1349, subject to conditions, with the stipulation by the petitioner that the parking area would be redesigned as suggested by the staffj that there shall be no retail sales of vehicles unless said sales were in conjunction with the leasing of a vehicle and which had been included in the lease agreement for said vehicle. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauerr Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS COMPANY, 1701 Byrd REPORT NO. 69 Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23226, Owner; ROBERT P. HALL, 1557 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Agent; CONDITIONAL USE requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SALES PERMIT N0. 1361 AGENCY WITH WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED USES~ ~B) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT~ ~C) MINIMUM REAR YARD AND (D) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE on pxoperty described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres, having a frontaqe of appraximately 700 feet on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 450 feet and being located approximately 660 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is re£erred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Robert Hall, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted they proposed to establish a Mazda automobile agency on this 5-acre plot of lanQ; that he had contacted Mrs. Boyd, owner of the trailer park to the south of this location, who stated she was in full accord with the facility if a 6- foot wall were constructed along the southerly property line of subject property, which was her only ccncern, and although this was an expensive requirement, he presumed it was necessary; that he did not fully understand statements made by staff in Finding No. 14. since they needed only 2~ acres and the property was much too large for their immediate needsr that he did not want to mislead the Commission and hoped to eventually use the balance of the property for the sale of recreational facilities or the establisha~ent of another automobile agency; that he planned to leave the rear one-quarter of the property in dirt without paving it and hoped some day to enlarge the proposed facility, although he was aware this would mean another petition having to be £iled, and if he were re- quired to pave this portion, thi.s would be a waste of money. Chairman Seymour inquired whethez it was the petitioner's intent to store vehicles on the vacant portion; whereupon Mr. Hall replied negatively. ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANIIING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 72-822 ENVIRCNMENTAL IMPACT REPOR7 NO. 69 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1361 (Cont'd.) Chairman Seymour noted that at s+lch time as it became r.ecessary to use the property, then it would be necessary to have the property paved. Mr. Hall further noted that he was unfamiliar with the landscapAng requirement adjacent to the residential uses and asked for clarification. The Commission discussed this requirement with the petitioner, noting that the Commi::sion generally required where commercial uses were adjacent to residential uses, even though this was a trailer park, landscaping had to be provided adjacent to the wall, such as trees and hiqh shrubLery, to shield from vievr the commercial aspect of the property. Chairman Seymour noted his primary concern was the proximity of the service stalls to the mobilehome park, and as far as he was concerned, he did not find it necessary to provide landscapp buffering along the south since the proposed operation would be a considerable distance from that property line and buffering would not be necessary until development occurred adjacent to the south property line, but he felt it was necessary to have at least trees along the boundaries where the use would be in close proximity to the tr.ailer park along the west and north. Mr. Hall noted that a wall 5 to 6 feet in height already axisted which should give the trailer park considerable sound protection. Chairman Seymour noted that the height of the mobilehomes would be more than the 6-foot wall, therefore, landscaping was one of the reasons for shielding from view the operation under considaration. Mr. Hall the inquired whetner he would be required to plant trees along the entire property lines, both to the south, north and west. The Commission determined that trees at 20-foot centers would be planted around the area where the proposed use was to be developed since only one-half of the property was being developed, and that landscaping would be required along the south property line at such time as a use was proposed adjacent to that property line. Commissioner Herbst noted that it would be eXtremely difficult to prevent employees from parking on the undeveloped area; whereupon Mr. Iiall stated that there would be so much land he would not know what to do with it. Commissioner Herbst noted that since there was no beffering or chain, there would be no control except to have the vacant part blacktopped sinoe he did not want people to turn around in the blacktop area, creating a dust nuisance; whereupon Mr. Hall stated that he planned to have ;~nly two entrances, and he would require his employees to keep off of the dirt area since he did not want the dust to settle on the new cars parked there. Commis~ioner Herbst suggested that perhaps some form of a divider could be placed at the edge of the blacktop proposed Chat would deter people using the undeveloped portion for turnaround ar.d parking. Commissioner Rowland noted that there was a grade separation between the service bays and the mobilehome park, and landscaping would not help to minimize the noise, however, a wall would be of some help. Commissioner Allred noted there already was a 5-foot wall at the hiqhest gra.de level; whereupon Mr. Hall stated that it was 5 feet for the trailer park, but subject property was 2 to 4 feet below the top o£ the wall, and he would have to build a separate wall because the existing wall would not have adequate footage. Commissioner Rowland noted that Condition No. 7 should be amended, requiring that the lights be reflected away and no height limitation be established. Commissioner Rowland further inquired of the petitioner why he was placing his parts department so far away from the service bays since was a disservice to the people having their cars in for repairs, particularly with the wages mechanics received these days; whereupon Mr. Hall stated it was difficult to ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~2'823 ENVSRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 69 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1361 (Cont'd g~t the PaTts department close to the repair bays, and in the future they planned another building where it will be centrally located -•that they presently needed only 14 s~a3.ls and room for customer parking, while the mechanics would have to wulk a lang way, but he had designed this as other agencies where he had worked since he had been in the automobile business for 17 years and had surveyed many agenci~s before he had presented the design before the Commission, aad i£ an automobi].e agency dealer depended upon the service business, he would starve to death. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the flooding problem had been resoived with the Osange County Flood Control District. Mr. Ahmin Ali, 125 South Claudina Street, representing the environmental impact report company who had prepared the Environmental Impact Report, stated he had contacted the Orange County Flood Control District, and Mr. Hall had been advised that water could be drained off at either end since there was a line going through, and all the petitioner had to do was present plans designed by his engineer to the Orange County Flood Control District for approval for drainage to the channel. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution rla. PC72-336 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 69 and rPCOmmend to the City Council that it be adopted as the City Council's Environmental Impact Statement except for Paraqrah 3-b, which the Commission did not agree to, since they were requiring a wall and trees to shield from view the service bays. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution.was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Yarano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, R~wland, Seymouz. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Discussion was held by the Commissi.on regarding the fact that the conditional use permit was being established in the R-A Zone and inquired why proper zoning action had not been suqgested at the time subject petition had bean submitted. Mr. Young advised the Commission that there had been a history of various types of zonina actions, however, none as far as reclassification of the property had ever been finalized. Commissioner Farano then suggested that prior to final building i,ispection of the proposed development, staff prepare an area development plan recommending proper zoning for a~l of the properties involved in this particular area that were not developed or which had been developed. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-337 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1361, requiring a wall around the perimeter of the property and landscaping along the north and west adjacent to the proposed development; that a barrier be created be- tween the blacktop and the unused dirt portion to prevent motorists from driving over the dirt portiun as a turnaround area; and that the petitioner stipulated there would be no outside speakers and no storage of cars on the rear one- q~te,~r port'on (S~~e Res~~n~~) ~~R.I. ~~~• CYn~.as~,e. ~a~..~j sra~~. -r ~''`~'~j ~.e On roll call the ~Foregoing resolution wa" s passed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~2-8Z4 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. A.P.A. 101, P. O. Box 396, E1 Toro, Ca. PERMIT NO. 1362 92630, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A HOTEL FOR SENIOR CITIZENS WITEi WAIVER OF MINIDfUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a fronta.qe of approximately 105 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 400 feet and being located appreximatel;~ ?90 feet north of the centerline of Center Street. Property presently classif~.ed C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeareu in opposition. Although the Report to the Commissi.on was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a~art of the minutes. Mr. Paul Noble, President and associated with A.P.A. 101, a Limited Partnership, appeared before the Commission and noted there were a number of partnerships within A.P.A., and theirs was No. 101; that they were somewhat surprised by the Report to the Commission, and they wanted to do everything reasonable, particu- larly as it pertained to the turning radius and had obtained a blue sheet from the Fire Department which indicated 27 feet were required, and he had talked with Chief Riley, who had indicated this was the only problem they faced, how- ever, he was desirous of learning whether or not the concept proposed met with the Planning Commission's approval. Chairman Seymour requested that the petltioner confine his remarks to the use and the compatAbility to the area. Mr. Noble then stated that the proposed facility would be a quasi-hotel and would be similar to Casa Bonita; that they proposed it to be made attractive to elderly persons having close church a£filiations; that there would be no smoking allowed and more church activity was proposed; that they would have mini-buses to transport the people to various areas, and by rental agreement they groposed to prohibit personal automobiles being on the premises; that there would be no medical facilities provided on the premises, however, if someone became ill, a physician, of course, would be permitted to come to the premises to attend to the patient, however, they would oversee any person requiring drug dosages in order to prevent an overdose; that there would be more than sufficient parking area since this facility would be occupied only three-quarters of the time; and then proceeded to explain what their proposal was, closing by stating they hoped to make this a very desirable hotel operation. Commissioner Herbst inquired why the petitioner felt this was an ideal location for a hotel for elderly persons; whereupon Mr. Noble stated that it was centrally located from freeways, making it easily accessib2e for visits from friends since they did ~Y plan to have many activities for these people. Commissioner Herbst observed that State College Boulevard was one of the busiest streets in the city, and the proposed use would be located at one of the busiest intersections; whereupon Mr. Noble stated that these people would be interested in going to the shopping center, while they would transport them in the mini- buses to visit various places in and outside of the city; that they proposed atria for these peaple to walk on, and no physical activities were anticipated. Commissioner Gauer noted that older people liked to play shuffleboard and liked to visit in the little gardens and play cards, however, the proposed plan did not show much recreation space. Commission~:r Rowland noted that the Commission should discuss whether or not this use was right for the area involved, and if so, then the living environ- ment as represented by the plans should be discussed. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that it would be a good area if this facility had proper recreational facilities. Co~nmissioner Herbst was of the opinion that this was one of the busiest inter- sections of the city, and these people in walking cou:d not cross at the inter- section even if they were ambulatory people; whereupon Mr. Noble stated that th~ey intended to have a daily recreational program planned for these people. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1972 ~Z'825 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1362 (Continued) Chairr~an Seymour inquired whether Mr. Noble had previous experience in the pro- posed type of operation; whereupon Mr. Noble stated that he did not and had been a tax con,sultant, wifh most of his business being with physicianss tha: he recognized the fact of the recreation which the Commission was 3iscussing, bnt this referred to the people who resided in Leisure World; that he had visited other homes and hid found that most people nid not like long walks oc strolls but preferred to sit and look out at the world; that these types of people needed stimulation and motivation, and as a prime example~ at Casa Eonita a dignified gentleman was standing at the foot of a picture hanging in this facility and stated tt~at this picture had hung in his office for 35 years, and that he had been an oghthalmologist at that time - this, alone, y:+~'e him the idea to have residents of this facility display their pictures, cr.ina, etc. in order to stimulate and motivate these elderly person~. Commissioner Rowland obsesved that inskead of the location of the facility, what the petitioner was suggesting was the manner in which they planned things and programs established would be more important. Commissioner Allred was of the opin.ion that certain peop].e may not want to go to the various places of activity selected, and he felt they should have some minor facility in the building or on the gsounds where recreational activities could take place. Commissioner Gauer stated that senior citiz~ens wer~ the largest qroup in Orange County, and they played every kind of game~ including card games, traveled all over the western states, and he did not feel people would be sitting in their rooms. Mr. Noble again referred to the 27-foot turnaround area for fire trucks and sanitation trucks, statinq that they had coasidered cons:zucting another floor, shortening the building and providiny a garden in the rear, as well as a recreation area. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner must have gotten some idea from the Commission's comments that the site was not nndeglrable, but it F~ould appear it would be extremely difficult to develop thP ccn~~pt psoposed on that parcel, therefore, he would sugqest redesigning the prop~+.rty. Furthermore, not permit- ting people to park their vehicles on the premise~s appeared somewhat hard to understand, and he could not agree to such an arr~angement. Commissioner Herbst aoted that this residential use would be located next to a pizza and beer parlor and it should be something to be considered, although it might not make any difference to residents of this area since it already existed and they had a good business. Chairman Seymour noted that he was not an architect, but to get 87 rooms there would not provide proper amenities for a good living environment. Commissioner Herbst noted he had reservations about this being a residential area or it would be a place where people would live until they were no Ionger ambulatory. Commissioner Farano stated he thought it was a very good idea until Commissioner Herbst started to express his thoughts, but at the same time, if the type of people proposed for this establishment had interests and were able to qet arounZ, , it would not be the right thing to place them on a side street. Commissioner Gauer suggested that the building be set back a little more so that people could sit in the front and watch the cars go byt that the use proposed was resid2ntial and might not be good for a commercial area, but then again, some people might prefer this type of living if a pleasant atmosphere was pro- vided and means were found for people to go to the shopping areas, because if they could not walk to the store, then they did not belonq in a facility of this type. Mr. Noble noted that on the second and thisd floor they had very large windows from which the residents could view the traffic going by, and dining facilities were also in this area. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27. 1972 72-826 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1362 (Continued} Commissioner Gauer suggested that a nurse be considered for this facility in the event of »roblems vrith people havinq to take medication. Discussion was held by th~ Commission with tiie petitioner regarding the time it would take to revise the plans, and upon its conclusion, Mr. Noble stated that at least two months would be needed. Commissioner Kaywaod offered a motion to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1362 to the meeting of March .19, 1973, for the submission o£ revised plans. Commissioner Farano seconded the r,iotion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. illl -(Hartman Corporation) - Request for an extension of time for completion of conditions - Property located south and east of the southeast corner of State Colle~e Boulevard and Katella Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location ~f bject property and date of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1111 to peLmit construction of a 50-unit motel on the property, noting that the ~ity Council granted said petition on May 20, 1969; that two conditions requiring street light and street tree fees had not been met; and that two one-year extensions o~ time had been granted, with the latest having expired November 20, 1972. Furthermore, staff would recommend that a one-year extension of time, retroactive to November 20, 1972, be granted, to expire November 20, 1973. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the Ci.ty Council that said Body grant a one-year extension of time retroactive to Novemiar 20, 1972, and to expire November 20, 1973, for the completion of conditions granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1111 in Resolution No. 69R-286. ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1312 -(California Lutheran Bible School) - Request for an extension of time for completion of conditior.s - Property located on the west side of Western Avenue, approximately 345 feet south of Orange Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bil7. Young reviewed the location of subject property and date of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1312 to permit constructi~n of a private educational institution with 3ormitories, a gymnasium, library, classrooms, and athletic field in conjunction with a church facility; that time alloted £ox completion of conditions had expired on December 22, 1972; that no street light or street trPe fees had been paid; and that s!aff would recommend a six-month extension of time, to expire June i2, 1973, to ~omply with conditions. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions of Resolution No. PC72-125, said time extension to expire June 12, 1973. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Kaywood offered a~notion, seconded by i Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, t.o adjourn the ~ meeting to January 3, 1973, at 7:OQ p.m. for a work session on turnaround areas. There beina no further business to discuss, the meetinq adjaurned at 6:05 p.n~. Respectfully su mitted, ~~~~i „~ ~ `~ ANN KREBS, Se retary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm