The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/10/010 R C 0 MI~ROFILMING SERVICE, IliC. ~ . . ,~ ,., . ~,. ~ , ,~, , ~ , „,, ,,... ~ ~ ~ Citiy Hall 7-nahaim, Calitornix Ootober l, 1.973 A RFGULhR M~ETING OF' TH~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt1MI98I0N REGULA~ - A raguZar. meeY.ing of the Anaheim City Planr+ing Commieeic,n wae MEFTING called to nr3ar by Chairman Gauer at 2~OQ p.m., a qunrum being preaen~.. PRESENT ^ CttAIRMRh ~ Gaue~r. e ~, Rawlanct (who - COMMT3SIONFR5: Allred, Farano, t;erbst, antered the Counoil Chamber e~. a:20 p.m.), ~eymour, ABSISNT - CONiMISSIONERS: None. FFc~SENT - Assietant Uev~lopment Services Dirc:ctpx~~ RoaAld Tht~mpeon Asaistent Ci.ty At~ornoy~ John Dawaon Deputy City Attornay: [•rank Lowry office En~~.neex+ Jay Titue P1$nning Super~-isor: Don MaDeniel 7oning 5~xpervisor: Ch+srlee Jtoberta Aasistant Pl~nner: Phillip schwart~ce Aasietant F~lannare Ann~.ka Sentalahti Aasi.etar.t Planner: Ralph Compton Ple~nning Techni.:ian John Andereon Commiasion secretarys Ann Kreba PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Farano 1ed an the Pledge of A'llegiance to tl~e ALL~GI}1NC$ Flag. APk'ROVAL OF - Con-m.iss~oiier King offered a motion, sec~nded by Commiasionez T!?E MINi1TE5 5eymour and MO'TION CARRIEA, t~ apprfl ve the minutee o! the meatinga of August 20 and S eQtember 5, '97~, as eubmit~ed. CONDITIONAL US~ - REAllVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. MILTOy E. JOHN30N, 1011 PERr1IT N0. 1052 Louise StrQ~t, Sant~: Ana, Ca. 92703, Owne'.. Sub~ect -~ petitian wae initiated by the Anaheim City Planninq C~mmiseion to invPetiyate Lhe n~cessary evidence relati;ve to usea germltted by the oxiginal condit~c~nn1 use permit and as the uses ~resently exist on the premie3s far approprl.ata r.ecommendat~Un to tY~e City Cauncil on propert~y deacribed as: A tr..angularly-ehaged ~arcel ~f approxi- mat~+ly 2.2 acrea of land havlnq frontages of approxlmateZy 63 feet on th~ south side of Santa Ana Street, approxima~ely 410 feet on the eaet eide of Walnut 5tY~et, and approximately 430 feet on the weet side of Manchester Avenue. Property preaently classified M-l, LIGHT ITtDUSTRiAL, ZQNE. Mr. M9.lton Johnson~ thc~ property owner, requested ~.hat subject ~etit~on be de~erred temporarily until hi:~ attorney was ~reeent~ whezeupon Deguty City Attorney f'rank Lowry adviaed the Commiasion kl~at since the City Attorney's offias was short-handea of qualified personnel for supervi0lon purposes, Asaietant City Attflrney John Dawson was present to preaent any evidence the Commisaion migtit w' :h, but :~e could no+; ba dplayetl indefinitely. Chairman Ga~aar determined L•hen that evi3ence ahc~uld be g~egented by Mr. Daweon. Aasistant C=zy A.ttorney John Dawson adviaed the CommiBaion thRt it -ras his underetanding on ~he matter under aoneideration that he had bee~i quoted as h+avinq made certain repr0s~ntatic-na to the applicant, however, i1e hac~ ta~lked only with Mr. MilL•on Johneon, Sr. and not tu his s~n in conneation with thia matter be~oro the Commisaion~ that he was of the apinion, baoeB on infozmation presented bY Mz. Johnscn as he expXOaeed it to him, that a car impnun8 yarsi was compatible with the use eata~bliahed under Condition+al Use Permit Ko. 1052~ and the reason he e~crive~i at thmt c.onclnaion was becauae a truck c9epot and truck operation involvecY a~•orage of mnterlal and vehiclea on a temporary baaie and 73-587 ~ ~ MINU'I'1~~, 'ITY I~L,ANNING COMM JBION, Octob~r 1, 1973 73-588 CONDITZONAi~ U3E PERMIT N0. 1052 (Contlnusd) repair woxk, eaid vehiaJ.s• hevinq b~sn ~Cartsd up at vdriaue houre durinq the dsy, •ven thouqh limit•d a• to the hour• o! operution and the l~ct that s~~unQ- dttcnustion wdll hsd b~en erect~d to accommoltr,to this uoe~ th~t ha wa~ ~lro in- fc,rmed by Mr. Joh~ vAn, 9r. tt~et ~;~• ura contiemplat~A Mae vrirtually to k-a .lim3ted to the ntozage o~ impounded v~hiclo~~ howevnr, he did nok q~ into any dateila aA to :he ~yps ~r vehicle~ thAt ware to be impou~ded, but it e+ar indi: ates by Mr. ~ohnean that thase would be tompoxaxily etored until thsy aauld be ta'cen to I,oA Anqel.e~a ar rc~~,ovod 4'or r~pa.ir purpo~e~ aP.ter inmuranco lnve~ti.gntiont ~ha~t he hsd alr~a e~ked whetx~er nt~y di~m+anCling was pro~oeed, ~-~~d he hed been in- t.~rmed by Mr. Johnson that th~rs would r~~t bo anyt that Mr. Jahneon had aloc etated thAt he would hnvo no ~bjectian to "meski.nq" ths existing chainlink fenca eo thnt one c,~u.ld nut v~i~w Ch• otoreye areat snd th+-t M:•. ;;uhawou th~n, becauee of the evAluatlon made bX rh~ ~i~y J-tkarney's oPtice that Che u~e wa-e compatible, ertered into d leass los~ tha impounAing o! motor veh~clse, howev~er, hd ha~ r-ot followeQ up the procellitr~ since his skatemen~ ta Mr. Jahneon, and there prab bly was eome diemsntl.ing of v~,hic~.oe and Atoraqo ot wxeckad vehiclas ot what netare wae not diecuese+d at sny tima, but if the vehicle~ rrere t:here. tlt~y would be the:e P~r d vexy dliort period of k.imQ becnusa i! allowed to ait ~round any lengnc ~+f time, theze wauld bn a L•andencf t~ d.tementlo ~chee~A vehialee~ and thet as to what extent thie ~ii.emnntling hed gor~e or-~ he would atate that he aa~o nut reeponaible tox th++t and he would n~t have ~ondoned ik it at tha tl.me he had ~alked w{ th Mr. Johnraot. h4 liad bean informed o£ the fact they wara contem- piatinq c:hat. Cnmaiiasione~ A11rAd inquired, was ~t tha opinian oi t:~e City Attornsy's Offico that ifi thia were a diam~ntli:~q yard, he would not condana itt wh~zeupon Mr. Dawson :atated Chat he M~ou~~9 not condono it becau~a very often tha~p dismantltnq yarda ~xaua~.ly bacame a ju~•k yAzd and~ ~a such, was a much :nore aer.ious u.1a of the p~c>perty, eapecial.ly d9 it bordezed on a 3ch~o1 on the west and residanti.sl ~~s~s ~n the south, howevar, as explained ta him by the property ownpr, to e t~ re and hoi~i Lor ramoval wae no maxe on9rous tlian a truck ~torage and trucki~~q operation. Co-nmissionar G~uer notc~d chet he had viewed th~ faci).itiefl twice duri.nq the ctirr~nt day, and it was hia opinion tnat thig e a vnr.y undaWi:.ab:1 view frotn the street and it should be scraened. Commiesione~ 1'srano it~quir.ed w:~zt the City At~tornpy's Office would intQxpret ng being "temparaz~y storaqe of a~:r...,mobiles" or had the cuurte rendered a cleci~ian to as,iiat in detprmini.ng whet c~~ns*i.tuted tomporary storage of impaundza vehiolea, and drawing fr.~m rh,~t e~.~ar.ionce, h~w long could thEy be held in the i~ngound yard - 15 ox• 3A d-~yst wh~reupon Mr. Dawson atated that the courts had r~~led and staked tha~ it H• ~ a reasonnble lanqth ~f tin~e, but he was awarQ of '^he lenyth of time aft~r someotie had a crash because *.h.ts happened *.o his wife and temporary atora~e wae at the impour4d yar3 on Walnut Streett that the auto- mobile wa., at^°~d th.•ra lonq enougll foi• 'them pera~nally t~o inveatigate i~ anc: have ~everal estima~ee made and for th~ insurance company Y.a further inves uigate before removing the vehicle for rapulr., and this ho~k appr~~x.imately a week: ancj that this vehicle hac? been a temporarily disabl3d ~ehicle and was tawed that loc~tion by nomeond wh^ }~ad had the co~ttract for such towing, however, a~~ythi.ng left there beyond 3C aye, in his opinlon, would not be a reasonabl.e ].ength of t ,.~ for tamp~razy atarnge. ~.ommissioner HPrbst ~bRerved that cons±deration co~ild be qiver, to t..e fe~c:t thac the p~liae pi.cked uy vehicle~ that were on atreets and iaoved them to the storaqe yarda where they ateye~d €or a rather lc~nqthy ~ime 'to datF~mine who the owner wue and the 3tatQ determ~ned what should be done,, and t:iss war~ a ma~oz probl~m thr~ughout the State, therefor~, th+e cnald take more thnn 30 days. Deputy Ci.ty j\ttors-ey L'rsnk Lowry noted thAt und9r ttie ~:~ty's orriinance on ~bandoned vek:.'.clsa, they could bP stored only Por a maxim~im of 3U .:ayat that he had tal.~COd with I.t. Rogeze of ~:he 2'olfce Depart~ent, •+ho ha8 no~ed that mo~t wrecked vehicles were towed away aad ator~d at the impound yard of vezious aga~.cies , but !~. was e~lways leae then 30 duy~s, an~~ in no evAr-t weze ~he vehicles there more than 30 days. ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS, '"TY PLRNNTNG COMMIB~ION~ Oolob~r l, 1973 ~jws89 ~ONpITIONnL U~BE r~RMI'f N0. 1052 (COntinu~d~ Chairm~n Gau~r noted t:hat th• Commissl.on would have to detarmin• wh~th~r th~ u~~ now b~inq mude ot th~ pr~p~rty should bo oontinu~d and i! th• prer~nt ut~ ws• e~ua~ptable, ~~hat should be Qons to make it mor.• acceptebl~. Commi~~ion+r King suggeated ~hnt cho exi~tinq r~dwood Penca noW ati a height uf 9 to 9 t~ot be exl•sncl~d along Manahs~t~r J1v~~nue b~a4use th~ exieting lwnca was attraotive a~~d ite r~ ~ onei.on would a8d imm~wauxably to ehleldir.q •rom vi~w tha vrr~~ked or. sta a vehicles -~hie would be ext~nd~d ta an ee ~ imated di~tano~ o! e-baut 7.90 fr•~t alonq ths~ ea~t pzop~rty line~ en9 along tha weet prop~rty line az~ tc1~o eest ~ida o! w~lnut Streat, snd in ordex to hid• cAr~ th~t w~re double~stackeci, tl~a tanoa ahoul~ be •s hiyh er d~ubl~-~taoking. ~ommieaionat Allred notod thet on tt1A •outh pro~i~rty line Ad~aaant Co th~ R-1 propertiet taa Crmmiseion had pr~vioualy raquirsd a 7-foot high Mdll in addi- ~ion tn land~acapinq. Mr. Staphen Gallagher, Room 305, 7d G NorC`~ Claudina 8txeet, attor.ney for the owner oF klie proper~y, ap~.e+~red beforp the ;ommieeion and notad that he had r.epreeented Mr. Johna+on Pive yeare ayo wher, sub~oct petition was firat conmi.der- ed~ that he: had ~ reaolut~on of tho P.ta~nning CommisAion datad September 9, 1968, xnd there was no mention made o! a~ny type u! Rareening ~~thar thnn a 7-foo*_ ma-eonry wall ttiet hnd to be conAtruc' od alonq the eouth property line, but nothin~ zegardinq screening of the prapexty elong th~ edst and weat prap~rCy lines~ that at the pr.esent time, ttza propexty wae bein~ used as a aold!.ny y++rd !or wreaked vehiales but no diemantling we-e goinq on, and moet of thesQ v~hi~loe were involved in automobile accidente~ and that it toak eome time to ta.ke picturee af the acaident and aell the wreaked automob:les. Chairman Gauex noted tihe rea~lu+ti.on approvinq sub~ect p9tition, to whict~ Mr. Gall.~qher ~ran rPfPrriiiq, was for tYse request made by the applicant uf the rruck- ing firm for a rruck:.nq yard, however, a Nort.ion of the propar.'ty wes now boing ueed for tha wrecked cars. 1Mr. Ga~legher noted t.hAt before Mr _ Johnscn .lad ZAARdB the prop^rt~ to Che impound/storage company, ha had c.nneulte8 wi+:.h Mr. Dawaun reqardinq the f~asibility of. the usa. Ca~misaionor Allred observed *t~at accardinq ~:o ~he yellow pages of t~:c tal^- phone di~e~tory, thia businesg was advertised as a wreck3ng yard :+nd re:queat.ed that th~.s be explained becauae if anyone piaked up the yellow pages ~to find pnrte fur an ~sutomobile~ he could asaume that subjecr property wa~ the pl~:ce to qoi whar~upon Mr. Gallagher stateC that tt-ey were not :~ow oper.ating as a wrscking yard. Commisaioner Ge+uer inquir.ed wheth~~x r~r. Gall~qher had saen the inaide ox tk~e outeide o±' the praF^r_yr whereupon M. Gallnqher replied neqatively. Comrniasicner King noted that Mr. Tnh:~son~ Sr. a~t the last Commiesion meetiny had stmted h~ would be willin~ to do anyrhing, including extending kh~ S-9 foot wooden Nall which presently exiated oT~ the northerly portion of th~i property alonq the ManchestRx Averiue fran~.nge anr~ tnquire:i wliether this state- ment wa8 s~ill applicable in order tt~.:t aame shie ~lf.nq from view of the ureck~d vehiclF~ coulcl be aecomplish8d~ wh+exeupon .4r. Ga.llagher atat,~d that c•~ould dapend upon ttie height of ttzo wall, but if ! Ze Comm~.3sion so dasired, ~~en th~y ~~ould have to camply with the c~nditior . Mr. Johnson aclviapd the Gommission that at the last pu;~lic hearing he did stat~. t5at he wuuld extend the redwoad fence pre~snntly exis~ing and at *.he height prenently existing, ' oweve r, aftar cons ul ti.~g uit:1 foncinq contractore, he 2iad been informeci that i.i woula c~at him 57,000 to er.tend Che r.edwood Ponca nnd he c~uld no~ afford rhat price f~r a r~dwood tence, however, he rvas willing to place a slrttad fence 't.here, oz imitation reed cuuld be pz~rt at the Fenoe, but at Che pzFSgnt ti.me an investment of ~7,070 for the fence foz tl-e lease ha had written wauld be totally impase~ble. :`HE .~F.ARING 'AAS CLGSED. • ~ ~ MINUTB9, CITY PLANNINA C~MMI09I0~1, OotUbar 1, 1973 CANUITIONIIL USb PF.RMIT N0. 105~ (Cc+ltinu~d) 73-590 Chaizmnn ~au~r not~d th~t the Cummi~~ian h~d rp~at can~iderable ti.mi ~+n thio paz~.icular itam snd had oonuidsr~d lt •t lea~l: thrs~ dift~rent timwa in L•h• p~t~t. Commia~~Aon~r ksrbat nated thmt hs woulA liks Mr. John~on, rhs pro?~rty own~r~ ~o stipul~t~ exactly what u..s wa• propo~od I.o bs mwd~o af the property~ wh~r~- upon Mr. John~on ~ ato~l tt~at khis rva~ an impound yurd - that tri~ Poliu• popa-rta~~nti had inz, ~~mnd him that •very aar tow~Q in or any insuranae 3oba o! wreck~d aar~ on the hiqh+rsy by both '•ha City or State po~ice needed som~ plaoa ~o st~re them until tixl• wary claar~d or e contr~ot let !or repair of the vehial.wa, and that abeolutely no wrsokinq o! vahiol~~ aould bm d~na on t1.a prop~rty. Gummi~ai.oner H~rbat inquized what waa propo~ad tor th~ fronL pa~r~ion ~lonq MancheAtar 1-venusr whereupon Mr. Johnean stat~d Lhat ther~+ were ts~ro separate parc~ Le under conaideration: one under Conditionsl. U~a Pezmit No. 1052, i~rhich wae ~ h~~ eoutherly portion fnr tho loimer truofcinq oparation, and thRt wre~cking end ~mr~ounding wae done ~n tne norther~ ;~ port~.on . Cammi~eionor Seymn~ r inquired, even tliouqh tl~ere war~ two pioaee of prope~r.~y a~d~ncenC to oec;. othor, waren't they being ua~d as o*~s o~ert~tioni whereupon Mr. John~on Stnted thar. thay were bel~ng ueed ae on~ oparation. Coma~iasioner Seymour ~ttttc ' he underetood Mr. Johiieon'• problem and he wAa hnping Mr. J~>hneon unddxato~~cl the Cammission'o conoern and what they wexe trying to accoaplish wi.th thls pdrticulnr aaA, Ar~d tr.at wae to provide adequ+ate ecreoningt that two weAke ag~ Mr. Johnaun had nppeared balore thd Commiasion and hed nqread to ecrepni.nq, however, after having checkecl khe ~ricee, he now faund it eeonr,micelly unfeasible, thereform, hl~ qunetion was, r,oult! Mr.. ~ohnaon provide aaroer.i.ng and whaL• typo of ecresninq - woul.d it be d ~3IR8h.. bl~~ck wdll or wood~n fence, or what~ whereup~n Mz. Johneon statEd that the~y had put in the Cyclone fence approximate2y five year.s eyo, but t:;.ey could construct a 6-Poot nasc,nry wall at n cos~. of Anly $3,000, and they cou].d also provic:e slrtting i~t the existiag ahainlink Pence. Commiaaioner Seymour ~tate~ that iP Mr. J'ohneon cnuld not accept the redwood fencA aa Auggested by the Commiasi.on, then he would have to ~tate exactly what he could ~rovide. Mr. Gallagher nated tha~ the freeway app:aach w~as on the east nide af the street, wh~le on the west side there wn~ a school, nn3 the n~rtl;erly portion r~f the proparty Ma.a now screenad, hawevax, the southerly pnrtion, if iti tsuth it was being advert.is~d as a wrecking yard, ahould be screened. Commissic,ner Seymour obaerv-,d tliat it. ~~a~ true this was a parti~.l freewa}• approach, but it wae also Mar~chA~ter Aven::e a»d there were both commercial and i.ndustrial uaes on the street, ~at iust a ireeway approa~ ,. Mz~. Johnson notad that he ~~ad c~on~ to the expenee oE con~~tructir~g a wall on the s~utih eide to protect th~~ single-family homes, ana tl,is ~all wac not include3 in tlie leasing fee i:or che Morqan Trucking Compan,y. Furthermore, no auggeetion had been made at that time to ecrean the truckiny company use fsom Pithex Mancheater Av~nue c,r WalnuS: 3;;reet whatsosver. ~ommissianer Seymour note~ ths* the use had now chanqed co wk~at appearad to be a diemnntZinq and junk yard, and with so many ainqle-:Eamily homea adjacer.t to it, he did noti want ~0 11ve t~djacent ta euch an environment i f hc~ owned one of the hames. Commisaioner Herbat noted that subjoct property wan zoned M-l, z~d ~he a'_tQ development etandards requiced ~.hat out3oor atoraqe mus* be scree.~~ed, ther~- foro, aince tlxeae impounded vehic].es we•re outd;~r etaraqe, screeninq would he requirad, however, AS= long aa it was t:1s trucking facility auah ecreening was not reqsired. ~ ~ ~ MINUTEB, CJ'fY PLANNII'rC CVMMI39ION, OcCober 1, 1973 CONDITIONAL I~St P~R IT_ NO. lOS2 (Continusd) 73-591 Mr. John~on than ~tated he would agreo ko Aereeni.nq Fhe property, howevex, to Y,• ~Aquired to onn~truot a redwood f~ncA w~uld be snCiz~ly too exponai.va, an4 thut thHy would ~araeh tha pYOrcr.~y i! they coul.d linc! +e •uitable mannnr in wh i o1~ to do i t. Cammia.irn~r Kiag ~c,t~~l that the exlnting c,hainlink fanas a~long the sne~t property )ino w~t not fn thc+ beat ~r condition, theretore, thi~ would hnve, to be removad anyway. Commieuioner suymour then inquirod oY Mr. Jnt~neon what he wau].d recommen8 ~ther ~han tha r~dwaod fenae Qinco he '.dd era~sd h• c:ould nat :~fford thet, and suine ect.lan whoul~ be taken a~ thie meetinq. Commieaioner Farano noted that iP this ware, in fHCt, nn impnund yaxd, then thero could be no doubla-d~scki.ng ~~ vehicloa ~ince ~lie osre would havo to b~ held on the praperty for 30 days +~tter an accident, and the wrecked cara wo~sld have to be removed~ that he had obeerved eome of the oars had had the doora removed, and he wanted to make euz•e tha~ this waa n~t a wrecking yazd, and iP it wa~ not a wreek~.ng yaxcl, then theze ep~ear9d t~ be some body wor.k and re- pair faailities- but he could never agree to a wr.eaki.nq yard - i~: muet be prin~+~rl.ly a etorago yarc3 for impu~.xnd p~irposAO~ and that Mr. pew~on had etated that an impound ~nrd was a permissible use within the corEinos of tl~e approved cand9.tional ua~ perm.it, however, the~ the wrecked vshicJ.ee should b~ acreened. Mr. Daws:,n noted that there appearad to Uo some confus+ a having nrisen bocauae the Commiasion wae considering the entire property as ~ne parcel, while Mr. .Tohnean coneider~d the proper.ty two parr,els , and the wrecking yard k.o the nor*h hr~d been there For a number .f years, whil~ th~ ~ outherly ~r~4orty had been operatod ad a trucking ya-3 Pur ichp paet five years, and if this could be clearrd up, then perhaps somet:hi.ng could be accompliehed as to action to be takan. Commfaeioner kardno notad that ~~erhaF:.s the Commiss.i.an ehoul.d give b~th Mr. Ga'.).agher and Mr. Johnson an opportunlty *_o re~l.y, t.owever, the norther.ly port'.on was allpwod to be a rPpair facility for overhaul and the xoutherly p~rtion, accardxng to the r- ~.ution, was fox t:~-Q atordge ~f t•rucka and mechanical mair~tonance and repair of L-heae trucke~ whereupon both Mr. Johnsan and Mr. Gallayher aqreed that thf s was the u~e ~f L•h6 property. Mr. Dawson then s~tate3 that an impound/at~x•age yard was the asme as a triz~k t.~rminal, but i~ orie consider.ed the truck and nuto repair on the northerly p~~r.tion as a wreaking yard, tl:is m.ight b~e mura congueing. Mr. Johnr.on noted that the frcnt i~art of the prorerty alonq San~:a Ana Str~et wa~ dtvided fnto two piecess rhat he had a dividing line separating the front p~rtion for euto repair, and ctr. Beneke had used this property for ten yeaxs ~ind hQ had renewed the lease witta him on the z~~commendation as oet foxth by Mr. Dawsont tYiat no other ~ro:~ision had been made in the renew~d lease ather than the same terms as `_he or~ ginal ].ease exc~ept fcr a cost o:° living increaset and that in~ound ya~r.ds held ~.hese ~~ehicles until thay were oleared on tt*_le and muat b~ held for a given length of time. Commissioner. Herbet then inquired whether or not Mr.. Johnson was uaing the Santa Ana 5treet FrontAg~e of the property £or a wrecking xard; to whi.ch M;. Johnson raplied affirmatively. Commiasioner Herb~t nc~ed that acco--dinq to tha plans submittsd ~t the time Conditicnal Use Permit No. 1052 was ori.ginally coneide~red, nothing was !r.en • tioned ne t~ a~~+recking yard, therefo:.3, the Commias3on did not grant permis- sion ~ar u wxecking yard on this £ront po:tion. Mr. Ga' ~ayher notied that Conditional Use Parmit N~. 10~~ hcd nothSnq to do with ~Y.: northerly portion of the rr.opercy~ whereupo Commiesioner Herbst nutsd that ~+ccozding to the records on f+ le~~ tha peti,.ianer did not have a right r.o operate a wrecking yarci on tha orChezly p~rtion of th~ propertY• L ~ ~ M1:NUTEB, CITY PLANNING COMMI8820N, Octob~x l.~ 1973 CONDYTiONAL U9U T~ERMIT t~~._1052 (C~ntintl~d~ 73-592 Commieaionwr Farana noted that t:lie pstition~~: and hi• •ttoxn~y wpru lully sweze o! what the Commission wes tRlkinq •bnut r~qasdinq th• wreckinq ysrd on tho propertyt that he would yo aloay wirt~ Che impc-unb ysrd ao !ar as the uee ot ~he prop~rty wax aoncerned Ao lcnq ~r it r~tnainad th~t and the othor po.rtion w~uld bs used !or a tend~^r r.apa' lscility, bufi there ohautd be nc wr~~king ,ya~rd oparetod there. Furkri~rm~ a~ to ]•nd~aap~ ooreening, thu Commiseion wae only aski,xq th~t it b~a d~-.~- nad in e rea~o~able mannarj and that he ouuld undoxekand why Mr. Tohn~on d14 not w~-n~ ~o nphnd $7,000, therd- lore, woul~ he sti~ulate ro providinq +~ muROnry MA~1. Mr. Gallaqhor etatod that the ~~titionor would stipula'~ to oanetruotion of a 7-foot hiqh ma~ -:y wall ~ xtending to the aouth elonq Man~h~,eter Ave.:u• snd along the eaAt dm ~t Wslnut Streat, or th• ,rmst proparty ].in~ o! subject pxoperty wh~rein no eCructuree cxintad. c;ommi.asione~: Farano o!lerecl ROBOZLlt~011 No. pC73-219 and move ~oi ~~u passaqo and adopti.on to ~,rant e change ~n ue~ under Cond.itional Use Permit No. 1052, permitking ueo o~ thw preporty for aii autnmobile impound yard, replr-ciny a txuck terminsl and repair o! trucks Pacility, provi3ed, hc+wever, it sriall be used for an lmpound yarcl only and shall noL• be utilized ae d~u~nk yard~ as stipuleted by the potikioner; that a 7-foot mason y w~all ehall be provifled along the eaat property l.i- batwe,~~~ the exietir~g 7-foot mASOnry wall along the eouth praporty :.ine r~n, ih~ 8•-foot: redwoad fe+nce to the nart*r that e 7-f'oot masanry wa1.1 st~a11 ~ re~u.ix~ed along tho weet property li :~~s extendinq from the eouth pronerty 11.ne northe+rly, as Qtipula~tod by the petitianer~ and that ther.e shall be no etacking of sutomobiles above the reight uf tt~e me.sonry w~11, ns atiQuiate3 by the petitioner. P i.stat~c City Attorney John Dawaon noted for tl-e Comm.iasion ~Lha.t when the hc:i.ght of ~+ w~ll was more than 6 feet, this be-c~smQ an enyineering atructured w~ll whi.ch cuuld cost c~ns ~ dera.bly moro ~han a 6-~oot hiyh wall, thurefc~re, since i:l~e peLitioner haa stiFulated t~ no t~tack~ng of atiL•omobilea, then a 6-foot !cal. wuuld ~~e adeq,~~,~t.e. Commiasionez Farano anended his motion to reqtibi.re a 6-fcot masonry wall. (S~,e Resolution Baok) Or~ roll call the foreyoing reeolution wae paASed by the following vote: AYES: COMMI3SIONGRS: Allred, Fara~i~, Gnuer, Her~at~ K3ng, So~•mo~,r.•. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISS70I~ERSs Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE - CON'CINUED PUBLIC HEARTNG. THURMAN A. ROCK P.ND LARRY PERDIIT NO. 1403 THOMPSON, 2950 Esst La Jolla 5treet, Anaheini, Ca. 92806, Owners~ requestinq permi.asion to F.STAAI~ISH A CONT:2ACTOR'S STUR.~IGS Y.ARD, WAI:'TNG (A) MINIM~IM 1,AND3CAPED r'R7NT SETBACK, (B) R~QCIIRED 6-:'~)OT HI~H SO~,ZD b1ASONRY WALL ENCLOSING OU7`DOUP STORAGE AREA, AND (C) MINTMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property doc~cribed na: A rectaagtalarly- shaped parcel of land consisting af approximately 4.~ aczea havi.nq a frontage of anproxima~te~,y 298 feet on the south eide of I.~. Jolla Street, having a max~cnum ~iepth of approxim~tely 540 feNt, ar~ci being IOCAr_dcj at the southetsst corner of La Jo'La Street and Ret! Gum 5treet. Property preaently cl.asaif3ed M-1, LIGHT xNDUSTFIAL, ZONE. 3ubject p~cit3on waffi c~~ c:inued fr~r~ the u-eeti.,g nf Auqust 6, 1973, for the petitionet- co be present and from the meeti.ng of Septamber 5, 7.973, at the requeat ot the patit~oner. F+s~istant Plann.~r Phtlli~ Schwartze advised the Commienian that a phone call had been received earlier i~t the day in which tho ~~ttarne,ys for tr.e petitioner ha.d requeatec~ en additionnl twa-weel:s' continuana~e bocAUSa of ott.er court commitmente thi~ date, however, because 3ubjoct ~etitlan hdd bsen continued fUr seveza3. meetinr,s ba• th~ Commisbion, the Comm2affi1or~ would have to detartt:ine whether eai.d two-week continuance should be grante~ ~r whether the i~em should be rem~vsd from the Rgenda and reaavertidc+d a-C a Zate: datu. ~ ~ MiNU7'1E8, CxTY PL'ANNING COMMI89ION, Octobe~ 1, 1973 73-593 f'ONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1403 (Continuo~) ~- q~ntlemen in th• audienae, indicatiny he weo ~ne u! thu ~mti~tiunvrs, atstae thst 9 t w~no hi~ aginiun s two-week aonti.nuanae v+ould be edeqtiiate, thec~laru~ ha wou~d rrqu~~rt that the p~etitian be cantinuod !sr two weok• and not b~ ra- mnaed lrom the aqendn. ComiNlsnionror Al1rAd otfere9 a r~otion, seaondecl by Commis~ioner Farario and h0'~ION ~A'RRI~D, to contin~~e ccnsidora~tion o! P~tition !or Conditi.onal Use Parmit No. 1403 to chs meoting of uc~ob r].S, 1973, nnd to edviao th• peti- ~ionar thet this would b~ ~'~e last con+ Lnuanca - otharwian it woulll be retnoved trom the aganQs end woulcl tiavc~ to be r~ advertieed at t~ e expen~e oP the petitioner. VARxANC~ N0. 25`~ - PUBLIC NEARiNG. JOHNNY L. FRFDERiCi:, 522 3outh Wastga~a ~ Drive, Aneheim, Ca. 92804, Owneri requegting -R7~Y'VER nF (A) 9IT-~ YARA SETBACK AND (A) RRAR YAk.~ 3~TBACK TO t'~~NTS't~UG U5L OF 7~N EXZSTING ~AT20 STRUCTUR~ on prog~•t~ty described as: A rectanc~Llarly-she~ed parcel oE lnnd havi.ny a l~on~age of approximatoly '7Q feet on the oast~. dic4o of Weetgr~te Drive, having a m+~ximu~m depth c~~ apiaroxima~ely r10 fset, and b~ ir~q laaated r~pproximately 210 teet north aP tho c~~~~rerlino of V:lrqini.a Avenue. Propert~y pre3antly cldseifiecl R-Y, ONE-FAML'~Y R1:9YDENTTAI,, ZONE. t~o one appeared in oppositioi~. Although t'he Ropart to the C~~mmiesion w~ts noL• r~,~~ t th~ publio hearing, ft ia referred to and made a par~- oF the .~i.nuCea. Mr. Johnny L. Fraderick, the petitioner, appeared beLore the Commiesion and noted that he was not awara of the fact that a buildinq peimi.t wae required to build the pa~io. n3s+.stant Planner bhillip Schwartzo noted Eor thA Commiaelon that if aubjecL• petition were qranted~ ihe petiti.oner would be required to conetruct a Fire wall according t~ the Buildinq Code and tltat the entire stsucture would have to be brought up to meet the Duilding Code r9quiromenta. The Commiaslon i~quired what would happen 1E no fire wall. ~cere constzucted - who would be respnneible in tl2e ovent af a fire; whereupon Deputy Ci.ty Attorney Fznnk L~wry advise~ the Comm9.asion that in n~ way would th~ City be 1~ab1E for any loss as : reault of a fir~. Assiatant Development Servicea Aireator Roria.ld Tho~rpaon udvi.sed the CommiesiGn ~;hat tha Co~nmi~ssior. could not •vai.ve the Buil~~inq Code. The Commi:~aion :hen inquired if the existing plywo~d panel were removed, would the structuze ihen meot the Building Code~ ~-Thereupon Mr. Schwaitze stated that removal of L•he panelinq would be up t~ the ~,Rwtitioner. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, secor~ded by Commiasioner Herbst and MOTION CARF.IED, tliat the Plan:~iny Commission, 3n conn~ction ~ith an exemption declaration st.atus re~uest, find9 and determines that tne proposal would have no aigniPicant ~.nviz ~nment3]. impact and, therefore, recommends to L•hs Ci.ty Cauncil thdt no Envi~ nmental Ia.pact Statement ia nec~ssary. Commissioner Seymou: offt~red Resolution No. PC73-22U and m~vad for itR paesage and adoption to grar,t Pet.ltion for Variance i~o. 2552, aub~ect tc conditions. (Se~ Raso~ution Book) On roll call the for~:go.9.ng Xesolution was passed by the foltowi.ng vote: AYEB: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, FaXano, Gauer, Herbet, King, Seymour. NOES: COMMTSSInNERSs None. ABSEyT: .:OMMISSIGNEAS: Rowlan3. Mr. Thompson a~~:iee~ the petlti..~ner that he would euqqest that he contact the Chie~ Duilding Inspectnr who wo,~ld tell him exaatly whar sh~uld be done regard- ing the £ire waZl, etc. ~ ~ MZNCTEf~, GITY I~LANN'[NG COMMISSION, Ootober 1, 1.9'13 ~3-59a ENVIRONMENTAL I[~PACT - PUBLIC NED.RING. ANANEIM HYiLB, INC. AND TEXACp VL*NTU1tS~~ REFORT N0. 101 INC. ~.sa~ Anahei.m Hl.11e Road, Antsheim, Ca. 9Z807, Ownartl JAMEb 1.. aARISiC, 380 Anah~im tlilla RnAd, Anaheim, Cn. u11RIANCE NO. 2553 92807, Aqantt requeetina Wl1tVER OF' (A) MAXIMUM HUILUING ~~ HEIGHT WITHYN 150 FEET OF A RE~iIUENTIAL ZONE AND (B) REQUTREMEN'r THRT CARPORTS HE ~NCLOSED ON THREE S1~)FS TO CON5TRUCT A].08-UNIT ~-PAtt'~MSNT COMPLEX an pz'operty desoribed se~ 7~n irregulurly- shaped parael oP la-id aonei^ting o! appro netely 18 earae located an the noxth end south eidea of Canyor. t ~m Road, appr~:...«ately 325 Peet aaeL oP tl~e conter- line o! I~uhl Rdnch Road. .~ruporty pre9enl:2y C1dR8~.f~8$ R-A, AGRICUL'fURAL, ZONE. Thr~r~ peraome indice`.ed +~hoir presonc in oppositian. A~ ei.tant Pla-nn~r Phillip Schwert~e rsviowed the location of subject pr~opezt•', previvu~ zoninq action on the property, adioining lnnd us~a, a~1~ the propoani to con~+truc:t d 108-unit apartrrent complex on a groea lend nxea of Approximr~tell 18 res. , hevinq a deneity of appzoxin~,,taly 6.8 dwalling uniCa per ncre o:~ ~. uet 1R: d~srea of 1.5.e aaraa, ea~ch dwellincr unit haviny appioximately 6383 squnre feet, with a totnl ground coverage of 36.8~~ that t.he proposed one and tao-ebory c~mplex wae to by constructed on a net pad nrea of approximately 5.4 acreai that due to thc+ ateep tarrain, the pz~oL~oaed apa~t.ment units were cluatered in the Cwo top-af-slope draea on ~he ~ast and waet sidea of Canyon Rim Roadr that unite wer~ located in a ciraular patt~rn serve~ by private acaes3ways ra~nginq in w.ic~th from 30 ~eet at Canyon Rim Road to 20 f.eet in the interior of thb complex are.3s~ and thet ~he exterior £acades of the proposed uriite waulci be conatructed of wood and atucco with wood shake roofe. Mr. Sahwartze noted that the unita would range in size fron~ 745 aquare ~eet f~r singl~-etory, ane-bQdroom, one-bath unite to 1349 squar.e feet foX d two-atory, *.wo-bedroom, ~.wo-and-a-half bath unit~ that ur-ite were arranqed in groupinqs of .wo ~o sour, with att•ached carports~ that thrae aplit-lavel unite were ~roposed in the westerly coinplex Prea of the development, located within 150 feet of acljace,:*. RrA zoned ~.roperty, which required the waiver of maximum b~iildinq height~ that r.arports in tY:e complex areas were proposed ~:o be consCructed with- aut required walla wliich would necesaitate an additionul waiver of th~e require- mon~ that carparts be enalosed on three sidas~ and that a tabulation ~f the data pr~sented w~as llated in the Repoxt to rhe Commission (copy on file). 1FUrther- mor•, the plano indicated a proposal of 180 tenan~ narking 4paces in carporte and opon dreas, as well as an aclditionr.l 2 i o~,en gu~:~t ~arking apaces lacstec~ chroughout the project, with recr~r~hion areas, inclading s•~imming pools, psa- poaed in both complex rreas and additional landacaped open areas pr ~~ided throughout the site. Mr. Sch'.iartze then reviewed the evaluation as set forth in the Report tc+ the Commission, noting that the Anahoim GenFral Plan designated subject property For low-density residential dev~lopment, ~lth~~.~h Gen~ral Plan Amcndnieut No. 123A, Anaheim Hills Land Use and Densit,y Element, orojected devalo;-~ment tor 233 multiple-family apartment ~nita at a density of appcoximately 11.1 dwelling unita par acrer that the origtnal area approved for R-3 d~.velopment ~.nder PC zoning included aubject property an3 an area ex•tending souihwesterly to Nohl Itanch koads that the petiti.oner proposed tc; devElo1~ this remainiag area foe aommsrcial ofiice usea at a subaequor~t date; that the pekitione~r propo~ed to construct carports without the requir~d encl.osure on three aides to add to the aestheti~c design of the apartment proj~ :t, indicatiny that for all carpos t units that cvere cons~uci~d without the requireo atorage area, sF.ace would be ~rcvided in the apartment units for atorage purposes; tt::it the plane furthar in~icated ~hr~a:.• apartment uni'ta wou].d be located within 150 feet of the ~djacent R-A prope:.cy to thA west, ur a distance of approximatel!- 125 f~et from any single-family r~sidencos vhich miyY-~:. be conatructed on sald p.'opertyt that the ~etitioner.3~ad indicated that due to the sloping terraLn on ¢~e s~djacent prope~~cy to the weat, any ~iny:.~-family residences would have a line-of-sighC, o•~er the propoae•i second-Atory ep~~.tment prajectt that the proposnd t~purtment project w~uld be developed on pads t~t the top of slope arear~, with pzoporty 'ineQ travQrsing the mYddle of the s2opas, whereas the Subdivieon Oi•c~'lnance, P'.t~e 17, rac~u±red thnt property lines be e+t the toe ~f the slnpea, an3 the c7~veloper ~,rould, there~ore, ba requirHd to obtain City c:uunail approvnl ~u t~ave tl~~ property 1~L:~~:, as propoeed~ und that the pet:.~ione,r had i.ndicat;d ~hat euc'i a requ~st ~r~uld be made to the Glty Counci.l, therofore, etaff would recammand that Cuunci'1 ~nproval of an exception to Title 17 be .a con~lition of approval rf s~abject petitipa. ~ • ~ ~ MINUTEB, CITY PLANNING GOMMSSSION, Oc+~bar 1, 1.973 73-595 ENVIRONMBNTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 101 AtJD VARIANCE N0. '1553 (Conti~iu~d) Mr. J+~mes eeri~ic, Vice Proaident o! Anaheim Hi.lls, inc., appoared befaro the C~mmiasion r~~re~anting the per.itionar and etated that he would mnke just gens~•al etatam~r.ts and wa~ltl r.equeat thnt a^y epecific qud~tiona r.ogrrdinq the situ plan aa wel) a~ open-eide parkinq drea~ be ctire.~~ed t•o th~ proe~~eutive br:.ldore, and then in xesponae ~o Commiesicn quee~tion~.r~g, etaC~Q the~t beh~nd tha coxporata offioe •ite an~1 aerosa th~ channel ~:here wa,~ a 4-aerq parcel propoeed to hnve 1~i ~+c~res of tl~e lowar portion devnt~d to buRines» an8 ~rofeeeional o4fiaeei thmt thia taad boen included oriqinally in the tatal e~pa~rtmeiit aomplex aitd, howovar, it was Palt it wae not '9d8~.b1~ to soperate thia trom the bnlance of the propurtyt thet Chls property wAUla be adjacf:nt to n heevl.ly-travelad erterialt thdt wl~er~ Noxkhridqe wes dogigned, they had tried to nnticipate land uee~e on pa~e being creatad end commercial useA of ~he property immediately adjacant to the a~rterial highwaya and medium or lo~a-mediurn denei.ty apartment developmont prapoaed ad~acent td the C-0 uses~ thet a f9.nn1 tract map ha~ b~en filed for the 76 R-' lotis on the aouth aide of. Canyon Ri~n Road~ thnt ther~ wae also an E30~aare site an th9 north aide of tha commerciz+l, and thay had talked with the proapective buyer flf a~id prop~rty who wa:, proposing~ tn develop ~hie with townhoueeat that thie woul~ be aeparate,d from the adjaining prapert.ie~ with tha exietinq elupe bank~t thak ta the norkh there was atill R-A port' ,~s ownod by Anaheim Hi.lls, which wae alao ad3acent to R-[i-22,000 zoned px :rtyr and ~hAt the upper alope gava a visual eeparr~tion for subject propert~~ which was cumple~ely separate e-nd was the basic rr~aeon for r.ec~uesting the he~ ,nt wnivor be~auaa ...~e single-fami.ly developmants would be v'iewing the top a£ th~ sacond at~ry o£• the apaxtment• complex. Mr. enrisic then noted there might ~e somo c~ncer.n expresaed that thie was a new project and low-density was origi~.~lly projected, hawev~r, in Gendral. Plan Amend- ment No. 123A, 860 dwelling unit• had been approved for thia nrea, and with the townhouse dev~lopmente apprAVed, toget'ler with the R~-1 tract apprnval and the FropoAal be~ore the Commiseion, t.he deneity was r.ons: ~rably less than that per- n.itted by the General Plan Amendment, zeduci;-g it from the projacted 860 unitie to the preaently-r~daced number of 520 unita, and ~he reason they wcre not pro- posinq high-rise there was becauae thEy wanted to develop high-quality clsvalap- ment, and development of 36 units per acre wo•uld not gi.ve the quality development they proposaci fr~m a marketing ~t.andpointJ and thaL as th developer presented his proposal, the Commission would see why they attempted ~c set ~he propertv line as proposed. Mr. Jamea Roqera, reprosenting Westfield Developmenti Company, 17802 Sky Park Cia.:le, Irvir~e, appeared before the Cammission, noting rhat they would be khe propos~d builders si.d ~wr.~rs of the apartment praject; that they proposed to develop subject property with a i08-unit, high-y,uality luxury developmenty tnat the lay af tr~o land and the ~~x'oblems it presented with precise plans before the Commissior. wauld indicate thc: mannsr in which this p~~~joct would be developed on the property; that the site was bisected by Canyon Rim Fto~sd, and approximatQly the samc~ number of units was p.ropoae~ for each side~ that it woul.d be c~mpletaly svrrounded, having its own environment built in~ i:hat the alope would be planted and would creata a apecial environment wi.thin eacti unit~ that the rents for these units woul.d be ccnsiderably higher when one considered that a one-bedroom unit l~id 750 aquard feot, whi].e a two-bedror;m unit had 1350 square feet, making thean in the luxury ap rtment ranye that i.n c~xcesH of 50$ of the ~inits would have a ~riew of the golf co~~rse or sazrounuing hille, while, the balance wauld be ab1P to see the dow:town ~.rea to the weati t'lat thEy were b Uilding Cheir own stXeets since they felt this was necc~ssary to have an adult-orient~:d, luxury apartment ::omplex T that tha units tvoul i have sh~~ke roofs d that ~herF would be a mix`.ure or combination of wood trim and panelinq; thnt the interi~r units would have bal- conies on the st~cond-story units, while the first =1oor units would have ~~dti.oat that the units would have trash ma~he~.s ancl eleCtric ovetis in the kitcheng and individual 1su.~dry rooms in each b,xildinq rather than in the carport srdast that they felt L•heir proposal c,~uld app~~al to the markec L•hoy were attemptinq to roachr that twn waivers were being roqueated - one being the one-story lleight limitation, whieh appeared to be r~asonables and ther, preaented a line-of-sfght drawing indicating the lo•:a~ion of both R-A and R-1 ~+inqle-£amily development to thd north. which indi~ated the ~wo rexr buildings would be witkin thia 150- foot limitatlon, and because of tt~e tECrain there would bQ a phyaical and vieual barrier :~etwec~n tlie apartment houaes and ~the top of the ~econd-story apaxtmRats, wh3.le the second-st~ry untts :vould not be :sble to view sn} single-famlly residen- tial, kherefore, kher2 would be no vie~ ~al intrusinti~ tliat the aecond waivor was ~ ~ M'CNUTE3, CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON, Octobex l, 1973 73-596 ~NVIRONC~FNTAL IMPACT REP~RT NO. 101 AND _VARIAtiCE N0. .''.553 (Cont~ riuocY; beinq requ~sted Co remove ~omo the rear ~nd piQe wnl?A o! aarporto no thAt the lnndecapi~aq, viow of the hills, etc. would not be obacruut~~ !~•~ a 10-fcot barrier of concrote ~r stuaro carp~rt wr~11a, therePore, they wanteQ su.,~a archito^tural freedom fox dseigning thi~ project to utilize the deeirab'le nmsnitieot th~~ the ~rr,hitect wde a1~o present t~.o answer ~ny Commi s~sion question~ xsgnxdinq t,~ie+ propoaed cazport trentmentt thut t~r.~ woula be a swimminq pool Pur eaah ~~f thd uni.t yroups on e:.ther ai.de oP Cnnyun Rim R~e~d~ that aith th~ ooneiderable amaunt o: lAndaaaplnq that wad ~roposec~., t'~ ia wou11 enhnncc the resl,denti+~l laelinq of tne aresj und that they were dlso developiny the 76 R-1, einqle-tamily r~aiden- tial unite or~ tt~e hi11 uujacent to ~he golf caure~. Mr. Rogere, in reaponse tu Commissi.on ~!uQationing, atated that ~he~e unice would no~. be aold but would be owned b;~ t:hem ae ren~el unlte. Cheirman Gsuer requosted en explanation .s ta the proposed 101. lin~ in tho cRn*e• of tho al.ope e~nce this wao r,ontrary to r.equiran~~•:ite of Title 17, wl~ich requii•e~: a lot lino at the too of Che c~lopa - how was tl-e developer pzopoaing ta main~.ain the uppsr and lower ol~E~~~t whereupan Mr. Rogera etdted L•hoy would be the ownera of one o€ rhe sl~pe AT'r~.~9 and c~u1Q ariaure the Commiseion this w~uld ba maintainod properly ~inre if ih. were not maintai.necx, f.hzs would detract from the v'iew '° the unite, parti.~ ~lat~ly yin.:e thia would bo the wi.nciow to the units frnm Anaheim kliZla RoadT ~~at the plans indicated the 91upe extending to the commercial area and the elov;~tion w~~u1d be 60 feet, whiah made thia a r.athe~r large alope, while the 7.ot lines wuu1~3 be abou.. ha.lf-way up the elope f~o~~ ~ha comrnercial porti.on, and the ag+~rtment development would maintain tho uppar 30 feetti and th~.t becaus~ those woul.d be view unita, tnese slopes would be landscapecl vrith trees as well as other t~fpea of shrubbery. Chairman Gauer inquired what would happen to the maintsnance of these sl~pes if the3e units were converted into condominiums - would thi~ chanqe tlte maint~nancP of the s].opest whereupon Mr. Rogc~rs stated that they ht-d no plar. to convert the: units i.nto condoininiums, particularly ~:.ince there were four to five other town- h~use projects e-lready prajected in the general area, while this proposal woull be the only apartment complex and he co u'ld not envinion these uni°cs b~ing c~n- ~erted to condominiums, although thesa would have common areas such as parking areas, carports, e}c. and would be covered by the maintennnce rgquirements of the homnownere association if ~onve:-ted into condominf.ums. Mrs. Mary D~nndorf, Fresident of santa Ana Canyon Improvement Aasociation, ap~eared k~~ ~~.re the Commission i.n appos~tion and stated that hei or~anizatian was in oppoaiti~;n to the rezoning of this property and the development proposal, particulazl}r with r_he density of 6.8 units pex acr~, whicll would not be in com- pliance with the d9ns.ity projected for the arF:a, and sh~ could not see how t'ne area woul d be upgraded with the w~.iver3 xequeAted, particu].arly that as to ~.he height l.tznitation~ t~iat no ev~.den~:e was presented that a haidship existed re7ard- icig the aarport enclcsure waiver., therefore, this would appear to be an economic factor, althouqt~ their organization would ocncur there ware topoyraphic problemsi tha~ she was not aware of tha fact that wood shake ~ cfs w~el•e ~ropoesd, which presanted quita a concern, particularly with the l~tqh fire tiazar~i factor in the c,anyon as evid~:ced by the heat of the past few days, and only one zoad was nresently a•~ailable to psovi.ie emergency accesa in the event of a fire and the traffi~. pr~~*~~.amg croulr~ be mcnumental for the fire-fightir~g eqvi ~ment, therefore, she would request consideration ot lc~wer xesidential develcpmAnt zn tha ,rea rather than that pro~oaed from both a safety as well as an aeath~tic viewpoint. t~r. Roger ~lilean, representing the Orange Unified Sctiool Distzict, appeared be- fore the Commiesion and atated he was aga~.n directecY to oppose any developmQnt in the canyon based on the f.sr.t that the school diatrict df.d not hav- ~chanl faciliciss available to pravide adequately fo~ t.he educat3on of the ldren who miqht com~ from the proposed development. Comm~~si.oner RoN].and entered the Coui:~~il Chemb~r at 3:2~ P•m. ~ ~ e ~17NUTES, CITX PLANNING COMNfIS~siON, October l, 1973 73~5~~ ENVTRONMEN'~AL IMPACT REPORT N0. 101 AND vARIANCE NU. ~ S53 (Cantin~aed) Mr. Barieic, in rebut.tv , gt+~ted tha~ he had ha6 an opportunity c~ ta~l.k with M~s. Dinndorf, although he could not ayree with her. r.oncarni thnt they had tried tu bring a11 t:he informetion paoeible to th~ ~~eat- ~.~ llvinq in Cho c~r~yo~~~ th~+t ebuut one and a!~etf yeare ago thia general area wna pzopoeed tox apartm4nt developmont undt~r r,oiierul Plnn Amondn-enk Nu. 123A, and it would b~~ th~ OYll~/ c,na in the ~lanned Commitriity 7one~ thnt montion wae made regarding qual{~.y develop- ment a~-~'. lowmr denaity ~ i.t was hia faelinq the propoaed cievnlopmer~t couXd nor ba found in to~ many areas in Orar-ge Co~inty which hed ~uch larqe unltet ~.~~* in computing the ooet, thage unlts would bN perxllel ta the toeot dreae div~loped, par ~CL'..Ldtly when one nated that the two~-bodroom ixnita had over 1300 aqudre foet oP ~~'~~or area, n~nkinq them very exceptional unitst thai waiver of tha require- ment of ancloeed ca~rports wae desira~le bdcauee the ~r~aa in whir.h th~y were propuaed would hav~e a~ vioual eeparation between the rondway and thA parkinq area, and when people drave into tt-e en~.r+nce do~~r of ',nati~im Hills, the~ di d not wr~nt to aae a maeaive etructure of concr te or stuacot thdt the hedvy beam structur9x they propoued w.~re very ~iaeirable and had nevtx beon presented in such a manner in low-madium density devolopman~s el.~where~ Chat t'aoy had now solved the drdinage pxoblems for Anahoim Hil.ls, and whan it wae co.nplete, to- gother with the AH~'P pr~jec.t extanding Nohi ltench Road t.o imperial Hiqhw•~.y, additional circ~ilatiun wov].d then be provifled in tha evQnt of a flr~ oz• other dic~aster~ ~snd tt.at oY,~ection wes presented ae to the effect on schnula - thia development would have on the 3chool p~pulation - and he would have been sur- Frised .'.f tha Urange Unified Sct,ool Distrtct hn~! not presentea ~ppos ~ti.on, how- aver, he had kalkbd with Bus3.neas Mana9nr Ntirry Flatt nf the~ Orange unJfied Sc}ienl Distzict and had as3ur«~d him that tho propoged apartment c:omplax wo~ild be an adu2t pra~ec:., ancl if th4re would be any ohildz~en in this development, they wauld bm of high eohool aae for which Canyon High Sctiool Could pr~vide the needed educationel ~acilitias when ab~ut half ot tk~is project wac devoloped. 'rY.E HEARItIG WAS CLOSED. Commiasioner Kinq of£ered a mot~ioc., s~conded by Cammi• .iioner Fat•anu and MUTIOtd CARRI~D (Cummiosioriers Rowland anc~ Sey~;~our abstaininy) , thc~t the Planni:~g Commission, in connectian with the filing of Environmental Impac~. Report No. 1C1, finds anci determines that th:~ ~IR Review Commi+.tee datermined that the report was adequate as an informa~ivice documetit a~~~ 'ollowed the City`o eatab- lished guldelinee, and thaL th~sr.e would be no siqn ~icant adverae envir~nmen~al imgacts, and, therefore, the Planning Commisaion zecommends to the Ci~.y ~ouncil that said report be adnrted an the Co~incil's Envi.xonrnental Impact Statement. Commi~~ioiier Farano offered Resolution Nv. PC'13-221 and mnved for its passage and adoptior. to qrant Petition for Variance No. 2553 on the basis that the petitioner had subm?tted ev~derce that the waivnrs would not bF: 3etrimental to the adjoininy propor.ty owner:~~ ±hat the on~-story hei.ght limit+-tion waive~ wou.l~9 not• affpct the potentisl ~ingle-family residential devQl~~pment ea~~~ent because the confiquration of the property due ta slopess ~hat :he Co~r~tiosion in !:he pa°~ had gxanted waiver Qf the enclosure of carports wh5r~e Pvidence ~•~as submit:r d that more than ad~quate l~ndscaping would be Qrovide~ij and thaL a2- tno~ che pr~perty was preaentl} zoned R-A, it had a rasolation of intent t~ Rr' ~:tere~~re, the zoninq had been establiahed prev~.oueLy on the property u~c: ~ the PC Zone a~nd the ~' ~nsit~y coul~ hA~o be~n c~naiderab]y great-er lhan was pzopos:~d. (See Rasolut9.on Book) ~ Frior *_~ r.oll call, ^ffice ~nginsex tay Titus noted for tt~e Comr,ission that t~~e petitioner wae propoaing tha property line i.n the mid4le ~f the nlope, whexeas Ti*_le 17 QY the Anaheim Municipzl. Code re~uir~d it to be one ::oot from tt~e top of the slope, and *he reason fo1 this re~~~' re~ndnt was to pre~ rit ~n~+ diviaion of responoibility foY maintanance or ?.•.bility for the slope in the ever~t the slope failed and oRly ons owner wou)-= ~e affected~ that if the dev~l-• opn,~nt were chan~ged from an apartment complex - a condominium, thia would mean a numtier of owners would bo sffer,ted, there~ore, b.e woulcl recommenc~ that ~ find- inq be ~tade regarding o~taininq Ctty CoL cil approval of che lnt spli.t at other than rhe tocation permivte3 by the subdivisaon Ordin~~ce~ an~ th~a': there woulc~. be only two property nwners at che present time involved as to the responsi- bility £or the slope, witti tha ~evelopera of tho apartmenc uomple.: for the uppor 30 feet ar,d Anaheim Hill~ fox tihe lowesr 30 feet. ~ ~ M:"tvUTES, CITY PLANNING COFSMIBST~N, Octobez 1, 1973 i3°gy~ .T,NVIRONMENTAL ZMPACT FEPORT N0;1~1 AND VARiANCF NO. ^a553 (Continus4) Commissionar Farano inquixed wheCher th,e property line diviAiAn ahould b~ nt tha top of ttie slope or at the toe or the slope~ ~ahereuron Mr. Titus atatnd t:~a~ it ehould be at the t~~~~ oP ti.m slape. Mr. Barieic advieed Che Cc;~nmisni.on khat khey were nware o! th~ Code provision and requeeted th~t the Planning Commie~ion make that a condil:ioii if eubject ~etit~on wer~ app::'~vea, an~1 they, in Curn, would requeat waiver o! the zequire- n~ent beYorc~ the City Cou:~cil. Commi~aioner Iiorbet ~' nquir.e~l whether ~r not therA wne a'~re~reterdant matori.al that coulu ~a u~~.~ for the .:t~ake roofa, or would thic be ao expensivo that the shake roofR would be C~:RhC~tlCj to compoeition. ~ommiesioner ltowland notod ::tiat there w~;:~ Fl.re-ret9rdant or Pire-treated sh~skd rco~'s, but it was ~1iPicult to Finenn,e, therefora, • d9ci~ion wc,~,ld he~ve to be made ae to who~her one prefe~red shake ar otherwieo and wi~;.•_'~+er or ~iot~ they shoul.d bu fire-proaf - tt;on, i.n a].l likeliho~d, the develope+x wau;..: ~elect campasi.tioa roofg instead of the ~hake roofs if firo-z'etardant meterisl we.:~ requircd because of `he increased coets. On roll c.dll tha foragoing xeaolutian was pasaod by tl~e fol7.owiny vate e AYE3: COMMISSIONFRS: A.Llxed, NOES: COMMISSIONERS~ None. ABSENT: CoMMISSI0NER5: t7one, AASTAIN: CAMMT5SIONERS: Row~and, F~areno, Gauer, Herbot, King. Saymour. Comm:i.ssior:er Se.ymour indicatAd hie abatinence in vating For both the ExR and aubject pAti*,ion was base~- on the EACt ~hat he had pereanal bualneas dealinqs with the developer and, therefore, wiahed to diaqualify himaelf. VARIANCI: N0. 2~54 - YUBLIC [iEARING. JAMES W. ANA RELUND M. CUMMINS, 2200 West Rowan Stroet, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Owners~ re~ueeting WAIVER OF ~A) REQUI1.tEp REAR YARD SETBACIC, (B) REQ~IIRED GARAGE SET- riACK, ANU ;4) RI:QUIRED MINIMUM FLOQR SPACE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXIST- ING (+AI:AGE AND TO CONNECT THAT GARl+GE TO AN EXISTING DWEZ,LING on property des° ci~ibed aa: At~ irreqularly-shapeci parcel of land conaistinq af approxima~ely .23 acre at the eouthweat corner of Rowan 5treet and Dwyer Driva, hRVing a f.r.ontage o£ ap~roximatdly 80 feet en the south side of Rowan Street, and h~vinq a`"ronFage of approximately 85 feet on the west ~ide of i~wysr prive. Property •sently classified R-Q, ONE^FAMfLY SUBURaAN, Z~ 'E. No one app~ared i~n opposition. Although r.he Report to the Commiasiur~ was not reac3 at ::he public hearir_g, i~ is referred to and mad0 a~+art of the minutae. Mrs. James Cummins, one o~ the petitfono.r~, appeared befare the Com:niasion and noted thar they had wanted ta a~id te i:h~ir garage and breezeway but because of thc a-~gle of their property line, they were informed they ~roulcl have to o5tain approval oz a var.ia~ae~ and in addition to the Zoning Division, ahe had talDced with a r~Yresent.ativt of :.he R~.ght-of~Way Division who furtner adviaed her to discuss ~he ancroac}~~rent of the public utilitiea e~,•ement with che Utilitiea Department, and after having discuased thia probl~ with Messre. Ritter ax-d Stauffer, they had auggestod that a`~e apply £.~r an enaroaol~ment permit since they felt there waH moze than adequate area t~ gain occeae ta Y.he averhead utiJ.ity wi.res, while the telephono compar~y nad advlaed t~er there etill was 3 f~:et on her pz~;:6rty an8 5 feat on the adjacent property ~n the event the telephone company determined underground conduita shou]~~ he providecl. ~ommisaioner K~.~y in~quired whether the property own^r to ~he weat had indicnted ~nf objection to tY-e progosed rear yard setbacki wh~ r.eupon Mrs. Cummins stated that si~e had tRlkPC3 with a'_1 prapsr~y ownera within ~00 f~et of h~x ~:roperty and had submitted letLers inquirinq whether there w as any objaction, and only one withi~ 30~ fset, Marcuq ~I~, had expressed any conces~n. ~C7LL"(~ N' ~ ~ M~,JOTES, CITY P1~AlvNING COMMISSION, OCtobAY l, 1973 73-599 VARiAN~E N0. Z554 (Contin+~ad) Z'NE HEARING WAS CLOJED. Commienioner Seymour otlered a moticn, seconded by Cammir~ioner Hezbst end NIOTiON CARRIED, that the P?.anniny c:ommisoion, ir oonn~oatio~n w7 ~i~ an exc~mption Aecla~rr,.~ion etaku~a raquue~, linde And d~termines t1iaL the propaa+xl ~~~uld have no significent onvironmental impnel: and, ther~eforo, zecommen8~ to tha Cit.y Counc+ t thet n~ E:nvirnr~menkal Impact 9~t-temenL ie necessary. Comtui.saionaz Seymour aPge,reci Reealution t~o. DC73~222 and moved !ur iCe pase~qe and adoption to grant Potition for Verianca Na. 255~3 on rhn besi tha~ the eize o! the prope.*.ty, toqethor with the coverage proposed, would arill le,~'v~ ample opon apace and would not doslr~y the anvironment of tt~e azae. Furthermare, no op~oaition had baen receivod fr.om the ad~r,cent prope~rty ownera~ and su~.iject ta canditione. (See R~asulutic.n Book) On r^.11 ca:.l the foregof.ng reeolutian was paeaed by the follawi.ng v~oLO s AYES; COMMIS9IONERS~ Allrad, Farano, GaueY. Herbet, lCinq, Rowlnnd, Seymour. NOESi COMMISS~UNERS: Nona. A~SENT; COMMISSIONERB; None RECLASSIFICATION - 1'UHLIC HEA1tIN~. HULEN E. ArID HESTER Y. SLAYTbN, lOlG South NO. 73-74-23 Anaheim Boulc~vard, Anaheim, Ca. ~28C5, Ownere, c/o Joha~ W. ~ Zylarra, 710 florth EUClld Street, Nu. 220, An~l~eitn, Ca. 928oi, requPStinq that property described as: An izraqularly- ~haped parcel cf land conoisti.ny of approximately .4 acre~ havi~g approximate f.rontages af 22 feet on the south aic~~ of Charlotte Avenue anci 22 £~set on the west sida uf 5out1~ Claudina Street, having R maximum de?th of appr~ximately 153 £eet, and being located approxf~:ately 193 feet astit of the canterline of Anahei~n Bou]evard, be reclasified from .ne R-1, ONE-FAMILY R~~?llE!d~rIAL, ~ONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAT . ?,ONE. One per.son indic~+~ed his precence in ~pposition. Assistant Planner Phillip Schwartzo reviewed the locntion of aub~+ect property, uaes establishad in cl~se proximit.~, and the propoaal to reclar~s~.fy ~he property to the C-]. 7.one in ordRr to pr.avide a p~rking lot Lor a~+ropoe 3d *_hrae-st~ry medical office stxucture proposec for the frontage property ad.jacE:nt to the we~t along Anaheim Bc:levard; that submitted plans indicated that the firat f.loor would contain a meclical auita, pharmacy a~nd flor.tat shop ard consi.~t of approxi- mate~y 2~.f~E3 square feetj ti.at in addition to these unita there wc uld be n stair•- well, elevator and janitor st~rrsye room, as well as an open a~rium to the roof; that the secund and. third i I.oora would each be appr.oximatelv /OOU squr~re feet anc3 would contain four med~cal suites per floor, plua the open atr~.um, el~vator and stairwell stiafti tha~ the bui.'idiny height w~uld be 40 feetr that roofic~p meahanical equipment woul~i be an additiar_al 8 feet high and would be acreeiied from views t.hat the height of. the structure would be in co-npliance witY. Code requirements adjacent to re~idential uses, ~hat being a 2:1 aetback; that the building would be set back 10 feet from Anahet~n Boulevac~~ nd Lorrrine Drivpj that one of the two drive~ays from Anah~im Boulevard would Ue coWe~'ed by the seconc3 floor portton of ;.he buil~dinq, and tne proposed 10-foot h.igh vertical clearance drive t}~rnugh had been apgroved by the Fire a~id :.anitation Depertments as tl~ere were two additional driveways to subject prooerty Lrom Lorxaine Arive and Claudina CtXBZti that tihe submitted plan~ indicaCcd parkinq requirPmen~:g of 1Q5 parking atalls and 105 were propoaed~ and that accesa wa~ propos~d to the parking lotG by one 20-footi wide entrance an~ one 20-foot wide axit on Anaheim 3ou~evaxd i.n addition to a 20-foo*. wide entranae from Lorraine Drivo and en exit dr3ve intn :he existirig 20-foot wide a-lley frum Lorraine Drive ae well ns a 20-foot wide antrance from Chaz2otte ,Avenue. Mr. John Zylatra, 710 North Euclid StreAt, ra~r.esenting tha petitioner8, appeared before the Commiasion and reviewed ::he e).evation aa-d Report to the Co~nmisaion as presented by staff, and tk~an oreser~te~8 a'larger rcndering of the r~roposed deve].- opment. ~ ~ MINUTE3, C_TY PLANNING COMMxSSiOt~, OotubuY 1, 1g73 RECI~A38IFI~ATION_N0, 7'3-74-23 (Continuod) 73-600 Mr. 5chwartie, in responde to Commiseion qu~stic-ning, atatg! thst thb pr.~pexty to the weat ~f eub~oct praparty wae a.lresdy aon~d C-1 Ai~d that the prupsrtiem eftectod by the proposed rezoning r•uuld be tho~e aC the southweat ccrnor ot' Lorrain~ Dri.ve and C~audina 5tree*_, ee well ae th9 pr~~~erty imm~aiatoly to the ea~t of. the propoeed parkang axes~ wt,ich ~rdre bath R-1 ~ropexti.e~. Mr. 2y,ls i notad they propo~ac~ a three-atory medi.^a.l off.ico bui~ding on ~t-r c~rt~er o~ Loi•raine Urive and Andheim eoulevard, Mith h.h~ fronC gortion beiny devote~i ta the etructur.e i~~e1P :nd tho ret~r por~ion faz pnxkinq purparas~ that they propos~d to pra~-i~7~+ 6 par:~ing ~~~t~~AA per 1000 squaxa Lu~t- that thoy hed more thur. a3e~~uata r- ~klr.g witii tha lay~nt prar•osed~ and that the pzo~erty would remain in e:ingle c.~erch'.- with thac ta the west on which the etzucture a~ul d bo lacated, ae wAl~. +~•. tha4 undc~x coneidere~t•'~or- now. Furthermc~re ~ thoy ~roposod access trom f~ur different painte L•o tho pruperty and parking ax9a, with the ~zincip~l entr~cioe being fro-n Aneheim Boulevarci and *.ha r~mnining 3 would k,e accensory poin.e~ thar the sir,gla~Yt~mily property to Che riorkh of oubject p•roperty adjac~nt to Lorraine Drive had partial commaroiai usea on tha pr~perty, althou~~h the hame s+as atil'. bei.ng ueed ~or a residencer and. the~ wou,Ld ~rovi3o buiferi.nc; t~ pYOte~ct t:h~~~: raslc:ontial uses. Me. R~beLt Fdwards, 200 Charlotte Av~iit~~:, appeared hef'or9 the Commi~oinn anct not9d L•hat his praperty 3rair~ed onto subjoct property, whiah was a natura'1 drainune c:ourae,and i.lquired what was propobed to tnke care of the @xa.in.~ge Prom hia propert}• and how muc'n tra.'• t. ~:.:ou13 be util~icing the secondary acce ~~^ wa~s, parttcularly from Ch~rlotte r~~-nue, und that althuugh he was not in direut ~ppvr.ition to the proposed devea.opm~nt, he requeated that provisio~-s bA mado for t-dAC;uate drainaga from Yeis pr~pezty to or thxot.gh aubjec.t property. Mr. 7yl.stra adv.Lsed the Commission tha~ sub;~ct propArty was cor,yiderably below the qrade ~n the rear p~rtion, and this portioa would have to be filled t~ in- cr~uQe the grade in order to meet the City Engineer's~ requirem~nts, and in d~ing ~o, tliey would tak~ into cnnaideration t.he neiqhbox•s' r.oncerr, regarding drainage; that trafFtc flow wou]d he primaxily from Anahe3m F3oulevard ~.~~heze tha r~ain entrance wou13 be and oxits would be to the o~her atreets ~nd woulcl ha for auxiliary pu.rposes cn~;r. Commisaioner Allred expreased .:he conaern of the Commission reyerding the p069~- bility uf deleting one oC the accesA po:~nte eo that commerciaJ. uses would ~~ot be enterinq the residential flok ~f tr•affic~ whereupon Mr. Zylstra stated that rattiar than completel}~ closi a o£f the qa~e, he would augqest that a fire gate be provided in the evert. of ~n emerqency. Mr. Schwartze advised rhe Commi.ssion ~hat t.he gate suggested by Commissi~ne: Allred to be clased was the only entr~nce fur trask~ trucks ta pick ~.~p trash an3 leave, therPfore, t:hiy shouid be takan into conAideration. Commiss±aner Herk,st ob~e=ved that the all.ey where ±he petit.toner was proposfng only one-way traff.ic wsa a two-way ali.ey, r.egardless of the manner in which ;.•he petj.ttone!. ~rop~sed, and since it ras a public alley, i~ v~ould have to re~nain as a. L•wa-aay alley. Dj.ecuesi.~n wa~s held betwaen the Commiesicn and *!::. representa~ive cf tho petl- tioner regardinq the acr•esa £or tre-sh trucks, ~ii~h the re~resentative st~ating thia could be a lock~type qate and tr~e tracn company could be provicled with a key~ wherPUpon tho Comminsion st!ated thdt this wae~ not t:~e most deeirabl~ place for a trash atorage area, immsdintoly +~dj~cent to r.esidential uae~. Hawever, tha ~'ommisoi.~n fn tne paet aad ndvez spprov~d a aimilar type trAah eree, ~ar- ticul~rly aince the trash encourag~d fliea and otiher ver~^in~ that the truah truck peopla alao made considerable i~oiae in the early hour.a of ~he mo:ning in their pick-up. TherePore, he :elt that aince this has a commercial encr~achment into a reeidez~tia]. azea, that the residents ~f this area Ehould ~e given some protec- tion fr.om boeh the noise, odors and vermin 3nd flies by relocation of the trash area An'_' providing landacaQe buffarinq ta protect these psa~le, par~icularly eince ~ha meclical center vrea~ced con~i~lex~bla traffic f:om obrservation a~ n~her medical ~en`ers throughout the city. Mr. 'Lylstra then at3ted thAt he w~uld etipulate to rel.ocation of t}:e tradh starage nren to a more desirable location. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE.~i~ CtT'f PL~ANNING COMIMI3SION, Octob~Y~ l~ 19'13 ~~ ~1 AECLAS3~[FYCATtAtd _N0. 73-74-~3 (Continued) CammiAaiondr tlerbyt waH of t.h~ opinian that e- 10-loot lanQacape stiri.p ~hould be provided elong the ree~.9ent•ial bounclerioo ed~aaant to ~ubject. proportXi thew thw ~."'d9Y1 locatior- should be z~iocated away lrom ths rr~eidantiel uroa t t~rid th+~t ana of ~he accenewaya :.nCn th~+ reei8enti~l ares shoul.d be dale~od. THE FlEARING ~aAS CLOSED. Mr. Sr,hwartze lnquirod whath~r the Commission wae dneiraue of hev~ny ravieed plana ~ubmittcd Por Comm.t eion review, reflecting the chanqes oa~l.ineclj whdre•• upon C;ommiaeioner Seymou. ~ctahe3 th~t sinca these wer.P ahanqeo that wer.e minur, atalL aliculd ba able to zosolve them aclminietrativeiy. Aeaietant Uevelopment Soxvic~~a Director Roneld Thompoon adviead t~^ Cnmmf.eeion that cloa.lnq off one openi.n,ry to either Claudina Streot or C:iarlotte Avenue would n~ceoeitate a zevisecl pr.i.m~sxy circulation from ~naheim Boulova.rd noztherly to I,orraino Drive, nn~ if th~ rraolt etorage aree were ro~oca~ed, then thera would b~3 less p+~rking than crl.g.nally proposed, and because khis wae a mEdlcal faci.lity~ thio wovld cxeate a hardahi*.. Cummi~ai.Aner Seymour not~d that [-e assu~n4d fro~n th~ applicant'e atatement t'hat tha changda requirod could otill Lc accompliehed and efi.ill meet ~arking, t-owev~r, if the rc+vieed pla~~ indirated ttiAt p~rking would not be in ncr,or~r~nce witti Codo, then th4 p~titioner would t-ave to reaubmiC hiA glans to tha Plr.nning Cammir~si.an. Mr. Thompso~ not•ed thttt 'che plan~ wovld haw~s to be ext~nsively modified in order to meet th~, required parking. Mrs. Edwarde appeared bafore the Commisei.on and n~ted thaL• aince the accefewdy proposed to Cha.r.lotte Avenue would be their front yaz~, this could cr~ato a traffic problem aa well ao reducing the po~aibilit!~ of proger drainagd. Comr~ia~ianer Seymour offered a rnotion, s~condad by Commiastonez l~llred and MoTLON CARRIk~D, that tlie ~lannin.g ~c~mmission, in corinection with an exemption declaration c~tatus request, finds aud deter.mineo tlt~st the propos~l woulld have no significant environmenZal impact and, thorefor~, recommenda to the City Counci~ that n~ Envir.or.m~nt~7. ?mpac.t Statement is necessary. Commieaionez Seymour otfered Res~Iution No. I~C73-22;, and moved ~or ita passaye a.1d adoptior, to recom~end to tt~e City Counci.l char Petition foi• Reclaseification No. 73~74-23 be approved, subject to ~onditione, with the added conditin~tu that a 5-foot strip of lai~dscapir.q be plan~e~' along the t~aetorly boundary of oubjoct proQerty; that the arcpss groposod st t2,e northdask cor.ner of the pro~erty be Pliminat~d ~r a crash or fire crate be izstalled~ *.hat the trast- staragn nrea ~hal.l be relocated away from the existing R-1 propertiee located to the east of aubiact pro~erty; and that drainr~ge shall be provided as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolu*ion A~ok) On rall call the fo.reqoing resolution •~~as passed by the foll~wing vote: AYES: COMMIS5IOt3•~'RS: Allred, Farano, Gaiter, Herbst, King, Ruwland, Seymour. NO~S s C~~IMISSIONERS tlone . AB~ENrs CaMMISSIONFRS: None. RECESS - Chnirm~n Gauer de~lared a ten-r~inuto recASS at 3:50 p.n. RECUNVENE -~ airman Gauer reconvenea the moeting at 4:03 p.m. all -" Coinmissioners beirg grasent. • • NiINUTE3, C7TY ~~LANNING COMMJSF3x~N, October l., 1973 73•-602 Chairman GAUOr declarocl that the ndxt; four it~rne would ba conaidered a~~ ons i~em, er~id ltems being Area Dovalopment i'lan No, 112, Re~cl.aaeificetion Nut~. 73-74-1, 73-7a-9, and 73-7d-10. 11REA DEVELOPMENT - READVEItTISED PUBL:[C HEIIRIN :. IwITIATED BY THE ~N1IHEIM FLAN NQ. 112 CiTY FLANNING CUMM7S9ION, 20~ Ea~t Lincoln Avanue, Anaheim, "' ~~ Ca. ~28U5i to c~nei8er the r~sed !~r socor-dexy acoeAe to tho~se ptopertiee l.rontinq on 8rookhure~t 3treat, proper.tiee coneieti.ng of approximatwl.,~ 30 a-craa buing a~ ero+s genArmlly b~unde~ by Lincoln Avenuc on Che Routh, Cdtslina Avenua at ite weaterly axteneion on th~ north, the rear of those properti.ee lzonting ~n Kathryn ~rive on th~+ weat, and the re+sr o~ th~ag pro~~ertiea frontinq on Lindsa,y Stxoat to the enet. RECLA53IFICATION - R~ADVF:RTISED PUBLIC ttEl4RING. 1NITIATED HY THE ANA~I~TM N0. T3-7q^1 C~Z~Y PLANNIN~ COMMISSION, 204 E~st Linc~l.n Avonue, Andheim, ~~'r~ Cu, 92805~ to aonslder zeclaeuiPicetiun af property dea.- cribQA ae i ripproximaf:oly :t0 aores com~~riainy thuee residen- tial prop~rtios which f.zon4 on Kethryn L~rive~ Ranchitu Avenue, +~nd Woodl.ey Avanue and wh~.ch fronk ~~n IIircher SCreet, Hilbers Road end Lindar~y St:•oc~t from the R-A, TGRICULTURAL, 20NE t:o the R-1, ONE-~AMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. RECLA59IFYCATION - RFADVFRTISED PUBLTC HEARINC~ INITIAT~D 8Y mkl~ lAtyAt1EIM pp. 73~~q_~ C;TY PI,ANNING COMMI~SIUN, 2Q4 Edet .Lincoln Avenue, AnahAim, " Ca. 92805~ to con$ider reclaseificatiun of prok~ertX c~~naisr~- i.ng of approximatel.y 9..1 acrea deecribed ae thove proparti.ea I in reaidenkial and commercial u~a eau~harly of Catalina Avenue and ite weatorly extension between RanchiCo Driva and i~a narthezly extensian and Bro~~khuret S~.reet and elao betwaan Kireher Stxeet and Brookhurst SLreet frum ~he R•~A, nGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the C-1, GENERA:. C~MNiFRCIAL, GONE. RECLASSIFICATION - READVEfiTISED P[)BLIC HEA~tING. INITIATED BY THE ANA4EIM N0. 73-~4~•10 CTTY PLAN~IING COMMISSION, 204 13ast Linaoln Avenue, Anahaim, ~~ Ca. 92805J to cuneidea• reclaesification of pro~arty de~~- cribed asr An irreqularly-shaped parcel of larid cansistinq of approximat~ly 2.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 220 f.eet on the wes~ aidn of Broukhurat Street end having a frontage of appraximately 65p feet. on the north side of Lincoln Avenu9 from the R-Ae AGRICULTURAL, ZON~ to t.he C^3, HEA~-Y COt9MERCIAL' , ZONE. Chairmar~ r~uer advised i.nterested peraone presan•t in the Counc:il Chamb~r th~t the Plarininq Com~;ission had consiQered at Keveral public hearin~esentedrto the Devel.opment Plan and the reclas~si.f~cstio-i ~eti.tions now being F Planniug Commiesion, an3 that the Cemmissior~ would on1.y cansidor new evidence and new exh3bits if staf.f waa pressnting additional alternatives, eince the,y dici not wish to have gtatements previously made reiterated. Fv.zthezmortt~ th~ Commiasion had copiea of the petitfons eiqned by numerous 3ingle-f:~m~ly home- ownera i,n. the single-family tr~ata eest and weat of IIrookhur~t Street request- ing that the prapertias remain R-.L. PlanXeinq Technician ~Tehn An~exson noL•ed for the Commissiun that he fel~ t.he audience as well as the Commisaion was familiar with the study areai tl~at for thoea who wez'e nat familiar wi.th khe Area Develapment Pl~n, it was for a portion af the Kathryn-Lindsay Annoxation divided ir~to thrc~e distirict portions baged on land use, former County zoning, and General Plan 3esignatianr that after. same review oE the pro~osals and pzojections for the area, it w~.~ the conclusion cf ataf i' that the main iasue at han3 was whethex' ur no`. those ~>roper~ies on the east and west sides of Brookhurst Street shouLd be reclasel:tied to the G-1 zar+e foz a dopth of one or two lotst thxt there were Lwo altarnr~~e aoning polutiona, one b9~.nq retention of the single-family reaidontial zoning for those proparties along Bircher and Ranchi~o Str~eCs~ while the oth~,r. a~lternative was to encompass one additional lot depth ar- the sas'~ eide of RAnc1-ito Street aild or. tho weat side of Bizcher Street f~r commerc3.a1 cffice or general comm@rcial zaniny, howaver, this development could take aevezal different fo.rm~ deponding upon the type of secondary a.cceea solution approved, and in any ev~rit, b~:ffAring such ua lnnd- acaping, block walls and/nr berms ehould be required alonq the lncal int~r.ior atreet Erontage to protACt the rAmaining single-tRm~ly residentia-1 useg on ~he oppaeite sicYe of the streetj that there wex•e three alternati~~ob gropaaed for ~ ~ 73-6() 3 MI~.UT:S, ~~JTY PLANNING ~uMMIf~8I0N, Ontobmr 1, 1973 AR.~.A JFVFLO'PM~N7. PL.AN NO. 112, RE~CLA9gIFICATION NOS. 7S •74-1, 73-74~9 AND 73~74-1~ (Con_tinuea~ _,,, -_.._--- ^~oondt-ry auaeos aalution, os-e beii~g the c~ntinued unroetzicted Acce~~ oxt Hroakh~~rst S~reet with remova.l of o~.-~treat pazki.nq, i! ~t Nera dotermined that only a onr.-lat clapth ehould ~e coneiderAC1 ~or aommezciel ueas~ or oontsnued unrostrictec4 ACCesw otP erookhuz~et Streot with aontinuad an-~tr~st ~arking, howevax, in the opinian of the City Traf.tic Enginene~t, this miqht posa a problem !or ].eft-turrt:.ng eqroas Yrom eub~ect praper.ties = or litnited ac~.+~~s ~t! BraQk' huret Street, :~ovrevez, in the opinion ot th~ City TretriG Er.~in~~r, this would bo appropriate or~l.y iP a epecific lerqe-acaln deve?.oy~mont wAxe proporAC1 for th~a ~tudy area, ttiere tora, the conelusion raached wee Chat the mairt iseua wa~a whether or noC to 'one Ch4 properCiau on both eidee of Brookhurst 3trAdt f~l' a depth o~ one az ~wo lotej tl~st commercial dovelopment oP singlo lota tronting on Hrookhurst Straet wA~ not impos~iblet that there wer~ saver~l mitigatin~ f~xr,tore againet the aucceae of. +n two-lot dopL•tt land n~seml~ly, thoee beiny ~hat tliere was no .~videnca of l.ana eanombly in thi.A areat that Cho le~ir markAt vnlues acc~rding ~o the County .~aseesor's Office along flrookhuret 3troot variud ~ram y15A,000 to 5158.OOU por, ncre Por frontaqe ].ote and fram S114,040 to $117,000 Por the loto to the roa-r, thu~ w:ith auch relative~ly high va~luetions, ehis would proUab ly de te r tt~ e type o f comme xc i.n1 d9 ve lopu~ent that would ncC ae a cat a 1ys t for. compr~henbive lund asaea~bly,. therofor~, gt~+f.f would recommend t-:~t Fxhibit "A" be adnpted, approvinq thR contir~uance uf unreetri~ted ~ccea~a otf Drookhuret ,treeL• and the removal of ofP-stroet parking along snid Hr.ook:~a::dt Street. Mr. Leale Dexter, 305 Ranc:-ito St.reet, t~pP~~red before th~ Commiseion in ogp~ai- tion and s~ncsd he had lived nt thia addre~as Eoz 'the pas~ 22 yoart~ t thr~~ roai- de~nts of the areA ha~l opent time from work trying to obtAin siqnatures on ~hat I petitlon o,f opposition which wae aubmitted to the Comm~.sRion ~rovioua to L•he public hearings that the residenta oE th~ area ~vere under Cho imprasaion that the s'.ngle-family homea located on othor tht~n Arookhur~t 5~reet would remain R-1, hut f.t appe ared that after or.~ pera~n auygeated at the City Cou7cil meet.icig tkiat ?erli,9ps conai.deration bnould be given to including ono tier of e~.ngle- famil! lots rathex than ~eaving thP zoniz~g as set up by the Caunty Yor commer- cial use of the Brookhurst Street p.rope~rtiesy that tha zesidents wer4 qlsd they were nG~~ a~art of the C:Lty of Anahei.m but wanted to retai.n t,-e sinyle-f.amily residAni.! al zoninq and criaracter ~f the area and did n~t want commeraial acc~ss through tneir reaidential streetei that he wished there were aome type of clevel- opu~ei-t that could be ancflu~P•ged to purchase t.he propexty, but sin~e thora was already ~o mucla. vacant lanc? in tha city on whi~h commercfa]. uses cnu.lil be estab- liahed, rhi.a wish coul~a .~o': be zgalizedi ttnd ~hat many businessea along Broehhurr~t Street 'iave been closed Por a number o~ yoars, therefore~ the natural tr.end wauld be to retain th~ R-7, zoninq. Mr. Oscar Loude rback, 12?.0'1 Aurns Drive , Garden Grove, appeured ~Qfore the Com:,.'_ ssioa and stated that he owned a portion of the L-ahapced piece of property along Lincoln Avanue whict: was the p~rtion indicated r~e No. 3t ~tkta~ a portlon of th~: Regort to the Commission indicated thQ County zoning was chAnged ro the Ctty of Anuheim R-A zoning, howPVer, the pr.ope.rty owners did not r~csive any natice regnrding this zoninR c~ion; that the or~ginal ~oni.:lg change xequASt rnade by him in 1958 had a r,,, .'> >f ineetir-g a11 con~itiane of approval within 90 dayy or upon coatplel:ion of th iexa~ian proceedtnga to the City of Ar-ahei.mr a earin bef~re the ~mission because his parl:ner wae unahla ~e~ be thut he was pp 9 present, preaenhly reaidinc~ out oi the state, however, his partner had advise~~ him that he had assumed th:fr property w~s zoned C~3 by the Ci~y of Anar~-am~ that he t~ad written to Jo' ;t Hardinc~ of the City Manager's Off.ice a number of timea regxrding annexatio.-, and hc~ had assured Mr. Hardi.ng each timo that he would not opposo the annexation, and after talking wlth Mr. H~rding and annexa- ~ion appQarsd to be aesured. he had only advised hi.m that the tax base would ri4e abaut 39C per $100, but this would be ofPset by lcw ratoa Yor bot?~ yarbage die~oaal And waker, and at no tim~ was anything stated that there was no C-3 zoning on the propQrtX. Mr. Chris Bugbese, 125 Narth Bircher S~rer~t, appeared bef~ r~ the Cammisaion, atatinq that ~-ia lat r~aE an H4-faot c~eep 1ot on the west eide of Hircher Stx~eet aajacont to the Brookhurst Streat lrontage commercial proper~iea which 1ne Ye~lt Ne~t thflaCitatehauidprezoneaoneetier~ol~the~R~lnla~shadjacent to bothrsideH, ofon ~th Y ~ ~ MxNUTU9, CiTY p~ANNING COMMISSION, Uotobor l., 1973 73-60a 1-REA QEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 112, REt,L~,38IFICATION NOB. 73-74-1, 73-7a-9 11ND 73-74•l0 (Contin~ad) _ ____., - thn Brookhurnt 3t~set frontaqe lot~, making thom two lotA daop ro giv~ a b~ttex r~ze and depth o! lot t~ enaouraqe b~tt~~r aommerciel developmont xina• moek o! the~ atruaturee both on Bro~khurot Str~at ar.d ths resi~9en~ial atseot w~r~ rsthar uld and tha atxua~uree on 8rookhurok 81:rpsL Mere ueed anly ~y renta~s, en~ moot owners dirl not ~pend tha money to bring them u~+ to today'o etandMrd• !or comca~r- sial u~es. Mr. John 8utler~ owner o! propsxty at 301 and 305 tdorth 8rookhuxet 5tr~nt, appe are~9 beforo the Commieaiom m~d etated that eince ho ha~t owne~d tha proparty, there had been aAVeral ditferent z~n~s p,rnpased, and for ssve~n yc+ors he hed been harassed by the County And it shoul~l now be strnight~nod out by tho City of Annheim, otharwiee, he otil]. woul.d be harassed, th~refore• h~ waulr re~ueat that the Comminsian ~.pprove C-1 zaning !or tha Bxookhurat 9+creek properxi~e, a~nd h~e wanted to make sure thdk ho did not havs anything but aommer~ial aoning for hia pr~perty. Mr. Law.rc~nce Fulmer, 205 North Bircher Stroet, a~pear.ed ~efore the Commi~eion nnd str-tec; that re~i denta af theix etzee~ ~ere op~oaed to commercia] soniny for thoir si.ny~~-family hoines Por a depth of ~.ne lot on I3irche+r Streat an~ requeated th~-t the Commieeion retair- the R-1 zoninq :Eor. the ~ir~pertieo sinc;~ ronidents telt tt~A entiro azee would be dovelopAd in ~ sporadic manner, m~king the appear- ance of tt~e property l.eae than deoirable, and tY~at 4:hey di3 ~iot want commercial txaff±.c on their residential straets ei.nce lt would af~ect their li~ving environ~ men t. Mr. I,oucl~rback again appeaxed hafore the Co~~mic~io!n and stated khat th~ last. time the Commission considered the zonir.g fc~ hia property along Lincoln Avenue, a tenanL- of liia etated that thny wexe ha~~ing a di.fficul.t time obtain- i.ng oth~r renters for a portion of tlie pzoperty, and since there appEared to be no oppos~.tion from adjc~ining property own3ry as to the C-3 zoning as advertised, he felt tkie Com;ni~sion ahould c~:~ r C-3 zoning rather tha~n the C-1 zoninc~ previously recommended f.or approv, , particularly aince he waa paying coneiderably ra~re taxe~ an th3 proper~.y, fr.om $239 when he pur.chaaed the ~roperty to $10,000 per year now, ~herefc r.e, it wae ! mpor~ant tY-at he rstain hie tenant in order to pay his '~axes. Mr~. Ada Morris, 305 North Bircher Street, ap~earad before the Commission and atated ~hat ahN favored retaining the si-zgla~£au~ily residential dpeignation as recommended by staff, ~rtmuzily becauee th._~c ared had many older reaidenL•s who had ~lann~d to retair~ their propertie~ ul~on retirements and that she, too, was one of the ariginal owner~ in th~ trPict and wantRd to protect the investment of a1Z of ths property owneYS ae we~ll as hers 9inc9 ChFy could not sell their property and obtain anotY~er place at a c~mpar.able price. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cammissioner Seymaur absexved that when the C~mmissxon aonsiderecl the property along Lincoln Aventi~ and recommended C-1 zoni.ng subject. ta staff initiating appropriate zoriing waivers to legalize the ~xisting uses, rtr. Louderback appeared to be satia£ied so lonq aa the same u~P conld be re-establi.ehed i.f there waa les3 than 50$ of any damaqe ~one t~ .3 use by £ire or oth~z disaster, therefore, why didn't Mr. L~udorback oxpress c~~ncezn at said publia hearing. Mi'. Louderback statec3 that he did nat agree wi+:h tiie C-'_ zoninq becauee he had alwaya been under the assumption thut he i~nc? G••3 zoning approveQ for the ~,roperty back ix- 1958, and aftar the he~ri~~cf wt~s CLOE3Ad at the l~ast nu~lic hearing~ he did not want t~ ob~ect ko Commifieic>ner Seymour's ~ugqestian, but he still felt the property wAS C-3 and that: he harl a copy of the zeaolution of intent which ~o ina~cated it. Mr. Lauderbaok then ~r~aented said capy to Comriiac~ioner Seymour. Lengthy discu~sion wa-» held by the Commiaa~~aii ~'egarding Lhe propoea~l presonLed b~~ staff and the requeat and oppoeitiona preserited b; the singla-fac-ily reoi- dents of ths area and circulution and alterna~i.vers aa depicted by the er.hibita pr~~sonted by stmf:. ~ ~ MIN'1TES, CITY PLANNING COMMIFSiUN, Uctober 1, 197a ~~"~p~ 1-RL~A DL~-L~LOpM~NT PLAN NO. 112, RECLJ-88IFICA9'zON NOS. 73-74-1, 73-74-~ AND 73-74-10 (Continu~d) _~ ,,,r _____...~ - - - Commi~r.~~oner Seymour aff.ered R~oplution Na. FC73~224 e~nd moved ~or i.ta p~Ha~qA a~nd •dnption tu reAtti.rm P1Anninq Commi~oio~i soti.an o! Ra~olution No. P~73-164 ~rherein tha Plnnni.ng Commio~inn A~opted Arsa D~vxlopmernt Flan No. 1I2, ~xhii~it "~", and recommended to the c:ity Co+unci]. ~doption o! l~rea D~velopment P1Mn No. 112, Lxhi.bit "A" , establish ng circulation pAtterne !oz comm~roia~.l pxoporkiet al, Brookhurst Streot north oP.' I.incoln 1-vrnu~e. (See Reaoxut~on Book) On roll cr~].2 ~he f.ore~ai~g reeolution wae pA~sed by the Pollowing vot•: AyE3: COMMT.SSIONFit5: Allrod, Fer~no, Gauex, HerbeC, Kinq, Rowin~nd, Swymaur. NOEB~ COMMI3SIQN~RS: Nono. A85~NT: COMMISSIQNER3t Noc1s. Commiexioner Sdymour offere8 tteso].utian No. P~;73-~225 nnd moved ~or its pd~at-ge sad r~cloption tc+ xeafFirm the Pl+~nning rommibsion ac~tiAn S.n Resoluti.on No. PC73-1~5 wherein the P].anning Cammiseian recommmndecl reclaseifice~tion of th~ Frop~~ties al.ong both sides ot Ftenchito, Bircher, Lincisay Streete, Kathryn ~ri~~~, Woodley Avenue, and Hilbers Ruad to the R-1 2onA uncon~itionnlly on ::~o bmsis t,hat the ai.nglA-family hameowner~ reRue~ted that R-]. zoning be the on.ly~ zor~ii~c? far 3aid property. (See Reeolution Boak) On rol.l call the foregaing resolution WAS passed by tha followinq vo~es AYESi COMMXSSIONER~r Allr.ed, P'nrano, Gauer, Herbst, King, Rowland, Soymour. NO~St CqMMi85IUNF.RS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSTONERS: None. Commiaeioner Seyinour offes~ci Reaoliiti.on No. PC73-226 and move~d far its paesege a-nd ~tdoption to recommend to the City Council apprava: uf Reclasr~tfication No. 73-74~9 £ur C:-.L zoning tor thoae prog.~rties on the east and aest• eidea of Arookn+ii-st Street, and that considerat~on of reclasslfication of ane ti~r of lot4 to the ~:~ar of L•he lota fronting on Sraoktiurst Street be del~te8 from further cons'.deration since the majazity of the ~ingle-family homeownere affacted ~equested that thase iots not be includod in rec].as~i£ication con~ s~.der~tion to commer.cial zoning, and aub~ect ko conditions. (Sea Reeolutian Book) Un roll ca~L the foreqoing resoZution was passed by the £ollnwi.ng votA~ AYES: CODtMISSZON~R5: Allred, F'arano, Gauer, t!erbat•, Ki.ng, Rowland, Seymour.. NOEu: COMMTSSIONERS: None. ABSEIVT: COMtdISSIONERS: None. Commisclonar Seymour of~ered lteaulution No. FC73-227 and moved for ita ?assaqe ond adoption to reaffirm th~ Planning Commisaion action in ReKOlu~ion No. ~C73-1'll wherein the Commission xecommended ~-1 zoning for the proportiea under consideration on the basie thut C-3 zoninq wauld. be t~o int.~nae a zurie for the area whiah had dev~~~»c~d with C-1 us~s in the inter.im bptween i958 and the time nubject property was annexed into the City of Anaheim in l~te 1972, and aubject to directinq staY~ to initiatin~~ at the City's expense Appropriate variances or conditional use pea'mi:s ta establish the exiating nonconf~rminq use~ on the propartiee as confo~ming uscss, and subject t~o conditiona. (See Res~+lution aook) I~rior to rc:ll call, discusr~ton wae held by the CGn«~13s~.~11~ Commisal.or.~r Farano noting that Mr. T.ouderbsck may have bec~n ied to believe he had C-3 aon.i.ng upot~ annexation ~o the City of Anaheim, not the C-1 xaning now being r.ecommen~9ed sin~o a condition o.f approval reqUired aanexntion to~t~gn~Ci~hQ C~~S~ ~~~~ily L•his enr~sxa.tion did not tak~, place cntil xeccsntly bound by thie requiroment. ~;~mmiseioner Herbs~ notic,d tktat tn 1958 ahan the zoning action took placm, si, a~nnexation pr~ceedin~ has! been proceasod~ and a. nusnber of Rimiler ax-n~xa~ion pzoceellinga had been ~ttnmp'ted A~IlC~O tha-t time, hcwever, in the meantime, prop~rtiea within the City o~ Anaheim's bound~ri.«~s had been developing ie~ Che a:~eg within the C-1 2one aite 3evelopment atar~darfls, end if the City n~w ~ ~ MINUTI:S~ CITX PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ Ot7~ObaY 1~ 1973 73-606 AREA DEVELOPMENT PL1#N NO. 112, RECLASSTFICATI0~1 NOS. 73-74~1~ 73-74~9 AND ~3-~a-io (4ontinuod _ _ p~xmittod C-3 zoninc~ when the ].e-nd us~ patterna indicated C~l zoning, th.1.~ Mould b• qzanti.ng a privileqe not ~n~eyod by oxher propsr.tiea in the aran, ana it would lurehrr permit many C-3 uee~ that wo~~lfl ba incomputible wi~h Ch~ •~tabliahed l+~nd ueee in tho area, thue beiny detrimentel to the citl~ena ot the City of Aneheim, nn~ he did not f.asl the City was bound by e~nning •ction whioh was approveQ !ilte~n yee-ri ago end whi.ch i'~ad naver beon linalis~ed. Coa-mis~iunor SeXmour note+d that upon r~viewing the rea~~liation of intent eub- mittad by Mr. Lot~derback whurein C-3 sonfng wrs approv~~d in 19~9, tho key plir.s~~ to ba conei~dered was tha Pect that th~. conditioris had to be+ comQlied v-ith within ninety deye or upon annaxAtion to ~he Cit}~,, which proce~din~ were presantly pen~, and 9.nquired o! Mr. Lowry what time limitati.on there wao i.n en ann~xntioi~ prooeeding ta baaome efiective air~ce it would Agpaar that the antiiexation referred to in the xeeolution ot ir~Cent must hr~v~ baen undartnken in 1958 for the pzopexti~e, an8 the proper'tiea had not bee-~, annexad into the City of Ana~heim until lato 1972. Mr. Lowry edviaed the Commiseion that a~ubjeat potitian wae oonside~red nu].1 and void efter one year ae it partnined to annuxa~tion zoningt and that th~ State Gc~varnment Code oet forth the fACt that when an annexation petition was c~ot r,nmpleted within a spaciPi.ed period of ti.me- or when i.~ wae defo+sted, aA wae the case in this pArticular annexati.on petition, than the annexa~tion procaduze muaC be sta.rtad from tha baginning again. On roll call the toreqoing xeaol.ution was pasaed by the followinc{ vote: AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Feszano, Gauero Herbst, King~ Rowldnd, Seymour, NO~S: COIdMISSIUNERS: tione. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND •• ITEM N0. 1 ~ RECOMMENDATIONS COND~TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 13A2 (Rc~2~ert Orr, eL• al) ~~ Itequest for an Pxtension of time -~'roperty located on the south side of SouL•h Street, aipproximately 27p fee~ we5t nf State Colle~e Soulevartl. Aesiatant Plannar Phi.llip Schwartze noted for. ~he Coms~issian that subject ~Ptitian was a.pproved in part by the PXanning Comm3.ssion on SepL•ember 18, 1972, and the Commission action wae 3uatained by the Cit~r Cauncil. on Octobe•r 10, 1~72, to permit the Pstablishment of a child nur.sery subject to condition~, including bringi.ng t:ho exiatinc scructure up to Code= that the petit.i.oner wae now requestieig a one-year extonai.on oi: time in order to meet the conditi.onra of Reaolution No. PC72-244, since he hnd not takei~ po3t;eAaion oP the property until Nlarch, 197~~ sud that st~af£ would r.•ecom- me~d a one-year e:ctension of tiime be granted, to e:~pire October 10, 1974. ComTieaioner Herbst offered a mvtion, secanaed k+y Commissioner MOTION CARRIED, ta grant a an~-year extensirantingiConditianal of conditions in Reaolution No. PC72-244, g No. 1342, said time extension to expire October 10, 1974. Seymour and comple~ion Use Permit ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIGN?lL USE PF.RMI7C NU. 1259 (Greenleaf investmenta) - Request Eor an extension af tim~ -- Property locatod on the easC side of Euclid Avonue, approxima.:elf 400 feet north of Orangawood Avsnuu ard ct~rrontly zoned C-0. Asnistant Planner Phillip S~hwnrt°P note? for the Commission that Conditional Uao Permit No. 1259, to parmit tha expa~.~eion of an ex:sting convalescent hoe~ital, had baen apnroved by the Plannir-g Commi.f-s~.on or- Spptember 8, 1971= Ghak during the public her.rinq the po.tih j°~~`Sou~hexntCal.ifornit~IComprehensive s~ion would algn have to be approved by Health Planninq ~ouncil whi~h, at that time~ wm~ urider~~oing reorganizacion~ thaC one pr~sviou~ extensi.on of time hed iaeen qx:r~nted, wh~ch expi.r.ed Septam- ber 20, 7~973T and thaz the pctJ.tionor wae now r.aquesL•i.ng ~en addl.tional aix- manth extAnsion of Y.ime, therePoz~o, otaf~ would recammend ndid time exteneion be qrant~d. Corr~miasioner HerUat offered a motion, aecandod by Commiagioner 5eymour an8 MOTION CARRIEn, to cjrant a six-m~nth ~xtian43or~ o~ time for the completion o! cor~ditions in Resolution No, PC71-183 graating Conditional Us~ Pormit No. 1259, ~aid time sxtenai.on tu ex~ire March 20, i974. ~ ~ MINUTLS, C]'TY PLANNING COMMI~9I~N. Octobsr 1, 1~7:~ 73~^607 STEM ~iC1. 3 VARI~ ANCE N0. ?~?H (~l~~.na 'i~t~y7.ar-Rial~ard A. !'rasier) •• Reque~at f.ox teL•m' ~ation - Property loaxtod on tht~ eouth ~ide af. 3o~i~h 8traet, etp~ruxim~taly 15~ fd*k weet a! l:r~et 9tr~~e~t -~ Pr.oposinq ko •Nt~bli~h ar~ +-utn~ mobile u~holeter~( hueir.esu. AAeietant Plannar Phillip Sahw+srtxe ac'eQ the locatfon ot subject ~ropcrty dnQ the rqquest aP the pc~titianex ':hat aub~~-cr. petit~lon be h.ermfnatod on the baeis tha-C tfie proponad leaseo oi the prnnezty deal.insd Co mMat t;~w ~;onditione of approval oarabliehed in 1'~do?utio.l N~. PCi3-149, AnG thut~. ete~lP, tharefoxa, would recommen~i tnat ~ubiec~ p,etition ba tar-minate$. Commiseioner 1111red ofP~+red Reaoluti.on N0. PC73-220 ernd move~3 ~or itA paseay~a end a~option ta tezmiuate all procee~'~c-9 ~~!` V~.riance 2~~+. 2526, e-s roqueated by the petitioner. (~oe Flee~ciutiun b~c,!c) On roll call the foreqoinq rosolution •aas paaaod by ~h9 followi.nq vote: AYES~ COMMTSSIONER5: Allred, Faxr.no, Gauer, Herbst, Kinq, R~wland, Saymour. NOES : COMMiSSSONLRS: Non~:a . ABSENi: COMMISSIONERSs None. ITEM N0. 4 REVI3TON T~~ Tf1F ANAHEII`k MUNICIPAL CO[)E - CRI'L~1tIA ANp DEVELOPrii:'tJ'1' STANAARUS FOR SERVIC:E STA7'IONS. Planning Supei~visor po» McDaniel noted for. the Commiss~.on that the prapos~nd chanqes to tha Criteri~ and Aevel.apmont Standaxc3s .1~or `~~ar.uic:e Statio:~s orere as a result of tho City Counci: request on Ju1y 17, 1l73, f.or a repa~L r~nd recammendxtiGn from th~ D~av'calopment 5ervic~~ Department zegsrding a z'equeat from a repzoeentative of McCo,y Ford for a aharige in the Anahefm MuniciT~al CoBe to permit rental of autoMObil.ee, txuck~s and ze:cx~eut~.onal vehiGl.~s Eram service station lots~ and then in rer~nonse ta C~~mmis3ion quesL•ioning, notecl that previously the CodF_ amendmant praposed requ~r~nq n cundi.r.ional u~.a~: p~rr.~it for such operation at any location b3cau~e service st~ltiona were one of the biqgest prablomr~ in numbor and vacant stat~9n~, %iowever, tr~e Cauncil did not aqree with tl~at, and a~~other ma jor concer.n express~~3 was the z~ntal af t:ruckr~ and trailers as set forth by McCoy Forc~, whp wante~ ~.o rent anc! se~ll ~the~e vehicles a~ ~ervxce station sites• Commissioner Farano noted that the Comn~ission at the time of the public hear- ing had held a~engthy discussion about ito hewever, he dld not feel the Commisaion had made their thoughta clear enough fo the City Council, and may- be tt wa~ the Conimis~ion's mistake i.n not pr.e~enting a clear pict:u=o tc~ t~hE Counci.l a.3 ta the Cornmiasion's research and opinion~. Conti~iued discussion was held between the Commission and r~~e£f rec~,~xdinq t!~~ proposal, and upon i~ts conclusion, the C0111Dl1~SSi~011fl1$P.Ydt~O71 ofathic~~item. seasidn should be held orior to public hearing Commission~~r Farano offered a mot~on ta halci a wark seseion z~qat'3ing Revision to the Anaheim Municipal Code - Criteria a,n~ ~QVelopment Standmsds for Sorvic~a Stationa, ~ai.3 wo.rk aes~ion *_o be held on Noveml~er S, L973~ at 7:00 p.m. CommiesionFr Seymour secondod the mution. MO'1~ZON CA~iRIED. Cammiss•loner Herbat offered a moti.ori to ee~ for public henxing con~i~eration of Amendment to Titl.e 18, Ananeim Munici~al Codo, Critaria a~nd Deve,lopment Standarda for Servic:e Statione, to be schAdulec~ for November 12, ~973. Commfasioner Seymou~' 3econ~led the motion. MOTION CARRI~A. ~ ~ MT.NUTEB, CITY i~Ll-'~tiING COMMI:+l3ZUN, Octobex 1, 1973 73-60Q ITEM N0. 5 pARKIN(i REQUIkEMLNTS FOR MULTII~'LE-F'AMILY 1i~8xD1CNTIAL DEVELOPML~NT3. 7-~eistant Pl+~nn~r ]Innl.ka eank+~lahti noted for the Commid.ion that th• xo~~rt be.for.a thvm Na~t th• s~~t~1k o! *he Commiapion'e concmr,n 9xpraeeed r~gerding purkir~q probl~m~ at a work s~s~ton an Fobrua-ry 15, 1973, an~! ataff hed sub- ~aquantly be~n 4ireo~~Q to atudy the problem~ tlxat t~ie lest time parking ~t.bnddr.d• Lox' s altl.p7~~e-family deveto~munt were upda'ceA waA in 196Q~ th«t ir+ an eltoct to ~~~a~luate tho ef.lACtivanear+ <~t the cuxront requ~.remant~r ia pro- vl,dinq ~d~qurt~a n!t-atr~ar pa,tkir-g !ox multi~,L~,-fA~ntly residan~a an8 thuir qu~~to~ +~ p~rkln~ qu~u~innnaire hmd been gormulated by the Developmant 9sxvicae Depaa t~n~nk rte!! whiah vrae intended t~ p!covidA insight tu the ~Ark- inq nesA~, pr~~cLico~- •nd probleme~ of apartment dwellArs, this questic~r~nsixe bainq mailed to a ramplinq of zeaidonCe in a group of multip].e-£amily dpazt- menr complexp~ hevinA t~+n dwelliny unitg or maro~ and thnt tli~ resulti of eaid queNtiunn~ir~~ w~a oet ~~rth in the Report tu th+s Commiasion, togethar with thn rucommsn~intiona o! •taf~ ae L•o pre,s~,nt t~nd recomm~n~ r.k-+snqea t'hat caulcY be mada, th~xntore, Lf the (;ommieaion felt the rAport w~e rsdequatd for cun- sidaretion ~-.t a{sublio henrj.nq- eL•aff would r~commend th3t Amendment ta T1e1~ t8, C'~a~C~z 18~28, 3itm Lp,velopment Stendards of tho Anaheim Muni.cl.hnl Code ba eet fos puk~lic haaring at tlzs Gommisel~on'g convenienc9. Commi~si.on~~r. Seymouz ~!l~rod a moCi~n, s~a~n~~.ed by Commiyaiuner Herbet and ~90TION CAFRIED. to seti for publi.~: hearing conaideration of Amendmant to Par.k- ing Requir.omente !~r Multiple-iramily Reside~~tia]. Zones, Chapkex 18.28.050, said publio heering to ba acheduled on October 15, 1973, and that ataEf ehould natity n3.1 tt-3 QnveloQere regarcling thi~ pr~rosat. ITEM NO =6 T~NTATIVE~~'RACT NOS. 8215 AND fi7.19 - SPGCIAL BROCHURES FOR PROPOS'r',D INSTRUCTION TO F~ROSPECTIV~ HUME BUYERS REGARD:tD'C~ WATERING CF LANI)SCAPED SLQPES. Aewiatant Planner Phillip Schwartzg ad~•ised the Commiseion thnt brochrosyectivc~ hAd beon subrnitted with the RaporL• t~ che CommT~VA~nbA~tf~epPlanning Commi~sion ~avolopesg of Txact Alos. 8215 and fs2i9 for app Y eince s c~ndition o! approvAi ot the~~a tracta was thxt *.kie doveloper px'epar.o ~he~e spuci~nl b~cochuras. Disc:~~siun wae hezcl by the Cammission regarding the brochurea, it being the opin~an o~ Ca-nmisaioner King that t~ipse in.~tructions b~ posted in a conapicuous epoti so khrt each propertY owner wc uld be a~pYisQc3 of concerns rega+rding main- tennnce ancl watexinq of l.andscapad slope~. Cammi~xioner King uf^ered a motio,, secanded by Commissioner Herb~t and MOTION C1-RRIED, to apprnve thP brochuree ~4ul~mitYed i~~ connection wi*_h maintenance and Nbkering o! ].an~iecapecl slopee, a condition ~f approval. of Tract Nos. ~215 and gy~,g, provided~ hawevor, that sa;.d bror,hures arE posted in a ~onapicuaus apot on the pz'em9.ee~n . ITEM N~. 7 U'~ILIZATZ<~ti OF CLOSFA .~,ERVICR STATIOI~i 5I2'ES FOR LUHE ~ND OIL CHANGE bNLY. Asaiatant PYt~r~ner Phillip Sc!iwartza noted for the Cam~nission tihat atafi had been contac~e~8 by ~uma paxsonss interested in .re-openiny ab~ndonad or alosad ea:^vice stationn nu lube an~l oil changc~ operati~ns onlyt that he had pres~..ted thie to the Comm~asion at a work session for Commi~;sion conaiderrstion later st.•sff was, did the Commieaion in 1:he da~y~ And th~t the ba~eic queatios- Ea~~ing tao], tY~ia waa a Peaeible urae for thsse closed or abandaned ~~ervics sta.tions, az ahauld mama zoninq action more ~pPropri.ate wiLh the uso proposed be initiated, and the pra~er~cy ur.dar conaideration at the ~xesent ^cims waa t}xo ~los~d eerv~.ce station at the southwest corner of Santa An~~ StreEt and StntQ College B~ulev;xd Wherein the proposed operators wou~c~ be zemaving the pump island and pravicling tne lube and oil change within thr existing buildiny. ~ ~ MZNUTL~, Cx'.CX PLANNINC COMMI93IAN, Octob~x l, 1973 73-G09 tT~M NO. 7 (Cont:inue~) Comm9.ssioner Farn~io inquized wi~a had px~,pen~Ad ~h~e nmw cana~pG •~.aAe ttie c;i~y h+-d bean prer~rented with mnny new idsa• ~'ram oil comp»nie+~ c~e to khe L•yp~ ~~~ uae pro}~ose~„ both+ as ~o converelon of the aoxvlcm etal:ior- ~itu~ nnd ^uppl~~ mAntnry u~es in c~~~junc'~ion with ~t-n eribting eorvice ataL•iun, and whether thta r~e~s a pareonnl idea of one~ pezr+on or. e company. Mr. ~ewi~a 2~ellic:k, representing E,c~r-o-Lubc~, Snc. , 53Q9 Paze jo Dr..i.ve, Ge~nta Elarbsz~a, ~Ca~ifo:cnin, eppaaxed before .:he C~munieeion an~9 r-at.ed that ha rwpr.a- qenr.eJ a group !~f people in ~nnte~ 3arbara a`~~ had intsregtesd er,~m~A1~ee in ~ozviae station.a wllich w~r.r, no lnnge~: buing oQ~r+~~ed eo f~uch~ th~t there were no tt+ciliti.a:s beJ.ng affored t~ ~ho averuge motorint Pox a lube anit o~.l chdnqA ~ob in eervlce si:ati.nnb now ha~vinc~ a~lf~-~erve op~ratians, ~hex~gore, thoy t~ere plenninc~ to r4mave the pump ie~anda o~ cloaod aervice ~stAt.ion» and en- h+-nce tho rt~~ruc~:•ares, a•, we11 ad pz~viding addit.lonal lnndscapir~~~ Chat they proposod to change ai.l r~ncl lubric~te twi.ce ao mM-~y vQh~.oles aa aould be hAndled ~t 3n ~+xaatiny aervia~ aCat:i~n aite~ ~~nd thdt t.hey woul~ me]ce no +-~Gem~t to Ne].1 ~~ther i.teme. Commiaeianez F~r~sno inquirefl as tc~ tho f.oa khat waulcl be ahazged ~F.os th~.r serviaer ~~h~arAupAn Mr. 'La~llick etated th~t it would he app.xox~.a~ately Y'7.00, and tha whole operatiun wauld ba onmpletac~ i.n tun minuta9, duing n~~l tne nar.mal lubr.icating r~equired in a~.idit.i~n to jttet an oil aha~~~,~~ e+nly, h~~wavar, the~re wau~d Y~e nu oth~r work pazformed on the premi~ear, and 311 of ~he work would be performect insiclo tt~e st ruc~uxe itaelt~ and that ~van i f th~rs were art em9rgen~y in w1~i.cr, ttio v~hic'.e being aervlced wauYd re~auire addit:lonal equipment, thio w~~u:1d nat be handled at a~l einca their prime ~unction would ,.~e changing uf. oil and lubricatinq L•he vehicle. Commiasionc~r Farar~o expres~ed conce.rrs t'nat tha opuraCion would riat be F;ucceat~- ful an the basis of fee.~ Ue:inr charqed an~l Cho number a! vehic:.eA that ro~.ght be aervi~~ed r~iir ing the day, a~~d th~n the operetorr Nould be gz•oposing o:~her uses at~~ othEr item~ for sale on hhe prope~rty, nnd inquf.rod whr~t; ~~ae really behi.nd _he propoaal as set forth. ~yx. ~lick stateci that he was ~ coiitrmc~or and wauld bo Uoing the modif3c:a- tj,- ~ the buildingt tnat accozd::ng to r.he company'e etadiee, which aompany ~, cFd ~f a groap of investors who had p~oled thdir reaouzcae, ~his wou~.d r s~•i.b:e, an' had establi~hed eimilar operationa in Sa.n Dlego and San ~ ,.•~•~: as well as an Florida. rurtharmore, theX would tak9 3own all exiat- ,, r~:~;~ and cigns. -•~~ ,. ~ner Herbst not~d that it would be commendable if t~h~s City could have ~:_ ,_^ ,~:, closed servi.ce stations being uped tor nlternati~e uaes that would .~„ ~e tha site and remov~ an eyesore nf the claee~ servi.ce stati.on from , iew ~f thE qeneral public, and ~hat he had no ~ppoeition to the use ae . ~qB~3d. ~: 7,ellick statPd that thQ group af invt-stoss he represented wantod to remove r~~ atiqma of a ga~ sta*.ion by changing t.he design o! trie bu'. lding, r~hk: ng it ~,~ ,..• attractive than it preaently exioted and gener~lly being m~r~ attrautive - the area. .:.~mi.satoner Seymoux offered a motion, seconded hy Commissianar Herbat an@ ~*:.~TION CAF ..EQ, to appzove the concept of conversion nf closed and ~~bandoned ~erviae ..ations for lubrication and oil change of vehicles ~as prer~ented by rdpresentatives oi Econo-Lube, Inc. ITEM N0. 8 INTERPRETP.TZ01~ 0~ FERMI:TTED ADUITI0I3S TO EXI£~TIP~G HOM~S ON R5-500Q ZONED LO^~.ci. Asaietant Plann~r Phillip Schwartze noted that he had discuased with the Commission at the morning work session the request of a propexty ownsr owning a four-bedroom hume on an RS-5000 zoned lot to eetablish a family.roomr that the Code pressntly permitted t~ fam~ly room addltion by riq'ht, but if a bed- room were propoeed, then ~his wouid n~eae~aeitate ~a varia~nce, therefaxe, unless th~ Comm!Lasion detarmiiied an amondment ~o the Code ehould be made• etaPf would interpret a family room as a perm~tted a~3dition ao long a~s ik was within the lot coverage permitted by the It3-5000 Zone. ' ~~ ~ ~ MYNUr88, CFT: PLANNIt~4 COMMIB$iQN, O~tobMr l, Y97~ 73-610 iTBM N0, ~ (Co»tinued) Thr GOI'Ill~iw~ipn nox~denha~ MA~.1 ~/ bORL1~MtOOA~~~and~Mho~wa~~toAknow*Mhethsr~~ and tarai ly ro .m th• bonu~ xoom waa bsi.ng convertad into a b~arpom or not. Commieoianer Ki.nQ notstl that this we,s •n itea~ hh+~t rhou~d b• di~au/Opd at n work oossion, and sinoe ~hq Commiosi.on h~ad eah~c3uled a Werk •Wtaion !or Novarnbar B~ ~this would bo +-n iCem tc~ be conr~id~rec~. Commisei.oner Herbet not~ed that a laaiily raom shou.'ld hr oonkiguoar to th~ l.ivingror~m xathar than near n bedroum or an ~-rea whero it oauld oaei~y b~ convex4~ed i.nto a bedr.aam, euch ae over e qarage. Coma~issioner King offered a moti~n, seconddcl by Commieaion~r Hexb~t ar-d MOT~ON CARRI~U~ to consicYwr tha praF'o~a~ o! Xmendmenr to Title 18, ChapC~r lb. ~e ut the Anarteim Munici.pal CoQe p~+rtdinin~ ta add-ons tc, faur dztd snar~s bodraom horaes at. th~ work aett~9~0A Novumber 9, 1~i3. AD~OT)RNMFIV~~ - Thero beir~g nn furthar busines: to disauss, Cnmmiaeion~r "'-' King of~~z•ed a motion ta ad~ourn the m~aeting. Comm9 ~eioner k'~rano aeconded k.he qotion. MO'i'ION C71ARI~D. The meeLin~ adjo~xrned ~nt 5t07 p.m. Respeotfully eubmitted~ ~r~(~~_,,,. i ANN KREBS, 3ecretary ~.naheim City Planning Commige'on AK:hm ~ ~ MTNU'PEF, CLT'I PLANNINC COtNMI,SION, Oc:tob~r 1, 19'13 AECLASalFICATI(1t~ .NO. 73-74-23 (Coixtlnuad) 7' ~1 Commineloner tterbyt waH of the opinian that A 10-loot 1nnQscape otrip rhould be provided nlong the ree~S~nCiel bounderioo ed~acent to eubje~ot proportXi that th~ t.ra~ah locatiot~ ehould be re~ocated ~wey lrom th• re~sicl~ntial uroa~ and that ono of ~.:he acaaeewaya :.nto the+ reeidentiRl aroa shoul.d be daletAd. THE H~:ARTNG ~iAS CLO~ED. Mr. Schwartze lnquirad wiiethnr the Commicsic+n wae deeiroue of hnviny revieed plana aubmittod ~for Commioeion review, reflectii.ng the chanqes outl.inedi where•- upon C:ommissioner Soymour ~ctated that sinc~ the~~e wer.e chAnqea that wer.e minor, etati' ehculd ba able to :~~eolve ~hem aainin~.strAtively. AASietant l~evelopment Saxvic~~a Dir9ctor Ronald Thompeon advised tha Cammf.aeion thnt clasing off ane openin,ry to uither Claudina Street ur Cha~rlcCt~e Avenue would n~ceonitate a xavi~ed pr.i.mary circu'latian from l~nAheim Boulova.rd nor~herly to Lorraino Drive, an~ if Chc traali atoz+age azed were roloca~ed, then ther.~ would b~~ lees porking than crig:nally propos~d, and 5sca,use ~hi~ was a m~sdlc~nl fac3.lity~ thia would czRate n hard.4hi.p. Commi.sai.onez Seymour note~d that Y~a3 ;a~til:nod froin the applieant'~ et•atement that tha chanq~a requirad could atil~ :~e acr,omplished and still meet parking, t-owevor~ iP tha r~+vieed pla:-5 indicated that parking would nok be in ~+cr,or~iance ~itt- Codo, then tho p~titi~ner would t~ave t~ re~ubmit his plana to tho Plt~nning Commir~eiun. Mr. Thompso~ noL•ed thdt the plans would haw~ to be ext~naively mudi~iod in ord9r td meet the required parki.ng. Mxs. Edwards a-ppeared bafore the Cnmmiseion and noted thaL• aince th~ acce~sway proposed to Char.lotL•e Avenue woul.~i be thair front yard, thie could cru~ta a traffio problem tta wall dII reduoing th, poasibility of proper drainagt~. Commir~~i~n~r Seym~ur n£fered a motiori, s~scondod by Commiastoner Hllred and MUTJON CARRI~D; that the Planning ~r.~mmission, in connectir~n with an exemption declaration dtatus requeat, finda nrid deter.min~~s tht~t the propos~l wouAd have no significant envir.onmenfi.A1 impact ftnd, theref.or~, recommendo to the City Council that n~ Envir.or.m~nta]. .T_mpact statement is necessary. Cflmmies+.onex Seymour oifered Rea~lution No. 1~C73-22~ and moved ~or its passaye and adoptior, ~~ recommend to the Cir.y Counci.l ~hax Petition for Reclaesificatian No. 73-74-23 be approved, sub3ect to ~onditions, with the added ~ondition~ that a 5-foot strip of landscapir.g be planted along the ~astarly boundary of oubject prn~erty; that the arcess proposod at the northc~ast cor.ner of the pro~erty be ~limina~ced ox i crash or fire g•ate be .•-stalledt that the tras2i storag~ area ~haLl be relocated away from the exieting R-1 properties locate~ to the east of aubiact pzo~erty; and that dra~ingge ~hall be provided ae stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resn].ution B~ok) On rnll call the foregoing re~solution wa~ paesed by the fallowing vote: AYES: CONMISSTOtrERS: Allred, Farano, Gaiter, HaYbst, Kfng, Rowland, Seymour. NO~S s C~MMISSION_:RS ~ Plone . ABSENT: CaMMISSIONERS: None. RECE3S - Chnirman Gauer deo7.ared a ten-minuta recess At 3:50 p.n. RECUNVENE - Chaizman G~uer =econvened the moeting at 9:03 p.m., all " - r:oinmissioners ~e1ng prasent. ~ • MYNU7.`ES, C'J,7'Y ~~Lr~NNING GOMM75f3I0N, Octaber 1, 1973 73~•602 Chairman Gauor dec].ared that th~ nexl• lour it~tne would ba cona.idored a-~ an~ item, e+aid 1tr~me being Ar~a Davel~pment Plan No. 112, Rer,l.aasi£icdt..on Nuw. 73-74-1~ 73-74-9~ end 73-74-10. AREA DEVELOPMEN'~ - READVERTISE~ PUBLtC H~ARIN ;. II,VTTIATED BY THE ANli1H~IM PLAN N~. 11~ CITY PLANZIZNG GUMMxS9ION, 104 Ea~t Linaoln Avnnue, Aneheimr - ~ Ca. 92605y bo con~ider ttiie need !az a~o~r~daxy 1CCOi,18 ~o thoee ~~nPertias lx~ntinq on Azookhuret. Street, proper.tiae conmisti.ng ot approximatwly 30 dorda boing aa aroa gmnerc+lly bo~~ncle~ by Lincolii AvenuO on ~he eouth, CAtali~a Avenud at its weAterly exteneion on th~ north, the rear of thoee propertior~ lranting on Kathryn ~rive on thr wASt, and tho rear o! thoow propert.ies fronkinq on Lindsa,y stxoet to the EABk. RECLA3SI1'ICA2'YON - RL~ADVF.~tTiSED PUFILIC HEARING. 1NITIATEQ BY THE ANAHExM NO. ?3-74-1 C,~TY PLANNING COMMISSiON, 204 Eenet Linc~].n Avonue, Anaheim, " ~~ Ca. 9;d80~t to aaneides reclaeaiPicntiun ~f l~roperty dea,- crib~c9 ne ~ Appror,imately ~0 aores cam~riRinq thaae resic~en- tial proportioa whl.ch Pront on Ka~hryn Drive, RanohiCo Avenue, a~nd Woodley Avanue nnd whi.ch front ~~n E11.rvh9z' StixUet~ Flilb~ra Ro~sd and Lindeny 3tz•eet• fron~ the R-A, TGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-1~ ONL^~AMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. RECLABSIFYCATION - READVFRTISED PUBLTC HEARINC;~ INIZ'IATi~:D AY THA AI~AHEIM N0. 73~7d-9 CTTX PI~ANNING COMMISwIUN, 204 Eest .Lincoln Avenue, An+~itAim, """` Cr~. 92805~ to con,~idar reclaeaificatiun of pzoF~ertX cnnaiet- i.nc~ of approximate).y 9.1 aczes describt~d aati r.hage proportiee in reaidenkiel and commercial ua~t eautharly of Cnt~lina Avenus and ita weaterly , extension Letween Runchito Urivo and ita narthexly ext~ensi~~n and Broakhuret Street and also betwaen Aircher Stzeet and Brookhurst S1:reet from tho R••7~, AGRYCULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERA:, C~MNif:RCIAL, ZONF. RECLASSIFICATION - READVE'RTISED PUBL,IC HEARIN2U4 1 astILinaoln AvenueA4Anah~itn, NO. 73-74~-10 CTTY PLAN~IING COMMISSION, Ca. 92805~ to coneic~e:.- reclneaificatton of Fro~erty des~- cribed us~ An irrequldrly-ehap~d parcel of larid caiisi.stiny of approximately 2.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 220 f:eet on 'the wRat side of Brookhu•rat Street nnd having a frontage of appraximateLy 65~) f6et. on the north side of Lincoln Avenug .from tl~e R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to t.he C-3~ HEAIrY COt4MERCIAT,, ZONE. Chairman G+~uer r~dvtsed interested persons gresan•t in the Counc~il CtiambPr that the Planninq Commiasion had coneidered ut Keveral public hearinga tho Ar~a Development Plan and the reclas~ci.f~c~tio~i ~eti.tio~a now beiny ~+resented to the Plannitiq Commission, and that the Cemmission would only conaider. new evidonce and new exhibits ff staff waa presentinq addit-ional alternatives, Rince the,y ~iic1 not wisn to have statements previously made reitprated. Fu.rthe.rmore, the Commission had copies of the petitfons signed by numerous 3ingle-family homF- owners in the single-family trrncts ettst and wpst of F3roakhurst Street requeat- ing that the proper*_ias remain R-1. Planriing Technician .Tel~n Ancierson noCed for the Commi3siun that he felG ~he audience as well as the Commisaion was familiar wi.th the study areaj thar for tn~ea who were naC familiar wi.th the Area Uevol~pnient Plan, it wae Par a portion of the I:athryn-Lindsay Annoxation divided ir~to three distir-c:t portions based on land use, former County zuning, and G~neral Plan 3ealgnation~ tha~ after somo review of the proposals and projections for the area, it was~ the conclusion cf staff that the main iasue at hand was whethex ur not those ~>roperties on the east zsnd weat sidea of Br~okhurst Street sho~:ld be reclaeai:tied to the C-1 Zar,e for a dapth of one or two lotst th at there wer. Lwo alternaL-~ zoning solutiona, one bgi.ng retention of the single-family residential zoning foz those properties along Bircher and Ranchi~o StreeCs~ whil~, the other, alceri~dtive was to encompass one additional lot depth or- the eas`t aide of Ranch±~o Street ac~d or. tho wpst aide of Bircher Strest f~r commerci.al cff3ce or gen~r+1 commorciel zoninq, however, this development could takc several diffarent form~ depor3ing upon tho type of secondary a.cce~s solution appraved, and i.n any ev~~t, b uffering such as land- eceping, block walls and/~r berme ehould be required along tha local int~rior atreet ~rontaqe *o prot~ct the rAmaining single-fRm~ly reeidential useg on the oppasite s~ide of the stzeetj that there were three alternativ~~s propoaed for ~ ~ ~ NINUTws, Cx'PY PLnNNING CUMMISSION, OcLoUaX 1, 1973 73-GU3 ARFA DF'J~LO'PMF.N'1 PL.AN 140. 112, RF~CLASSIFTCI~T.T.ON N09. 73-74-1, 73-74~9 AND 7 3- 7^-1 c- ~ C o n_t i n ae C ~ ._..., ---- ---------- - '- e~con~ary auaere aolution, oaa being th~ c~nCinue~l unrootricted ~cces• ~P~ kiruakhuret S~COat with remova.l oP oi~-etraaC park~,ng, i! it wsra d~tormi~~d th~at only n anr.-1cC deptl~i ehoul~ ~e caf~9ldorac~ for aomm~rcial ueas~ or a~nf:inu~d unroatrictec4 ~caser o£P eroakhuret ~traet with aontinua~2 on-Mtr~s~: ~?arking- hoNevex, in the opinion of the City Trsf.fio Engine~r, this might ~asa a prob lam ;or leEt-turn:.ng egrese lrom eub~ect pr.opertiey i or limited ac~.RAS ~r! Aro~k- huret Street, however, in the opinion ot ths Ci.ty Trsf~ie Er.9ine~r, this wou~.d ba ap~ropria~.. onl.y iP a$pecific large-acal~ dev~e?opm~ent wexe propoe~ed for the ~tudy area, tl~srePore, the conclueion rmached was that the main 1~euu+~ wag whether oz noC to ~one Ch4 propertiae on both sidee of Bradkhuret Stre~t f~l~ a depth oP ~ne ar ~wo lote~ tiis~ commercial dovelopment o! single lots ~rontinq on srookhurek Stre~et wae not impoesiblet that ther.e wexs e~veral mitic~atinq f+xr.tore dgai.net the succesa oP. m tNO-lot dapL•tt land neaembl,y~ thoae being that t)iEre was no avidenc~ of l.and aeuombly !,n tlti.A drea~ that th~ lteir markeC valuoa acc~rding ~~o khe County .A~9ASeor'a O!lice along flrookhure~ 8troat varleS fr~m ~154,000 to 5158.000 pex a~are Por frontage J.o~s and lram 5114,OQ0 to 5117,000 Por the 1otA tu the rear, thu~ with suah rcl~tively high vdluation~, this w ould probably deter the type of commAZCi.t-1 d~velopment thut would act ne d cetaly~t for. compr~henbiv~ lund assombly,. therefora, ~tnf.f would r.ecommend khat Fxhibit "A" ba adoptad, a,pproving the contiT~~udnc~ af unrestri~~.e,d r~ccese ~tf Broakhurst Street and tlie removal of off-etreeti parki-yg alanq said Br.onknur•:c Street. Mr. Lewls Dex*.er, 305 Ranc:~ito St.ree~., ~ppflax'ed before th~ Cor,~miseion in ogp4s~- ti~n and statRd he had lived at thie addxesa Pox the pe~~~ 2~ yearRt th+~t rea~.- de~nts oY khA aren haii apenL• time from wozk trying to obtain siqn+~tures on tha~ p.etitl.on o.f opposition whi~h wae aubmitted to the Comm~.Aaian Provious to the i public heari.ngt that thF residants a.f ~he aroa were under the impr~esion that ~he slnqle-family homea located on othor th~n arookhuret SCr~eet would remai.n R-1, but i t appeared that after or.E peraon auygested ut khe City Counc.il meet.ing tha~: perh,apa consi.dex'ation ehould be givpn ta icicludin,q one tier uf singla-- family lota xather than ].eaving thA zoning as set up by the County for commer- cial use of the Brookhurst Street p.rop~zties~ that t:he residente were glad they wer~s naw a part af thp City of AYiuh~i.m but wanted to retain t'he single-family resiu~ntial zoninq and character of the area and did not wan* comm~r~~ial accesa throug,~ their reaident3al strcetst tY~ak he wi~shed there were some type of devel- opaieiit L`~at could bo ancoux•aqed to purcha~e t.he property, but aince thera was already Eo mucta vacant land in the city on which comm~rc~al useE cnuld be estrb- lished, thi~ wish coul~ no~c be realized~ r-nd ~hAt many businesses along Brc~ok'hur~t Street hava been cloAed ~or. a r~umber of years~ th~refore, the natur.al tr.end would be to r.etain the R-i. zoning. Mr. C~acar Louderback, 12?J1 Burne Drive, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commisaioa and ~tated that he owned a portion of the L-ehaped piece oE ~,roperty alon, L~nooln Avenus whi c.t: aas the p~rtion indlcated aB No. 3t that a Fortlon of thu Report to the Com~-ission indicated thg County goning was chang@~1 ta tk-e City ~f An~heim R-A zoning, however, the pr.opexty own9rs d~.d nuti receive any natice regarding this zonirirt c~ion; that the or~qinnl ~coni.ag change request rnade by him in 1958 had a r.., .'~ ~f ineeting a11 con~~,tiona of e-ppr•oval within gp da ys or up~n complei:~on of th ~exa~i.on proceed:Lnge~ ko khe City of Anahe:i.m~ that h~ was appearing bef.~re the ~mission because his par.tner was unttb2e tu be present, presenhly reaidiny out oi the stxte, however, his partner had a~ivise~d him that he had aesumed the'r praperty was zoned C-3 by the City oP Anare-mr that he 1-ad written to Jot~n Harding ~f the City Manager's Offi.ce a number of times reqardi.ng annexatio.i, and he had asaured Mr. F~ardinq Anch time ~hak he wovld not oppose the ann xation, and after talking with Mr. Hazdinq and annex~- ~ion eppeared to be aer;•.red, he had only adviaed him that t}ie tax b~se wo uld rise about 39C par $lOQ, but this would be ofPset by low r~tos Yor both garbdge dieposal And water, and at np time was anything stated that there was n~ C-3 z~ 11nq on the propertX• Mr. Chris Hugb~+e, 12~ North 6ircher Street, appeared hefoze the Cammisaion. statinq that hia lnt was an a4-foot deep 7.ot on the weat : ide of Bircher Street ad~a-cent to the Broc+khurat Streat frontag~ commercial proper~.iee ~ahich he fe~lt wexe inadaqunte fur proper aommercia~I d~avnlopment, thereEore, it was his apJ.nion ~hat the City ehou3.d rezone ono tier. o! the R-1 la~s bdjacent to both side~s of ~ ~ ~ MI'VUT~S, CITY pLANNING COMMISSYOt~, pot~bor 1, 1973 73-604 AREA OFVELOPMRNT PLAN N0. 112, RE(:LIASSIFICATTOV NOB. 73-74-.t~ 73-74-A 71ND 7 3- 7 4_ ~,1 O ~,C o c~ t i n~ a d) __..._.~ .r.._._. ttie Brookhur~~ 3tceet lrontaye lot~, making them two lotq d~mp ~o glve a b~ttsr e~ze and depth oc lot to encot~rage b~t~.~r oommercial devalopmoret~ ei~c~ most a! ~thA 4truoturea buth on pro~khurst Str~~+t ~r~d the reai.~tentiel Atreot w~r~ rethar ald +~nd the ^txuctuzee on 8rookhurat 9trest were~ uaed only 3y rente~s, end mo~t ownera dicl noL epe~nd tho money to bririg them up to todsy' 4 stand+~rQe Por commer- ~ial u~ es . Mr. John Butlar, awner ot prop~xty at 301 and 30S North 8rookhurst Strent, nppeared beforo tha Commieaion and etated that oinoe hc: had owne~d tha qroparty~ there had begr- s~veral dll~erant z~n~e propased, and tor aeven yoazs h~ hsd been hara~sed by tt~~s ~:ounty and it should now be atr+sightened out by tho Ciky o! Anataeim, ntherwi.ee, he etil]. v~ould be haraseod, therafore, he would rsKueat that tha Commiasic,n a-pprove C-1 zpning for ~he Bxooktiurat Stze~t properkiea, and h~e wanted to make eure thet ho c9id not have enything but ~ommarai.al soninc~ for hlat praperty. Mr. Lno..rence Fulmer, 205 Nor~h Bircher St=aet, app~ar.ed before the Commiaxion end etr-~ed thdt re~~denta oP theix etrmot ~aere op~osed to cod~mercia] toning for their s3.ny.le-fami.ly hoines P.ox a depth of one lot on T3irchAr Strest an~ •requeatied th~t t2:e Commies~on retairi the R-1 zoning s'ar the propertiea einca reoiclerits felt t2~e entira area woulcl ha dovelopud in x sporadic mdnner, mnkin,q the appear- ance of tt~e property leas than deairable, and t}~~at ~txey di~i not want commercial traffi. c on thetr residential atraets since it would df:ect their li~ving environ- menL•. Mr. I.ouderback again appeaxed bof.ore thn Cot~mir_nion and atated that th~ ].ast tima the Commiasion cansidered the zonir.g fcz hia propszty along Lincaln A'if~I111@ , a tenanL- of ]tin atatc~d that thay were ha~ring a cli.fficult time obtain- ing other rentPrs for a portiun of tlie pzoperty, and siiice there appexreii to be no opposi.tion from adjaining property own~arv ~s to the C-3 zoninq Aa a3vertised, he folt ttie Commi3sfon ehouid con r C-3 zoning rather than the C-1 zoning previously ze~ommend.ed for approv~ , particularly eince he waa paying con°iderably r,-Arc taxes an the praperty, fr.•om $23y when he pur.cha~red the ~roperty to $10,000 per year now, t'herefcr.e, it was impor~ant ttiat he rstain h~.d tenant in order to nr~y hia ~axea. Eirr~. Ada Morris, 305 Nortli Bircher Street, t~p,.~earad before the Commiesion and ~tatsd that shs favared retaining the aingl~~:°.amily r.esidential designation as Xecommended by staff, ~rim~xi.ly becauee this area had many older residenCa who had ~lann~d to retuin their pxopsrti~~ u~on retirementt and that she, too, waa one of the original ownert~ in th~ tz~ct and wanted to protect th~ 3.nves tment of all e.E th~ property ownezd as well as hers sinc9 Lhey could nat sell their property and ~btain another ~laae at a cr~mparable psice. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissianer Seymour obser.ved titat when the Cummissicn aonsiderecl the praparty along Llncoln Avenuo and recommended C-1 zor..i.n~,~ subjack to s~aff initiating a~:propriate zoiiinq waivexs to legalize thc~ axi;;ting uses, ~tr. Louderback appeared to be sati~fied so long ar~ the same uF~e could be re-establiahed if there waa leas than 50$ of any damage donfl 'to z- us~ by fire or othar diEastor, there tore, why didn't Mr. Louderback oxpr.ess cc~iicern at said public hear:~n,y. Mr. Louderback statea that he did not agrr~e wit.h tiie C-1 zoninq becauso hb had alwaya bean under the assuxnption thut he fiac? C-3 zoninq approved for ~he prop~ xty back i~n 1958, and after zt'.e hearif-ct wee claaAd at the last 1~u~lic heari ng, he did not wanC t~ object to Commifosfaner Seymour'e suggestian, but he still ge7.t tho property was C-3 and tha': h~B he~ a copy of the reaolution uE inient which ~n in8~cated it. rtr. Louderback. then pr~sented said copy to Commisaioner Seymour. ~ Lengtl~y digcu~sion wae hald by the Commiaai~on regardinq the propoeal presenL•ed b~~ a~n~f and the request anS oppoeition9 presented :.y the sinqle-Eac-i.ly reei- dents of ths are+~ nnd circul~tion and ~lterna~ivea a:• dQpicted by the exhibita pr~+sented by staff. LJ ~ MIN'iTES ~ CITY T'LANNING COMMTSSIUN, UotobeY 1, 197~ y3"l~p5 11RBA D~*~-LLOpMI:NT PT.AN N0. 112, R~GLA38IFICA9'ION NOS. 73-74~1, 73-74-9 7-NU 7 3- 7 4- x Q ( C o n t i. n u e d)----•-- .____.~.____._..._-..--- - -- Commi~g~oner Seymour off.exed R~solution No. PC73-224 ~+nd maved ~or l.te pmusa-9e and •dupLion ta reeffirm P1Ann,ing Commi~oion soti.on ~! Re~olution Na. PC73-164 aheraln thc 1?l~nning Commireion A~o~t~d Ared D~velopm~nt Flan No. ~i~, Bxh~b~~ "A", and recqmmended to t)~e Cit7~ Counoil ~daption ot Area Development Plxn No. 111, Lxhi.bit "A", establlshinq cixcula~tiun petterne tor comm~srcial pxopsrkies alony Hrooktiur3~ street nozth o~ t.incoln 1-vrnu~a. (9ee Reao~lut~on Book) p~, al.l cull the f.ora~aing ~egolution wae p+~~ped by the foll~wing vote: 1-YE5a CqMMISSZO;iERS~ Allrwd, P'az~no, Gauer, Herb~t, King, Roaland, Swymour. N068~ GaMMISSIONFRSi None. ABS~N T: CO MMtSSIONER~s Nonq. Cammic+Hioner Geymour offere8 ~pao].uti3n No. P~73-225 nnd movad ~or its paeor,ge and r~doption tc~ reaPF±rm the P.Lenning ~~ommireion ac~~tion in Resalutton Na. PC73-165 wherein the T~lanning Commiaei.on rdcommen~ecl ydclassific~-tion oP th~ pzop~artieg along both sida~ o! ksnchito, Bircher, Lincirsay StreeL•e, Kethryn Dr.ivr, Wo~~lley Avenue, and HilbArs Ruad to the k-1 Z~ne~ uncnndition~l'ly on tho ~ asis t.hat the eingle-family homaowner~ requeated that R-1 zoning Ua the or,.l.y zor~inq far ~aid property. (See Reeol~ation }3aok} On ro 11 call the foregoing reealution w+~s pasaed by tha followinq v~kd~ AYES: COMM7SSIONCRSr Allro~, F+~ran~, GAUer, Harb~t, King, Rowlnnd, Sc~ymour. tiOES s CUMMtSSIUN13R5: None. AB9EN T: COMMISSIONER9: None. C~mmies.ianer Sevmour ofEerQd Reaolut9.on No. PC73-~26 and move~d for its paae~age and t~dopt~.on t~ rec~mmend to the City Council approvn: if Recla~oification No, 73-74-9 for c;-1 zoning tor Choee prop~rties on the east ar~d aest. sidea of Arookhui-at 5treet, and that conside'rat~.an of rac].aasification of one Cic~r of loko to the ~:~ar oE the lota fronting an Braokt-urst Street be deloted from Furthe,r cons'.claration since the ma~ariCy of the aingle-family homeowners afi'ected requested that these iots not be included in recl.assiEication con- eide ratfon to commer.cial zoni.ng, and aubject to condition~. (Seo Reso~ukion Hoak) On roll call the forego3ng resol.ution w~+s passed by the follr~winq vot~a s AYES: CODtMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herb3t, Ring, Rowland, Seymour.. NOE°: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEI~T: CO~IMISSIONF.RS: Nune. Comm is~lonoz Seymour offered ~tesvlution No. FC73-227 anci moved for ~ts ~aseage and adoptton to reaffirm the Planning Comml.eaion action in Resolutio~i No. PC73-1'l1 wherein the Cocnmiasion recommend~d ~-1 zoning for the proparties unde r consideration on the basie tha~ C-3 zoning waula be t~o int.unse a i~rlo for L•he area which had deve~~:~Ad wi.th C-.1 uses in the i.nt~er.im bPtwaen i958 and the time »ubject pzoperty was annexed ~nto the City uP Anaheim in lata 1972, and eubject to directing staf£ to initi.tsting ac the City's exper~ae App ropriate varix-nces or conditional use permits to eatablish the exiating nonaon.formin~ uses an the propQrtiea as confo~ming uFes, and aub~ect t.~ conditiona. (Se~ Reoalution aook) Prior to roll call, ~iscuseion was helc3 by the Cummis~ion, Commission~r Pt~rano notinq tha' Mr. LouderLack may havb boeii lod to believe he had C-3 ~oni.nq upon annexation ~o the City of Anaheim, not the C-1 zoninq rsow being recoiamen~9ed $in ao a condition of approval required annox~kic+n towasn'Cithe City legally t,his annexatior. did not ta~k~, placo until r~cently boumd by this requir~ment. ~;ommission~r Herbst noted tk~at in 1958 whan th~e xaning actiar~ took pYa~c~, a~~+ annexe-tion proceedin~ ha~! been procesaod, and a number of RimiS.ar annexe-tian pxoceeAings :~ad been attempted ef.nc~e th~~ ~~me, however, in ~he moantime~, pro pertiea within the City ot Anaheim'e boun~iaries had boen developinq in the a:~en within tkse C-1 2one eite de~elopment stni~darc3s, and if the City nc~w ~ ~ MINUTN9r CITX Px,ANNING COMMZ33ION, Ootobar l, 1973 73-606 AREA D~VELOpMENT PLAN NO. 112, R~CLASSIFICAT.ION N08. 73-74-1; '13~74^9 AND 7 3- 7 4-10 ( ~ o n t i n u e~____ ._._-_----- - p~rmittcd C-3 ~oning whan the land urw patterno indic+sted C-1 zonir-q~ th.is v-ould b• qran~i.ng a privilage not •njoyod Uy other praper.kies in L•he aroa, ~na it Nould lur~hVr permit many C-3 uaes that woald 2~e incompatible with Ch• ~~tabli~hed l~nd udea in tho Ares~, thue beinq detrimontal to the citixsns o! thm City of An+~heim, anc~ ho die not l.aal the City Nid~ bound by e ronin9 aotion whioh was approved Pilteen yee-r~ aq~ and whi.ch had ne~~er beon Pinalizad. Coa-mie~ioner Seymour not~d that up~n reviewinc~ Che roeolution of intent sub- mitted by Mr. Lot~derback wk~erein C-3 xoning wae approved in 1958, tho key pl~r,a~sa to ba conoidered wa$ th~e #act thet the conditione had tn ba+ complied aith withfn ninety daye or upon annexe+tion to ~he Cit~~, whioh proceedin4is were preeantly pendinq, and 3.nquirsd ot Mr. Lowry what time limitati.on t.hnra war in en ann~xntion prooeAding ta become ef!eative aince it would a~ppoar that the annexation rePerred to in the xaeolution nt intent muet hav~ bmen und~+rta~ken in 1958 for the pxopextiroe, and thA propertiea had nnt been annexed i~nCo tho City of Ana~heim until ].ata 1972. Mr. Lowry advised the Cummiseion th+-t eubjeat pati~.ion wae aonsidt~red null and void after one year aa it partainQd to annaxa~tion zoningt and thttt the 5tr-te Gc+vernment Code flet forth tho fa~ct that when an annexat:ion peCition was not cnmpletad within a ypecigi.ed period of time, or. when ii: wes defoated, ae was ~he case in this particular annexa~ion petition, then t:he annexution procadure musC be sta.rtad from the beginning again. On r~ll call the toreqoing zesolution was passed by the following vote: AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: Al.lred, Faznno, Gauer, Nerbst, King, Rawland, Seymour. NOE5: COt1M2SSI0NF.RS: None. AHS~NT: CUMMISSIONERS: None. RGPORT~ AND •• ITEM NQ. 1 _ RECOMDIENDATIONS COND.~TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1342 (Ra}.~ert Orr, et al) - itequeat for an extenaion of time - 1'roperty located on the south sid~ of South Street, +.~ppraximataly 270 f~et woat of State Gollego Baulesvard. Assistant Planner Phillip Schwart•ze noted for the Comr~i~sian that subject ~9tiY.i~n wac~ appraved fn part by the Planning Comm3.ssior,. on 5aptember 18, 1972, and the Commissi.on acti.on wae 3uat.ained by the City Cauncil on Octobe•r 10, 1H72, to permit the establishment: of a child. nursery sub~ect to conditions, includinq bringing t:ha existing structure up to Codet that tho petit.ianer wxs now requesting a une-year exkenaion of tim~ in order to meer. the concliti.onra of Reaolution No. PC72-Z44, since tae had not taken po~~eael~n o£ the property until Nlarch, 19'13~ and that staff would r:~com- mes~~ u one-year extension of time be qranted, to expire October 10, 1974. Commi~eioner. Nerbat offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner MOTIt~N CARRYED, t~ grant a ono-year exteres~on of time for the of condiki~ns in Reaolutlon tiu. PC72-24d, granting Conditianal No. 1342, eaid L•ime c~xtension to expir~ October 10, 1974. Seymour and complei:ion Use Permit ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIGNAL USE PERMIT N0. 125y (Gr.eenlea£ investments) - Requeat for an extena~.on of t3me ~ Property locatod on the ea~t sid~ of Euclid Avenue, approximateZy 400 feet north of Orangawood Avenue an~1 currently zone3 C-0. Asaistan~ Plannez Phillip Schwnrtze no~.ed for thr~ Commiasion that Conditional U~o Permit No. 1259, to p~.r~mit the expan.,ion o£ an existing convalescei~t hoepital, t,ad been approved by the Pls,r.nir~g Commiabion ori ~pptember 8, 1971r thRt during the public hea.ring the pe:itioner ha~.~a~~t~~1 the proposed expan- Aion would als~ have to be apnrovnd '~y the Soukh~az~ California Comprehenaive Kealth Pl~nninq ~ouncil which, at taat timae a~+'s undergoing reorganixationJ thaL one gxevious extenai.on of time had ceec grar~red, which expi.zed Septem- ber 20, 1!~73i and that the pctitioner was now r.mq~+~sting an addi.tional. ~ix- manth extAnsion of time, thoretox~~ wt~ft would seca~mend sAid tima ext~i~ai.on be qrnnt~d. Contmisaioner HerbRt offere3 a motion, sncond~d by Commiagioner 5eymour and MOTION CARRZEno to g'rant a 3ix-month ex~eneiar~ o~ time for the comple~tion ot condittone in Reaolution t~u. PC71~163 gr~nti~lg Condi~:ional T~sas Permit No. 1259, said time ~xtenaion ~o ex~ird Mar.ch 20. 7.974. ~ Isll ~ MINUTLS~ C~'.TY PLANNTNG COMMI~SION, October ]., 19')3 7~~6fJ7 XTEM NQ. 3 VARiANCE N0. 2g~~a (~lai,na Tdylor~Richar8 A. 1"tm~l.a-~') ^~ Rec~uewt tor ts~.•minntion - Prap~rty locatoQ on th~a s~uth aido nt sc~uth ~itroet, sppruximxtaly 15~ tefk weet c,! ~+sAt St> >~t - Fzopot~inq ko e~r,~b1L~h an auto~ mobil.s u~holster~~ banir.AiQ. AASiatant Planner Philll.p ~chw~rt~ce .~~~ed the locat9.on o~ aubioct ~-rcpar~y ar.d the requeet of the petit~cnex th~ ~, BLib;~l~C~ getition b~+ t.xminst~ed an the basie theC t:he propoaad lease~ r„ the proparty Qea].inaQ Cu m~sk thw c:onditione of dpproval o~te.blishod in Abvu~utin~ Nn. P~73-149, ~nd thar. stetf, thexeforo, would racammend ~:hat aub~ecC p~t~.ttor bv. tar.minated. Commiaeioner rillred ofYNred Rosolut!.on NO. PC73-220 end moved !ar ita paesaye end acloptioi~ ta tezmitiata all procaed: nga uf V~.xisnce No. 7526, ae requeeted by the patitioner. (~3~e Rec+olutiun Bou!c) On roll cAll the foreqoing reaolution was pa~aaecl by Lhe following vote: AYES: COMMI'5SIONER5s Allred, Farr.no, t''~uer, Her.k~r~~, King, R~~w1atT-dr S~ymour. NOES : COMMI9S IONER3 s Non~:~ . ABSEN:: COMMISSIONERS: None. ITEM N0. 4 REVISION T7 THF ANAHETtfi MUNICIPAL CODE - CRITEI7IA ANp DEVFLOPME~3T STAI~DARUS FOR SERVICE STA7'IONS. Planning Supei~visor pon McDAniel x~oted for the Commissi.on thut the HYUF~~~~<<~ chunges to tha Criteria and Developmont St.andaxd.s for Servico Stations w~.xF: as a result of thQ City Counci: request on Ju1y 1~~ 2973, £or a repart and rc~cammondatian from th~ D~avelopmenC Servic~e~ DepartmF:nt regardinq a r.EgveaY. fzom a repzosentative of McCoy Ford for a change in the A~iaheim Munaci~+al Co~e to permit rental of autor~obiles, t.rucka and recreational. vehiclea, Erom service station lots~ and then in response t~ C~mmir~sion quontioninq, not~ri that previously the Cndc amendm~nt pruposed reqtt:~ri.ng a conditional ur~~ p~rmit for 8UCt1 operattox~ ~t any location baaauae 4ervice stationa wex•e one of the biqgest prablEms in numboz ancl vacant statl.~r~s, %inwever, thc ~aunci.2 did r.o*_ agree with tt-at, and a~.iother major concezn expi'essed was the rant~l oi trucks and trailers as s3t forth by MeCoy Ford, who wanted ~:c~ rent arc] sa~ll the:+e vehicles at service station sitss. Commissioner Farano noted that the Commi~ssior~ rit th~: time ~f the publj.c hear- ing had held a lengthy discussion about it, however, he dld not feel the Commiseion had made th~ir thouqhtc~ clear enough tio *.he City Counc:~l, ana may- be tt was the Cammis~~ion's mistake i.n not prvsenting a clear pictu:'e ta the Council a~s ta the Cocnmiasion's research and opiniona. Conti~iued discussion raas held between the Commi:~aios- and staff r.ac~arding the proposal, and upon its conclusion, the Commission de~termtned tha~k. tt ~r~rk. session should be held orior to public heariz-q conaideration of th~m item. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to hald a wark seasion zegar!iing Revision ~:o the Anaheim ~lunicipal Cade - Criteria ~nd T~evelopind~Yt StandArda for Sarvic:e Stationa, said work e~essf~n *o be held. on Novembaz 8, 1973~ at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Seymoux secondod the muti~n. MOTION C7aTt1~IEA. CQmmiasloner Herbst affered a motion L•o aet for z~ublic hea~~i.ng rona~iv3mration of Amendment to Titl.e 18, Ananeim Munici;~~l Code, Gr9.taria ar-d Uevelopment Standards for Servic:e Station~, to be scheduled for November 12, 1973• Commiasioner Seymou~- seconr~ed the motion. MOTION CAR4~Y.EA. ~ ~ ~ MxNUT~B, CITY ~LF.NHING COMMI~87:pN, QctobAZ l, 1973 7~-60E1 ITIEM N0. 5 P1-RKING RLTQOIk~MLNTB FOR I'~~LT~pLE-t*AMILY RESIpBNTIAL DEVL~LOPML~NT3. 1-ee~ist~nt Pl~nner Jlnnika 8ankalahti noted ~Q= the Commie/~Uil that the x~~ort balor.o tham aat~ ~h• r~aul~ o! *he CommiBS~.on'~ cor~co:cn ~xpz'aweed regarding parkir-q pxobl~e~~ at • Mork ~~s~ian e~ F'ak~xuery 15, 1973, dnd~ ataPf had sub- naqnantly been Qiroo~sQ to ytudy the pacoblem~ tha~t t.ie laeZ 1:ime parking st.an9szd~ foi~ a-ultiple-iaa.tly dovetopm~nt were updatecl w~-n in 1969i that ir~ ~n e~tart to PVft1U+~t~ tha eP.f~etivaneee <~f the cux~:ont requ~romente in pro- viCin~ Rdequ+~t•~ ott-wtra~r pa.rkinq !oz multip].e-famtly reeidanta and thai.r q~~itia, e pArl;i~a qu~a~ionnaire he~d baen formuletF,d by the Developmant 8ervicos O~patka-~nt Mtatt which v~ue intended ta ~rovida inefght ku the park- inq naed~, pr~ctioo~, •nd prahlema of apartm~+nt cawellPrs, this quaetic~r.naire baing mailed tc~ a s~mplinq Q~ reaidente in u qroup o~ mult•ip].e-~nmily dpart- manP. complax~~+s ~~v1nA thn dwelling unita~ or morer~ an4 that tlie resulL• of eaid c~u~st:ionndirca ws4 sat lt~rth in the Report tu the Commi.ssion, together wit4~ tho recommer,.deti.ona ot ek~!! as Co prasont and recommer~ ck~anges that cou2cY bo made, thc~X~Pora, if th~s Commissian fel.t the zeport wrR +~doquate for cun- sidurstion at a y~ublic heaxinq~ ataff would r~commend th3t l~mendment ta Titla .18, CI1d~~A7C 18.28, Sitm G~velopment Stni.idards of thr~ Anaheim Muni.cip+sl Code be e~+: for public haaring at tlzs Commiseiot~'s convenienc9. Commieeionar seymour ~ltored a motian, sdaonded by Commis~iuner Herbet nnd MOTION CA1tRIED. ta sat for public heuring cansidezation of Amendm~nt to Pur.k- ing Requi remente ~ar Multiple-L amil.y Res identi~]. Zonee , Chal~tex 18. 28.050, eaid public hwexing to be eche~lulad on October 15, 197a, anci that staEf ahould notiYy ~-1,1 It-3 Qevelopers regarding thi.a propesal. ITEM NO. 6 T~NTATIVE TRACT NOB. 8215 AND (3219 - SPECIRT~ UROCHURES FOR PROPOSF.D INSTRU ~TION TQ F~ROSPECTiV~ FtOME BUYERS REGARU:CiJG WATGRIIJG CF LANnSCAPEU SLOPES. Asniatant Pl~nnar Phillip Schwartz9 advised the Commisaion thrt bzochurPa had bmoil suba-itted w.iCh the Report t~ t.ho Commission ~~ ~supplied b~ prospective dovolopese of Txac~ Nos•~oval of~thene tracts~wasathxt the developerCprepaxQOn eince ts condition of app ths~e sp~aiml b~°ochuxes. pisc~ssiun waA he18 by the Commisaic,n reynrdinq ~he brochurea, it beinq the apinian of Co~nmisaioner Kinq that t'nese instructions be posted i.n a conspicuous spot so thAt ot~ch proparty owner w~~uld be appxised of concerns regardlna main^ ten~.nae and watoring of l.andacaped ~laper~. ~^,ommi~~sioner King o~Sezed a moticn, secanded by C~mmissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRY~D, ko npprave th~ brochure• suUmitted i-~ cUnnect?on with mait~tenance and waterinq df landecnp~cl slopes, a condition of apQrova7. af Tr.act Nos. ~215 anc~ 92~9, provided~ hn~aever, thAt s;id rrorhures ar~ posted in .~: conspicueua spot on the px~mfee~. ITEM N0= UTI.LIZATI'~N OF CLOSE~D iERVICF STY~TIOH S3TES FOR LqHF.' i1ND OIL CFIANGE ONI,Y. Aseiatant Plt-r~nor Phi1J.1p Scnwartze noted fAr thE Cnmmission tihat: gtaff t~ad baen contac~.ed by e~ume persons interestE:d in .re-openin,y abandonE~d or alo~od ;~e~rvice~ stetione ex l.ube and oil chang~, opexatians onlyj that he had px'eser•te3 t;~ie to the Commiasion at a. work session foz Commission consideratlon latez di.d the Commiasion in khe dryi and that the br~aic quection fa~_ing s•taff was, ~mA1 tt~ie wa~ a P~seible use for +chgse <:losed or abandoned service s~ationa, ax ahould $~me zoninq ncti~ori morn appropri.ate WltY: ~.he use propoaed be iaitiated, and the pro~erty ur.der conaidezation at thF px~sent ~•lxae wna tho .loee-8 serv~.ce otation at: the sauthwest corner of sr~nta Anr^~ Stre~t and Stata College B~ulev~xcl whorein the praposed operators woule be r9moving the pump island and provicling the lube and oil change within the exi~king buildiny. ~ ~ ~ MINUTEE, CxTX PLANNING C~MMIBSXI)N, Octobex l, 1973 tTSM N0. 7 (Continu«c') 7a~609 ~amm7.esione~r FezAn~ inquired wtta had pxes~ntAd rhe n4N cona~apL• ~in.~e ti.he c:ity had bson pre~sented with meny ne~,~ idmas 1'rom oi]. compr~n.iQU r~e to tl~e ,,~pe of. ues prapose:~, both a~ L•o convers:lan of el~e saxvice ~tstic+n ~i.te~ and ~up~le~ mente~ry ue~a in conjuncLlon with the exibtinq eozviae ~tatl~on, and whether Chis wes A pmrsonnl idea ot one po~AOr. ar a compnny. Mr. Lewi.s 'Lallick, r~pro~~snting k.cor-o-Lub~, znc., 530~ Paxeio Dr.i.ve, G+~~Ca ~nrb++r•a, ~:alifc~rnia, ap~>~Ared bofare the c:ommi~oion ~.n3 not.ed that he repr.e- oentcd e+ gr.oup of peapJ.e .ln 5a~nta~ ~A•~bara wlio had ink~zPr~~ed tr~~maelv~ja in ~ervioe e~atioiie~ w1i:lCh wAr.e~ na l~nger. bain~ nperHt~d r~o sxicht th~-t there wore no lacil.i~ties l~ei.r~g offered t~ the a.verege c.~otori.et !'o.r a lube anQ o~l chrnqe ~ob in ~arvice ~tatlona now having rbelf-eorve opexutia~~e, ~here~~re, they aoxe pla-nr~inc~ t<~ remove th~ pump ialanda of cloaQd servi~:e ~statfonN and er~- h+once tho ~tiructurec~, as well a~ ~~'~viding dddir.iona'1 landsc~pl»gi that thes~ propo~ed to chunge oA1 and lubr~ca•~e twias as many vehi.clee d~ could be handled a-'t an ~xis tin~a aervioe r~L•ntion ~ite t r.-r~c~ that they wUUl~ make no a~tempt to sQ7.1 ot'he.r. 1.tema. Commisei.oner ~'ar.r~na inquired as to tt-e fee ttiat wouJ.d be ahaxqeG ~^.o~: thi.e serviae; whar~u~oi~ Mr. Zc~llick st:ated the-t it would be approximaL•Hly 37. J0, and Lh~ whol.Q apc~rhtion wauld b~ com~+~atecl in tnn mAnuk~a, doi.ng +~.ll t?~e nar.mal l.ubricating r:F~quired in addi.ti~n to jnet nn oil chan~~ anly, h~~wavar, th~,re w~uld be na o~:her. work pc~~:formed or, the premises, and all of r_t.e work +~outd ~A j~erforn~ed t:isiclo the stzucture iL•se].f~ end thet evon if thcrs were ar~ uinrrrger-cy in wh~.ch `1i~ vohicle beiny serviced wuuld re~qulre addit:lonal equipment, thi.a w~u:4d nat be hr~ndlAd r~t all eince ttlaix pzime .gurtc•cion would be chan~ing of. o:il ani. lubrioacinq th~ vahiclo. Commi~sioner Fsrano expressed concern thet tha operatior~ would r,at be ttucces~s- ful un the bab i s of feei beiay charged and the number o! vehic].oA that ,roight be ~erviced du~:~ing the day, and then tho opersto.rro would be propoaing n:.her u~ea nn~ other itemrs for sale on thy property, sr-d inquf.r~d whc-t trne really l~et;ind the p=-~posal as aet f~~rt.h. Mr. "~::l.lick stated that he wab t+ contxaetor and wauld bo c!oing the modific~a- tia. ~E the b~lilc~ingt tnat according to 1:he compony'r~ ett:diea, which aompany ~~ sted ~f a g•ro~ap of invastors wha had ~~ol.~d their r.osouzc~s, *hie wou~.d r asi.b'.e, and had established aim:.lar ogeratione in San Dlega and San .• •~ sc~~, as •~ell as an Florida. rurtharmore, CheX would tdJC9 3own a11 exiet- , ;n~,:~s ~nd 31gns. ~~n r- .:.:ner Herbst not~d that it would be commen3able if t;he City could have G- :.: closea service stations beinq uped !or alternati~g uses that would ~a,~ ~~• •F the site ancl remove an eyeaore of the clased ~service at~tion from .~iew of the general public, and that he heA n~ ~ppceition to the uae as . •- -' ~~sed. ~w zellick staL•Pd t.hat the qroup of invc~ators he represented wantod to remove -~e stiqma of a ga~ sta*_ion by changinq t.he dee3.qn o.f t~e building, Muki t~q it ~~;r.~~ attractive than it preaen'tly exiated and generally bei•~g mare att~active ~ the area. ~emmiastoner S~ymoux offered a motion, seconded by C~mmiasianer Elarbat and w~TION CARRIED, to appxove the concept of conversion of cloeed and abandoned ?arvice s' tions for lubrication and otl changc~ of vehicles as pret~ented by reprase• atives of Econo-Lube, Inc. ITEM N0. 8 INTERPRETP.TIOI~ 0~ pERM:1:TTED ADUITIONS T~ EXIFTIP~G HOM~S ON RS-500Q ZONED LOT3. Assistant Plann~r Phillip Schwartze noted that~ he had discussed with the Commission at the morniny work sesaion the request of a propexCy ownsr owning tt fc~ur-bedroom hume on an RS-5000 zoned lot to establish a family.roomj tha.t the Code presesntly permitte~l a fa-mily room addition by right, but if a bed•- room were proposed, then thig wduld n~eae~aeitmte ~a varia;-ce, ttterefore, unless th~+ Comm~LBSion detarmixied An gmondment ko thm Code shou3.d be mdde, staff would interpret a f~mily room aa a perm~tted addition ao long ~s ik w+~s within the lot coverage permitted by tha R9-5000 Zone. ~w ~ MINV":BB ~ C}:TY PLANNIl~G1 COMMI88IQN, (ao~.ab~r 1, 1973 73-610 ITBM NO ~ g (Cc~nti~su~Q) _.....~._ xhs Coma-i,roion note+d that many ot tha d~v~lop~xe waxa ol~er~np ti re~-bodr.oom e~nd Pami~y roara ar daa as vr~il as bonu~ rooas, and Nho w+~~ to kaoM Mhether the bonus raom waa bsi.ng con•~sr~k~d intn a b~droom or not. Commiepioner Ki.nq noted that :.h~~ we• an it~a- i:hat ~houxd b~ di~ou~opd st e- work so~sion, and s~ince thq Commi~~l.on h+ad sah~9uled a Nexk •W~aicn !Q= No~vembAr 8, ~his wou18 bo an i~~+m t.o 'be oonaid~~ad. Comaniseioner HRrbaC not~d that a la~piily raom e+hould b~ oonkiquouo ~.o th~ l..ivinqror~m rethar than neaz a bedre~am nr aia xr~a whera~ it oauld oaeily b~ convext~ed into a~ bedr.c,om, Ruch aa c~v~ar e qe~raga. Coma~imeioner King ofPered a motion, second~cl by C~mmigaion~r H~exbat aaa MOT~ON CARRJI~O~ to aonsicY~r tha prG~posa~ o! Jimendment ~a Titlo 18, Chaptax l~s. a8 ut the Anahein~ Munici.pa.l Cofte~ p~rtaininq to add-ar~s tu ~our and mars budroom homea at. the wark ~ee;aio~ No~vember 6r :.973• AD30taRNMEiV~• - There beir.~g no ~urthar buainaes ~o t~isouss, Cnmmi4eion~r '~"~ King of~Fec•ad a motion ta ad~oiixn the m~eetinc~. Comm~.~sinner I~Arano c+econded ~he caotion. MO'~ION CJIRRI~D. The me~.ring adj~~urned ~nt 5:07 p.m. Respeetfully eubmitted, ~~ :Zyy~ ~r~~:G.~/`~~,, ANN KREHS, Secretary 1~.naheim City Planning Coma~9.ssi.,n AKshm