Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/06/30' . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . .. ~ ~~.-~~_~ . ~ . . ~. . . . . .- ..~ . . . . . . . . . ~ - . L'~.ty H&1~. ~ Anaheim, California June 30, 1969 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNTNG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -.A regular meeting of the Anaheim.City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Allred at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - Ci~e+.TRMAN: Allred. - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. PRESENT - Assiatant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Assistant Citq Attorney: John Dawson Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Sugervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant 2oning 5upervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commissian Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Co~iesianer Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Coimaiasioner Thom offered a motion to a~prave the Minutes for the THE MINUTES afternoon hearing of the meeting of June 18, 1969, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED. RECI~ASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND SPEHAR, 913 Paloma Place, Fu1lerCon, N0. 68-69-68 California, Owner; property deacribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel containing a total of approximately 80 acres of land located generally CONDITIONAL USE. east of Imperial Highway, south of Eaperanza Road and north of tha PERMIT N0. 1090 Santa Ana River and the proposed route of the Riverside Freeway, more particularly described ae: Parcel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel containing appYOximately 30 acres of land having approximate frontages of 800 feet along the north aide of the Santa Ana River, 1,500 feee along the east side of Imperial Highway, and 1,100 feet along the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad south of Esperanza Road, and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel containing approximately 50 acres of land having approximate frontages of 2,000 feet along the north side of the Santa Ana River and 1,500 feet along the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad south of Esperanza Road and being located from approximately 700 feet to approximately 2,700 feet east of Imperial Highway„ Property preaently clasaified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL 1- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PARCEL 2- R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A TRAILER PARK, WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED SETBACK ON PARCEL 2 ONLY. Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of March 24, April 21, and June 2, 1u69, pending a decision of the Loca1 Agency Formation Comwission regarding the boundaries between Anaheim and Yorba Linda north of the Santa Ana River and east of Imperial HigFway. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts adviaed the Commission that although the Local Agenc.: Formation Commission had determined on May 28, L969, that the area of influence of Che City of Anaheim be limited to south of the Santa Ana River, and sub,ject property is north of the river, the petitioner had adviaed ataff that he was contemplating revision of the original plans which would encompase a reduction in the requested commercial and mobile home park areas, with the balance being proposed for development for multiple-family land uaes, and that he had filed an application for annexation to the City of Anaheim with LAFCO, said application te.be considered on July 9, 1969. Furthermore, in light of theae circwnstances the Cormniasion might wish to continue subject petitions to the meeting of August 11, 1969, to allow time for the submisaion of a new petition by the petitioner. 4692 .~i r' .:cw-SC ~ 1 '[. Y- f ~ ~~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, Q.T.Ty pLAi~1NING COMMISSION, June 30, 1969 4693 RECLASSII'ICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue c:onsideration of N0. 68-69-68 Petitions for Reclassification No. 68-69-68 and Ccnditi.onal Use Permit No, 1090 to the meeting of August 1:, 1369, to allcw time CONDITIONAL USE for action by LAFCO on the petitioner's reqaest for annexaticn and PERMIT N0; 1090 far the submission of a new petition encompassing the revised plans (Continued) of development. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAI, USE - PUBLIC HEARING_ WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, 500 South Buena Vista PERMIT N0. 1121 Street, Burbank, California, Owner; WRP,THER HOTELS, INC., 270 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, California; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MARINA AREA INCLUDING A LAKE, BOAT SLIPS; RESTAORANT, UNDERGROUND STORAGE BUILDING, AND A WATER FOUNTAIN DISPLAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING HOTEL FACILITY on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land of approximately 18 acres located on the southeast corner of Walnut Street and Cerritoa Avenue, said parcel having frontages of approximately 1,280 feet on Wslnut Street and 615 feet on Cerritos Avenue_ Property presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the usea established in oloae proximity, and the proposal to develop a marina to be used for ecenic purposes and display of various types of marine craft, restaurant, swimming pool, fiahing pond, scuba pool, and a pool for water exhibitions. Mr. Brown further noted that with L•he proposed aquatic recreational area to be lacated in the parking area under Conditional Use Per.mit No. 970, it would eliminate approxi- mately 350 parking spaces appreved for that conditional use permit, and upon completion of that facilLty, along with the 11-story hotel addition under construction, a deficiency of 359 apacea would result; therefore, the Commission mighC wish to quescion the peti- tioners regarding ultia~ate plans for providing adequate parking for the total complex which was proposed to be completed within one and a half to two years. Mr. Irving Webeter, architect for the development in response to Commission question~ng, stated that additional parking would be provided with subterranean parking at r.he Li.mE all facilities under Conditional Use Permit No. 970 were completed; that the tower was presently under construction; and that a representative of the Wrather Corporation was in the Council Chamber to verify provision of parking requirements, Mr. Richard S~ern, representing the Wrather Corporation, appeared before the Commission and stated that subterranean parking would be provided at three levels at such time as the entire facility was aompleted. No one appeared in oppositon to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offPred Resolution No. PC69-138 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Thom, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permi[ No. 1121, subject to conditions and a finding that the petitioner stipulated to providing a sub- terranean atructure to comply with parking requirementa at such time as the entire hotel camplex was completed. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~Il~fISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, LEO FREEDMAN, 10350 Almayo Avenue, Los Angeles, PERMIT N0. 1122 California, Owner; DAVID S. COLLINS, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH ~. CAR RENTAL AGENCY TN AN EXISTING BUILDING on property described as: A rec*_angu- larly shaped parcel of land situated on the weat side of Haster Street appruximately 575 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, said parcel having a frontage on Haster Street of approximately 100 feet and a depth of approximately 187 feec, and further deacribed ae 1733 South Haster Street. Property preaencly classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Aaeiatant Zoning Supervisar Pat Brown reviewed the location of subjec[ property, Che uaes established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that the existing scruc-• ture which was formally used as the SCate Highway Patrol office would be utilized to -;~ - r ---- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy June 30s 1969 46~4 CONDITIONAL USE - establish a car rental agency; that 31 parking spaces wer.e indicated, PERMIT N0: 1122 26 being proposed for employees and storage of the rental cars, with (Continued) 5 for the general public; that although subject property wa.s sc~ll zoned M-1, a reaolution of intent to the C-R Zone had been established on the property, and the proposed use wocld be permitted in the C-R Zone as an acceseory use where it was clearly incidental to and integrated within a primary use complex; and that the propoaed use would not appear to be inappropri3te or detrimental to the area since similar uses in this area had been approved by means of a conditional use permit. Mr. David Collins¢ agenC for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted ~ he was filing a letter offering to dedicate for street widening purposes the strip af ''A9 land as•requested; however, he was Eurther requesting wainer of the required sidewalks until such time as street widening became effective and all properties to the narth and south were required to install sidewalks. Furthermore, when de3ication was to be- come effective, this wauld eliminate 13 feet of the landscaping alang the HasLer Si.reE: frontage. Mr. Collins, in reply to Commission queationing, stated there would be 3 feeC of land- scaping behind the locaticn of the sidewalk, and it was planned to have additional landscaping behind the easement to the north. The Commission then inquired whether or not the City Council waived installaeion of aidewalks for an indefinice period. Assistant Citq Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that normally [he City Council waived the installatian of ~idewalks on a temporary basis, said sidewalks to be con- structed if and when needed; that normally in an industrial zone, sidewalks were not needed; and that tne Commission could recommend to the City Council that waiver of the sidewalks be granted. Mr. Collins, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the vehicles would be stored for rental purposes; however, there would be almost no parking required because the customer renting the vehicle would make hia request by telephone, and even if the customer were to come by antomobile, this would only be to deliver the Frospective drtver, and that only a few emplayees would be needed,for servicing the parking facility. The.Commission inquired as to the poasibility of screening the air conditioning faci.li- ties that were existing; whereupon Mr. Collins stated that the proposed purchaser uf the property was in the Council Chamber and would have to answer the Commission ques~ion- ing. Mr. Summetfeld, officer ~f the proposed auto rental agency, appeared before ~he Cummission and indicated he intended to modernize and clean up the entire building - therefore, screetting of the air conditioning would also be included in the general modernizatio~i of the faaility, and he wauld stipulate to screening of the air cunditioning facilities. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING ~dAS CLOSED.. Discusaion was held by the Commission relative to the conditicns of approval recommended by staff and whether or not the Commission should recommend waiver of the sidwalks since subject property, although zcned M-1, had a resolution of iatent to C-R zoning, and ultimate use of the properties in [his area would be for commercial-recreation purpuses - therefore, aidewalks should not be waived for an indefinite period. Mr. Collins advised the Commission that the property to the north was undeveloped and generated no foot traffic; however, if and when it developed and st~eet widening was accomplisheds then they would be willing [o install said sidewalks, provided, however, they were not required to again pay for curbs and gutters. Furthermore, it would be a waste of time and money ta install a3dewalks at the present time and perhaps ~ear them out in a year or two when widening of Haster Street was effected. Office Engineer Jay Titus adv3sed the Commission that in the past the City Council had required dedication for street widening purposes be accamplished immediately and side- walks watved and installed at the time the street was widened. Mr. Collins then noted that the proposed owners of the property were interest:ed in the requirements for signing subject property since they were not desirous of ha~~ing ~n process another petition to [he granting of a sign. : ,,~ ,. , , . . , _ .:r ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIDN, June 30, 1969 4695 CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts advised Mr. Collins that one free- PERMIT N0. 1122 standing aign would be permitted, and signing could be accemplished (Continued) in accordance with the requirements of the C-R Zone, and if any deviation were proposed or considered, then an additional varlance would have to be filed. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-139 and moved for its passage and aduF- tion to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1122, subject to condi;ions and findings that the Commission recommended a temporary sidewalk waiver be granted uncil such time as the street was widened and that the petitioner had stipulated to scrEening of sir conditioning, (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolu*_ion was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Camg, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Allred. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None„ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. -`! P41tIANCE N0. 2096 - PUBLIC HEARING. DUNN PROPERTIES,CORPORATION, 2019 South Ritchey 1f Street, Santa Ana, California, Lessee; GLIDDEN-DURKEE, 6948 Bandini Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF '! PERMITTED USES IN THE M-1 ZONE TO ESTABLISH A WHOLESALE PAINT STORE WITH RETAIL SALES `~;~, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land ~ ~ having a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a maximum g"', ~~' depth of approximately 150 feet, being located approximately 203 feet west of the center- line of State College Boulevard, and further described as 1840 West Ball Road. Property r`s' presently classified M-1, lIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ;~:~?:^;~~. ~.` "':,,`,:y`' ?t=~~ Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses ~~::s•'~'~~ established: in close roximit ~~,g p y, and the proposal to establish a wholesale painc facilicy ~;;!.,;~~;^ in an existing concrete, industrial building, selling to contractors, builders, painters, ~„x- and also selling to the general public which would be very limited percentage-wise, and S~:".-;:,-'t;r rr:;g in view of the fact Chat a commercial neighborhood shopping center was located at the i'r'r'.Yr,~c. ~ „ northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, limited general public sales ~~~ of gooda at this location would not be considered deleterious to the surrounding area. ~~~ ~~ ~ Mr. Brown further noted that subject property had been zoned to M-1 in December of 1955; fi~~: however, in November, 1967, the City Council had approved Conditional Use Permit No. 9'2 ~;-•4.<~.'` to establish a 300-room hotel, restaurant, etc., on subject property, and since r_he ~~ y, industrial tract was now under construction in the area formerly covered by the condi- N~,,_r~ tional use permit, the Commisaion might wish to recommend termination of this conditional :~',~"•~;:;s use permit. Mr. Cloris Jones, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coimnis- sion and in response to Commisaion questioning, stated that it was their intent to eventually sell wallpaper to wholesalers; however, the proposed request was to permir. retail sales to the general public, and they expected a ratio of 90% wholesale and 10% retail sales on subject property. Mr. Jones further noted that plans for aigns had been submitted with the petition, and it was proposed to have one free-standing aign as well as one flat sign on the building. Zoning Supervisor Charles Aoberts advised the Commission that the signing proposed on the plans was in accordance with the sign regulations. The Ccmmission observed that moat paint companies who dealt with the general public advertised on their windows, and this was not conducive to an industrial zone. Mr. Jonea advised the Commiasion that their primary business was wholesale, but theq were desirous of accormnodating the few people who would be coming in to purchase from them. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition„ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-140 and moved for its passage and adopti.on to grant Petition for Variance No. 2096 on the basia that the petitioner stipulated that the ratio of sales would be 90% for wholesale and 10% for retail, and the use, therefore, would not be detrimental to the industrial area due to its cloae proximity to cammercial uaes already established in the area, and subject to conditions. (See Resoluciun Book) --~ -~ . ,i , : y f, ~ ~ • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 30, 1969 4696 VARIANCE N0: 2096 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following (Continued) vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, A11red. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-141 and moved for its passage and adeption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 972 be terminated on the basis that the use was no longer applicable to the properEy since induatrial buildings were being developed on the property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Allred. NOES: COhIDfISSIONERS: None. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ORANGE COUNTY, P. 0. Box N0. 68-69-99 269, Orange, California, Owner; WILLIANS E. SWANK, 105 Town and Country, Orange, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the south side of Oran~awood Avenue, approximately 390 feet west of the centerline of Ninth Street, said parcel having a frontage on Orangewood Avenue of approximately 132 feet and a depth of appruximately 285 feet, and further deacribed as 1532 East Orange- wood Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in Close proximity and previous zoning action on the property, noting that a variance to establish a storage garage was granted by the City Council in August, 1961, and the petition had never been activated; that the Planning Commiasion in February, 1969, had denied a requeat to establish a church on subject property, and that the proposed petition was now to establish a.10-unit apartment complex with a density of 14 units per net acre and a lot coverage of 41%; that a 20-foot wide, private drive was proposed to extend southerly from Orangewood Avenue,along the wast- erly property line to provide accesa to the rear of the property where the carpor[s were propoaed to be located; and that the development would meetall the site develog- ment requirements of the R-2 Zone. Mr. Brown further noted that the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated low-density, single-family reaidential uses as being appropriate to this area; however, west from Ninth Street along the south side of Orangewood Avenue there were 10 R-A zoned lots, all of which had been developed with single-family residential homes - four of these lota were comparable in size and dimension to subject parcel, three being approximately one-half acre in size and khree along the Ninth Street frontage having standard R-1 lot sizea - therefore, to develop any of the seven larger parcels, including subject parcel along the Orangewood Avenue frontage,would necessitate some form of land assembly 3f single-family residential uses were considered aFpropriate in order that ~ cul-de-sac street might be developed, or some other form of street system could provide for these frontage properties, However, without land assembly, no individual lot could be split into standard single-family lot sizes since no street system could be supported due to the narrow width of the lots - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether there were sufficient changes in the area to warrant favorable consideration of low- medium density aince the General Plan did not indicate an increase in density for this area. Mr„ Mike Gesler, representing [he agent for the petitioner and the architect for the proposed project, appeared before the Commission and noted that the density proposed was less than that permitted in the R-2 Zone, and then further reviewed the prop~sed development as to square footage, setbacks both in the front and side yards, with single-story being maintained to ensure compatibility with the surrounding R-1, ar.d the fact that a private drive was proposed. The Commiasion inquired whether or not consideration had been given to developing subject property for R-1 purposes since the entire area was surrounding by single- family residential usea. Mr. Gesler replied that this had been considered at one time; however, since a private drive was proposed, even though more density was also being proposed, the setback from the R-1 could permit two-story construction at the Orangewood Avenue frontage - however, only single-atory was proposed. : :~;`: .` : , ; ; ir ~~ *F; u^" ~ -c~ ~ ~ ~ t~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO[~RiISSION, June 30, 1969 4697 RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subjec*_ petition. N0, 68-69-99 . (Continued) TAE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Diacusaion was held by the Commission relative to circulation for these narrow, deep, R-A lots; that although the propoaed development appeared deairable and was less than the R-2 minimums, if R-2 zoning were granted, later development plans could be sub- mitted in conformance with the R-2 requirements, possibly making the la[er development incompatible - however, because R-2 zoning was granted, development would not be required in conformance with the plans submitted; that although the R-1 to the south was shielded to a certain degree with carporta, the recreational facilities were also proposed for the southeast corner of the property; that conaideration of R-2 zoning in the area where development had occurred with single-family homes could set a precedent for the remain- ing R-A lots and heavier density propoaed for the entire Orangewood frontage; that Orangewood Avenue had traffic speeds higher than normally considered in residential areas, and development of individual parcela with R-2 apartments would establish an unnecessary number of access points to Orangewood Avenue, creating possible hazards - therefore, consideration should be given to land assembly in order that adequate street pa[terns could be developed within these large R-A parcels. The Commission then inquired whether or not a street pactern could be developed permit- ting a half-street to be dedicated, and when development of the property abuccing zn the west was desired, the balance of the street could then be installed, and inquired if this were posaible, Office Engineer Jay Ticus advised the Commission that it had been the policy of the Engineering Diviaicn to require full street dedication rather than a half street, with the full screet being acquired from one parcel and a one-foot holding strip es~ablished so that properties abutting said dedicated street, upon development for a more intense use, would be requiredtc pay Eor a proportionate part of the dedication property and street impro~ements; however, if the Commission so deemed it necessary, the policy and recoc~endations of the Engineering Division in the past could be amended, buc ther.e would be no assurance if only a half atreet were decided on, and the proper~y abutting said half street would develop, thereby creating a half street which was an undesirable circulation pattern. . The Commission tP~en noced that since subject property was in the center of seven parcels, with two to the east and four to the west, if subject petition were granted, this? woul.d create undue hardships on the balance of the parcels by setting an undesirable prece~ent, and the staff ahould consider contacting all property owners of these large parcels r~ determine whether or not land assembly could be accompliahed and whether a circu;.ation pattern could be developed for future development of these properties since it was not the Cos~ission's desire to withhold development of property if the adjoining property ownera were not desirous of considering future redevelopment of their properties. 2oning Supervisor Cnarles Roberts advised the Commission that perhaps the petitioner's agent could apprise the Commission of any attempts he had made in contacting the adjoining property owners. Mr. Gesler advised the Coffiniasion that he was the real estate agent representing the estate, and adjoining property owners had been contacted; however, they did not seem to be receptive to posaible redevelopment of their property, and sub,ject property was the only parcel being held in an esta[e through the bank. Diacussion then aas held bp the Commission, the staff, and the Assistant City Attorney relacive to possible conditional dedication, it being the opinion of the Cicy Atcorney's office that conditional dedica[ion aould have to be dedication where the City would have control rather than the desires of the adjoining property owners; therefore, if che City did not have control of street dedica[ion purposes, he would not recummend tnis be given any consideration. Further discussion by the Commission relative to the appropriateness of the proposed development, its coverage, one-story aepect, and possibility of setting a precedent for development of the remaining parcels was continued by the Commission, and upon its concluaion it was determined that the area did not warrant consideration of any increase in denaity since all the remainin~ parcels had already been developed for single-family uses - however, further conaideration ahould be given to contacting the adjoining pxoperty owners of the large R-A parcels to determine their feelings of future development since it would not be advisable to have four individual streets having scceas to Orangewood Avenue due to lack of planning by the City. Mr. Roberts then inquired whether the Commiasion was desirous of having a preciae plan for development of these parcela with street pattern designs at the same time the staff was contacting the various property owners: to which Commissioner Herbst stated ~. ~* ..,.. - _ ',~ '~ ~: r.~7,`~f' 7 t I v . . f . ~ .. ~. i ~ ~~....~ •=~s ~ Q ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 30, 1969 4698 RECLASSIFICATION - that an area development plan should be prepared if the proparty :~ N0, 68-69-99 owners agree future development of their properties would be (Continued) improved by having a circulation pattern. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-99 to the meeting of July 28, 1969, in order to allow time for the staff to contact adjoining property ownera and poss3bly preparing an area development plan for public hearing for providing circulation to these deep, narrow parcels,. Commissioner Thom aeconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. BETZ CORPORATION, ET AL, 1901 Galatea, Corcna N0. 68-69-100 del Mar, California, Owners; SHELDON POLLACK, 3344 South La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requeating that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of property consisting of five lota located on the east side of Fairhaven Street, approximately 92 feet north of the centerline of Westmont Drive, said parcel having a frontage on Fairha-ren Street of approximately 302 feet and a depth of approximately 97 feet, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIaL, ZONE to the C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE to permit the utilization of aubject property for parking purposes in conjunction with develop- ment of a aix-story office building along the Euclid Street frontage. Variance No. 2082, previously conaidered by the Planning Commission and still pending „ before the City Council, requesting waiver of maximum building height and minimum ~~' '' number of required parking atalls, originally proposed 110 parking spacea while 230 ~" • parking apacea were required, and with the ac uisition of r; q property under Reclassifi- cation No. 68-69-100, the required parking requirements were 249 spacess and the ? number proposed was 191 apaces. However, aince the variance petition was not re- " ' advertised in conjunction with the reclassification data ~`.. " erueal onl . pertaining to it was set for a- ,:.': il p Y • Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject proper~y, uses eatabi.iahed in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify five R-1 zoned lots tc the C-0 Zone in order to provide additional parking for the six-story office building propoaed to be located along the Euclid Street frontage; that the revised plans indicated a vast improvement, particularly regarding parking, over that originally submitted in that the parking deficit had been reduced from 50% to 23%, and considera- tion would have to be given to the fact that single-family residences were located to the west and south of subject property, and any overflow parking would undoubtedly utilize the interior local atreet system of this residential neighborhood because on- street parking along Euclid Street was prohibited; that a similar variance application was recently considered by the Co~ission and City Council when the Bank of America requested waiver of minimum parking requirements for a ten-story office building Lo be located at Harbor Boulevard and Broadway, wherein the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance provided the applicant installed sufficient footings to accom- modate a fifth level of parking in Che event additional parking was determined to be neceasary at the end of three months; and that during the period between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings of the Bank of America request, the staff had conducted an in-depth etudy of parking requirements for high-rise office structures in other cities, and the results of this study indicated the City of Anaheim's parking requirements exceeded most of the cities sampled - therefore, the staff was in the proceas of preparing a recommendation for office buildings over three stories in height be reduced from ita preaent atandards; furthermore, the recommendation would probably be similar to the current parking requirements for offices in the C-R Zone, namely, 4 spacea per 1,000 aquare feet of 75% of the gross flooz area. Mr„ William Sott, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared berore the Commisaion and noted the petitioners and other representatives of the orQanization, as well as the architect, were present in tl~e Council Chamber to answer questions; that the City National Bank would be [he prospective property owner; and that the presentation made by the staff was basically the proposal now under consideration, and he was available to answer questiona. The (;'ommiesion noted that by providing additional parking in utilizing the R-1 proper- ties on the east side of Fairhaven Street, the petitioner was complying with the resolving of the previous ob3ections of the Planning Commission when they denied the variance. The Co~ission further inquired whether or not access to Fairhaven Street was proposed from aubject property, or whether the six-foot masonry wall would be for the complete length of said property, with dedication to Fairhaven Street being given to che City of Anaheim. ^'S.r.~1 ~~. ~ . ~ . wrn„~,~.,. . . - ... , ~. ' ~-'~ •, , ~~~ ~ , ~ . - . ~. . 5 .. ~. ~~.~, . ~~. .. ` . . I. , ... _. ~._. n. . . , _. .. . ... . . . .. . .... ~""~~'~'~?' '' "~3..'~Tsti'~~,7~wKr^'~,. ; ~u~~,.j~~~"~. a'~ ~i`~ ~-~ 'f~s~' r Kr rr,~. s ,. i r 1 ^°T>4:- 5„5rf?Y "H'Ap' ~., , , . . . .. ~ .. .. ~:.. .:. .,:~~ ,: .. :., .. .;- J3~ ~ C~~ l ) ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ,Tune 30, 1969 4699 RECI.ASSIFICATION - Mr. Sott, in reply, stated that the plans indicated no access to NQ, 68-69-100 Fairhaven Street; that a six-foot decorative wall similar to that (Continued) developed along the parking area of the Keystone Savings & Loan Company was propoaed; and that a three-foot landscaped buffer space between the wall and the sidewalk was also proposed along the Fairhaven Street frontage. q°s Mr. Ron Caspera, representing the Keystone Savings & Loan Association a r~:~. the Commission and noted they were in favor of the proposal becauae for theapastbeight ~~ to nine years the property along the Euclid Street frontage had been undeveloped due ~;~:_ to difficulty in developing it because of the shallow lots, and he had always envisioned >"~~ a Taco Bell or amall restaurant being pro~ected for said property; that he was not :`~}~'~t~^ 4 concerned with the parking ratio since the difference between 3.75 or 4 stalls was 1!; i: ~s:u,:!~ minor; and thaC the owner of the property would want to provide adequate parking, and the landscaping propoaed would be similar to that required by the Commiasicn and Council when they developed their parking area. ~`' `- .'-. t•' ..+ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. 1~ '' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1 The Commiasion further noted that inasmuch as the petitioner had basically conformed with the ob~eccions the Commission had under the variance, and development along Fairhaven Street would be similar to that previously begun by the Keystone Savings & ~ Loan Association, the praposed development would be an asset to the area, '. Commiasioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-142 and moved for ics passage and py.,.:,? adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. w tj 68-69-100 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~, <"~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vo[e: ~ A~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Allred. ~ ~,~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~= i, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. ~ r ws i ~~ ~tj The Commisaion Secretary advised the Commission that since the variance had not been ~~i` r{ advertised, the recammended conditions of approval could not be made in the farm uf ,~, r' a formal recommendation and inquired as to whether or not the condition attaching §~ ~; development in accordance with plans should be made a art of the reclassifica:ion `~;' ;,<<,; Petition. p Considerable discussion was then held between the Commission, the staff, and Mr. Dawson as to the method with which to proceed for the variance, and at its conclusion, Mr, Dawson advised the Commission that findings could be made under the reclassifica- tion petition - however, no specific condiCions could be attached to the variance unlesa it was set for public hearing. The ataff advised the Commission that the peti~ion could Ue readvertised and heard at the luly i4 meeting in sufficient time to be considered by the City Council. Mr„ Sott requested tha~ no further delay be made by the Commission as to the variance since technically the Commiasion's recommendation of approval of the reclassification woiild be aufficient; furthermore, since aubject property was in escrow and e;cpired on .TUiy 14, the participanta in said escrow determined that since the City Council would take action on July 22, the escrow would be exercised up until that time, buc any further delay would be detrimental to any considera[ion by the petitioner. Commissioner Gauer then noted that additional findings should be placed on the resolu- tion recommending approval of the reclassification; namely, that the proposed reclassi- fication, along with additional evidence submitted in connection with existing parking atandarda, satiafied previous objections of the Planning Commission to the proposed variance. However, aince the variance was not readvertised, the Planning Cemmissiun could not make an official recommendation on said variance without furcher delay to the applicants; that the parking as now proposed on subject property and the parcels to the east would appear to be adequate for the proposed office building, based upon a recent study made by the Development Services Department; and that if the City Council determined that the currently required number of parking spaces, namely 249, should be waived to permit the proposed 191 spaces, it was recommended that the Council include the following conditiaRS in its approval for Variance No. 2082: ~'~' ' - ~ • "~ ,, s , r .,, . . z 1 ~ . _ . , 'e ~ ~ /_1 . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 30,. 1969 ~~~ 4700 RECLASSIFICATION - a, That this variance is granted aubject to the completion of N0. 68-69-100 Reclasaificatioa No. 68-69-100. (Continued) b. That subject property ahall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1, and ~chibit Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The balance of the Co~isaion concurred in the findinga as set forth by Commissioner :Gauer. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARIN6~ MARIE E.. BORCHARD ESTATE, THOMAS E. HEFFERNAN, N0~ 68-69-98 E:CECUTOR, 350 Eaet 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California, Owr.er; DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAIv ASSOCIATION, 8~30 East Florence Avenue, VARIANCE N0. 2097 Downey California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularl;~ shaped parcel of land conaisting of approximately 29 acres having TENTATIVE MAP OF a frontage of approximately 638 feet on the south side of Santa TRACT NO., 7003 Ana Canyon Road and a maximum depth of approximately 2,146 feet, being located approximately 350 feet east of the centerline of Solomon Drive. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. • REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO ESTABLISH 118 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH BEING 60 FEET IN WIDT.H. ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION: 2481 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, California, 3NGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the subdivision of a 29-acre parcel located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Solomon Drive and Nohl Ranch Road into 118 R-1 zoned lots. Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 3:10 P.M. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brawn reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that the petitiones proposed to aubdivide the property into 118 R-1 zoned lots having widths of 60 feet, alchough a1T lots would be in excesa of 7200 square feet; that the petitione~s had indicated that due co the size, ahape and slope of the property, lot widths narrower than that pern~itted by Code provided greater flexibility of design; that the internal street eyatem for the proposed tYact interconnected with the existing or propesed .local streets for the exiating and to-be-developed tracts located west and east of subjecc property; that no accesa pointe to Santa Ana Canyon Road were shown since the property was located between two of the approved access points as proposed in the Access Points Study for the Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the General Plan indicated low density residential uses as being appropriate for this area; that the Commission and City Coun~il approved a variance for minimum lat widths of 60 feet for properties located east of sub,ject property and adjacent to Walnut Canyon Road; and that thus it would appear that since subject property was similar in size, shape, and togography to the properties immediately to the east, the requeated waiver of minimum lot tai~th would be reasonable_ Furthermore, ;,ur to extenaive grading required on Ghe southern portion of Tract No. 7003, and di. -. the size of t:~n lots, it was doubtful that the minimum building sites would resulC Mr. Cal Queyrel, agent for the petitioner and engineer for the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and noted that the property to the east was presently under construction, on which lot sizes of 60 feet were approved (28 of the 39 lots being lesa than 70 feet wide); that they also proposed to have lots of similar size; that the firat ~iortion of the tract would be developed approximately 100 feet from Santa Ana Canyon Road, having lot depths of 123 to 125 feet; that the original subdivision map submitted with the petitton had four additional lots - however, at the suggesrion of the staff as to circulation, the north-south atreeta were redesigned, providing for better circulation; that due to the cul-de-sacs which were developed in the cract to the weat, the grading problem was created, and there would be a 1'~-foot difEerence between the lots on the cul-de-sac and the lots on subject property; and that the lot aize would be in excesa of 7400 square feet for the majority of the lots, but would, in no instance, be leas than 7200 square feet. ' Mr. Queyrel, in reaponse to Commission ~ueationing, noted that the grade of the property ~ v facing Santa Ana Canyon Road would be similar to the 1nCS being developed to the east of aubject property, which would be 3 feet above Santa Ana Canyon Road level; that it ~ was intended to have a retaining wall along Sanca Ana Canyon Foad, and exits chrough t° 1i 1 '* '~ ~ rt ~~`L+ d7t4 "''•7"' ~j` ~ "v 5t i~ j!r J"i - ) _: r~ ~ -y r". Y 't ' ... .;•.€ ~ ( ..rcr t.: t ~ ~, 1 ~f J ~~ ~ ~ ~~-c'r:...- MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 30 1969 ~:. „~:,. ~ , ~ 4701 ~ ~~, '. RECLASSIFICATION - the block wall would be made in order to allow for the maiatenance ~. <.; _ . ~;,,:,;,,-,• N0. 68-69-98 of the landecaping along the grade. ~ VAR7~INCE N0, 2097 Aasistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised ti" t".'.` the Commisaion that although an 8-foot high wall was being p*o~osed, `~~'" TENTATIVE MAP OF due to the difference of terminolo of the staff and the financial k~::.~ ~: ~. ~',`~; 8Y ~~~ TRACT N0. 7003 institution, the measurement of the wall was based on a different ~MT~.~~.., ..,. ! (Continued) level. r 5.';;,;: ~~' Dfr. Lee Bly, 5929 Hadrians Crescent, appeared before the Commission in opposition to ~~;,.•<; waiver of the lot width aad presented a petition signed by a majoricy of the property owners (52 aigned), each atating their own reason for being opposed to *_he variance ;~;'~;,:~'^~' waiver; however, his were for a personal reason, and he spoke for himself only, and "~~"~'~s~ then stated this was definitely in violation o£ the Hill and Canyon General Plan as $~~ ~'~'~'' to lot width and size• that if the , property owners had been made aware of what was ;:~: proposed an the property to the east of subject property, they would also have been preaent to present their objECtions to narrow lots• t ~- ¢ Mr. Bly further noted that the eastern portion of subject tract had a temporary ease- ~;5;',` e; ment for acceas to the property to the south which was on higher land, and if subjecc -' ~~ property were developed, would there be a wash-out from runoff water during the rainy o;'' i season since hia primary concern was the fact that his property was approximately 3 to 9 feet above the roadbed, and this might create a gully immediately adjacent to ~, his property. ~ t Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the developer would have to _.~- anawer that question since he would know what was planned for the easement. Mr. Oueyrel advised the Commission that Mr. Howard Budlong's home was located on a hill to the south and had a 12-foot easement, with 6 Feet on the tract to the wesc and 6 feet on subject propertp; that they had attempted to persuade Mr, Budlong to vacate thia easement, giving him acceas to Tiber Drive from sub,ject property, thereby bringing the common property line within the tract. However, they were unable to reach an agreement with Mr. Budlong - therefores they would have to grade the property to within 6 feet of ~he property line, but in the meantime, they would attempt to again contact Mr. Budlong to reach an agreement as to the easement, and if this agreement was not reached, then they would grade to within 12 feet of the westerly bank. ~ ;;~ ~ Mr. Bly noted that he owned half of the gully for a depth of 1200 feet, whicr he ~ ` r ~ was unable to utilize, and Mr. Budlong made constant use of hia accessway since it ; was the only means of reaching his home. r , ~ ~ ~ '?-~; ., ; Mr, Bly further noted that the easement was part of onl o a t b his title report and was given ; ;. ;:;: ~ y n emporary asis. Mr. Queyrel, in replyT noted by illus~ration on the blackboard ehat Mr. Bly's properky was on a higher grade level than others which were n earer grade levels or their pads were elevated so they would be nearly grade level - however, it was almost impossible ,',L to provide a pad which would be level with Mr. Bly's property because this would t ; destroy the natural terrain and runoff pattern of wa ter. :t ~; Mr. Queyrel, in responae to Commission questioning, answered that if lots were required . ^;: . [o be 70 feet, five lots would be 'ost if only those lots abutting the R-1 tract to che r - ` west were developed wiCh 70-foot frontagea; that the only street connecting tc the tract ~ to the south would be Tibex Drive, and lots in this general area would be between 8500 ; ,~ and 10,000 square feet. Mr. Ralph Blake, 5918 Hadriana Crescent, appeared before the Commission and no~ed that one of the major concerns of all of the property owners in the tract to the west of subject property was the minimum lot size since development of pzoperties in the canyon area was with homes of prestige value, and deviation from the Code requirements would mean smaller homes being built which would be detrimental to the many large, besutiful homes in this general area; that no entrance to the tract was proposed from Santa Ana Canyon Road, and this would mean adding additional traffic to Solomon Drive orTdalnut Canyon Road; that frcm his experience in attempting to cross Santa Ana Canyon Road, any additional traffic to tnat road would make it almost impossible to get to work without considerable delay. Mr. Titus noted that because the State of California Division of Highways, the County of Orange, and the Cicy of Anaheim had adopted the Santa Ana Canyon Access Point Study, wherein only eleven access points were permitted to the street, which creaied controlled access, Solomon Drive and 4lalnut Canyon Road were two.of the designated accESS points: and until the State Division of Highways granted .additional access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, subject properCy w~uld have to have access to Santa Ana Canpon Road fram eicher Solomon Drive or Walnut Ca~yon Road. . r +.~w.- :;..'•"°`t'~;'~:.5~ - q ~- w.:.;. g ~1 . ,~ , _ . . ., . . L' ~ {~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, Sune 30, 1969 4702 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Blake then 3nquired se to the amount of traffic that would be NO., 68-69-98 taken from Santa Ana Canyon Road at the time the Riverside Freeway was completed. VARIANCC N0. 2097 Mr, Titus replied that there would be considerable relief; howeverr TENTATIVE MAP OF from all pro~ections, this traffic would again build up as the TRACT N0: 7003 canyon area was beir.g developed. LL'ontintned) Mr. Blake then replied that the main ob,jection of all the property owners was the fact that the lot widths were only 60 feet, and redeaign•!ng of ChE property could accomplish providing for lota similar in size to thoae to the west of aub,ject property. Discusaion was held by the Commission relative to revis~ng the tract to provide for 70-foot wide lots; whereupon Mr, Queyrel inquired of the Co~iasion whetiier they were desirous of having the entire tract developed with 70-foot lots, or ~ust these loCs ad~acent to the tract to the weat; that because of the fact that cul-de-sac lots were located to the weat of subject property, and the only connection through the tract to the west would be through Tiber Drive, the tract to the west should experi- ence little trafEic except from those lots along Tiber Drive,and Constantine Drive to the north would not affect the t-ract aince church property was located northerly of Constantine Drive, Mr. Queyrel then noted for the Commission that if they were required to hr,ve 70-foot wide lots for the entire tract, this would mean a reduction of 12 lots; however, most of the lots ~aould be more than 7200 square feet - in fact, would~be in excess of 8000 square feet, which would be similar to the tract to the west which had been developed under the County when they had an R1-8000 Zone. Mr. Blake then advised [he Commission they were unaware of the fact there was a limita- tion of acceas to Santa Ana Canyon Road; howe~rer, the property owners were also concerned in addition to the waiver of the lot width as to the type of homes proposed for subject property. Mr. Edward Long, representing Downey Savings & Loan Association, adviaed the Commission that the tract now under conatruction to the east had homes ranging up to $35,000 - however, it was hard ~o determine the price range at this time due to the fluctuation of coats in developing.; that it was their intent to build homes ranging in square foot- age from 1550 to 2100 square feet - howeve:, by the time all plans were prepared and cost figurea analyzed, the price range could change from $30,000 to $36,000 to possibly up to $38,000, and it was hoped that the homes propoaed would be a compliment to the area. Mr. Blake then noted that the majority of the persons who nad signed the petition of oppoaition were opposed to waiver of the lot aize, the grading problem, and the access problem - however, aince nothing could be done as to the access problem, their opposi- tion to the 60-foot wide lots was Rt111 in effect. Mr. Robert Maginnis, 5921 Tiber. Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted that even though no control was possible as to access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, were there additional roads besides Solomon Drive and Walnut Canyon Road so that additional traffic could be funneled off. The Commission noted that when Nohl Ranch Road was extended to [dalnut Canyon Road from its preaent terminus at Royal aak Road, additional circulation would be available to people. Mr. Jack Whaley, 5918 Tiber Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted thac the homeowners in the tract in which he lived had purchased their homes on the assumption that they were in a more rural area - however, from all expectations there would be considerably more new homes in this area, both to the south and to the east, which would be using Tiber and Solomon Drives for exiting to SanCa Ana Canyon Road, and inquired as to the approximat_ number of people who might be using Tiber Road. The Commisaion, upon reviewing the tract map, indicated there was a poasibili~y of 15 to 20 familiea who would be uaing Tiber Drive; however, one could never project which road would be taken to exit to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and any time people purchased homes where property was undeveloped, one could expect an increase in traffic sa the undeveloped property was utilized for more intense uses than agri- cultural. The Cummission further noted that Santa Ana Canyon Road was now under the jurisdiccion of the California Division of Highways; however, at auch time as the road was released to the City of Anaheim upon completion of the Riversidle Freeway, a study might be made ~~.: ~':'i"~~ ''~ ~ Q ~ . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 30, 1969 4703 RECLASSIFICATION - to determine whether additional accesa points would be permissible. NO,; 68-69-98 Mr. Frank Raczek, 5917 Hadrians Crescent, appeared before the VARIANCE N0. 2097 Commisaion and noted that he had purchased his home after review- ing the Hill and Canyon General Plan in which the General Plan TENTATIVE MAP OF stipulated that development of thia area would be for low density TRACT N0: 7003 purpoaes, with loEs ranging from 8000 sqnare feet up - therefore, (Continued) aince limited acceas was available to 5anta Ana Canyon Road, the waiver requested for minimum lot width ahould be denied in order that the low density projection mtght be continued, and the maximum the developer would loae in lota would be 18,, Mr. Eugene LaPorte, 5922 Hadriana Crescent, appeared before the Commiasion, noting that one of the major problems of concern was overlooked - that being the number of acres atill remaining undeveloped, both to the souCh and west, which might be uaing Solomon . Drive to gain accesa to Ssnta Ana Canyon Road, creating additional hazards, and the only reason more hazardous conditions did not arise from the Solomon Drive exit was the fact that a third lane existed where people could croas over waiting to enter the flow of traffic - however, this was nut true at Walnut Canyon Road. The Commission noted that if any problem would result with additional traffic, the City Engineer, in all likelihood, would recommend a means of alleviating traffic hazarda at Walnul Canyon Road. Mr. Titus noted that up until the preaent time Walnut Canyon Road had not been considered by the City since the State controlled any modification on Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the City had not made any studies up until the present time - however, after the River- side Freeway wae opened and Santa Ana Canyon Road was reverted back to the City of Anaheim as its responaibility, then additi+onal study could be made as to traffic problems and solutiona in urder to accommoila*_e development of the agricultural lots along Chis area, and it was expected the Riverside Freeway would be completed in approximately three yeara. Mr. Joe Lagrove, 5930 Tiber Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted he was one of the property owners most affected by the access road to the Budlong property since they had the most squtheasterly,home in the tract, and that accesa.road was builr up - behind his property to a height of 15 feet higher than the.front of the lot - therefore, Tiber Drive would have to be elevated 4 to 8 feet Eo eliminate,the drop-off at the dead-end as it presentlg exiated; that another problem he had was'the fact that two of the lots woald be having their rear yards abutting his front yard, which he felt was not as desirable as if lots were siding onto his property. Furthermore,'he would prefer having the Budlong property people release their access road prior to develop- ment of the tract since if this were not released, this would affect his property since they had considerable landscaping along their side as well as a masonry wall, and„if the terrain wer.e cut away, this would create a slooe and destroy all the land- sc~ping he had placed there. The Commisaion advised the opposition that grade separation, draining problems and drainage were problems to be resolved by the Engineering Department and had no bearing on the land use as the Commisaion ww ld have to determine. Mr. Queyrel advised the Commission that the existing easement to the Budlong propercy would have to remain unless some alternative access was provided for Mr. Budlong in another direction; that the lot grade would be similar to those adjacent to subject property; and that changes to the sZoping could not be accomplished until the access Co the Budlong property was received - they would then contact the adjoining proper~y ; owner co attempt ta resolve any problems. „ Mr. Robert Pautsch, 5929 Tiber Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted his property was on the north aide of Tiber Drive and also would be affected by a rear yard being placed in hia front yard by Lhe adjoining property and then inquired whether the grading areas of the ee~ement could not conform to the 15 to 20-foot grade rather than leaving it as it presently eaciated since the map he had reviewed uf ti~e grading did not indicate this. Mr. Titua adviaed the Co~ission that they had approved grading plans, but these were not prepared. However, if anyone were interested in reviewing the grading plans; they could be aeen in the Engineering Diviaion. The Commission further noted that the Orange Unified School District was planning a high school and other achools, together with parks, to be developed wichin the next five years. . . 1... n~.:~ . . _ ... . .. %'' ' 0 ,~ ~ :IINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~rIISISSION, June 30, 1969 4704 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr„ Blake again appeared before the Co~ission and noted in 'NO.. 68-69-98 aummation that 99% of the property owners in the tract to the west were opposed to waivar of the minimum lot width,and the VARIANCE N0:• 2Q97 reduction of a maximum of 18 hoaes would not affect the develop- ment of aubject property; thr-efore, the Commission should retain TENTATIVE MAP OF the pro~ection~ made on the Hill and Canyon General Plan. TRACT YO.. 7003 - (Continued) Mr, queyrel advised the Commission that Mr. Long had been informed the Federal Hcuaing Administration was concerned about having exits from Solomon Drive and Walnut Canyon Road and was attempting to obtain a traffic signal at eithes one of these streeta. Furthermore, the tract to the east was permitted to develop with less than 70-foot frontages, and if subject property ~ were developed +~itn 70-foot frontages, this would mean lots of 8750 square feet - therefore, theq felt the variance requesC was justified, and the tract design satis£ied the configuration of the land, but they could develop the lots ad3acent to the tract to I the west for 70-toot widtha. Mr. Queyrel, in reaponae to questioning by the Commisaion relative to redesign, ecated that if cul~de-sac streets wer2 proposed having east to west access because of the grade dif arential and the slope, this could be a difficult design and would disrupt the naturel flow of water •• thereby requiring a scorm drain in the street. Mr. Blake advised the Commission that their lots were a':so terraced - however, they had 70-foot wide lots. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Discussion was held by che Commissi.on relative to tr.e proposal, Commissioner Gauer noting there was no reason for changing the attitude on development in this area since the entire area had prime E~~p~rty and there was no basic reason for waiving the 70-fuat lot width; that the property to the east was over 200 feet narrower than subject property and had the Or!6;>.~~ County Flood Control channel immediately abutting the'Walnu~ Canyon Road - therefc~s~~t, p~obleme of development of that property were more pronounced than subject property 't:ad. The Commiea±on then inquired of Mr. Queqrel what type of problem would exist if 7200- square foot lota were reqc:i.red•with 70-foot frontages terracing the lots; whereupon Mr. Queyrel stated thar. this would create additional grading and drainage for the north- south atreet, and a series of cul-de-sacs would require the building of a atorm drain for this property. The Commission then noted that part o£ the problem of the people present in opposition was their concern that there was an iner.ease in density for subject property over that developed on their pzoperty to the west, and by proposing 60-foot lots rather than 70 feet, this increased the number of lots over that which normally would result !n the subdivision of subject property. Mr. Queyrel stated that they felt that since they were in conformance with the same design as the property to the east, the request for waiver was a reasonable one, and because of the width of the lot and ita terrain, it was difficult to subdivide this into lots as requested. After further discussion by the Commisaion as to whether or not lots along the westerly property line should be 70 feet and those along the eset 60 feet, the Commission deter- mined that the developer and engineer could redesign the tract between the time the Comm9.ssion acted on this and the City Council took action - therefore, the variance wai.ver and tract should ba denied, but the reclassification t~ R-1 could be approved. Commisaioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-143 and moved for its passage and adoption tu recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-98 be anproved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutton was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO:IIIISSIONERS: Gaa+sr, Herbst, Thom, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABEENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Rowland. Commisaioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC69-144 and moved for 1ts passage and ~ adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 209i on the basis there were no extraordi.Kiary or exceptional circumatances or conditions applicable to the property to warrant favar•• able coneideration of subject petltion; tnac the size and shape of the property were ' ! 1 ~ i ~'tA` ~~ - * '~ ~...~.."',. w T :: ` '. '' S, ~ ~. gp i~E.- ".~~ :...+~ . . . _ . . ,. . . , . . . . . ~ k~ .. ` . ~ e , . -+^ t ,.~ °..~ftrA_r-e `L ~~ y~, ,..~;;. ;t ~~r~~~ " i~-•`;+~?;r~~.:.. ~ . 7 ~v <t ~:.~; ,,~: ~ ~ *~ .- . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ `.~1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 30, 1969 4705 RECLASSIFICATION - adequate to subdivide and comply with Code requirements as to width N0. 68-69-98 and square footage, and that the petitioner had not submitced evidence that a hardship existed to warrant favorable consideration VARIAFCE N0> 2097 of the waiver requested. (See Resolution Book) TENTATIVE MAP OF' On roll call the foregoing resoluCion was passed by the following TRACT N0: 7003 vote: " : (Continued) AYES: COMI~fISSIONERS: Gauer, Thom, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7003, seconded by Commisaioner Thom, and MOTION CARRIED on the basia that the vartance request was denied - therefore, the subdivision tract was not in conformance with Code requirements. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess th_ meeting for ten minutes. Commisaioner Thom secunded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED_ The meeting recessed at 4:15 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:25 P.M., Commissioners Camp, Gauer, Herbst, and Thom being present. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to Title 18, Zoning, Chapter 18.64, Conditional Uses, Section 18.64.020(2-d) to consider amending a reference to trailer parka. Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the past history on the number of mobile home pzrks approved under this conditional use, noting that the title of "trailer parks" was a misnomer since mobile home parks were considered to be relatively permanent uses of land while a travel trailer park was considered an interim use, and therefore in order to differentiate the two types of uses, it was recommended that Section 18.64.020 (2-d) be amended to read, "Mobile home parks and travel trailer parks". DisCUSSion was held by the Commisaion relative to the passibility of including campers or motor homes within this cate~ory since they could be considered part of travel trailer parks. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that this could be made a part of the definition section of the Anaheim Municipal Code rather than the conditional use, and that when the Commission had asked the staff to make a study of mobile home park atandards, it was determined that many of the mobile home parks did permit travel trailers and camp cars. No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEn. Commissioner Gauer ofFered Resolution No. PC69-145 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Title 18, Zoning, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.64, Conditional Usea, Section 18.64.020(2-d) be amended to read, "Mobile home parks and travel trailer parks". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution ~usa passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOii~RS: Camp, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONEt?S: None. ABSENT: COMMIS£au'IERS: Farano, Rowland. ~'' ~~`".."r'~' - ~ 7~'~ ^~'' # y ~Pl'r ~ ~ ~~ .. . ~ . .. ' _ _ . , . . ~ ~' . .. ~ ..'1 ..i>` - i ` . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jnne 30, 1969 4706 ANAHE7M GENEftAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGe INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider the Public Facilities Element of the 1969 General Plan. Subject element was continued from the meetings of June 2 and June 18, 1969, to allow time for further study. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a computer run was being made on the population which would be available for the Commission at th~ next meeting; since all the data was placed on punched cards, there might be a shift in the previous studies wherein apartments contributed more to the children population than had formerly been considered, and that it was hoped at che July 14 meeting that the complete documentary of the Anaheim General Plan-1969 would be available for the Commisaion. Cqmmissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of the Public Facilities Element of the Anaheim General Plan to the meeting of July 14 in order to allow time for additional data. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REFORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 939 (Fairmont School) - Request for extension of time for completion of conditions on praperty located on the south side of Mable Street, easterly of Loara Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that sub~ect petition was granted three previous extensions of time, the last of which expired May 22, 1969, and that the petitioner was now requesting an additional extension of time, stating they hoped to follow through with this conditional use permit at some future date after the "money situation" changed. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time, to expire November 22, 1969, to complete conditions of Resolution No. PC67-105 da[ed May 22, 1967, in which the Commission granted Conditional Uae Permit No. 939, subject to conditions. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Effective date for off-street parking requirements in the R-2 and R-3 Zones. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission tltat the Building Industry Associ2tion had asked when the effective date of the R-2 and R-3 off-street parking requirements would become effeccive; that BIA had recommended six months after the final reading of the ordinance as the effective date; however, since the study indicated that parking facilities in the R-2 and R-3 Zones were critical, the staff had recommended the effective date of 90 days after reading of the final ordinance - this would give the developers sufficient time to submit [heir plans to plan check and make the necessary amendments before issuance of a building permit. Thus, building permits issued prior to 5:00 P.M. of the effective date of the ordinance would permit development with off-street parking of 1~; covered parking spaces, and developments issued building permits subsequent to the effective date would be required to have one covered parking space per dwelling uni[ and one-half space for each uni~, either covered .~r uncovered. Considerable discussion was chen held by the Commission as to the possible effective date of the proposed ordinance, all Commissioners being of the opinion that additional parking was absolutely necessary; therefore, the sooner this ordinance became effec- tive, the less probJ.ems the City would have with tenants of apartments parking on the stseets. Commissioner C~~~np stated he was in agreement with the need for parking; however, he did not feel that a petitioner who had received a resolution of incent with 1'y park- ing spaces and who had acted as quickly as possible - taking into account the tight money situation and other problems -'si~ould be required to amend his plans to increase the amount of parking, and then inquired of Assistant City A[torney John Dawson if the City would be liable for any court action if any effective date were established. Mr. Dawaon stated that under vested rights the Courts would uphold any action the City takes even though the zoning had been approved, and the petitioner-developer hsd been slow in obtaining a building permit. ' ~ ~; r g ,~:~. =~ _ .. _. . . ._ ,.~ .. ~~ ~ ~ r:::~ , i Y:;.. ~? ~'. 5 " ' . . . ... . . ~ . . . .. .. .... . ... ::~ ~ ~ (:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .Tune 30, 1969 4707 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) Mr. Thompson observed that there was little likelihuod that many apartmenc development building permits would be iaeued soon, since prior to May 1, 1969, the e£fective date of the parks and recreation fee increase, 1710 units covering approximately 30 proposed developmenta had received building permits in order ~o avoid the increase in said fees from $25 to $75 per dwelling unit. Commissioner Camp observed that there was little likelihood that petitions pending before the Commission or City Council could accomplish all the condicions within 90 ~_a+: days, therefore, a 60-day effective date might be considered. ?'i~ "~, Mr. Thompson noted that in recent R-3 developments approved by the Commission; the plans - reflected the studies made by staff, and one covered parking space and one-half un- covered space was provided - thus the waivers requested were approved with this revi.sed ' parking; that since the study had been under consideration by the Commission for two or ~ three months, all the builders were fully aware of the proposed change in parking. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissiuner Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that in their consideration at public hearing of amendments to Title 18, Chapters 18.28 and 18.32 rlultiple-Fami.ly Residential, Zones as recommended for approval on June 18, 1969, in Resolution No. PC69-137, that: "The effective date of this ordinance shall be 45 days after the second reading of the ordinance. Building permits issued prior to 5:00 P.M. of the effective date of the proposed ordinance would then permit development under the exis[ing off-s[reet parking requirements of 1~ covered spaces per unit, and that developments issued building permiCS subsequent to this effective date shall be required to develop under the new parking requirements approved by the City Council." ITL•M N0. 3 • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 998 (Hillhaven Convalescent Hospital) - Located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, west of West Street - Request f.or approval of revised plans. Zoning Super^:isor Charles Roberta presented revised plans of the Hillhaven Convalescent Hospital, noting that originally it was approved for 23 beds for ambul.atory persons from the Anaheim Memorial Hospital, and the revised plans indicated aii incraase to 35 beds; however, this would all be within the existing structure, ttnd ~iiquired whether the Commission felt this was substantially in accordance with the original pl&ns approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 998, or whether a new con~~itional use permit be required to be processed because of this approximate 50% inc:ease in che number of beds asaigned for ambulatory patients from the Anaheim Memorial Hospital. Mr. Roberts further noted that the existing parking was more than 50% over that required by Code - therefore, this would not be a proalem. Coartnissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve revised plans of Conditional Use PetZnit No. 998, determining they were substantially in accordance with plans originally considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEA. ITEM N0. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PFRPiIT N0. 1120 - Metroport - Consideration of recommended conditions of approval. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that r`commended conditions as they requested had been aubmitted to them regarding Conditioqal Use Permit No. 1! "1., the metroport, and inquired whether the five conditions as set fosth were sufficien• or did the Commission wish to have additional conditions. The Commiasion was of the opinion that a concept plan or artist's concep[ of the pro- posed metroport should be part of the pecition file; said concept plan shou).~idepict the location of the sirport facilities, such as waiting rooms, restrooms, baggage handling area, ticket sales area, etc., and that precise plans of development should be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the staff would be in contact with the Aerocommuter Center's representative to determine what their concept plan would be. rurthyermore, one of tha reasons for submitting the .r ~ - ~. .a...~.:. . .. . ~ ). *<'~ .., . ~ . ~ . ~ . •5§•. S.z~:.kii- ' . - , . . .. . _ .., _ . _ . . . . . ~. - "~-+~ ... ~ .. . i (~ t ~ 15} i M1 a 'FU~~.~-~ .({Jw^g1~yY: .dF?~ ~'r~T" '~' i?s+,~'rih~l~ti ~~ ~ i a ~ . ''h~'~' ~1~ t .~Y ,~" 7 . .,1~ t 1 4 J~ ~-f7S E'~ ~} sf I ct-li } : ~ P /ti tY,~ "' 6 ~° ~ti " " --- -- . _ ~ ; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 30, 1969 4708 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) conditions to the Commission was because some of them would be on vacation, and comments from the various Commissioners were desired. Considerable discuesion was held by the Commission relative to the type of facilities proposed t~~ be located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, such as a motel, restaurant, ErEnsportation facilities, and freight depot since it would be difficult to cross over Orangewood Avenue if the ticket sales and passenger depot were located on the south side of the atreet. ~ Mr. Thompson noted that this, in all likelihood, would be part of the conc ept plan which would be submitted to the Commiesion. However, it was his feeling that the major metroport facilities would be located on the north side with suxiliary uses on the south side. In summing up the questions asked by the Commisaion that required answering, they were as follows: 1. What means of acc~ss would be provided if the major metroport facilities were to be located on the property to the south of Orangewood Avenue? Would an overpass or underpass or sagnalization be needed, especially when baseba.ll games and special eventa were held, or when Orangewood Avenue was extended across the freeway? 2. What manner of, or means would be used to finance the proposed development, and would the City in any way be obligated for any expense for the scadium property wher.e the runway was proposed be leased, and would the property on the south side of Orangewood Avenue be leased or sold? 3. Should a condition as to location of che runway and its maximum length be a requirement, or was this covered by FAA? 4. Would the City be obligated to purchase the additional propPrty needed for the proper clearance, making the distance 2600 feet to State College Boulevard, or would;this be accomplished by private enterprise? 5. Should there be a condition that the Cicy in no way should be obligaced for the development and operation of the metroport? 6. If all of the property were to be leased, could the Commission consider the City was entering the motel,restaurant, etc. business? 7. Where property owned by the City is leased, what will chis do as to taxes,such as was levied on the stadium as posseasory tax? DSr. Thompson, in reply [o a question presented by Commissioner Thom relative to whether the Planning Commiasion was required to make a decision on this since the City Council had initiated the petition, stated that because this was a land use problem, it was necessary for the Commission to make a recommendation as well as have a public. hearing. The Co~ission further noted there were numerous questions asked by the opposition which had not received commenta or answers from either the staff, Mr. Orsborn, or the proponents of the metroport, and requested that consideration be given to this. Commissioner Herbst noted that the only reason the Chamber of Commerce gave their support to [he proposed metroport was because this would be a private enterprise and would in no way affect the Cicy; therefore, he was desirous of having the question answered as to financing. Mr_ Thompson advised the Commission that the recommendations and questions asked would be submitted to Mr. Orsborn for further evaluacion. ADJOURNMENT - There ~eing no further business to discuss, Commissioner Thom offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at• 5:05 P.M. Reapectfully submitted, ~~`~~',~/ -~-~ AN- N KitEBS, Secret ry Anaheim city Ylanning Commission ~ 9 ^1. , T•r. ~ •i., ~ + . .... _ . .. ' .. . . ~~ . .. ~ _ ~ ' .. ,.