Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/10/06~ ,. ; r ' M ~ 1 '~~,~': JW.r.,.,, 1~~ , ` 5~ h~ i ~' ,L ;ro ~ ,,~ ~~ . ..,. {: 'K~ . ._ ~x ~ } ~ ~ ` ~ '~ ~ kti 3~ ~yl "~ 4 t i r~.. ~` _ IH t ~ : 7 t~ ` ' .~ xy r ; a ' 3' r. . g ff ~ . ..i'.,y ~4 : r , C , ,. ~ t ,.. _.:. ~ ': ,~.. ' 'r. r,~ .. ~~ ~ Y; . A ` y , ; ~ ( 4f; .2 . v{r t . . ~.. . . . .: ~ .... . ~ . , ~.~ ,.. ' f ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ~'~ , . . .~.. .~, .. ~ ~ j.... ..:. . :~ , ..' ~ . . , ' . -~ . .,;'.~ . . ...~ : , . . ~ . , ~,...: . ~.. ~ ~. ~ ' .: ~ . : . : . ~~ ~~'. :., .~, .. . . ..' :.' .; .~ ~~... . , . . ...~. r . . ... . .. . ~ . . . ~ ~~ ~ , . . , . . . . . . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 1 , . . ,.. . ~. 0 . ,' . ~ 4 ~. ~.:s ~ . ,. . . . . . 4 }': ( '' •~ F ~ ~. ~ ~ ! y ~ fa ' ~ . 'r- . : , r .. ~..~;,,, _ . ..,: ~ ~, ~ . .'. A. : ; Y t ' . , x 4'• 'x~ } , i ' ~ ~ ia, y~• . i If1 , , I ~, , ~ ~~ r ~ s i ` ;' ~ ~ ' ~ . . ~. , _ . , . , :: r, . ~ V " ~~ . . . . . . ~ ~ ~~ _ . .. . . y, . . . ,~:~, . . - '~~ . .. ~ ~ ' `.. ' .' , , " ' - ~ -'~ i ~v ~~'; ~~:~ : : :,., ' " . . ,. . , ' ... . . . ~ .. . . . ~. . ~. . _ . .. _ . ~ . ti ; ~ , t ' ~ ' t ' ~ ~' ' ' .. ' ~ . . ' . ~ . ~ O ~~ L „~ j''o . ~ , O~ , . ~ 3 ~ .. ~~ ; ~ . ' ~ . . ~ ' 7 ^~~ i ; p~ p~~ ~ ; i ' . ~ ,: ! . 1 ~ ,~ `y ' r ~' ~ ' ` ~e ~'i ta. i . f . y , i . } ` ~ . . .. F-1: 51':~ - ~ii _ ~ "~l, ;, '~ ~~ , ~ F,: J :' ~ ~ ~O~ ~.i . ~ ,s 3 ; s.:_ ,, -~ ~ ~ ~.... .. I i ~~ . . _ ~ ~ ~' < . . ~r *~ ' ' ` ~ : r ~.- e s` '~fY~ ~ 5 ;~ j , . . ' . , ~ ~ I~,~ I .« ~ :._ V' ~' ~ ..,~; h u ~..~~~ ~ R . .~4 ~',~ _~ ~ ., ., . .C7.,.~. .~ ~ . _ ;. . ~~.; , ...: , -' ~ ~.~..~.-.. . _ . . . , - - ~ . . .: .i: w:A r . l ~~ .....t.J . l • a1`y. ' ~ . . w.. IYO .ws!~-- .....e . ta.4 '^~M ` . ~Y. .. ~ . . ~~ .. , . .. ... . ~.- ~. ~ n, . , ~ 7 . ,. ~ ., ~ ~ . ~... ~ . . .. ~ ~. . .. . ~ ',. . ,~_ , . .. . .. . •.~....~ . ".~ .. .' i ~.. JL_ .::i_~~. ~F- , ~•. ~ . , ~ ' ~ i ^~(4'uuxut~ ...~ .~ : . ., . ...., .~.~xs.._.. ,o.,+..,~,..3. W.r~..U., _.~,s:.r:._ _. . _,~~...,,.~..r,i,\..._W~. ' ..., _ ... . .. .... . .. ....~ r. _. r ~~ ~A.. ~ ... . ... e ... .. ~ ., nn.__...... ~,~t91 f' 'F !`' . ~Y P .~ Lt C y~K;~;+~YT+r^Yi ~.n.?t ~ fy ..~~-T~7 Y ~Is~.-' C i'{, y' 1 . l "_" ~"_ _ _ '__.... __. .... _ _ .'"~_- . ~ -. ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California October 6, 1969 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULnR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called . to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. - COMMISSIUNERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Assietant Development Servicea Director: Ronald Thompson Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Asaistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commiasion Secretary; Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. : ~3 'N- .'~ ~.~~ - ~+ ; I i i APPROVAL OF - Commisaioner Thom offered a motion to approve the Minutes of the ~ THE MINUTES meeting of September 22, 1969, as submitted, seconded by Commissioner 9 Camp, and MOTION CARRIED. a Commissioner Camp~ left the Council Chamber at 2:10 P.M. ~ VARIANCE N~ 0. 2115 _ pUBLIC HEARING, BALL ROAD APARTMENTS, 2021 East 4th Street, Suite 108, ~ Santa Ana, California, Owner; WALTER RICHARDSON ASSOCIATES, A.I.A „ ; 230 East 17th Stree[, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting waivers of (1) minim~im unit size, (2) minimum number of rec,uired parking stalls, s (3) enclosed carports on three sides, (4) minimum distrince between buildings, (5) minimum storage area per parki.ng space, (6) maximum distance be~tween units and carports, (7) ' maximum building height within 150 feet of an R-e: Zone, and (8) maximum number of main buildings on a site to establish a 226-un~lt apartment complex on property described as: ; An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.1 acres, having a frontage of approximately 450 feet on [he south side of Ball Road, havinq a maximum depth ` of approximately 835 feet, and being located approximately 284 feet east of the center- ~ line of Loara Street. Prope~ty prasently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, Assistant Zoning Supervisor PaC Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to waive eight of the site development standarda of the R-3 Zone, nemely, minimum floor area of dweliing units, minimum off- • street parking, enclosed carports, minimum distance between buildings, minimum general storage cabinet area, dtatance between dwelling unita and carports, maximum building height within 150 fee~ of an R-A Zone, and maximum number of main buildings on a site Co consCruct a 226-unit apartment complex. ~ Mr. Brown also noted that the propoaed project had a density of 33.4 dwelling units per I', net acre and a net coverage of approximately 47.8%; that the development provided adequate ~, circulatLon for fire and trash vehicles since a perimeter drive was proposed; and that the 'I petitianers had indicated Che desire to construct the proposed open carport scruc[ures with ~ only a roof as coverage and open on all sides. ~ ~_~ : '~ The evaluation by staff was then reviewed by Mr. Broom, who noted that several of the waivers were substantial ones, namely, reduction of required parking in light of the ;~„ recent parking requirement amendments, which would be 37, or 11% below that required; ~ chat carports open on all four S.des were proposed, Chis, in turn, creating an additional waiver wherein storage facilities would have to be provided co the rear of the carports which could not physic311y be done; and lastly, the peLitioner was proposing bachelor i apartmenta of less than 700 square feet for approximately 33% of the units - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence of hardship to grant approval of the waivers requested. ~; Air. James Sittman, representing the azchitEct and agent, appeared before the Commissio^ and reviewed the reasons for requesting the waiver.s, emphasizing waiver "a" which ;..l~ a . 4835 ~~, - :;~ ' - " ~-~»'a~,~7~ ~_...~._...,, ~' 1~ .c'~c53~ ,~ .w a r. Att 'm:::~1 +xtr~L "E,;: i.n ~i-r,~.'~'~ ~q t r•, a, ~~~K+ Y ~ f~SSa~ ,~ir~`r .~ ..~,~ .,,~. G :~.~: ~5'~,^r q t ns^ ., r ~ a - ~~ ,• ~ ^ . .~. .._._-_ _ _' ~ , . .:. , ' ' k ~.. , - _. ~ __.._. /.~'1 ~ ~ . " '""" . ' __ ~ ~~P MINUTES, ~ pLANNING COMMISSIOY, October~ 1969 ~ ~ ' 4836 ` VARIANCE N0. 2115 - proposed bachelor apartments, stating that this type of apartment was ' (Continued) becoming more in demand as each new development was constructed since t profeasional men, nurses, teachers, etc,, who desired to live by themselves preferred the smaller, efficiency type apartments which " were adequate for their needa, and these apartments would be in harmony with the balance of the one and two-bedroom apartments proposed. Waiver "b" was then reviewed, Mr. Sittman noting thet because there would be only one person per bachelor apartmeLit, the calculation of parking was based on that fact and made a difference in the number of spaces proposed. Waiver "c", requesting permission to have open sides of the carports, was for the purpose ti of providing as much of an open space atmosphere as possible - however, if there were some concern by the Commisaion, this parking would be screened from view from the street ' :~.~_ but the open effect remain for the balance of the covered parking spaces. Furthermore, ~ ~' because of this open effect which they were attempting to accom lish a 3 `"` created wherein adequate storage facilities, as they interpreted the~Code,~~sam1008cubic ~ ! feet per dwelling unit and not per parking space which the staff had calculated; that it ~ ~. '; was their intent to provide the 100 cubic feet per dwelling unit, but aome of this would ~ ° (~; be immediately ad~acent to the one and two-bedroom apartmenta rather than at the carport ~ . _! site. Furtharmore, additional storage would be provided near the exterior balcony rail- ~ ing fur bachelor units. ~ , , ; ~ Mr. Sittman also noted that waivers for the distance between units and carports and the ~'i° one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-A were technical since the former had 3 ; been granted in the past, and the R-A property would, in all likelihood, develop for ~ ; multiple-family residentiai uses because it was surrounded on three sides by apartment ~ I'- development. ~ ~` Mr. Sittman then ~ j: present a colored rendering of the proposal and indicated that extensive ~ `~' landscaping between the apartment structures and walkways was proposed, and that colored ~ ,, pictures taken of other open carport buildings as proposed were also preaented to the ~ ; Commission so that they could view this type of construction at close range. Furthermore, i !~~` these facilities were located in Newport Beach, and similar facilities were now being " ;~~~ completed in the City of Orange. ~ ~, ~ ~• The Commission inquired of the staff as to the number of dwelling units that would be 'a more than 200 feet from carports; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Chs~•.les Reberts noted ~ ~i that a number of the center unita would be affected, although the exact number was not ? ;~. known without analyzing the plans. ~_~ The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether or not each dwelling unit would be assigned a specific parking area. ; Mr. Sittman replied in the affirmative and further noted that street parking and approxi- ~, mately 16 spaces on-site parking would be available for visitors. R, _~ ~; No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. .(;. ~. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Commisaioner Gauer noted that the plans did not indicate where storage facilities were proposed. Chairman Rowland noted that the petitioners had withdrawn the waiver of 100 cubic feet of storage per. unit; however, that storage would not be located adjacent to the carports. Furthermore, the interpretation of the storage requirement was somewhat ambiguous as to whether the amount was per parking stall or carport or per dwelling unit, and inquired of the staff how they had calculated their interpretation of the Code. ~ Mr. Roberts replied that this was calculated on the number of parking spaces, but i£ the concept of the petitioner were the correct interpretation, the 226 dwelling units wouid require 22,600 cubic feet of area, and the plan presented to the Commission indicated only 18,866, or a shortage of 3,734 cubic feet. Chairman Rowland then noted that the petitioner had atipulated to 100 cubic feet per dwelling unit and requested that this be reaffirmed by the petitioner. Mr, Sittman stated that the original plans were as the staff indicated; however, upon receipt of the Report to the Commission, a further analysis was made and it was de[er- mined an additional 1,600 cui~ic feet could be provided, and that each one and two-bedroom unit would have 100 cubic feet. Chairmsn Rowland again requested a yes or no answer as to providing L00 cubic feet per dwelling unit; whereupon Mr. Sittman replied that they would stipulate to providing 100 cubic feat per dwelling unit. . . - . R.Rc"-~: t6Y£;. . . ~::-..~---~.-',a,..t~ ~~~' . , . -~~. . .. . . ~'~r'~?rdt~ ~ K ~~ ;a~ ~ ~.: r.7 i'=.I F"i i .'__' r~`Y k,~ir~^t F'! ~~, ~ s ~{~ -_ . i_. r i ~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 VARIANCE NO_ 2115 - Mr. Roberts then noted that according to the Code as written, this i (Continued) did not meet Code requirementa. The Commission then diacussed at length the requirement of storage facilities. r Assistant City Attorney John pawaon advised the Commiasion that regardless of whether covered'or uncovered parking was ~roposed, since the requirements of the Code were speci- fic in requiring 100 cubic feet per parking space, this•would have to be waived. ~ Commissioner Gauer then noted that if the petition were ~pproved, then the developer had, -~ in essence, made his own interpretation of the ordinance and verbally rewritten it; that ~ ~..,' the Commission and City Council on September 19, 1969, the effective date of the ordinance, had required 1~ parking spaces for bachelor apart~ents, while the petitioner was proposing only onE space, and it was further emphasized that all parking should be screened, not only from the street but from view of the apartmente, and there was adequate laad involved ~ to develop mox.e in accordance with Code requirement~. S Commissioner Farano noted that the petitioner had not presented proof that a hardship i exieted in meet~~ng Code requirementa, other than stating the need for the.open space " ^,'• effect in his ;~roposal for open carports, and that he concurred with Commissioner Gauer ~ that the size and shape of the property were sufficient to develop in accordance with Code requirementa. The Commiasion, in diacusaing the requirement of storage space, noted that when this was reviewed prior to the amendment to the parking standards, it was determined the storage was to be provided per carport, and no conaideration was given to dwelling units per se. Commissioner Thom noted he concurred with comments made by Co~nissioners Farano and Gauer and noted that a project should be designed within the confines of the existing Code and not amend the Code each time a developer presented a new concept. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 2115 to the meeting of November 3, 1969, in order to allow time for the petitioner to revise plans, eliminating as many of the waivers as possible to more closely develop within the confines of the R-3 aite development`atandazds. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. Prior to voting on the motion, considerably more discussion was held by the Commission regarding the storage units as followa: 1. If the Commission's interpretation were 100 cubic feet per unit instead of per car- port, then a wardrobe in a bedroom would constitute 100 cubic feet and could be administer- ed by the staff. 2. That many designers spent considerable time putts:ig holea in the ordinances which had been .adopted. 3. That storage spaces should be required and be placed outside the residential structurea 4. That at the public hearing when the Commission considered the amendment to the parking requirements, it was determined that storage should be outside of the apartment area within [he confines of the carport area, and the plans presented indicated the storage was only extra storage. Mr. Dawson advised the Commisaion that in reviewing the new amendment to the parking atandards only one word was changed as it pertained to storage, that being the word "and"; however, what the Commiasion might have had in mind was another thing. Mr. Roberts noted there might be some ambigui[y in the interpretation - therefore, the ataff could go back and review the minutes and listen to the tape in an attempt to extract the Commissiona' intent to determine if the amendment had been written incorrectly and did not reflect the Commisaion's intent. Commissioner Herbst no[ed that because the Commission was so concerned with requiring one covered parking space per unit, perhapa the intent was lost as to whether or not the extra parlcing should also have extra storap.,e. Chairman Rowland then noted from the discussion as held by the Commission it would appear that the matCer of parking was of concern to the Commission, and the phyeical number of parlcing spacea was the result of a atudy by the Building Industry Association of Orange County which indicated a need for the parking as the ordinance now required - therefore, the proposal now would be in conflict, and the petitioner had noC presented opposition at the public hearing when this was being considered; that covered parking with open sides was discussed at the public hearing - however, the Commission decided not to take , - ---~- -~~*-~ ~ t -e ' ~ , ..,.~~ . ~~ aM~._a 4 e_~ S" y~+ a ;:rE a r~~_.~ ~~..._. T fi r~+^k /__ r 7 ~'~' `';. '1`~{ 1„' i t .: _..,r ~ iP'~ t ~ 1 ~ I l 1 1 •. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 4838 VARIANCE NO,. 2115 - any steps to amend the Code until a proposal was presented so that (Continued) they could determine if the proposal would meet the needs and intent as well as protect the surrounding properties; snd that the Uniform Building Code required one-hour fire walls between carports and units, and with open parking as proposed, there would be no protection for Che adjoining vehicles ,,;,..,' in the carport from a possible #ire. "~f Commisaioner Farano indicated he did not oppose open carports as presented in the pictures shown to the Commission - however, if the Commission were being asked to consider this ~ type of development, then more specific plana should be presented with the petition ,, rsther than pictures of other developments; that the presentation by the petitioaer did " not indicate this was his proposal - it would seem the petitioner was anly proposing the ,, ~~ " open carports to obtain an open effect - therefore, he would not vote pro or con on this ~i ~' ,:~ until more specific plans were presented. r~ r yr!-_;} Commissioner Gau~er expressed the feeling that carports should be enclosed on three sides 'Y~~ in order to provide a form of protection to keep fires from spreading, and that this would ~^- be a fire nazard. ,; ~ j: Chairman Rowla~d noted that when the Commission amended the Code to permit garages with ~ '~ doorx removed, this might have been left over. 1 Mr. Srown advised the Commission that the Aasistant Fire Chief had expressed concern ' about the many long carport structures and had recommended one-hour fire walls between ' each five parking spaces to prevent spreading of fires - however, with this proposal, ,~ this would mean completely open structures, and perhaps this would mean further study ~ ~, of the criteria of requirements for adequate circulation and fire protection for the ~ r Fire Chief. ; ' Chairman R:~wland noted that Ehis was part of the Uniform Building Code, and he could see ~ no reason for additional coverage in the Title 18 Zoning Code. s u ~ ~ Commissioner Gauer again expressed concern with all the waivers re ues[ed and ~ ' ~ his motion for continuance on this basia rLn order to allow the deve2oper time toeredesign 'j ~ and eliminate as matiy waivers as possible, rather than rewriting the Code for him and his ~ ' .} pro~ect. ~ L ~ t ;~:I Commissioner Farano noted he would concur with Commissioner Gauer's statements - however, ` if the waivers requested were reduced, this might make the proposal unacceptable to the ~ "~ developer. " ~- i j Commissioner Herbst again noted ~that some d~cision should be made by the Commission as ~ ~! to the size of bachelor units and the maximum percentage of units that wo~ld be permitted to be bachelor units. .:2`1 Discussion wa•s then tield by the staff and the Commission regarding a two-weelc continuance, it being noted by the staff that any revised plans would have [o be in the department by 5:00 P.M. Wednesday of this week to allow time for the ataff to analyze the plans in time for the Interdepartmental Committee meeting; therefore; he would suggest a four-week continuance. Furthermo~•~, the South Bay Club proposed approximately one-third of their apartments as bachelor units. Commissioner Farano again stated that in order to grant a variance, the petitioner would have ta show evidence why this should be gxanted, and hardship due to others being granted the same waiver was not one of the criteria such as the South Bay Club, The Commission inquired of the staff whether or not discussion was held with B.7.A. regarding open carports; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that when the perking standards were considered ac public hearing, B.I.A. had requested consideration of carporr.s being completely open with a roof only. Mr. Sittman then reviewed the three items which he felt could be straightened out as far as the waivera were concerned, namely, complying with the 100 cubic feet per dwelling unit - however, they were still desirous of having only one parking space per bachelor unit, and the open carports. ~ Mr. Harold Hirsch, representing Ball Road Apartments, requested permission to appear before the Commission. ;' The Commisaion granted his request, and he noted that they were building and completing *; a similar project with bachelor units the same size; that the bachelor units had rented .~6t ; much faster than the one and two-bedroom units; that it wsa their intent to limit to one - person and one car - therefore, k.here was no need to provide additional parking ather ~` ;~ t6an for the one car, ~ ;r' _ . ~ -- ~ ' ~::.rv~ ` ~~ ' ~. ~, r~ ,•. s,.x rr 3 ::::,3 ~' ,. , ; , . ,,. ~ _ _ ~` . , ,: ~ rn7 +.:+'_'=-~r~ +~ ~' ~ v w uv . K ,~ 'c ~3 fi ' r ~ { + y~~ ~ F ~ - i t 4 y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~T f r~ :,; ,':.. MII3UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 4539 ->4 VARIANCE N0, 2115 - Chairman Rowland then noted that Mr, t?3~:sch was pressing the ~; ~ Commission to make an administrative decision on an individual development - however, if this were approved, this would eatablish ?~ a precedent, and 3it?3ough Mr, jfis.zsch had stated their policy to limit to one person :~ 7 , problems cou2d occur in the future ac.d ~he development sold, and there wo~ld be no '• ,~ control wFich ths City would have. ~ ~:' „ ~' 7 Chairmr.ti Rowl.and then requested a vote on Commi~p3ioner Gauer's motion for r:oi~t~nuance for f.;,ur weeks, which Commi.'ssioner Farano IistI aeconded. ~ Upon roll call the foregoi.ng resolution was passed unanimously. ; ~ f'; ;! ' ~ Commiasioner Camp returned to the Council Cbamber at 3:00 P.M. ~ ~ ~~ ' . ~ j VARIANL_E N0. 2k30 - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL TItF,~T, P. J, Box 7, Fullerton, California, ~ r Owner; requesting WAIV~RS.CF ~i) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, ~ + (2) ?lAXIMUM NUMBER OF IL:,iJ Bi:iLDINGS ON A SITE, (3) MTNIMUM NUMBER ~ OF SQUA1`.i FEET OF LANU ~AREA PER DWELLING UNli~ AND (;~) MINIMUM UNIT SIZE TO ESTABLISfi , ~ , !~ 117-UNIT, TWO-STGi~Y z•.P.^_RTMENT COMPZ.EX on pra~ert;~ de~scribed as: A regularly shaped ~ pa~-ce1 of ;aud r,onsisting of approximately 3.6 ~cries, tiaving a frontage of appr.e i~BCElY ~ , S00 fcet on G.ran;fl Avenue and appr~ximataly 300 fe~w on Del Monte Drive, and being a' located at the ~~ortheast corner of Grand Avenue and Del Monte Drive. Propprty p.rese~:tly 7 , classi Hed R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY, and R-A, AGRZCULTURAL, ZONES. 4 .Asaistant Zoning Supe:v;:or Pat Browa reviewed the location of subject property, uses •,::r : eatablished in cloae pro:cimity, and previous zoning action on the property, noting ttiat , + a portion had been reclasaified in June, 1969, to R-3, and R-3 had been approved in t September, 1969, for the northwest corner of subject property - however the ordinance ~ i , had not been read as of this date; that the retitioner aas proposing to establish a ~ 117-unit, one and two-story apartmerit compiex wich ii density of approximately 36.6 t ; dwelling unita per net acre and a coverage of 4~%; rhat no two-story uni.ts were proposed j wiehin 150 feet of the R-1 zoned propert.ies to the west, across Grand Avenue; that park- ~ ~ ing requiremen~s were in conformance with the receltly amended R-2 .snu R-3 Zone require- ,,-- ~ ments, and an interior system of 25 to 30-foot wide, private drivea provi.ded adequate ~~ ~ ' ~ access for fire and trash vehicles; that two access points from i;rand Avenue werE ero- ~ ~ posed, and the petitioners had indicated they had purchased equal rigFcs C~ the exi:>tin,g ~ L f:~ alley located exater2y af s~~biect property on the perimeter of tt;e ax~,s*t.,~. ~t-3; aad ; ~ that 32 of the proposed 117 unita were bachelor-type apartments with no Ledrooms, haviug ~ } - :' a,gross floor area of approximately 437 squar.e f2et, whereas Code w~~u?~d require a minirnum of 700 aquare feet - this repreaented apprpxin=.ately 28% of the total number o f units - ? i . therHfore, the Planning Commission's primary concern would be the requested waiver for ' ?I ~ minimum site area per dwell~ng unit, ro determine if this were a valid qi:e and appropriete ~ in the arAa in question. Mr. William Phelps, designer for the petit::oner, appeared before the Commiasion and noted that when tMe plans were y;~rest~nted to the staff for evaluation, aftez i~AVfng been atudied long a~d hard, had as~umed that ~:~e only waiver would be the bachelor 4nits, and since Ches•~ un~.ts had been apnroved previously by .the Commission at other l~~cations in which he had pre~ented simtlar designs, it came ae some~ahat of a surprise thsfi "the minimum distance beCw~en buildings was a waiver since he had indicated all proposed structures were connected and only two distinct buildir.gs wCLe pYOpos~c''. S•7hich wa:j permitted by Code - thus an additional. waiver was created, namely, distance betw2en main buildings; tha~: he had assumed tl~at the number of buildi~gs per site had bee, amended; and that the minimum land Nrea per unit had been calculated differently by the staff, and upon inquiring a.bout this had been tol~ that becauae of the agley this reduced the site from his original ca.icula[Lnns. Mr. Phelps further noted t•hat ~ince 'he t3me that the ordinance had been written, limiting the size of dwell,tng ~units to a minimum oi 700 squace feet, econe~mic conditions had changed, and many of tk,e young professional people were desirous oi i:esid.ing in these smalLer efficiency tyq.>e ~~artments; that ttie apartments preaiously rppr~~ved f:or 437 square feet on Lincoln Avenue t.r;re quite adequate for o~e person, although whA~ compared with a 700-square faot unit r.hey acaned small - however, the living room wea 13 by 16 feet, with two large closets and a lai~e kir.chen. j Mr. Phelpa further noted that the reason many single persorxs preferred these units was because of the simple furnishinga with little wear or teai on the furnishings; that Anaheim was the only city which had a limitation on bachelor sparGments; that thP City of Santa Ana had a 300-square foot minimum, and the City of Orange had a 350-square ~' fooC minimum, while o[her cities had smaller apertmcnts than Anaheim; that in the L~., .f:e :; . Angeles area the propoaed type unit was considered highly desirable; and tnac in hi~ -- ~, ~~, f :y 4 ~: t ~ -- - _ --- - y ~., *.. ., ~ : g `1~. ""' .1~~'''z~ , . . . ,. - ' ! . ~ ty `2 ~ i,l, ~y.~`'e"= , r ~° x__•_.._" (.r ~x •',~ ~zT '~`t {{}tuY t ~r7` d a~ 1 tt`..,7~ 2~~ {~_ e ~ : F .i ., .? ~' ' ~_ : . ~ . ~...._.._ '. .~ ~:~. ~ . , ' . . ~ . . ~ "' ~ MINUTES, CITI PLANNING COMM!C'SSION, October 6, 1969 4840 VARIANCE N0. 2130 - estima[tion, these unfts were superior to those being offered by the (Continued) South Bay Club. FurChern~ore, since there were only two structures proposed, the two waivers which the staff conaidered were no longer applica~le, and the csaly aonsideration by the Co~nission would have to be to the number and size of bachelor anits. Mr. Phelps, in response to Com~~£ssion quesi:ioning, stated eh~t the percentage of bachelor units per development would be dependent ur~on whare~~r the developer wanted for his ~roperty, but the units sti.ll were not p~cmit~ced by right in the R-3 Zone in the City of `~ anaheim. '';:'~ Na ~ne appeared in opposition ta subject petition. ;~ THE i.FA.RING ,~?",~ C~OS~il. ~'u~ ~r~l Commissioner P,urha~. n;~ted that one of the t.hings he learned in the League of Cities ~~`4' meetings ws& the faat ttrat 50% of California's popuLation was under twenty-five years of age, and this may hevP a bearing on the neec~ for tar ~ropossl of Uachelor apartments. Chrsirman Rowland tnquired of the staff whether thr.~ sc,aere footage of land area per unit as indicated ir. ua. report was calr.ulated different,l:y; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts a,dvised the Com~issio~ that the figur~ of 11£38 square €eet was Correct ~ , gn3 the only diEference from that aalculated by Mr. ~helps was the fact that the aquare ~ foor,nge of the alley - an a,:cessway ir, excess of i2;1 feet - had been deducated. Further- ~ mo•~e, since Mr. Phelps had indicated sIl buildings would be connected, this eliminated i cne watver of more than two buildings on a site and the distance ~etween buildiugs. ,. f '~; ;' Y , ; Mr. Rob~erts requested that subject petition be held in abeyance until information ~ ' regarding the South Bay Club was delivered fram the Zoning Division. fSee page [«342) ~s VAitIANCE N0. 2131 - PUBL:[C HEARING. GULF OIL CORPORATION, 666 East 17th Street, Santa Ane, California, Owner; WILLARJ L, WEYLAND, 231 West Katella Avenue, Anai~eim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE PERMITTED U~ES IN THE C-1 ~ONE TO PERMIT AUTOMOBILE AND MOTORCYCLE RENTALS IN CONJUNCTION WITft AN EXISTING SuRPICL• STATiON SITE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land locazed on the northeast corner of Katella Avenue a,~d ~lementine Str.eet, having ; app.~oximate frontages of 112 feet on Katel2a Avenue and 121 f,G~t on Clementine Street ~ , and further described as 231 West Katella A~~enue. Property preseatly classified ~ C-1, GENBRAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ ,j Asszstan: Zoning Superv;sor Pat Brown reviewed the location ~Y subject praperty, uses ± est+~blishr_d in close proximity~ and the proposal to include automobile and motorcycle e! renCais in additi~~n to khe normal functions au['iorized in conjunction with a sr_rv; ~;+ • . _ stati~n; that the definition of an automobile service station did not perm~t such rentai~, otiier than utility rental trailer;e, e~ a service station site; and that since ;; ' :he Comunission had considered auto rental agencies :Cn 'ha ~-R Zone with the p~ssibxlity , ~: of consideration of a change to the service station site development standards, subject petition should be considered far continuance until the November 3 meeting so that the r additional information from the more detailed study might be reviewed by the Commission ~ to decermine th~ a,pprupr.iateness of the proposed use. ~` The age~[ for the petitioner iradicated his presence rnd availability to answer questions. Commiss~oner Camp offered a motian to continue cansideration of Petition £or Variance No. 2131 to the meetirig'of November 3, 1969, tn orcler ti:at more detailed information ~ ~` ,'I regarding automobile rentals might be available to the Coiamission. Commissioner Thom ~,.,. ,;:•.:., seconded thP mot3on. MOTION C4RRIED. CONDITIQ~,]AL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EUCLID SHOPPiNG CENTER, 2293 West Bali Road, PERMIT N0. 1139 ?.naheim, California, Owner; RALPH LOVETT, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR PLANT NURSERY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HARDWARE STORE, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM SIG*1 HEIGHT AND (2) 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL SCREENING TH~ OUTDUUR STORAGE AREA on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 268 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 ieet, and being located approximately 1,054 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Property presPntly classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, 1 ~ L . f ~~ N _ ._ _ .. , ,. ..,_. ..,.. _ _.. . . . . . . . . - .. . . ~ - ..;~ y, . ~ Jt~ i ~ll . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 4841 ~ : ~ CONDITIONAL USE - noting that the petitioner planned to have a large "Handyman Store" ~s~ ~ PERMIT NO,. 1139 with home builders supplies, etc,, in the southeast corner of ~ ' (Continued) subject property; that the structure would be permitted by right ~ ~, ' ' as a retail.use in the C-1 Zone - however, the plans also indicated ` ~,, ' _ ~ that in conjunction with this structure an outdoor plant nursery 4 ~~ ~~~ area was also proposed--,therefore, a conditional use permit was necessary; that in addition to the plant nurser a i +> f ~ , y rea, t would require screening with a 6-foot masonry wall of all materials other than plant materials Lhat th l i'' i '~'~r ~ ; e p ans indicated the petitioner proposed to use a 6-foot high, chainlink fence instead - however upon bein conta t d b ,~ ;; ~'(~ rt,n- , g c e y the staf£.: he had indicated they would be willing to erect a 2-foot high slumpstone i;'^ 2, ` , , decorative wall outside of the fence and completely surround the plant nursery area, but ~'` ~r M a higher, solid wall was undesirable since they felt they needed visual exposure to the ~~i ~ ~,, merchandise; that the applicants had also indicated to staEf they propoaed to submit a ~ r ' parcel map for the total shopping center, separating subject property from the Albertson- ,~ ~ ~ Payless shop~ing center and the Hyatt House restaurant parcel; and that if the parcel `" map were filed, thia would permit the proposed sign by right since the proposed sign n ~~ was within 300 feet of an existing Hyatt House free-standing sign. However, said sign G was also to be 30 feet high, whereas Code restricted the height to 25 feet because of , k the location of single-family homes both to the north and easc, and the 350-square foot ,; :~ f per display surface would be within Code requirements with the frontage available , , 'r ~, . 1; ,: ~ Mr. Brown, in reviewing Conditional Use Permit No. 921 for the plant nursery located i h ~ w t in the existing Albertson-Payless facility, noted that the Council had granted ~ > ' ~ permission to Che petitioner to erect a decorative masonry wall with a minimum height ' s ~ of 2 ~ feet - therefore, the proposal of a 2-foot, slumpstone wall on the outside of a :5' ~ X> chainlink fence would be similar, but the Commission would have to determine wheCh_r '~ ~! the waiver of the si$n height to permit a sign 5 feet higher than that permitted t , ~ V y Code could be detrimental to the surrounding area since no other sign vasiances had ~~ ,,,~ t r been granted for either the Albertson-Payless shopping center or the Hyatt House. ~ t, ~~' '1 ~ Mr. Brown, in noting the last finding, stated that because Code would require that ~ where a parking area was adjacent to residentially zoned properties, tree screen land- i ~ ~ `'' ` scap ng on 20-foot centers would be required along the property Line in addition to th i d 6 }t~ ~ e requ re -foot masonr wall since a ma'or Y ~ portion of the property abutted R-1 ; . zoned lots along its easterly boundary; that although not all of chis portion was to }; ~ f be used for parking purposes, per se, a 36-foot wide, private alley to be used primarily by delivery trucks existed adjacent to the remainder of the R-1 properties furcher south - ; ~t ~ therefore, it would appear that continuation of the tr.ee screening requirement southward , ~ ~ ~ 1 to the south property line to provide continual, visual and sound buffer would be highly ~~. _ ~; beneficial to all concerned. ~; Mr. Arnold Feuer.stein of the Euclid Shopping Center appeared before the Commission and ~ advised that they planned to construct a s[ore building with building materials stored ~ inside, similar to the one in San Diego and South Sacramento; that this plan would be similar in design; that they felt the additional five feet in height of the sign would , ~ ? not be detrimental to the residential area since Katella Avenue acted as a good buffer b ; etween the shopping center and the residential uses to the north; and that they were desirous of having a continuation of the existing lighting in the shopping center ;~ I rather than that proposed by the staff of six feet £or continuity of design. I ';' A letter from tt~e Classic Development Corporation, requesting that no waiver be granted :4 on ncreening~ the i~,rash area, ~as read to the Commission; that they had a 100-unit ~ y ' ~ apartment project tiacking onto subject property, anc~ residents of that area walked s ; through the open areas in the block wall to this store; that the trash areas would be . vi:+ible from the alley, and, furthermore, that pipes should be installed to eliminate ~' trucks backing into the wall; and that the existing block wall be reinforced to with- d ~ . stan the abuse of a commercial area, namely, 8-inch reinforced rather than 6-inch. [ ,, , Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, i.n response to Commission questioning noted that ~ ~:' , the Payless Drug and Hyatt House signs were 25 feet in height because of the residential „ ~ uses on the north side of Katella Avenue, and no variance for sign height had been ~ ; re uested for this shoppi.ng center, and that the nurser. area would be q Y partially screened ~ ~ i from Katella Avenue by the existing Hyatt House. ~ The Commission then inquired as to ehe requirements of lighr.;°,g adjacent co R-i and ~ whether or not there was a specific distance. Mr. Roberts stated that the Code did not specify the distance; however, chere was a parking area immediately to the south and east of the structure, which lighting should be screened or the lights directed away from the residentiel homes. Mr. Feuerstein, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the lighting was cypical of ali shopping centers, namely, mercury, but [hey were not proposing any of t6e tall lights within 120 feet of the easterly property line, and if there were any r, '~~T~`,~'ry~"q -- r..• - y ,,,.. -w . . , ,. .., , .. , . ~ . . . . . ' ~ ` ~ .. . ` ~'~~ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 +.:,-~~ .r~ " c ,.x• c ,.:~`y+c °k,;r +`t: ~ 48t~2 CONDITIONAL USE - glare from theae lighta, these cauld be directed awsy with lenses; PERMIT N0. 1139 that it was their intent to maintain the same architectural pattern - (Continued) as existed in the balance of the shopping center, and raid lights were 30 feet in height. Commissioner Farano noted that he was quite familiar with the lighting in the Eucitd Shopping Center since he formerly resided in one of the iiames abutting subject pr~perty; thrst mercury lights were exceptionally bright, and he c~uld not see how these lights could be shielded in any manner away from the periphery oP. the parking lot without creating a completely dark area in the parking spaces; tY~ai these lights were very disturbing, and severel times when he sat in the rear yard, the yard was lit up as though it were dayZight, both inaide and outside of the home at night, The representative of the petitioner again stated that the closest light would be 120 feet from the property line; whereupon Co~issioner Farano stated that many of these homea had rather small rear yards and were rather close to the wall, with both living rooms and bedrooms facing to the west, and there was no possible way of shielding these 30-foot high lights from the residential uses withuut completely darkening the parking area. The reprzsentative of the petitioner then stated that if they could arrive at some form of a shield of these lighto from the residential uses which they would not object to, and if the parking area were still light, then they would agree to installing [he lower lighting for the balance af the parking area. Commiasioner Farano noted that even though the petitioner might stipul.u.t~_ to installing the lower lights, as the lighting presently existed, which was more than :20 feet away, there was a considerable amount of intrusion to the privacy of these singte-family homes. Commirssioner HerUst offered Re.solution No. PC69-204 and moved for its passage and adop- tion to grar.t Petit~lon for Conditional Use Permit No. 1139 in part, der.ying the waiver of the 25<foot height limitar.ion of the free-sCanding sign within 300 feec of a resi- dential strucr.ure ~n the basis that ad~aining commercial uses had complied witn the 25-foot height limitation, and no evidence had been submitted that hardship existed; that all lighting be directed away from the residential properties to the west and south to przvent any intrusion; that if additional lighting less thar 120 feet from the east property line were required, said additional lighting shall be a mar.imum of 6 feet in heighc and shsll be down-lighted; and that the outdoor storage area for the plant nursery shall have a 2-foot high, slump3tone, decorative wall on the outside of the 6-foot high, chainlink fence, as st~pulated to by the petitioner, and subject to conditions. (See Resolufion Book) On ral'1 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS~ None. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 2130 - Mr. Roberts advi,sed the Commission that upon reviewing the South (Continued) Eay Club's development approved by the ~;ity Council, there were some units of 375 to 504 square feet for bachelor apartments, and approximately one-third of the total number were bachelor-type apartments. lliscuasion was then held by the Commission, and it ::a~ determined that a maximum af 35% of the units could be developed for bachelor-type apartments, with a minimum of 425 square feet. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-203 and moved for its passage and adop- tion to grant Petition for Variance No. 2110 with the findings that the buildings as proposed were connected with passag~aways - t6erefore, there were only two main buildings, and as such, waiver "Lb" was unnec~essary; that the minor deviation in the requi.red building site area pPr dwelling uni.t was so minimal chat the Planning Commission deemed the proposal to be substantially iii conformazce with Code requirements; and that with numerous petitions to waive the mini*~um living unit floor area in order to provide bachelor units, the Commission deemed that until Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code can be amended to reflect the provision for bachelor units in the Ii-3 Zone, said units may be a minimum of 425 square Eeet and a maximum of 35% of the units of a develapment may be so developed, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing rasolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIOP]ERS: Allred. . _ - ~"".'~ i ~' y -~,_ * ~ '`-a ~:_ ~ti t:~a~~'~i~ ~ ~'1 a , g a y , Y z. ~~' ` r F ~°" ~~ .. F,.~.~ . . ~ , . _ . , .. ,.. . ,... =~ ,~;>,,: -. . i.. ;I ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 r .~,. ~ .,. ~~ R ra ~l ~ ~ ~~~~.1M~ . ~: ~".~,~'kr' ~ ~ 4843 '? VARIANCE N0. 2130 - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct th~ staff to make ~ (Continued) a study of the minimum aize of bachelor apartments and the maximum ~~k' percentage of units within a project which could be developed in ;~ order to determine whether or not the recently-approved, 425-square `' foot minimum and 35% ~sf the total project units could be confirmed. Commission~r Gauer ~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~~ I :7 ~ .r.~.: ~ ~'~ i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. AUSTIN B. FORDYCE AND DAVID E~ TOMS, 903 South ~ i NO~. 69-70-13 Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMPS HODGES, 903 South i ~° Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: ''°"~ VARIANCE N0. 2125 An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- i mately 300 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, having a f maximum depth of approximately 195 feet, and beiag located approxi- ~ mately 1,025 fPet east of the centerline of Haster Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. , Commiasioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 3:50 P.M. ~ ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATI~,N: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY 12ESIDENTIAL, ZONE, REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MAXIMUM BUIL~ING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY 20NE, (3) MINIMUM ;•= DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) MINIMUM WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN .'~, WALKWAYS, TO ESTABLISH A 48-UNIT, THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~.;,; Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject pzoperty, uses established in close proximity, and waivers requested, namely, waiver of the maximum ~ building height (two stories permitted - three stories proposed), paximum building ',~~ height within 150 feet of R-1 or R-A zoned propertiea (one story permitted - three ~ stories proposed), minimum diatance between buildings or structures, and minimum width •:;'~~ of pedestrian accesaways. Mr. Brown further no[ed that the density proposed was 36 units per net acre and the covergge was 42.2%; that 20-£oot wide alleys were existing and dedicated along the weatern, northern, and northern half of the easterly property lines of subject property; that the plans indic~tited a stub-end drive in the western portion of f`~,e property from Orangewood Avenue, approximately 48 feet .:sst of the exiating alley, and this stub-end drive provided access to 23 open parking ,,paces located on either side o£ it; that since all of the parcels on the souCh aide of Orangewood Avenue, directly oppoaite of subject property, were either zoned R-~1 or R-1, the first tier of the oroposed units adjacent to Orangewood Avenue would be restricted to one story in heiglxt - however, three stories were proposed for the entire project; that the Preliminary General Plan- 1969 indicated medium density residential uaes as being appropriate on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, with low-medium density residential uses being appropriate for the south side - therefore, the Commiasion would hav~ to determine whether or not the requeate:i height of thia proposed development and the reatriction to one atory within 150 feet of the propertiea on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, together with the limitation of two atoriea for any apartment structure regardless of surrounding land uaea was appropriate; that it would appear that with minor redesign modifications, waiver No. 4 could be ~liminated aince pedestrian ac.:essways were required to be not less than 8 feet in width to provide for public health, safety, and general welfare; Chat one of th~ two main structures containing 36 of the proposed 48 units was located in the er:treme esatern portion of the property, and Che plans indica[ed an 8-foot interior cnrridox within thia structure; that an analysis of the floor plans and [he plana fou che individual units indicated that the kitchen windows and bathroom windows would be directly opposite each other acrosa the 8-foot corridors; and that the Commission might recall that recently a similar interior design for an apartment complex was approved - hoaever, to insure privacy of the individual tenants of such a project, ~he CRmmission required that windt+ws opposite each other in the corridors should be offset at a sufficient angle so that a minimum angular distance of 15 feet would sepacate these windowa. Mr. Jamea Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and requested withdrawal of waiver No. 4 aince this could be taken care of; that as he understood waiver No. 3, the proposal was one building with interior hr~llways; r.hat light and ventilation were taken from the outside; and that he now proposed to elimingte the windowa from the kitchens and bathrooma. Mr. Hodges, in reaponse to Commission questioning regarding plana wliich the}; were reviewing, atated that he had submitted a copy of prints from anothex job ahere he was using these same units, but there was no interior hallway used in that instance - therefore, the plans before the Commission were the unitet of that plan. However, when ~~!. ~ l^ ~ G ,~ ~ ' _ ~ . _ ... ,. .. , . . 6, .'x~:i.._ . . . _ .. . . , .. 1•. ,-' Q MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 4844 RECLASSIFICATION - he had been advised b~ Mr. P,rown of this problem, he had then NO,. 69-70-13 explained that the windows ;tn the kitchens and bathrooms of the one-bedroom units which faced the interior corridors should be VARIANCE N0. 2125 eliminated from the plan - thus he could see no reason for indicat- (Continued) ir.g this waiver on the Report to the Commissiot:, Chairman Rowland advised the agent that the reason this appeared was not the fault of the staff but because he had failed to submit correct plana with the pe~ition - thui~ the plans befose the Commission indicate windows which the agent was now contending ehould not be there. 5y; ' Mr. Hodges advised the Commiasion that he thought Mr. Brown would delete these fro ~,Z, ' ~: m the plan; that he had offered to submit revised or amended plans but was informed that i , . ~°-- ::~;+ ''' t would be too late, but that he would mark the plans as such - therefore the plans b uld ~ , s o have liad the ~aindows deleted. `~ti ~ Chairman Rou~land inquired whether any two-bedroom units were proposed in the floor plan. ~ ` ;` Mr. Hodges atated thera+ aere two-bedroom units - h~wever, these would not be affected b th d l i ~ ~. y e e et on of windows, and they we:e provided with adeqaate light and ventilation. ~r Chairman Rowland then requested that the agent indicate on the plans which windows would b d l 1 e e eted since it seemed unclear as to their exact location. ~~ ;~ Mr. Hodgea then indicated where windows along corridars on the plans before the Commis- i n-, _a., '-'~ s on would be eliminated by his request for withdrawal of this waiver. The location of th t b e wo- edroom units was a.lso indicated. . ' Commissioner Gauer then inquired what was planned to be done with the plans before the . ~` !, Commission since the agent stated this was not the set of plans which he proposed to d t _ ~ eve op. Mr. Hodges stated that the only thing that would be different wo~~,ld be the typical units along the corridors which should have had the windowa deleted - however, if the Commission desired, he would submit a new drawing. Mr. Brawn advised the Commiasion that the legal advertising hsd been submitted to the newspaper prior to the time he had advised Mr. Hodg•s about tk:~ window situation on the corridora; therefore, submiasion oi the revised plans was too late for the staff to delete this waiver from the advertisement of the petition. ' Mr. Hodges then continued with his presentation by stating that the Commission was well aware of his philosophy and firm beliefs as to land uae, and the three-story height was necessary in order to obtain the best density from the land since it was an expensive parcel to begin with; that 1200 square feet per dwelling unit was being provided; tha[ a three-story building added some class, and he strongly urged that the Commission consider permitting three-story buildit;gs without the need for applying for a variance; that the one-story height limitation between the R-A and R-1 and sub~ect property was only technical since the land ia this area was committed to R-3 development; that he had talked with two of the owners who would be affected, namely, Mr. Rupert Ault, 344 East Orangewood Avenue, and Tir. Homer King, 354 East Orangewood Avenue, who had submitted letters to him in which they expressed no opposition to the proposed apartment complex; that the parcgl farthest east which would be affected was already sold and development for apartments was propoaed - however, he was not able to contacc the R-A property owner to the west of Mr. Ault. The t~o letters in favor were then submitted to the Commis¢.ion for the record. No one appeared in opposition to aubject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta, in response to Cummission questioning, stated that the area north of Orangewood Avenue was propos~d for medium density residential develop- ment on the Preliminary General Plan-1969, and the groperty on the south side was proposed for low-medium density symbology - therefore, the waiver of the one-story height limitation might be conaidered technical since two large parcels could eventually be developed for low-medium density. However, the primary concern in the waiver was the fact that one parcel was zoned R-1 and had been developed approximately four or five years ago with a single-family home, at which time the property owner had requested R-1 zoning...Furthermore, the R-2 and R-3 Zones permitted a maximum of two-story, and the height of 35 feet was not part of the zoning. Commissioner HerbsC noted [hat other developers in the City had been permitted to develop three-story apartments, and he would agree with the agent for the petitioner _ _~, ? -,~ J ;:~ 'r e 'n i'a : ~ t i~" F ~ .-:,' $ 'u+gt~~ 1 v 7 ~ ,3 ~. ~i ;y `~=-t ~ .k,. ; \ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1909 '~ A r J( ~ ~' r~ ~~ ~ ,~ 4845 .,,.,..~ RECLASSIFICATION - that the value of the land was increasing - therefore, the City rright N0. 69-70-13 have to make air apace more readily avai.lable to take care of the increasing population. VARIANCE N0~ 2125 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered Reaolution No, PC69-205 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 69-70-13 be approved, flnbjgct to condi[ions. (See Resolution Book) On roll calf the foregoing r~esolution was passed by the following vote: ., c.; ,.'.~.,:, ~ . '''`'"' - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fatsno, ~~suer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland. Na ~* NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IVr,;tx~, ~ r'' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. F•.11red, Camp, L st; `y Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that he would like verification from the petitioner <`~ '~ regarding two of the waivers prior to the Commiasion's action on the variance, namely, ~= did the petitioner wish waivers 3 and 4 of the Report to the Commisaion deleted, and would he comply with Code requirements for the balance; whereupon Mr. Hodges stated "~ that he would meet Code requirements in this respect if the Commission considered the ~ larger building as one building. Mr. Robert~ atated that the interior hallways were not a point of contention at this •~ time; however, the walkways and separation of buildings between the carports and the ,{, ~,; main units were those which he wished to have clarified; vhereupon Mr. Hodges stated ¢' he would stipulate to complying with Code requirements, and that he would eliminate the windaws between those corridors on which plans indicated windows were proposed, as previously atated. ~. .~:. Commissioner Gauer then inquired what was proposed to be done with the one-story height "~ "~ limitation within 150 feet of the R-1 Zone since the Commission had never granted that .#, waiver in the past. s ,~ `~ `~ Chairman Rowiand stated that since the property ownera basically affected by the height ~ ~ ~;r ,..:fJ had submitted letters indicating they were not opposed to subject petitions, and the ~}~y~ fact that the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated low-medium density for those ~~,~~~~,+~ properties on the south.siGe'of Orangewood Avenue between Mountain View and Haster, ~+~f~,~ this should'suffice for considering this technical. ;k~ 1~~ ~' 1 ~~ ~~S !~'~ Co~nissioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC69-206 and moved for its passage and adop- ~`~r~,~y~! tion to grant Petition for Variance No. 2125 in part, granting waiver of the maximum ~'~7t' ~xj buildi:ig height and maximum building height within 150 feet of a single-family zone; ~, '~ thr.t the petitioner had stipulated no windows would be constructed in those corridors 5~~;~~ where windows were indicated on the plans; and that the minimum width between pedestrian < ..~ walkways would be met, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ,~~. .,;,'_~~? , s On roll cnll the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: r ~, ~ AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~~ ~. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~, r';~ ABSENT: COPIliISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 4315 P.M RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND SP~HAR, 913 Paloma Place, Fullerton, N0. 69-70-18 California, Owner; PRESLEY DEVELOPMENT CO., 4500 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California, Agent; property described as: Portion 1- CONDITIONAL USE An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately PERMIT N0. 1138 16 acres, having a frontage of approximately 742 feet on Imperial Highway and approximately 819 :eet on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way south of Esperanza Road, and being located at the southeast corner of Imperial Highway and the Atchison, Topeka ~ Santa Fe Railroad; Portion 2- An 3rregularly shapsd parcel of land consisting of approximately 12 acres, ;iaving a frontage of approximately 726 feet on Imperial Highway, having a maximum depth of approximately 859 feet, and being located approximately 862 feet south of the center- line of Esperanza Road; and Portion 3- An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 48 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,920 feet on the Atchison, Topeka F Santa Fe Railrosd right-of-way, having a maximum depth of approximately I,025 feet, and being located ap~raximately 969 feet east of the centerliae of Imperial Highway. Property presently classifited COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT. Y;'k '~~~ ,~..~,I .~; :rsrt I i~ i :.~ ~r: ,ti ~ -, i:,' 1 ~ I i ; - `; ;.; r - ~'S~u. ~~:`-, O 4/ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 19b9 ~i846 ~ :~ ';t::~ ~..~ _,ti,'.. . ..:.,:~~5 ~ Si RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION 1- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY NO, 69-70-18 RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; PORTION 2- C-1., GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE; COiVDITIONAL USE PORTION 3- R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE: PERMIT N0. 1138 (Continued) REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PORTION ~ ONLY - ESTABLISH A 347-UNIT MOBILE HOME PARK. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property and uses established in close proximity, noting that two previous requests before the Commission had been terminated by t*: ~etitioner in order that the Coffiuission might consider the new requests; that due to the many problems involved with subject property due to annexa- tion, subject property was still within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange; that the I.ocal Agency Forming Commission at their September 1969 meeting approved annexation of subject property to the City of P~naheim, and said annexation proceedings were now taking place; that the petitioners proposed to divide the total parcel into three separate parcels; that plans submitted with the application indicate the extension of La Palma Avenue, a 90-fooc wide street, across from its present terminus on the west side of Imperial Highway easterly along the southern perimeter of subject property; that tentative plans for the development of the westerly portion of this property indicated a commercial ahopping center with two aervice stations located north and south of the wes[ern portion of the proposed extenaion of La Palma Avenue; that a 16-acre portion for development as an R-3 multiple-family complex was proposed aorth of the commerTial complex immediately adjacent to the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, and [fie balance of 48 acres was proposed to be developed into a 347-space mobile home park - therefore, the primary determination confronting the Planning Commission was the matter of apprnpriate land use, this being further complicated, in comparison, by the fact that an additional zone was being requested, namPly, R-3; and that the Commission's decision would have far-reaching ramifications for future requests for development of the area easterly of Imperial Highway. Mr. Brown, in summation, stated that on September 8, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that consideration be given to a regional park extending easterly from subject property; however, no action had taken place on the park proposal as yet since the Orange County Planning Commission had continued this proposal to October 29, 1969. Mrr Michael Collins, 1020 No±°th Broadway, Santa Ana, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Gommissior-. and noted the petitioner was out of the councry for the present; that the staff's outline indicated the history of the underlying differences of the applicationn that t~he Co~isaion was aware of a previous boundary agreement which LAFCO had proposed to fix the boundaries of the City of Anaheim easterly of imperial, south of the Santa Ana River, and [he boundaries of the City of Yorba Linda north of Esperanza Road~, thus leaving a"no man's land"; that .LAFCO was most concerned in considering subject petitions and annexation to the City of Anaheim regarding compatibility in the area with the regional park mentioned by the staff, and after they had reviewed the plan of devel- opment, the Commission concluded that the proposed deve:opment would not conflic~ with the regional park, and it t~a,s his opinion this would be complementary to the par.k; that the petitioner intended to retain the parcels for which requests for C-1 and R-3 were praposed - howaver, the R-A parcel would be developed by the Presley Developn.ant Company for a mobile home park, and their regresentatives were present in the Council Chamber co answer any questions relative :a the prcposed mobile hom~i park; and that although plans had not been submitted for the'~:!,:m,ercial pnrest, it was intended to develop this with s Seven-Eleven type market and ;~ri;l service shops, zogether with two service station sites, a family restaurant, and a r`,~;rive-in restaurant, which would serve the potential uaers of the propoaed regionai par.~c as well as the multiple-family development. Mr. Peter Sorenson, representing tlte .PFesley Development Company, 4500 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, appeared before che Commission and noted that subject property woald be an ideal location for a mobiln_ home park because of the geographic isolation between the railroad cracks and the Santa Ana Riv~r, with commercial and apartments to the west adjacent to ImBeriel Highway and t.he prpposed regional park to the east, and thac the mobile home park itself would be separated entirel~ from the adjoining uses. Chairman Rowland aoted for the per_itioners and the mobile home park developer that regSonal parks by law were requi:red to be completely fenced in. Mr. Sorenson noted that there was an overali need for mobile home parks, and thi~ was proven by the occupancy percentages of mobile home parks developed in the Cicy, and in ; response to Commission questioning, stated that they were proposing to develop both the multiple-family development and the mobile home park, and it was their intent to retain the units, Furthermore, considerable preliminary studies had been made on the layout for the mobile home park, and iC was hoped to improve on the design chey now had drawn - ,_...- however, on t~e R-3 portion it was their intent to meet all Code requirements of the R-3 7.one. ~ ~•.-;;;: . v ;g~,. x~yT -~D ri'~ .,' s~~.~y~ f p~.. ~ T~" '~t { ~. ~ q a~r~t':. r -r r, K i ~ 5.., 7 + ,.,,, _. ;:a~'p'r;w ~x ! ~ ~ 4847 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 19b9 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - The Commisaion further inquired wheti~er or not the progosed mobile NO,. 69-70-18 home park wauld be limited to adults only; whereupon Mr. Sorenson CONDITIONE~L USE howeverthit wasttheireintention hifcould not give s positive answer - PERMIT N0. 1138 . Possible, to rent only to adults. (Continued) No one appeared in opposition to aub ect j petitions. Commissioner Gauer noted he had a question or two which he would like to .ask as a result of the many newapaper articles r~garding the proposed regional park and the fact that the County had no intention of spending any money in the near future. Mr. Collins replied that although he was not speaking for che Board of 5upervisors, he had had extensive conversations with the Orange County Planning Department since the Orange County Planning Commission meeting of September 24; that the landowners in that area were all very much concerned - even though the proposal app~ared to be desirable, the County seemed to be impoverished; that they had been told by the Orange County Planning stsff that they would give a high priority to the proposed regional parks and funds would be made available soon - in any event, the people at the staff level felt strongly about the park and the appropriateness of the site proposed, adjacent to subject proper[y. However, he could not substantiate the fact that moniea would be available, and perhaps the staff had made these comments to assuade the landowners by their statements. Mr. Collins noted that LAFCO was very inaistent [hat any proposals to be located in that area, insofar as their jurisdiction was concerned, would be compatible wi[h the use as a regional park - therefore, the proposal wsa carried out with development plans so chaz they could be integrated with the park site, and then if the park site were not developed, then circumstances would be changed, and perhaps the City of Anaheim's boundaries might be extended further east, south of Esperanza Road. However, all property owners in this area were going on the assumpt:on that the regional park would be developed - therefore, the easterly extension north of the Santa Ana River would be the easterly boundary of subject property. The Commission requested that the staff delineate on the General Plan map the area pro- posed for the regional park; whereupon Zoning Supervieor Charlea Roberts reviewed the plot plan as submi[ted to the Orange County Board of Supervisors by the Orange County Planning ataff, .a copy of which the City of Anaheim staff had, and one of the proposals would terminaTe the park on the easterly boundary of subject property - however, the ma~ority of th~ park would extend easterly to the bend of the river where it could, in the future,be connected withthe Featherly regional park /Sycamore Flats). Mr. Co2lina no[ed that since he had also read the feasibility study as made by [he Orange County staff, four of the five configurations proposed the regional park to abut the easterly boundary of subject property, and the fifth configuration proposed to include aub~ect property. However, the advisory team recoromended strongly against inclusion of aubject property. Furthermore, the plan was now being studied and was being presented at public hearings being held by the Orange County Planning Commission, the next one being on October 29, 1969. This plan would have the park adjoining subject praperty and extending easterly. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether public facilities studies had been made to serve such a large pro3ect, and would additional facilities be needed since there would be not only commercial facilities to be served but multiple-family residential uses and 347 trailer spaces - t~;is was like a small [own which would have to he planned upon. Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that at the present time and wich the present facilities subject property could be served on an interim basis; however, scudies were being made at this time which would project the additional facilities which would have to be provided befoze ultimate development of this area could be completed. Commissioner Gauer noted that the last time the Commission had considered this area, it was to determine whethe~r or not LAFCO would permit Anaheim to extend into this area, or Yorba Linda, ar some otE~eS city. However, it was now within the sphere of the Cicy of Anaheim and beyond th~e question of whether or not this area could be served, this would be a plus in rhe City's favor, but whether or not the mobile home park couid be considered an adult park only could not be answered at this time. Commissioner Camp noted that the City co~ld never depend upon any mobile home park being limited to adults only - this might happen ia the beginning, but within five years it could be family oriented. Chairman Rowland noted th~t as far as the regional park was concerned, i[ might be intereating to note that che Orange County Parks Department had played no part in this ~~~' !`' ~~w~' ~~ _~. r~._ .. _ .. ., , . , . _ .. s ' , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 ,~;,., ~, ;t, a: ..:~~-+ -- ~~__._~ , ~ 'V.7 4848 1tECLASSIFICATION - study to this poiat; that the PTanning staff had made all the siudies, NO.. 69-70-18 proposals, des3gns, etc., but as far as fund rai~sing was concerned, this was primarily within the jurisdiction o£ the Orange County Parks CONDITIONAL USE Department, and fsom what he understood, it would be a number of years PERMIT NO.. 1138 beforz this would become an actuality. (Continued) Chairman Rowland further noted that the owners of the other properties which would be part of the regional park had preaented their proteat to the Board of Supervisora regardiag t~e iaclusion of their properties in this study, and siace tAis would be quite remote as to any immediate consideration before the park became an actuality, aompatibility was also somewhat remote; that as far as compatibility, there were very few things that would be compatible with a recreational park unless the ad;oining properties were developed sn.tirely recreational since the character of regional parks was primarily for picnicking aad overnight camping. Commisaioner Camp no[ed that it was elways desirable to have some type of buffering between commercial and industrial usea, and the proposed park would be one of che natural buffers Lecause of industrial development to the west, across Imperial Highway, the Santa Ana River to the south, and single-family development on the hills, across Esperanza Road. Therefore, aince the Commission was always looking for some type of buffer between two less compatible uses, he could see nothing bettar than the permanent open iand, with the river and freeway to the south and the hiils to the north, and he felt the property was ideally suited for the location of a park. Commissioner Herbst expressed concem regarding a motel that was propoaed in the commer- cial portion of subject property - however, upon being advised by Commissioner Camp that a rather e~tensive freeway interchange was proposed at this location, a motel might be advisable, and a motel was a permitted use in the C-1 Zone. Mr. Roberts, in responae [o Co~isaion questioning relative to R-A zoning for the mobile home park, stated that the petitioners had initially requested R-2 zoning - however, the R-2 Zone specifically prohibited mobile home parks even with the approval of a conditional use permit; therefore, the staff recoimaended that the mobile home park por[ion be placed in the R-A Zone, which permitted mobile home parks, in the event that at a later date a more intense use and zone were proposed. Commissioner Camp offered Resolutioa No. PC69-207 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend io the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-18 be approved, subject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book) Mr. Titus requeated that an addition be made to Candition No. 2 wherein a bond be posted to insure the street improvements and street lights being installed since this was omitted in error. Commissioner Camp requested that this.be made a part of the conditions. On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,~} ~~ ~~, ",;s ~ r: ~ I ,.'"".~ i p: ~ ~i ~ i: y r ~~ -~ii; _ - , AYES: CONAiISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. AB'5ENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. , Co~issi+oner Gauer noted that the City would be having many applications for mobile home ' parks in the future, and as CommiBSioner Camp had stated, this would be a good place and suited for a mobile home park wieh the natural boundaries of the railroad, the Santa Ana ; '`' River, the freeway, and the propesed park to the east - this would eliminate any possi- bil~ty of people crossing the railroad tracka to gain entrance to various areas. r,. Comm3ssioner Camp noted that one of the condi[ions of approval of the conditional use permit for [he mobile home park was to require plumbing which would have P-traps rather than the type of plumbing for California style trailers only. Mr. Roberts advised the Commissioa that the mobile home park plans met Code requirements as to plumbing; however, it was also a condition in the approval. Chairman Rowland inquired whether or not the developer of the mobile home park was aware he would have to provide 100-amp current for each mobile home space; whereupon the developer stated that this was part of the Code, and he was fully aware of it. Co~issioaer Camp offered Reaolution No. PC69-208 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1138, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) .z, , a' f , i ~irt~ ~~ ~ ~ y :•e ~x V ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 6, 1969 ~ 4849 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing reso2ution was passed by the following N0. 69-70-18 vote: ,~~ CONDITIONAL USE AYES: COMMISSIONF.RS: Camp, Farana, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, RowSand. PERMIT N0, 1138 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. (Continued) ABS.ENT: CO*IIdISSIONERS: Allred. REPORTS AND - ITEM N6.. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS ORANGE` COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0, 6313 - Shigeto Fukuda - Property locat~d on the aouth side of Orange $treet, approximately 6C0 feet east of Blue Gum Street in the Northeast Anaheim Industria,l Area - Request to establish a aingle-family reeidence of 832 ~qr~are feet for use by the owner of the property. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented Orange CounCy Use Variance NA. 631~ to the Planning Commission, noting the location of the property ,snd the proFosal to construct an 832-square faot residence to be us~d by the owner of the pro.perty as a home for him and his family; that subject property irs zaned County 100-M-20,OOU, Light Tndustrial District; that aingle-family dweli3ngs are permitted in the Anaheim indus[rial zones as an accessory uae only to be uaed by the care~sker of a permitted industrial use; amd that single-family residences are permitt~d by right in Anaheim's agricultural zone, but a minimum 1225 square feet of f2oor a:ea is required, Mr. Brown then revieved the recommendation by the staff and reasons for denial if the Commissio~e concurred. Co~issioner Camp expreased concern that the oem~r would be deprived from residing on his own property, which he understood consSated of a number of acres which he was fat-~aing; that the property owner was pnying taxes on the prop~rty, and. litCle consideration was being given to his probl.ems, nam~ly that hfs property was zoned M-1; and that if the size house proposed met the owner's needs, t•here wss no reason for requiring him to meet Code standards, rurthermore, it seem~~l 4nconsistent eo alsow a"lean-to" shed as a structure to sell his produce and not a11ow him the right to 'reside on his property. Considergble discussion was then ts~ld by tite Co~iseion and staff as to the recommenda- tLons and tfie incompatsbility of residen'tial us,ea in industrial areas even though of an i.nterim natu~'e which eould s~t an undesirable pr~e2edent in the area where nroperties were designated t~r ix~d.ustrial purpo~es. 2oning Supervisor Charbes Roberts advised the ~ommission ~hat he assumed the parcel on which the petitioner proposed to con&truct ~he home was approximately 2~ acres; however, he would have to verify Uhis by revie~.ir~g ih~e asse&sor's maps. Commissioner Caanp nated tk~at if subjest property were rather small, then he would With- draw h~s m~r!j~ction to :he re.com~endation for denial since he assumed the property owner hsd coasid,erabTe property which he fasme8 ~n ~hia area. ~Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange CounCy~ Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 6313 on the follaving basis: 1. That subject,psoperty is located within a County island surrounded by Anaheim's ~ No~tlaeast Indmstr~~3 Area, and' this entire area had been set aside for and was betng developed with industrial usea. 2. That approval of a residence on this property could establish a precedent for ad3it~oaal residential requests in the vicinity which, if approved, would viol.ate tbe integri~y of Anaheim's Northeast Industrial Area. 3. ThaC residential and industrial uses, historically, were not compatible. 4. That the size of the proposed residence ~as approximately two-thirds the size determined to be necessary,in the City of Anaheim. y'; Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MQTION CARRIED. ~~ 9 r' i " + ~r n . t ~ s ~.:, 7t -~ e : "rV Ylt ~ ~{:'s k: '~J ~ ~ ,`~ F _~L.'_. Fvf ~ ,' cF y , . ~ .~•--------.._"_-_ ' 2 ' .___` '_~"__ ._____" ._- __'.` - -. ~ f~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINIfTES, Ci~l' PLANNING GOMMISSION, October 6, 1969 4850 REEORTS AND - ITEM NO., 2 BECOt~'ME~+IDATIONS VaRIARGL N0. 2066 - Decon Corporation - Request for a (Co.ntinued) six-mon,th extension of time to complete conditions - Property located west of the intersection of the Riverside ~- and Newport Freeways, at the easterly terminus of Santa Ana ;;`;;'-':" Canyon Road. 4 ~ ~ _ d ,7~ t~ u` „, M15 As~sistant Zbning Supprvisor Pat Brown presented a request from the Decon Corporation for an eatRen;sion,of time for the completion of conditions of approval, noting that said petitian I~a~ been approved by the Planning Co~iasion waiving several of the require- ments of tFii~ site development standards of the R-2 Zone to establish a one and two-story, 122-un~~ apartment complex, and that the City Council on May 20, I9b9, took final actioQ. Mr. Brown noted that in addition to not having met any of the conditions within the 1S0 days, tfie plan~ as approved would be def'icient by ten uncovered parking ~paces under th~e recently adopted parking atandarda which became effective on September 20, 1969. Discussion was held by the Commission as ta whether or not the new parking standards could be enforced if a six-month extension of time were granted, and then asked the Assistant City Attorney John Dawson for clarification. ;", ~_ Mr. Dawson advised the Commisaion that any extension of time would sutomatically include lans as i l i p prev ous y approved; therefore, the parkin$ sher~age would not be applicable. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the City Council had ;' indicated the new standarda would be zetroactive, unleas the petitioner had met all the conditions, but plans had not cleared the Building Division and a Building Permit was not issued prior tb the September 20th date, such as had been approved by the Counci l 'a: , ak their Last meeting on a parcel on Webater Street. Commiasioner Thom offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that a six-monch ` extension of time to meet conditions be approved, subject to advising the petitioner that h b `` e may e required to meet the park~ng requirementa as passed in Ordinance No. 2708 dat d ,, e August 5, 19L9, aad which became effective on September 20, 1969; and that waiver of th ,:;_ e parking requirement had been made only if the petitioner had met aI1 conditions b ~ ^ ti, ' ~ , ut plans had not cleared the Building Division in time to have a Building Permit issued b that d m ~# ~h . y ate. Co missioner Faraa~o seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~';. _ ' ti,~' ~ ITEM N0. 3 ~ ~ ~~: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 802 AND VARIANCE N0 1757 - ~ ~ ' , Property located west of Wilken Way and south of Mallul r ~: Drive - Request for an extenaion of time. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Arown preaented a request from the petitioner regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 802 and Variance No. 1.757 in which an extension of time v~as requested although they had been advised by staff that no further extensiona of time vere necesasry.since the conditions having a time limitation had been met; however, the construc~ion lender adviaed the petitioner that a more formal assurance of the continued validity of these petitions would be required before financial arrangements could be finalized; and that the ataff, therefore, reco~nerded that a six-month extension of time be granted for these two petitions, which would allow ample time for completion of these cransactiona. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to grant a six-month extension uf time for the comoletion of all conditions under Conditional Use Pezmit No. 802 and Variance No. 1757 on which a time limitation had been indicated in the resolution approving said petitions. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Rowland abstained from voting. ITEM N0. 4 Amendment to Title 18, Chapters 18.40, 18.44, and 18.b4 - Set for public hearing - Requiring theaters in the C-1 Zone by approval o£ a conditional use permit. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented a request from the City Attorney's office regarding the problem of xegulating theatera within the various commercial zones, requesting that a public hearing be set to extract theaters by right from the commercial zones and requiring a conditional use permit. r~ ~ - . ~