The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1969/10/20~ , ~ ~, . . ~ ; City Hall Anaheim, California October 20, 1969 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITy pI,p,NNING COI~ASISSION >~ ~Y ~ . . ;;:~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular maeting of the Anaheim City'Plnnning Commission was called to order by Chairman Rowland at 2;00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present, PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. . , ,:a,~ --";p - COAQfISSIONERSr A1lr~ed, Camp, Earano,, Herbet, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIANERS: Gauer. PRESENT - Assiatant Deve2opment Ssrvites d~ireactor: Ronald Thompson Assistent City Attorney: . John Dawaon Offtce Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisorc ~ Charles Roberta Assistant Zoning Supenrisos; p8t gr~ A, Planning Commiaeion Secretary; Arin Kreba PLEDGE OF '~~:~, „~ ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner^Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ~~„ APPROVAL OF - Commiasioner Farane,offesad a motl,on:Co,approve the Minutes of the THE MINUTES 1~,s~~ meect~g of Oatob~r 6, 1969, as se~bmitted, eeconded by Commissioner Thom a d MOTI ' , n ON CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC ~iEARi(~G, GEJRGB COLi.MAN, 1b651 Yorba Linda Boulevard N0. 69-70-8 Y b i , or a L nda, Califm.rniry, ppnef; ,7gFF~RY MILLET, 511 South Brookhurst Road,.FulSerton, California, Agent req ti ; ues ng that property described as: A xectangularly.ehaped parcel of land located at th ' rn e northwest co er of Orangethorpe Avenue and Rellogg Drive, said parcel having approximate frontages of 340 feet on Orangethor e Avenue d 6 p an 7 5 feet on Kellogg Drive, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM C 1 5 ~ - , GENERAL CODIIdERCIAL, ZONE. ' Said petition was continu,ed from the meetings of August 25.and September 22 in order to be considered a s a part of the total package of development for both the east and west sides of Kellogg Drive, north of Orangethorpe A~enue d ~ , an to allow time for further study on the praposal. . ~ RECLASSIFICATION - C~NTINUED pUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE COLLMAN AND HORACE MORLOCK, 16651 N0. 69-70-10 Yo b ' r a Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California, Ownera; JEFFERY MILLET, 511 South Brookhurat Road Fullerton Calif ~ , , ornia, Agent; pro ert VARIANCE N0. 2121 described as: 14 acres of land located on th e east side of Kellogg Drive between Orangethorpe Avenue and Woodwind Lane, consisting of three portione: Portion 1- A rectanguldrly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner of OrangeChorpe Avenue d an Kellogg Drive, said parcel having 150 feet of £rontege on both streets; Portion 2- An irregularly sha ed f l l p parce o and aituated north and eaet of Portion l and hnving approximately 620 feet of frontage on Kellogg Drive and r app oximately 429 feet of frontage on Orangethorpe Avenue; and Portion 3- A rectangularly shaped parcel of l d an sitaated at the southeast corner of Woodwind Lane and Kellogg Drive„ said parcel h~ving approximate frontagea of 264 feet on Kello Dri d 6 gg ve an 30 feet on Woodwind Lane. Property preaentiy claoaified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTIs"RAL, DISTRICT~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION 1- C-1, GENERAL COM1~fERCIAL, ZONE; PORTION 2- R-3, M[TLTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEATIAL, ZONE; AND ` PORTIOA 3- R-2-5000, ONE-FAMII.Y, ZONE. { REQUESTED VAR711NCE: PORTION 3 ONLY - E;TABLISH A 23-LOT, R-2-5000 SUBDIVISION WITH ' TWO LOTS SIDING ON AN ARTERIAL HIGAWAY. ! Sub~ect p~titions were continued from the meeting of September 22, 1969 to allow time for further study on the d propoae type of zoning, its implication as to the General Plan, and for possible readvertieement in the event th e requeeted zoning is changed. ._ 4852 ~ 's , s ~~ ~ =esm '~ ~ .. ~L, '~ f '. :f , : ~:, ', ~~ :. S ~ '' '' ~ ~ r 1 3 ~ - , ~ ~ ~..1......« N . _. _ . . . .•~- "'~ v.. .....~n n. ..i . ..._ ... .. ~ ~ ,.... .. ~ ~ .. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING Cap4fISSION, October 20, 1969 x - T f~~~ ~ ~~ ~i , , . v~~~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ , "'} ~ 4853 ~ ";;.;;~ RECLASSIFICATION - Asaistent Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of N0. 69-70-8 properties under Reclasaification Nos. 69-70-8 and 10, noting the reason for previous continuances, and then advised the Commission that RECLASSIFICATION a leCter had ibeen received from the agent for the petitioners request- N0. 69-70-10 ing additional continuance to allow time for plans. PrePBration of development VARIANCE N0. 2121 (Continued) Commissioner Camp offe;ed a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassi- fication Nos. 69-70-8 and 69-70-10 and Variance No. 2121 to the meeting of November 17, 1969, to allow the petitioners time to submit revised plana of development and possible readvertisement of said petitions. Commiasioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRYED. RECLASSIFICATION ~ CUNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. IAYD p, NICHOLS, 420 North Janss Street, N0. 69-70-6 Aciaheim, Californiay •Owner; MORRIS HODGES, 160 Hillcrest Drive, Fullerton, Cali.fornia, Agent; property described as; portion A- An VARIANCE N0. 2111 irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 13 acres situated north and west of the northwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Chippewa Avenue, said parcel having frontagea of approximately 425 feet on Chippewa Avenue and 1,498 feet on the Santa Ana Freeway; and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Crescent and Chippewa Avenues, said parcel having approximate froatagea of 150 feet on Crescent Avenue and 195 feet on Chippewa Avenue. Property prese-itly classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTIONS A AND B- R-3, M[TLTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND (2) MAXIMT~i NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS ON A SITE, TO ESTABLISH A 320-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON PORTION A; AND WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES IN THE R-3 Z4NE, TO ALLOW CAMpER, TRAILER, AND BOAT STORAGE ON , PORTION B. Subject petitions were continued from the meetinga of August 11 and September 22, 1969, in order to allow time for the petitionera to submit reviaed'plana to fall more in line with established co~unity goals by providing an adequate:system of vehicular circulation including both primary and secondary accessways and to readvertise the amended zoning request and waivers. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the l.ocation of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning and variance requeats, and the reason for continuance,'together with the Report to the Co~isaion, noting that the petitioner had submitted revised plans proposing that both Portiona A and B be reclassified to the R-3 Zone and propoaing to utilize Portion B for other than permitted uses in said zone - therefore, subject petitions were readvertised accordingly; that the reviaed plans indicated s proposal for a 320-anit, two-story ,+spartment complex on Port:on A, which was 19 units lesa than originally pr.oposed; tA,.~t the density now was approximately 28 units per net acre and a coverage factor of 41%; that a 70-foot wide, private street extending from Chippewa Avenue westerly to the center of the project, culminating in a 60-foot diamater cul-de-sac was now proposed; that said private street would have a 35-foot wide driving area aince 20 feet would be for open parking epaces and landcaping was proposed for the balance ~f the 70-foot wide street; that the Engineering Division had indicated this proposed deaign was feasible from a traffic standpoint - however, it would not be acceptable for dt;iYcation as a public street since it did not conform with the City of Anaheim standar3s, but aince the petitioner had indicated it was not their intent to dedicate this street which served subject property only, the Engin_ering Division concurred this was logicAl =easoning because it did not provide a circulation link with other straeta except for Chippewa Avenue; that the Fire Chief had indicat~ed that since aecondary periphEral circulation culminating into a 60-foot diameter cul-de- sac at the extreme weaterly end of the property was also proposed, this would be adequate circulation for fire equipment and personnel; and that the parking as proposed would be in exceas of the number requi.red by 48 spaces. Mr. Brown further noted that the petitioner propoaed that Portion B also be reclassified to the R-3 Zone - however, because of the fact that the State Division of Hi~;hways had not determined the preciae alignment for the Crescent Avenue overpasa of the Santa Ana Freeway, it was felt this portion could be utilized on an interim basis £or the storage of campers, trailers, boats, etc., of the tenants of Portion A. The evaluation of the reviaed p~ans was then preaented by Mr. Brown, who noted that only two waivers of the R-3 Zone aite development standards were being requeated, those being the minimum distance between buildings and the n~ber of main atructures; that if subject proposal were approved, the aparzment development would be constructed in three phases, i.~ ~ a5 ~4 Tq. • 1 r ~„ ~ .. ~. . .... ._ ~ .. r~~.. ~.''' . ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, October 20, 1969 4854 R~CLASSIFICATION - namely, Phase I- the northeasterly portion; Phase II - the westerly N0, 69-70-6 ,portion; aad Phase III - the southeasterly portion which would be a.7- developed approximately two years from the start of the first phase. VARIANCE N0. 2111 Therefore, at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting it was recom- (Continued) mended that prior to the conatructio~+ of Phases TI and iII, which were adjacent to th~ Santa Ana Freeway, the petitioner ahpuld dbtain approval of the property line from the Department of Highways since '. Uoth phases were involved in the future overpass and wideaing plana of Crescent Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway. ~ , Mr. Morris Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted the revised plans were more in line with the Co~iasion's requirements; that they had some problem with development plans because of the ahape of the parcel; that Portion B was proposed for a storage area - however, it was their desire to erect a 6-foot grape- stake fence 3 feet from the property line, with landsca~ing in tht~ 3-foo~ setback since they did not wish to expend the considerable money it would aost for ~;µ-tion of a concrete wall, which would be torn down; and that in reviewing the ataff's reco~endations, this, was somewhat unclear as to whether said masonry wall was required e~~i where the set- back would be. Chairman Rowland adviaed Mr,. Hodges that the staff's recou~endation was toward total enclosure of the storage area with a 6-foot masonry wall, and then inquired whether the balance of the staff's recos~endations was clear and acceptable to them; whereupon Mr. Hodges replied in the affirmative. Mr. S. C. Porter, 8523 Bluebell Drive, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission in ~~`'~ opposition, nating he was the owner of property at 1837 Gramercy Place; that when con- domini~s w ,;~ ~ ere proposed and built on the east side of Chippewa and Glenoaks Avenues, many people purchased them o th n e assurance that this area would be one o£ tha finest and best quality developmenta in the Cit whe th ~ y, re ere would be excellent ahopping facili- ties in close proximity - however, later the City approved the co t ns ruction of additional four-unit apartments in this area, making an incrRase in the numbe f ~ ' r o people fn this area, uaing the figure of four peraons per unit,by approximately 6,000 persona - thereby makin this f `<~ -~~s~ g one o the most dense areas in population in the County; that it was his hope sub3ect ro ert ~"'~~; p p y would be purchased bq the City to make a park for this area, but with. the approval of aubject titi h i~'~ pe on, t is would inject more than 1,000 additional people into an already overcrowded area; that Chi pewa Ave u w s - ~ p n e a only a two lane atreet, and after residents of these apartments parked their vehicles on the t ee ,~ s r t, this would'create a very hazardous traffic condition because the propa~ed development would ha e a ss t r~f ~ v cce only to Chippewa Avenue, and the east-west street, Glenoaks Avenue, was very dangerous if n ~ l ; ; o e wished to gain accesa to Euclid Street; that there were many other vacant areas in the City where a a t n ~ ~ a' p r me ts could be built wherein the limits of the streets and other facilities would not be aubjected to th e limita of the area in which aubject property was proposed; that the increase in the number of units also reduced th i e value of property in which the owners in this area had invested millions of dollars; and that he ur ed some h ; g ot er solution to uae of subject propert~ wherein the traffic problem was not so acute. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. , = The Co~ission inquired as to the a~tatus of the overpass of the Santa Ana Freeway by ~ ~ Crescent Avenue. , 4 Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Co~aiasion that it would be at l~east five years • aince the State was now ,just atudying the fea33bility, and the City was presentl ~l ~ ~ with the State in this study, y yorking 4 ~~ ~ . ~~ ~3~ ~~ The Commission noted that the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated medimn density ~S '' develo ment as bein a ~. ~ P g ppropriate for subject property becauae of the size and shape, t~ together with its location adjacent to a freeway and the flood control channel, and " ~~''h r that it would not be an intrusion into the area nor any derogation to the surraunding ~~ ~~ property. ~~'. Commiasioner Far,;-.ao offered Resolution No. PC69-209 and moved for its passage and adoption i Y~y ;w' to reco~end to the Cit Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-6 be a y pproved, ~' subject to conditions. ~,' (See Resolution Book) ? ira"','y~ ~ . 1, ~{ On roll call the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote: ~~ y~'~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~ ?~E~X NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~x~ , Y ABSENT: COPQiISSIONERS: Gauer. q,~ ` - - ~ ~ t . ~~~t ~ f ` , ~ ~ ~ ~ .+.'., r ~ ti r , , r r~ , ~ ~~ '. ' ': i. , .. .~. _ ~~ '' '4 ~'`~ : ~~, ' ~ ': ''. , - ~{ ~ . " 1~..... ', . : . . . . . ~.. _ . ' . ~ " . .: . .h_ "~": .. . . .{~ .. .~ . r . . , ,.. ,.~ . . . ~ , ti~~.~F .~~. 5 _ ~ ~rwv ^i .. . . '' ~`~ ~, } ;id ••-*.• .;.~r~~;~t+ ...i ~' ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ -'e;: ~ • ~ ` i 7 ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANt.•i~.'c~ ~v"*lMISSION, October 20, 1969 4855 RECLASSIFICATION - Discussion was then held by the Co~isaion relative to the requea't N0. 69-70-6 made by the petitioner that a 6-foot grapeatake fence within 3 feet of the property line be permitted rather thaa the required 6-foot VARIANCE N0. 2111 masonry wtall, and at the conclusion of the discussion, it was deter- (Continued) mined that since it would be at least five years before the Creacent Avenue overpass of the Santa Ana Freeway was an actuality; that an 8-foot masonry wall be constructed behind the 20-foot setback on Chippewa Avenue and the 15-foot setback along Crescent Avenue, together with the tree landscaping, aince the proposed storage of campera, trailers, etc., at the intersection of Chippewa and Crescent Avenues should be completely screened and visibility at said interaection maintained. Co~issioner Faraao offered Resolution No. PC69-2'10 and moved f.or ita passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2111, subject to conditions, provided, however, that an 8-foot masonry wa12 shall be constructed behind the required setback line along Chippewa and Crescent Avenues on Portion B to fully screen and hide from view the atorage of campers and trailers. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSi Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None. ABSENT: COrIItISSIONERS: Gauer. VARIANCE N0. 2132 - PUBLIC HEARING. LOUIS JONES AND EVERETT DEAN, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMES HODGES, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND (2) NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS ON A SITE TO ESTABLISH A 52-UNIT, ONE AND TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as; T~o xectangularly shaped parcels of land consiating of approximately 1.7 total acres, having a frontage of approximately 254 feet on the west side of [Jebster Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 298 feet, and being located approximately 510 feet north of the centc:iine of Ball Road, and further described as 909 and 911 South Webater Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in cloae proximity, and the proposal, noting that the property had a resolu- tion of intent to,R-3; thaC the petitioners were presently processing the resolutions of intent for subject properties in order to have the ordinances read; that the petitioners proposed to establish a 52-unit apartment complex on subject property with a net density of 34.7 dwelling units per net acre and coverage would be 54.1%; that two 25-foot wide, private drives were indicated near the center of the property from Webster Avenue, forming a U-shaped drive pattern, with covered and open parking spaces between these two drives and open apaces located around their terminus; that no two-story units were pro- posed within 150 feet of the R-1 tract located to the west - however, two-story unita were proposed to be developed at the front of subject properties within 150 feet of the R-A zoned parcel to the south, and that since this parcel had been developed for uses other than those permitted by right in the R-A Zone, the two-story structures wauld be permitted by Code in such cases. Mr. James Hodges, agent fdr the petitioners, appeared before the Co~ission and noted the propoaed developer would be the former professional football player, Rudy Bucich, and this would be the third apartment project for him; that a aubstantial amount of money had been expended in addition to escrow conrtuitments; and that if subject petition were approved, it was planned to begin constiuction shortly after:the first of the year. Mra. Dorothy McDonald, owner of the Adoralee Dog Kennels at 925 South Webster Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that ahe was not in opposition to the proposed use of subject property but wanted to go on record as etating she did not want the propoaed development to affect her pzesent operation since even though her dogs were kept indoora at night, they usually barked just before feeding time; that she had been advised by a real estate operator that if complaints were received, the kennels would be closed; that she l~ad talked with the Humane Society regarding this - therefore, if the developer still planned construction, he should be apprised of the two exiating kennels and the possible barking by the dogs during the day or evening; that she had sma11 Pomeranians, whereas the Locksley Hall Kennel had large dogs; that she did not feel the width of the street would accoam~odate the number of apartments being built on the street, and with parking being permitted, this would reduce the n~anber of driving lanea to two; tha~ she had been info:med it was planned to have limited hours for p,a~`rk- ing on the street, but to this date this had not occurred; and that upon check~ng wi~th the Planning Department, she had been advised that since she had been granted this permit; it went with the land and was an irrevocable permit. +e!7P^~iv`~' "` ~prina^'~~4°e. sr'r~T~x'T~ "•u~'?S~Fh`!~~~ #'' .'~tra. ~.. m i ~i . , <, ,'s';i ,~.~.; ~ ~ ;t;;i Y~ 4 a}'~ ;r';+ _:.. t~ r s. ~v w- ry: ~: y;~'m? ~r ~ , _ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 20; 1969 4856 VARIANCE N0. 2132 - The Commission inquired of Asaiatant City Attorney John Dawson (Continued) whether or not there was any regulatio^ in the Code book which made granting the dog kennels an irrevocable document. Mr. Dawson atated that to hie knowledge there was none; however, if a public nuisance were created by the dog kennels, and the remaining properties had been changed consider- ably, then regardleas of the conditional uae permit granted, the use would have to be curtailed aince a nuisance was being created. Mrs. McDonald adQised the Commisaion that when she renewed her buainesa license, the Planning staff had adviaed her the conditional use•+permit peimitted her to operate the facility. ~~ Mr. Dawaon reiterated the fact that if a nuisance were created by the dogs, it would have ',j~ to be abated, whether by keeping the dogs completely enclosed or terminating the uae. , •,~ _ Chairman Rawland adbised Mrs. McDonald that her complaint was not relevant to the isaue at hand; however, it waald be duly noted and be put on record. ~ Mrs. McDonald further noted that when potential investors came Co view the property, '~ theq would be influenced by the fact that two kennels were in legal operation adjacent to the property and possibly refuse to provide the financing necessary, ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Cou~iasion he wished to clarify the evalua- i '; tion in paragraph 8 of the Report to the Commission, noting that at the time the Report ~~ to the Co~nission had been prepared, it was based on the fact that two or three pro~ects ~. on Webster Avenue resembled this development - however, subsequent to the publication of ~ the Report to the Commission, members went out to review the pro~ect, and in the opinion ~.' of the staff inembers, the development covers considerably more property with little open ~ area on tne site - therefore9 he would like to advise the Co~ission of this, and if the ,, ,;~+ staff had. baen aware of the excessive coverage appearance, this would also have been ~? reflected in the report. ° The Commission inquired whether the staff's co~ents were made relative to the diatance between buildinga ~,.herein waivers were granted first for 15 feet, then 10, and now 9 feet, with balconies overhaaging; whereupon Mr. Roberta stated that the waiver for distance between main structures was his primary concern, and if developed in accordance with Code, it would require 28 feet between two faciag walla, while only l0 feet was propoaed. The Commission then inquired whether Chis requirement would also be applicable if these were enclosed corridors with no win~s+ws; ~hereupon Mr, Roberta stated then the distance would be 10 feet separation. :,:;3 ~; Mr. Hodgea advised the Co~nission that one of the buildings was under construction nosr ;;~ that he had learned of the new interpretation of the Code regarding side setbacks which ,~;!i were part of thia development as well as two others he had deaigned; that the 10-foot aeparation as proposed would not affect the apartments facing each other since all the windowa were protected by 6-foot high, patio fences; that four atairways were put in :" inatead of two in order that it would not be necessary for the tenants to walk past other ~. units; that in this particular project the bedroom windows were removed to the inaide of the patio area, and all important windowa would be acreened, one from the other,so that ~. invasion of rivac b P Y y people looking in from one apartment to the other was eliminated. i' S ' , ~ a The Co~iasion then inquired whether or not the atios "' p proposed were inset as indicated~ ; ' on the plans or were t6ey similar to those now'under constrnction. w. y c'.j ~~~ =~ Mr. Hodgea noted that they were both inset on the first and second floors, with the first ~> r~ floor patio following the building line - however, the aecond floor patio pro~ected into ~ ~.~ the 10-foot corridor in the oppoaite direction, but this still allowed for privacy, Iight, g, and air. Mr. Hodges:, in response to Co~isaion queationing, noted that once the proposed develop- ment was completed, this would be a very interesting approach to handling privacy, aad in his estimation, r:as conaiderably better than having four-foot balconies, front door access, and other residents of the development walking by - more pridacy would be assured by the proposal. Chairman Rowland noted that many different innovations were now being presented by developers, and it might mean that the City would rewrite their site development standards fo: the multiple-family residential zones; that for several years developers had worked on a formula which would provide adequate light, sir and ventilation, as well as privacy - however, the plan presented by the petitioner proposed a central ' corridor which, if it were a roof, would have serious problems unless one-hour fire wall separation were required by the Building Code•- that it was totally inadequate ~ ---- -- :'~r ; - i _. . --- - --- - ---- ' ~ u• ' ' - ~.9 ~..,. 1`i_ ~' ..~~r ~• .. . , . ~ , ' ~ ... ~.~__... ... ." ~~ _ . . . . , ~ ~ . _ ~ - . _. _ . . ~Y~ ~* ,~, h, ,T.. ~ `.~t .. r~. N ~ ., ..,~ .. TS?;,`r i ~t,~'.'"~ ~r~i ;`,'~f; . ;~_>. ~ V.! . ~ 4857 MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMNIISSION, October 20, 1969 VARIANCE N0. 2132 - by 50 to 60%; therefore, if the developer wanted a corridor that (Continued) would be permissible by the Building Code, then build buildings rather than what was preaented; that regardless of the number of times this type of structure had been approved in the past, doea not mean that the Code should be amended to allow what developers are now trying to have approved - however, it did seem as though the City had been bypassing the requirements of the ordinance too many timea. Mr. Hodges, in reply, stated there were not more than two buildings on the lot and they had considered it as one building - however, they did provide eight-by-eight posts. '~~ Chaixa~an Rowland then noted that the development would have to be constructed with all ;}~w"~> ,!.,~:~; one-hour fire walls because of the length of the wall. ;:xr `,G ;;;; Mr. Roberts noted that the 28 feet required applied whether or not there were two "! separate buildings, or whether or not the were >j Y parallel walls of the same building - _ the Code was written in that manner. Commissioner Farano noted the: while reviewing the Commission agenda and the Report to the Commission over the weekend, he also went back to previous pubZic hearings and noted the Co~iasion had had many requests for waivers along the same line as subject petition; in very few instances were there required showings that were a part of variance requests regarding the proof of hardship having been submitted as evidence, and if the Co~maission were planning to continue granting variances from Code without these showings, then the Code should be rewritten, or the other alternative was to adhera to the Code requirements. Mr. Hodges noted that the main reason for not giving a lengthy presentation was because the Report to the Commission made no reference to this; however, if the Co~ission desired, he could state that because of the size and shape of thE parcel, it was difficult to develop within the limits of the R-3 sitr development standards. Commissioner Farano stated that, in his estimation, this was no evidence of hardship since subject property was an ideal size for development within the confinea of the Code; that the Co~ission in the past had considered at public hearings many odd-ahaped parcels wherein the petitioaers all claimed a hardship because of the eize and shape of the parcel. Mr. Hodges concurred that the property might be adequate in size and ahape aince two parcels were combined, and the circulation was also combined within the two parcels; however, the builder had apent considerable money outside of escrow because he was led to believe that this was entirely acceptable by the staff as indicated in the Report to the Co~nission. Furthermore, that since many of the waivers had been considered technical in the past, the staff had not made any dnfavoYable~ca~nents about the ptojact, Commissioner Herbat obaerved that there was one point which might be apropos and which he considered was important since Mr. Hodgea "packed" about as much on a piece of propertq as any developer presenting plans to the Commisaion, and the point which he ~:iished to bring out was that man was his own enemy, and if the Commiasion did not speak up at the hearing bq requiring sufficient open space within the living Suarters, man would be choked to death; that he felt Chat the greenery and•~open apace tequired not only protected the City but the entire co~unity-in order to combat smog and provide adequate oxygea, green plants were neceseary to manufactu.re the oxygen needed to live - therefore, the more plante and greenery eliminated, the less oxygen there would be, and the City would become one developed with blacktop and buildings; that he felt it was up to the Co~aission to assure the people that the maximum amount of green area was obcained since this was very important to man's very existence. Mr. Hodgea concurred in the statement made that greenery was imporcent, and they propoaed a coverage of 547. while 55% was permitted. Co~nniasioner Herbst noted that all of Mr, Hodges' pro~ecta covered about as much land as any the Co~nission had presented to them. Mr, Hodgea stated it was his job to design within the confin~s of the Code - to caver as much as possible, but where the City required coverage with oaly twelve units to the acre, this was, in his estimation, criminal uae of land - therefore, if he could get the maximum use of the property, this was for the benefit of the property owner and the City. Further- more, unless the City took cognizance and activated "Century 21" recou~endations, Anaheim would be in the same predicament as Los Angeles County, and he wanted Anaheim to take the lead in making -the~sbesr vse bf land. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. °" ~:.; ~ r n t,:;;rt F 3 r>~ ~et~ ° vs~F%.' C~ C~ r ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, October 20, 1969 4858 ~~ ~~y' ~..-~ ,,;~;~ ni ` w:a ; si .,, VARIANCE N0. 2132 - Chairman Rowland noted that the Commission was again faced with the (Continued) problem of additional information preeented at the public heari.ng -" which did not appear in the Report to the Commission, and thia made it rather difficult for the petitioner to defend himself; that the Co~isaion had visited the site to which Mr. Roberts referred and recognized the problem '':'. which was not readily apparent when the Co~iesion approved the plans and drawinga. Commissioner Herbst noted that two wrongs did not make a~right, and becauae the Co~isaioa (n had approved this typa of development in the past, there was no reason for approving it ''`~~` the third time; that after seeing the pro.ject now under development being completed, it ''';'~ was very apparent that little green area would be left if~ the pTans aow before.:the ;~~,`sg Commission were approved, r; Chairman Rowland noted that waiver of the number of main str+:cCures on a site cauld be '. considered technical since this was part of the Commisaion's recoaunandation which could be changed when the site development standards were to be considered for amendmcnt. ~ Commissioner Camp noted that the only thing he could see was the minimum distance between buildings; that the Code was samewhat ambiguous, and although the Commiasion in the past had granted these waivera, this did not mean it was deairable, an3 after viewing aome of the developments which had been constructed, he would hate to be in the same position that the Coa~ission had been in in the past wherein the Report to the Ca~niss3on indicated something differeat than what staff presented verbally after discusaions with the petitioners. Comniasioner Farano noted that he would agree with that statement; however, after the number of times Mr. Hodges has been before the Commission, he ahould be fully aware of the additional evidence which was presented at the public hesring, Therefore, he ahould 'not interpret the Report to the Commission as being what the Commission would approve. The Cotmnission continued discusaion regarding the waivers and the plans, together with what they had reviewed in the field - whe[her or not under a variance evidence muat be proven that a hardahip existed in developing of the property, and whether or not approval of waivers in the past was sufficient precedence to grant aimilar waivers in the future after reviewing the development in which these waivers had been granted. Mr. Roberts, in reaponae to Commission questioning, atated that the project which the Coimnission viewed in the field during their field inspection of properties was deaied by the Planning Commisaion and approved by the City Council. Furthermore, if a 28-foot separation between main structures were not required and one-hour fire wall construction substituted, this would apply only to distances between buildings, and this occurred in the proposed development in two instances as the development met aIl other requiremente, and that if no window openings were proposed,into this area, then a 10-foot separation was all that was required. However, after viewing the actual development, there was some doubt in hie mind whether or not the 10 feet was sufficient. The Commisaion then inquired whether or not the petitioner was agreeable to a continuaace to submit reviaed pl,~ns; whereupon Mr. Hodges stated that he would prefer having a decision by the Commission at this public hearing, and that by his interpretation of the Code, the propo&rd development was one atructure. Commissioner Allred offered a motion ta grant Petition for Variance No. 2132 in part, requiring that the minimum distance between main structures must be in accordance with Code, and if this +vere aot proposed, then one-hour fire wall construction should be required. On roll call the foregoing motion failed to pass, with a three-t~-three tie vote. Counnisaioner Thom offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2132 on the basis that a hardahip had not been proven that sub3ect property could not be developed in accordance with Code requirements. After considerable discusaion by the Co~isaioa relative to the propoaed motion, on roll call the foregoing motion failed to pass, with a three-to-three tie vote. • Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that since the hearing was closed, the Co~aission might want to consider the matter further and postpone their decision for further information and inveatigation, Commissioner Thom offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2132 to the meeting of November 3, for full attendance by the Co~isaion. Co~issioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARkIED. _~'~~? 2'F~18Y'~.Y''F 4. ~,,, '~~~ -c,++r.; ="c,.~~ ~"t,p~.n:. ~ ~.~ ~ a', F,d" ,/ * : i,.r r ~r~ . -,YG'' i.'• . . r . _. : _ ; ~ ' , .c iA: ' y ~ ~f ~ a!' . / - _ .f. ° : -.~f A '~ ~.u.+~~r~eM~lw_ . -p a (;~~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMFIISSION, October 20, I969 4859 VARIANCE NO.. 2132 - Mr. Hodges then inquired whether or not he could appeal the (Continued) Cb~ission's continuance of subject petitioa and present his _ petition to the Council; whereupon Mr. Dawson advised the petitioner t~at aince the Co~isaion had made no decision or recortmiendation, it was sutomatically continued for two weeks, and the Co~ission had up to forty days in which to render a decision before it was considered by the City Council. VARIANCE N0. 2129 - PUgI,IC HEARING. ERNST KRAUSE, 1919 Gle~ood Lane, NewF~ort Beach, f Califomia, Owner; RENNETH KRAUSEy 434 West Kat~lla Avetnue, Anaheim, j Califomia, Agent; requesting permiasion to E7CPAN'D AN ERISTING MOTEL ~ WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS on property deacribed a~; A ~ rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .70 acres, having a ~ ~~ frontage of approximately 150 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, hav~ng a maximum depth of approximately 205 feet, and being located approximately 460 feet east of the '•=~ centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 434 West Katella Avenue. I`, : .. - Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subjent property, uses 1 establiahed in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that the exiating 42-unit motel _ was approved in November, 1959; that the petitioner has requested activatioa of C-R zoning for sub,ject property; that the petitioner was proposing an additional 18 units~- however, only 40 parking spacea were proposed; that the new unite would be conatructed above many of the existing parking spaces, providing first-floor paricing for future guests; that the petitioner had indicated many of the esthetic improvemeats in the ganeral area, both in the way of new motels and renovation of older motels, made him also contemplate expansive redesign of the facade of his facility as well as the propoaed expansion; and that additional parking spaces were not available bacauae of the aize and shape of the parcel. ~~: "' Mr. Brown then noted in the evaluation that the appliaant had presented with his petitioa i a rather eactensive report based on an analysis of parking requirementa for hia motel '3 during the suuuner months of 1J68 and 1969; that his reasoning for proposing an expanaioa '` of his facility bq 18 unita and providing only two-thirda of the on-site parking was ! based on this analyais, namely, that the number of guests arriving by air transportatioa ~ had increased over the ~ g 4 `~ years, with an increase of 37.betateen 1968 and 1969• that a si ni- ; ~ ficant fraction of hia busineas was supplied by bus companiea which provided organized ~~ tours for large groups; that a number of the units could be utilized as two-unit suites y wherein large families or groups rented dual units on a suite basis where only one car ; was involved; that the distinction between motele and hotels on a defined basis was a ; rather nebulous one, particularly as delineated in the Anaheim Municipal Code; that the petitioner felt that the mode of transportation utilized by guests at either hotela or " motela had little aignificant variation percentagewise - therefore, there was no apparent ~'~ justification for hotela being required to provide onlq one parking apace per two units ~, while motels had to pruvide one space per each unit; and that the applicsnt felt that ' it was an apparent penalty for being clasaified a~otel rather thsn a hotel in thst approxi- matelp twice as much land area was required to be devated to parking purposea. y Mr. Brown then reviewed a similar request before the Co~iasion in December, 1967, ia which 7 parking spaces were waived - however, this was only 13% below that required, ; and sub3ect petition was propoaing a reduction of 337 - therefore, the primary concern `r for the Commission in this particular inatance was whether or not the reduction requested ` in required parking was justified on the basis of the evidence aubmitted. Mr. Brown further noted that the Fire Department, upon reviewing the plana, had requeated that if sub~ect petition were spproved, and if units were propoaed to be built over the archway, that said archway have a minim~ clearance of 11 feet. Mr. Ernst Rrause, the petitioner, appeared before the Coamdssion and presented the pro- posed facade for the motel, noting that in line with the general area being upgrsded, they also proposed to inveat approximately $120,000 for the improvement of their motel, with 20% of thia money being apent for the facgde which was a non-revenue expenditure; that there were two points in the Report to the Coc~isaion which he wished to discuss, namely, that the staff indicated that waivers were requested - however, thia was not really so since there seemed to he a difference of opinion as to the interpretatioa of the Definition section as to motels and hotels because of the type of guests they catered to; that during the time they owned the motel, they had built up their business along the lines of airline traffic; and that at first they just waited for the guesta to arrive, but this was not very profitab7.e, and now they were working with tour ±agencies on a coatract basis. '"x ~ Mr. Rrause then reviewed the data of the statistics compiled by them over the past two seasons, both by registration and by vehicular count of the automobiles on the premises between midnight and 2:00 A.M., and the average n~ber of v~hicles parked on the premiaes ~# y ~ .~ r.. , .... ~.. ~., ~ . . . _ ~~ ' f~ ~ ;f,;,} c~x '~1u-,9`~ . t n~''h,.t"'TP .%1i ~~p ^"v'~ a` ,{ g-`'E~~ ~jt T Y ry`? =m- ~ ~ t un 7e c, .. v 6 Y ~:. ~ r `,. ',+ . a.,r' ti .,L J' ~ .. e f ~ c;~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMItISSION, October 20, 1969 ::~ ~"~''~ ~ y,~ .•'. ti. j ' ,r. ~_:;: f~~ °'" ' 'r~ F 4860 ~ VARIANCE N0. 2129 - was 24; that many of their guesta were picked up at~the airport (Continued) bua terminal and moved about to various areas by different typet of bus services. Also, the statement in Finding NA. 10 that aI"tho~h theae guests would arrive by public transportati~n, they conld rent a car~ thus requiring a parking space, was a true atatr~ent - however, it was unlilcely fros his experience that they would rent cara because of the coet of their package toure~ increasing the cost of their vacazion by renting a car which was unnecessary since their transportation was provided in the cost of thair tour; and that since he had submitted documentation to the.Co~ission, their coacarn abont the reduction of the required park- ing in the Commercial-Recreation Area becoming a precedent or the rule rather than the exception should be ~udged on each individual pet3tion, requiriag evidence that their guesta did not require parking areas just as he hnd submitted. ~.. „ s~ '~ Mr. Rrause then read a letter addressed to him from the Airport Coach Company regarding a;` ~ : the type of service the petitioner offered and the f~ct that the Airport Coach Company ; .z ~ projected to carry 500,000 passengers between International Airport and the Co~ercial- 4` ~ Recreation Area, together with the expected increaee in tourists to the Co~ercisl- Recreation Area when the new ~umbo jets went into operation. ' ~ The Co~iaeion inquired whether or not the petitioner had data regarding the number of vehicles which were on the lot when the motel first opened since the petitioner had . ;: indicated most people came by automobile then. . . ~; Mr. Rrause replied that during the first year they did not have a full house, and no s:~ ;' figures were compiled for those yeara. - : The Co~ission then noted that the motel was being geared to the sirline reaervations, ::.;?, . but in later years this motel could be sold, and the new owaer would have a difficult time in rentin the r b ~ g ooms ecause of the shortage of parking space. , ~ Mr. Krauae co~ented that if the motel were sold, it wae presumed that the good will ,` and type of clientele would be considered in the purchase. Considerable discussion was then held between the Co~ission and the petitioner regarding ~ the definitiona of a motel and hotel, the tppes of gueats and their modes of tranaporta- ; tion which could place motels which geared their facilities to sirline passengers and tours in the clasaificatioa of a hotel so that parking requirements vould be more comparable. ~ .i Mr. Rrause, concluding hie co~nents, advised the Co~ission that he was not 8s~,~-g~;; s t~ a hotel classification but wanted coneideration of the waiver of parking required by ,.~~ Code for motels based oa the documented evidence he had submitted. ;;~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Coc~issioner Herbat indicated he had neglected to inquire of the petitioner whethez or , not he propoeed to conform wiCh the Fire Department's requirement of an I1-foot clearance since if this were not done, then it wbuld mean having to drag the hoses a coneiderable ' = diatance becauae the location of the existing fire hydrant on the atreet was approaimately ~ n; 100 feet east of subject property, and then inquired whether or not the petitioner aould ~ agree to installation of a fire hydrant in front of aubject property because of the +.,;; ~-,,;; special deaign proposed for the facade. ~ L Mr. Rrause then inquired as to the cost of such a piece o£ equipmeat. ~ ~;t 4 x O~fice Engineer Jay Titus advised the Cou~iesion that he•;did•nott knoe, the coat of a fire r+` hydrant - however, the Fire Chief could better anewer thia as to cost and acceptability of a fire hydrant or to inc~easethe height of the arch. ' fi~ ' ~ * Mr. Roberts, in response to Commisaion queationing, atated'there were several slternatives, such as increasing the height of the arch or placing a fire hydrant sufficiently close to ~• V;~C subject property so that the fire fighting peraonnel would not have to pull the hoses a ,~ ;~ great diatance. :. '` ,~i ~:t Mr. Hai C. Tan, architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and advised i'~ ; them that he had discusaed the fire ~~ protection problem with a member of the Plaaning ary4 staff since it would be physically impossible to determine the aolution; therefore, he MG had suggested that if it were satisfactory to the Fire Department, siace the diatance ~, from the entry of the motel to the furthest point of the motel pas only 180 feet, not *r over 200 feet, theq could acco~odate the fire equipment withaut having the engines ~;~:=:z being driven on the motel grounds. Mr. Roberts inquired whether the I80 feet quoted was a straight line, or did it account for pulling a hose around corners to the•~back of the unite, because this would create ~ :;~- i ~.. .: x, . . . _ . _, . . . ~,. _ . ~ , :>;~ ~';.? ,Y~~ s'~r i.o3imrv4, ,'~..x! ~ -s.+r ~:t ~ . :'7 G~ ~ .. 7 ~i~.J • \ ~ MINOTES, CITY PLANNlNG COI~IISSION, October 20, 1969 VARIANCE N0. 2129 - a greater distance. (Continued) '1.~~~~!"~w~ ~ L ~~4.. Y'*?~ ~ ~ Mr. Tan stated that subject propertq was aquare, and even though hoaea would have to be pulled around cornere, thie would not be more than 200 feet. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED Co~issioner Rowland no_ed that the motel was a single-depth building - therefore, access *` to fire would be easier. ~,k s ~ Mr. Roberta noted that although he did not have the exact coet of a fire hydrant, it was ~ in the vicinity of ${>00; therefore, Condition No. 2 would satisfy the Fire Department if ~ `' a fire hqdrant eere located in the public right-of-way or on the sfte. ~ '_. Chairman Rowland inquired whether staff had ever studied the poasibiiity of suites as part of hotels and motels in the calculation of parking requirements. Mr. Brown noted that in a etudy he had made two years ago and from hia eaperience in motel management, most of the rooma were designed to 3oin each other; that I0~ of the rooms were ueed as auites during the summer - therefore, the Commisaion might consider amend- menta to the Code requirements in that one car for each two rooms used as suites could be permitted. The Co~isaion expressed concern that although the petitioner had pxeaented subatantial evidence as to hia operation, thia could set a precedent for similar parking reductions of other motels throughout the ~ity. Mr. Roberts noted that motele, by thair very nature of construction, catered to the motor- ing public; however, the petitioner mf,ght have a very unique manner in maintaining full capacity of his facilitiea by arrangements made with airlines and tour companies. This, of courae, would not apply to the outlying areas wherein their business was derived from the motoring public - therefore~ the Co~ission might conaider this as being applicable to the C-R Zone only. Co~niasioner Farano then noted that if thia were to be only in the Courmercial-Recreation Zone, then a set of conditions should be compiled so that when other applicants request a similar waiver, theae be met, and he did not vant to approve subject petition aolely on the study made by the peCitioner aince theae figures should be ver3fied. Discussion by the Commission regarding the proposal cont±nued, sa~arized as follows: I. That the petitioner had'made an in-depth studp, and if any other motels propoaed this and did not provide sufficient parking, they would soon lose businesa. 2. That in viewing motels throughout the City, if their parking facilitiea were only half full, this would have been noted, but this had no'~ beea the case. 3. That the trend was toward automobiles, and this could be verified by the nvmber of vehiclea counted on Harbor Boulevard and Ratella Avenue, with pro;ections for their full capacity in t}~e very near future - therefore, it eeemed logical that other modes of transportation to bring people to the Co~¢ercial-Recreation Area wonld be needed when atreets leading to this area reached their max;mum capacity. 4. That phasing out the required parking for motels should not be done on the basis of the study made by the patitioner. Mr. Brawn, in reaponse to the Cormnission'•s atatement that further study of thia proposal should be made, noted that when the last study wae made by the ataff two yeara ago, it took two montha to cumpile the info~ation, and Mr. Krauee could verify this; that it was very difficult to get infarmation from the various motels, nor did the Viaitora and Convention Buresu have any data two years ago that could aubstantiate the data presented by Mr. Rrauae. Assistant City Attorney John Dawaon, in respoase to Commission questioning, stated that even though the petitioner might ask to be clasaified as s hotel, this could not be doae; that the probYems presented by the petitioner indicated an overlapping situation; that a motel was a facility established primarily for the motoring public, but the definition did not state how these guests would arrive - therefore, this would be something the Commisaion would have to decide upon - whether or not the proposal was for a motel or hotel based on the location, space, etc. Furthermore, both the Disneyland Hotel and the Holiday Inn did provide parking, and most of it to capacity; that if the Disneyland ~ Hotel and Holiday Inn decided they wanted to be classified as motels, would the Commiasioa require parking as other motels were required to bave; and that many Holiday Inns by their location could be reached only by automobile - therefore, these were matters which the Co~ission and City Council would have to determine as it related to the Code and experience. r .:^ ~ r f ~, Hyr ,~{ ~ ~t ... F`(T ili~ Ze;.F' 3': W 't d .r.F' }~ sep.;~d T°1 ~ ;~_ ' ~ "y ~;t ,~.i .:;~ ~:i ,.:.' ~~ , x \''.. $L ` ~S' 1 l".,i .~ . ~ ..YE '~ ~ ~ }~ j . . ~ rf ~/~~ j - .f~ _. ~ ~+ ~' ' , ~ ~ ~ i ^ 4d ~ _( tid ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COlIISISSION, October 20, 1969 4862 i i VARIANCE N0, 2129 - Mr. Dawson further noted that if other motela requested similar .(Continued) waivers, they, too, would have to preeent documented evidence or „ , demonetrate to the Coarmiasion that this change had taken place, ;~,., .: ' just as the petitioner had submitted data. ;i;;~,:r: : { The Co~ission then decided that in order to cansider the studies presented by the .. ' petitioner and lend them any credence, they would have to be audited which would take "~ , the burden off the staff since study by'•th~ .wouid' take` coiisidersbly •longer than the ' ~ petitioner might wish to have his petition continued - there£ore, in or~er to get this I ~_ , . =• auditing, subject petition ahould be continued to allow time for the petitioner to make thi d ~ ~ ~~ s au it as well as submit evidence regarding his contrant3ng with airlines and tour offices for his facility. 's ~ ~! ~ ~~ Co~isaioner Camp then indicated he would like more information and evidence before he j ~ would deviate from Code by more than 30% as the petitioner requested ' ~~ i . + Chai~an Rowland then inquired whether or not the petitioner could substantiate the data 4, ,1 preaented to the Co~ission pithin thirty days, , ~ '' 1 Mr. Krause atated that records of the registration cards could be audited very easily; however the a t bil f ~ _ , u omo e count made between 12:00 and 1:00 A.M. by members of his staff could t b d ' < no e one s3nce this was made in specific'months which•'~otsld not be applinable - therefore a t o- k ~ , ~., , w wee continuance would be aufficient for the auditing of the registra- tion carda and the eubmission of docu e t d i , ~ m n e evidence regarding contracts with the sir- lines and tour companiea. w; ~ " Co~nissioner Thom offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for ~ Variance No. 2129 to the meeting of November 3, 1969, in order to allow time for the , ~l petitioner to submit auditing of the documented evidence regarding parking and regir ~~• tion, as well as contracts with sirlines and tour companies regarding this facility ,~,, ,'~ . Co~issioner Camp aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I 'y1 2 ~ ~ `' ` '' RECESS - Co~iasioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ~ ~ ten minutes. Commiasioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION ~ ~z r~ CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4;10 P.M. f ~ r ~, ' RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland recoavened the meeting, all Commissionera f t , , except Cormrtisaioner Gauer being present. ~ '' t RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALICE 4~ELL BRADY FIVA AND BARBARA JEAN HIDLE , N0. 69-70-19 12802 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owners; k'' ~ PONDEROSA HOMES, INC,, c/o Mr. Garrett, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport TENTATIVE MAP OF Beach California Agent r ti th +~ , , ; equea ng at property describ~ed se: TRACT N0. 7088 A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consiating of approaimately r:<; 14 acres, having a frontage of approximately 800 feet on the east ~. ;. side of Rio Vista Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 780 feet and bein located a i , g pprox mately 1,220 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, be reclassi~ied from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL ZONE to the R-2-5000 ONE-FI~MILY ~ , , , ZONE. ..:_:w >~ TENTATIVE TR4CT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES, INC., 4570 Campus Drive Newport ~-~ , Beach, California. ENGINEER: Toupa Engineering, Inc., 1801 ~ North College Avenue, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract, i;, consiating of approximately 14 acree, is proposed to be sub- i ;:;~ ~~ divided into 77 R-2-5000 zoned lots. ~ Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject propertp, uses established in cloae proximity, and the proposal to subdivide subject property into 77 R-2-5000 zoned lots; that Dutch Avenue, an existing local street located within an R-1 zoned tract to the east, intersected subject property in its easterly sector, and the logical extension of Dutch Avenue would be westerly through the proposed tract to Rio Viata Street - however, due to the existing sewer and drainage easements located ia the southern portion of sub~ect property, this direct extension to Rio Vista was not proposed, and, instead, a street had been extended southward from Dutch Avenue, connecting with an east-west street which would contain the sewer and drainage easements and then northerly again to a amall segment of the proposed Dutch Avenue exit to Rio Vista Street; that in additition to the street eattending southerly from Dutch Avenue, a cul-de-sac atreet would extend northerly - half of this 60-foot wide street and 50-foot radius cul-de-sac would be Iocated on subject propertp, with the balance being located on the proposed park site east of subject property; that at the Interdepartmental Cos~ittee meeting on October 13, a repreaentative of the Park and Recreation Department indicated this proposed cul-de-sac design had been approved by their department contingent upon the developer of the proposed _ -;'~ r~::r } ~,- ~. ~„~'i . '~.. ~` y ,~:, ~~.t .n~c~~ °sasur.n~,~'~,'~G°'c.'6f"'~`4.'A~. ,,, u:' 4 ~,t.r~ ~ .t' ^-r •r ~?i ~j r.r,x ra a. ta .-.la a• V ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 20, 1969 4863 RECLASSIFICATION - tract providing all necessa '~ ry street improvementa for the eatire N0. 69-70-19 cul-de-sac as apecified by the Engineering Department; and that ~-=; the proposed atreet design for the tract was reviewed by the Traffic TENTP,TI~/E MAP OF Engineer who indicated nv traffic conflicts or probleme were envi'sioned. `';? "-'RACT N0. 7088 (Continued) In the evaluation, Mr. Brown noted that the Preliminary ~eneral Plan- ;~ 1959 indicated this area as being appropriate for low-medi:um density ;, reai.dential land uses - howevea, the City Council had not taken fiaal action on said plan;:~at on previous requests for R-2-5000 zoning for properties located ~ to the south of subj~cc property, the City Council had approved R-2-5000 zoniag, but had ~ required that those lo[s ad~acent to the existing R-1 tract to the north and east be ~. developed and zoned foi: R-1, namely, 70-foot frontage and 7200 square feet - however, ~ subject tract proposed 7 Iots adjacent to the R-1 tract eset of aub~ect property~ and ~ ' although these lota were larger than the 5000-square foot 1ot, both the Co~ission and ~ City Council policy actions in the ast had r .' ; p equired that where R-2-5000 lota or tracts ; were developed adjacent to existing Btandard 7200-aquare foot, R-1 zoned tracts, those j~~ - lots abutting aeid R-1 tracta should be equal in area and width to thoae s.tandarda estab- lished under the R-1 Zone - therefore, the Cp~iasion would have to determine whether larger lots should be developed adjaeent to the existing R-1 tract. , ~ Mr. James Peters, repreaenting the agent for the patitioner and developer of the project, appeared before the Co~ission and stated they concurred with the racoffinendatioas of the ~ staff - hwever, they would like to discusa the matter of buffer lots adjacent to the ~ R-1 tract and noted that two of the lots propoaed were almoat 7200 square feet, and the other five lots were approximately 6300 square feet; that a precedant had been eet where- in the Commisaion had approved a buffer strip of 60 by 100-foot lots on the west side of Rio Vista Street - therefore, it was assumed this also could be accomplished on subject property; that one of their problems wag the fact that they would be using the same basic TM design on all lota, regardlee:. of their size, and the rather large lots would then create ~ '~ wasted space and would not create an estheric improvement. .~ The Co~isaion noted that th~ petitioner had placed five lots in the exact space where 1 , four lots were developed in the dt-1 area to the east, and there was no logical reason ~,;;j why the propoaed development could ngt be divided in this same manner. R~ ; i Mr. Peters stated that the basic reason for pro,pd~ing a smaller size lot was becauae of i ' 1j tha aize of home they propoaed to construct on sub~ecC property, and that the aize of the ! - lots would provide adequate buffering to the R-1 to the east. t ~ Mr. James Werker, 502 Alice Street, appeared before the Co~isaion in opposition and atated that the Commission and Council had promised at gublic hearings that aay Iots abutting the R-1 tract to the east would have to be ia accordance with the requirements of the R-1 Zone, namely, 70-foot frontages with 720D s~quare feet for each lot, and that he would asaume that the Co~ission and Council wo~ld maintain said lota within the { j;; confines of 1;he promise made to the residents in th.e comp.romise made for development of ' all theae v~~;ant propertiee. ~:~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Diacuesion was held by the Commission relative to the n~erous public hearings held bq ~ both the Commiasion and the City Council regarding the orange groves and vacant properties ~; at the northeast corner of Rio Viata and Lincoln, at which time both the Commisaion and ~ $ Council had asaured the R-1 homeawners to the east of this property that any lots abutting , their property would be developed with a minimum of 72Q0 square feet; that since this ` commitment had been made and eince no evidence was aubmitted that the Co~ission decide ~; to grant a privilege to the petitioner which was not granted to other petitioners develop- `~ ing to the south, this co~itment ahould be honored. n.; rh ' Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts adviaed the Co~ission that when the Henning property ~ ; had been approved for R-2-5000, which was immediately north of Lincoln Avenue, the ~ Coa~iasion and City Council required that those lots abutting the R-1 property have ~+. R-1 zoning applied to them - therefore, the Co~issioa could take the same action on m, {' subject property. , Coimnissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-211 and moved for ita passage and adoption j ta recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 69-70-19 be approved in part, reco~ending that those lots abutting the R-1 property to the east be reclassified to the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone as had been required of other developmenta to the aouth, and that the balance be zoned R-2-5000, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: `~ ~--. • - e ~ . . , t--~~. . . . r .,. - . . , . A ..,a A-t' r t;. t ~^,'L".'T1 '~,,,d . 1 :~.4'~ ~ . . ~ ti~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAN~iING COMMISSION, October 20,. 1969 4864 RECLASSIFICATION - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. N0. 69-70-19 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.: Gauez. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT-N0. 7088 Co~issioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of (Continued) Tract No. 7088, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRI$D, subjecC to the following conditions; 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7088 is gra,ited subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-70-19. 2. That should this subdiviaion be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in teatative foxm for approval. 3. That in accordanca with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be conatructed on the west property linea separating Lot Nos. 11 through 21 and Rio Vista Street. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance oE said landscaping. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That the vehicular accesa rights except at atreet and/or alley openings to Rio Vista Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map, 7. That drainage shall be diaposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City of Anaheim. 8. That the City of Anaheim dedicate the east half of Jeanine Way adjacent to the propoaed City park site for road and public utilitq purposes; and that the developer of Tract No. 7088 ahall improve the east half of Jeanine Way adjacent to the proposed City park aite with curb, gutter, and paveme.nt. 9. That all lots aiong the easterly property line adjacent to the existing R-1 subdivision to the east shsll be reclassified to the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone and shall have lot widtha of a minimum of 70 feet and lot areas of 7200 square feet. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WESTERN AVENUE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM~ N0. 69-70-20 219 South Western Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; DONALD FEARS, A.I,A., 1477 South Mancheater Avenue, Suite 360, Anaheim, Calibrnia, CONDITIONAL USE Agent; property descrihed ae: Portion A- A rectangularly ahaped PERMIT N0. 1140 parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.54 acrea, having a Srontage of approximately 249 feet on the weat side of Western Avenue, having a maximimm depth of approximately 270 feet, and being located approximately 1,030 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; and Portion B- A panhandle shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.49 acres, having a frontage of approximately 36 fee[ on the west side of Weatern Avenue, having a maxim~ depth of approximatelq 617 feet, and being located south and west of Portion A, or approximately 1,279 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further deacribed as 219 South Z+Testern Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CI.ASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PORTION A ONLY - PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY; AND PORTION B ONLY:=.PERMIT ESTABLISHMENT OF AN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ELDERLY WITH A COMMUNAL EATING FACILITY, WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF DWELLING UNITS, (2) MINIMDM'-NUMgER OF PARICING STALLS, (3) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA.pER DWELLING UNTT; (~+) MINIMUM STORAGE AREA PER PARKING SPACE, (5) MAXIM[1M BUILDING HESGHT,' AND (6) MIIVIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Browa reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in cloae proximity, and the proposal to expand the existing church facility on Portion A and to eatablish a five-atory apartment development for the elderly, with ti="•:' `' e' ~3~+~;.'~ 1}'~eE~E7~fi}~1{'~y'~'~,~y„aci.a AZ°'7'~,.v,g~.Ee eva .~La'~F~R ~~~~W ~'f' '6~ ~e C~~ iT"~'+~~N~*M~!s $-AS°%"K+l~".Tr'7tk,.`Yd~~.:ua~F~;.'~Ya'qs '.K' ~.,5. r . a~ ~ \~ ~~ , ~ . . . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~:~;~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COIIlfISSION, October 20, 1969 4865 ,'~ RECLASSIEICATION - a co~nunal eating facility on Portion B, together with the waivers N0. 69-?^r20 requeeted and what was proposed, as followe:, minimum dwelling unit floor area, minimum nnmber of off-street parking stalls, minimum CONDITIONAL USE building site area per dwelling unit, minimum atorage area per car- PERMTT N0. 1140 port, maximum building height, and minimum building site width, (Continued) together with other findings set forth in the Report to the Coffinission Mr. Brown further noted that the petitioner had indicated that these facilities for elderly'persons w~re not to be construed as a rest home or convalescent hospital but were apartment units for the aelf-sufficient peraons who could only remain as tenants so long se they did not become permanently ill or required permanent medical attention; that two church corporations would be formed~ one t~ administer the church and the other to administer the apartment complex - however~ both corporationa would be controlled by the church; that private construction financing through FHA was propoaed; and that the petitioner had stipulated by letter that they wiahed to pay their fair share of City aervices, auch as police, fire, trash, etc., even though the project could qualify technically as a non-profit facility; therefore, they were willing to work out an ir- revocable type of arrangement for said aervices with the City AtGorney. Furthermore, at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting it was detersnined that the petitioner should acquire the 1-foot holding strip along the west property line where an alley already exiated so that proper drainage, as well as aecondary access for emergency vehicles, could be provided through two gates in the chainl3nk fence, and that the petitioner later stipulated that they would acquire this 1-foor strip. Reverend Harley Murray, pastor for the church and the petitioner, appeared before the Co~mnission and reviewed the proposed expanaion of the church facility, noting they were developing an overall program for coimnunity use with a gymnasium and other social faci- lities; furthermore, the church members have had a vital concern for the elderly people in the City since statistics indicated approximately 15,000 persons resided within a £our-city area comprised of Anahe:im, Buena Park, Cypreas, and Stanton, with Anaheim having more than 11,000 persona ranging in age from 60 on up, and that with the Zarge vacant parcel to the rear of the church available, it was felt this would be an ideal location for an apartment complex for elderly persona since there were apartments to the north and west and a high school site to the south. Mr. Robert Roclanan, representing the architect, and agent for the petitioner, Donald Fears, appeared before the Commisaion and noted the Report to the Commiasion was factually reported - however, on the matter of the five-story height waiver, he had a line of sight atudy which he would like to preaent as evidence, and said etudy indicated the height would not aff~ct any of the aurrounding propertiea as it pertained to viewing from the south from Orange Avenue and from the aast from Western Avenue. Furthexmore, the only other item of concern from a hardship standpoint was the manner in which it was planned to develop Portion B of aub~ect property for the elderly people wherein small dwelling units were planned, and less recreation area was proposed because the elderly persons needed lesa recreation facilities and less living space which they would have to maintain themaelves. Mrs. Eleanore Henderson, 300 South Weatern Avenue, appeared before the Co~aission in opposition to the propoaed five-story structure and noted that the street could not handle on-street parking if there were insufficient parking spaces provided for this apartment development; that several years ago when the church first applied for a conditional use permit, the plana presented at the public hearing were quite attractive - however, to date, these plans have never materialized; that she could not complain that the church and its membership were a nuisance, but she was concerned with the increase in traffic the propoaed development could bring; that during the past thirteen years aince she had reaided at the aforementioned address, the traffic had incressed beyond imagination; that this increase could be attributed to the high achool, junior high achool, ~nd elementary school, and with ao many after achool events going on, the increase in traffic contiaued both day and night, as well as weekends; that the residents on the east side of Western Avenue have had continual problems with increased traffic and its possible danger to the children until it became so hazardous, a crosswalk was established, and later a traffic light was installed which allowed the children to cross the street - thus she could not see why the City wanted to approve a five-story apartment structure with the many automobilea which would add to the traffic problem on Weatern Avenue, as well as a parking problem. Mr. Charles Walker, 3113 Vallejo Drive, appeared before the Cammiasion and noted that he resided approximately two blocka from the proposed five-atory structure, and he would be affected more by the sight of the structure than residents in close proximity - however, he was willing to forego opposing the five-story structure since•he wanted the elderly people to have a worthwhile place in which to reside, and, therefore, he was in favor of the proposed development. ---- -- ,,.,y ,.~. ,.. ---- - ~c - ~ ~ . 5 kf ~ ~ ~~~.~-~'~~i~~ .. ,. . . _ . ~ . _,~ ~~` ~: ! .. - ' ~~`~ ~~~At'~„' '`.~+I'd'~ 1',4~ ~'~Y t T~~ ~ ~~~'$g7rfl !, ~_ ~,r r .^+'"e•"~.~ +~tc s ~~. ~ 'S7~r'F°" 13,K}"'~-rz . 1 y ^~~ '~1 y (: ~ ~~ V ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLAId~TING COMMISSION, October 20, 1969 RECLASSIFICATION - A letter from a resident at 223 South Loma Linda Drive was read to N0. 69-70-20 the Co~ission, indicating approval of the proposed reclassification and use. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1140 Coffinissioner Camp inquired whether or not this would be a typical (Continued) HUD prcgram; whereupon Reverend Murray replied that the financing would be private, but insured by FHA as other homes were financed; that the only thing in which HUD would be involved would be as it regarded tenants - however, they would be required to find their own tenants, but this would not be difficult with over 10,000 elderly persons residing in Anaheim alone. Chairman Rowland noted that in previous HUD senior citizen requesta before the Commission, the tenants were aelected by the government and not by the builder, and then inquired whether or not this was a change in HUD policy. ~'~'; :;{ Mr. Roclanan advised the Co~niesion that their program had been altered somewhat and was t "_j now called the 236 Program instead of the 202 Program, whereby private financing wae ~, ' permitted. Therefore, there was a different approach in this program; that this program ' was very new, and the ground rules had not been written officially - however, the govern- ment was not interested diractly in the financing of these programs._ all they were ~ interested in was whether or not the plans as submitted met the criteria as set forth by HUD and proof of the need of thia type o£ facility in the immediate vicinity. ' Chairman Rovland then asked whether or not the government/HUD approved or disapproved ~, of the tenants. Mr. Roclmian replied that the government only told them what age and economic group could be accepted, and they did not tell them who they might select. Chairmaa Rowland then inquired whether or not the government requir2d people to be aelected from other cities if the quota could be filled from the residenta of Anaheim. Mr. Rocl~an replied that within the four-city area of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, and Stanton, there were more than 15,000 elderly persons from which to select theix tenants. Co~issioner Camp noted that the senior citizen facilities in San Diego and Pasadena aelected their ow~: tenants, and that HUD did not furniah the tenanta. Mr. Rocl~an noted that they had developed Bethel Towera in Coata Mesa several qeara ago, and they were required to supply their awn tenanta. Reverend Murray noted that they served a four-city area•wfth~theis church facilitiea - therefore, they would be as any other apartment complex in which they would not state the facilitiea would be to serve one city, but in all likelihood, the majority in the beginning would be from Anaheim since the facilitq wae located in Anaheim, and the church wh'ich would be operating it was'also located in Anaheim, and the only stipulation HUD required was the income and age of prospective eenanta ae being the criteria by v^.hich they made their selections. Ca~issioner Farano then inquired whether or not they would be adopting thia criteria; whereupon Reverend Murray replied in the affirmative - if they wanted to fall undar this claseiFication. .Furtfiermore, the church also found there was a need for the tqpe of housing for elderly people; that 62 was the minim~ age, and the retiree's income would fall into the low income group because of decreased income. Commissioner Farano noted that he was somewhat puzaled by the request for substantial deviation from the required parking for the proposed facility although documentation was presented that the majority of these residente would not have sutomobilta aad would do a considerable amount of walking; however, the needed facilitiea were a considerable diatance, and many people were unable to walk this diatance. Reverend Murray stated it was proposed to have small mini-bus service for these people, driving them to the shopping areas and shopping cente,rs, as well as recreation facilities, such as Knott's Berry Fazm, Disneyland, and the ball park. The Co~ission further noted khat the brochure regarding the various types of facilities in cloae proximity to the proposed development indicated 200 restaurants within a mile, and since these distancee might be difficult for elderly peraons to walk, there was a definite need for some type of transportation; furthermore, the other senior citizena ' developmenta the Commisaion had previously considered were located in the center of both ahopping and recreational activitiea where automobile transportation was not needed. v-_~r ,'`~: ~ ' .. ,; J"~ ~A` 7 1 ~".~` ~, ~:-.~ ~ _ M ~.,' ! ~ 4866 ,::~ ~;;~ :; y~ t,~ tiJ ,,., ;,vi ;ia f; `<; ;-` -'~7,'`- `' ,~ : ~ .+-'.;: '"'~'.r''i . . ~_.,_ ,, :r:~ r~ - ~ ~~ ~ MINOTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 20, 1969 4867 RECLASSIFICATION - Reverend Murray noted that by nature of.the zoning and the survey N0. 69=70-20 made, the proposed location was the best as it pertained to sho in medical, and other facilities. Furthermore, the statistics presented CONDITIONAL USE indicated that a senior citiaens pro~ect already~:in operation had PERMIT N0, i140 less than 20% of its residents having sutomobiles; that becauae of (Continue~l) ~he proximity;to various ahopping, recreational, and medical facili- ties, it was felt this was an ideal Iocation. Reverend Murray, in reeponse to a question by the l;~misaion relative to the reference in the brochure regarding the number of schools in the i~nediate area, stated that a great many of the elderly peraons were always desiroue of improving themselves, and the adult education programs which were offered by Weatern High Schoal and Cppress Junior- College were typical - however, the main reason for indicating ehie was to submit evidence that this was in a residential area rather than an industrial area. The Commission further inquired ae to the type of rentals propoaed for this development; whereupon Reve:cnd Murray stated the ren~.ala would be below thoae rentals in the area, namely, one-bedroom apartmenta were $140, whereas they were propoaing $85 per month. Mra. Henderson requested to be heard again and noted it would be very difficult for elder,ly persons to do any large amount of grocery ahopping becausa of having to carry the groceries severaY blocks, and that a walk to Knott's Berry Farm was difficult for a healthy, younger,.active peraon when considering elderly persons walking the mile to and from that facility; that the large department atores were at least five minutes' ride away from this facility. Mr. Harry Fulton, 219 South Western Avenue, stated they were asking waiver of the parking atandard because the majority of the people in the age range of 62 to 80 did not own cars; that when discuasing this proposed facility it was noted taere was no public tranaporta- tion - therefore, they decided that they would provide this transportation in the form of small busses which would be driven hy full time drivers along routes which the tenants. would use, and in all likelihood, :s:~s2 buases would alsn be used to bring people from the outlying areas to church on Sunday - this would be a tlvo-fold pro~ect, taking care of both the elderly and the young people who were desirous of attending church. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Coamtissioner Herbst noted he would like to diecuea all the waivers uader consideration, the firet being that the Cormnission had recenfly ~pproved the 425-square foot minim~ for bachelor apartmenta - therefore, this should be one of the requirements for the propoaed development; th~t the waiver of the required parking seemed logical since a study was made at the time the Coiamission considered a 17-story, downtown apartment complex, and this•study reflected that very few of the tenants owned automobiles, and even those facilities that had more rooms propoaed only 100 vehicles - therefore, there was no need for requiring a surplus amount of spacea; that the five-story structure was a thing the City would have to look to in the future since air space would have to be used, otherwise the City would run out of ground space. Co~nissioner Herbst then noted that the requirements of the R-3 Zone stated that adequate storage space should be provided, and then inquired of the agent for the petitioner how they planned to atore the belongings of theae elderly people. Mr. Rockman replied that storage was being provided on each floor of the atructure where storage rooms were located, and thac some atorage would be provided in the carports, Chairman Rowland then inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate to providing 100 cubic feet per car in the parking atructure since this space would be located over the hood of the car, or provide this additional storage space somewhere within the apart- ment building but not as part of the apartment itself. Mr. Rocl~an, after consulting with the petitioners, stated he would stipulate to provid- ing 100 cubic feet of storage space either in the carports or in the apartment structure outside oE the apartment itself. Discussion was then held by the Co~ission relative to whether or not the 100 cubic feet should be applied to the carports which would be oriented to persons owning cars, or whether this 100 cubic feet per unit should include thst storage indicated on the plans outside of the apartments, it being determined that this could be one of the conditions of approval since the p,etitioner had stipulated to this. Commissioner Herbst thea continued in reviewing the waivers, noting that since the proposal on Portion B pas a special application with a special uae, and since the Co~issioa was concerned with providing facilities for elderly people, the City could a....: - , ~. ,.. -- _ y. . ; , ~r , ., i~ .. _ N 1 ,_ . . .. , r ~~ ~ . '~ t t-2 a ~, ;.~;y V MINUTES, CITY PLANNlNG COMMZSSION, October 20, 1969 ~4868 RECIASSIFICATION - deviate somewhat from Code in some instances. N0. 69-70-20 Commisaioner Herbst then noted that the petitioner was propoaing CONDITZONAL USE less recreation space than was normally required and inquired what PERMIT N0. 1140 was propoaed to alleviate this. (Continued) Mr. Rocl~an stated`that there were 230 people within the 185 unite, and because of this age group, the entertainment factor was not the same as for younger people. Commissioner Herbat noted that they were requiring 425 square feet for bachelor units for younger people, and since older people'•seemed to have more belongings than young people, it seemed logical that a minimum of 425 aquare feet ahould be required, and aince the Commiasion had eatablished the 425-square foot minimum at previoua hearings, and no evidence had been aubmitted that less than 425 aquare feet wae better, the ~o~nisaion ahould not change their mind at each meeting, and then inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate to a minimum of 425 square feet for bachelor units. After considerable discuasion, the petitioner conceded they would stipulate to providing a minimum of 425 equare feet for bachelor units. Reverend Murray then stated that a letter was on file with the City of Anaheim agreeing to pay for specific City services, and they would agree to contracting for these City services based on what other residents of the City of Anaheim were paying. Co~issioner Camp noted that in many instances buildings in other cities which fell within the category of non-profit organizations had been paying City taxes buc not County taxes, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-212 and moved for its passage and adop- tion to reca~mnend to the City Council that P~tition for Reclassification No, 69-70-20 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COI~IISSIONERS: None. ABSENT:, COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Cu~issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-213 and moved for its passage and adop- tion to grant in part Conditional Use Permit No. 1140 to permit the expansion of an existing church on Portion A and to esCablish an apartment development for the elderly with a communal eating facility on Portion B, granting waiver (1-a), minimum dwelling unit fl.oor are~ on the basis that the proposed units would be occupied by elderly people who required le:ss living area - however, the bachelor units shall be a minimum of 425 square feet as stipulated to by Che petitioner; that waiver (1-b), minimum number of off-street parkir.g stalls, was granted on the basis of statistical data presented by the petitioner that 103 housing projects for elderly persons in six regions had revealed an average of 19.6% of the residents living in these facilities owned automobiles, whereas the petitianer was proposing 56.2% of the units with parking•- that the peti- tioner stipulated to providing a small private bus service for these elderly residents; that waiver (1-c), minimum building site area per dwelling unit, was granted on the basis that due to the type of tenant who would occupy the units and the general character of the overall development, the land area per dwelling unit would appear to be adequate; that waiver (1-d), minimum storage area per carport, be denied on the basis that the petitioner stipulated to providing a minimum of 100 cubic feet of storage space within the apartment development or carports; that the two-story height limitation under waiver (1-e) was granted to permit a five-story structure on the basis that it was becoming apparent that constderation be given to the utilization of air space due to the increas- ing scarcity of undeveloped land the accompanying increase in land prices; that waiver (1-f), reducing the minimum required site width, was granted on the basis that the 36- foot wide portion of the panhandle-shaped Portion B was deemed adequate to serve as a vehicular accessway to both Portions A and B; and that the petitioner stipulated both verbally and by letter that they would enter into an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to pay their fair share of taxes to the City of Anaheim for City services; and subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 2 by adding, "..provided, however, that all bachelor units shall be a miniminn of 425 square feet and further provided that each unit shall be provided with I00 cubic feet of storage space either within the apartment development or carports, as skipulated to in both instances by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: CO1~AtISSIONERS: Gauer. f ~ `~ ~~ :~ i~ 4 !'~6:~: ~rq.-; ~._;,. ~.;:: }r . :~.; ; r ;t,. ~ ~ ~ • 4864 ~'`iik: MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 20, 1969 A.`~NDMENT TO TITLE~'18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,' California; to consider amendment to Tit1e 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.40, C-1, General Cou~ercial, Zone, Chapter 18.44, C-2, General Commercial, Zone, and Chapter 18.64, Conditional Uses, to delete from Section 18.40.020~c-12) reference to exhibition halls, theaters, and auditoriums as.a matter of right in the C-1 Zone; deletion of Section I8.44.010(15), permitting theaters or suditoriums as a matter of right in the C-2 Zone; adding Section 18.40.060(i), permitting exhibition halls, theaters, suditoriums subject to a conditional use permit; and the addition of Section 18.64.020(3-j-8), exhibition halls, theaCers, and suditoriums. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Cammission the proposal of the City Attorney regarding recent requests to permit various types of "art theaters" and the recoffinendations of the City Attorney as to proposed amendments as presented in the Report to the Commission. Mr. Brown then reviewed the recommendations of the City Attorney's office which would delete exhibition halls, theaters, and auditoriums by right in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 Zones and adding them as a conditional use in said zones and add them to the Conditional Use section of Ti:tle 18, Exhibition Halls, TheaCers, and Auditoriums. No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-214 and moved for its passage and adoption to reco~nend to the City Council that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended by the deletion of Section 18.40.020(c-12), Section 18.44.010(15), the addition of Section 18.40.060(i), Exhibition Halls, Theaters, and Auditoriums which would sutomatically be carried into the C-2 and C-3 Zones, and the addition of Section 18.64.020(3-j-8), adding exhibition halls, theaters, and auditoriums as depicCed on Exhibits A, B, and C. (See Resolution Book) On roll-call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COr4fISSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 1 RECOPQfENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1131 - Proposed outdoor storage of building materials in the M-1 Zone - Property located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission their action taken on September 8, 1969, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1131, subject to conditions; however, as part of the resoluCion which was offered and granted, the Commission required a time limitation of three years for the use of subject property, with a review of the use by the Commission for an extension of time for said use, and inadvertently this condition was omitted from the official resolution No. PC69-185 -•therefore, the staff was reco~nending that an additional condition, No. 13, be added to said resolution, and that a time limitation of three years for the uae of the property be granted, with review of the use by the Cormnission £or an extension of time for said use at the expira- tion of said time. Co~nnissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-215 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Resolution No. PC69-185, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1131, by the addition of Condition No. 13 to read, "That a time limiEation of three years shall be ~ granted for the use of subject property, and upon request by the petitioner, an additional period of time may be granted upon approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council': (See Resolution Book) ' ?•,i~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. ~~t-~'~+ ~++nf'x~#t ~"°x'~'}~r9 '.~ Kn 'F.~°V -~n'fix~ ` .'F` ~ /'°" r 1;' 1 ~ ~ 5 ~ ,: ~ t '~ _. ~rv s < .. :.ra~ .;.~r~~. ~~~ ~ : ~ t4 ~~..~. ~ ~4 t ~ ' ' ~~ fJ ~~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 20, 1969 4870 ~~ t REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 ~ ~~ r RECOhAfENDATIONS Parking requirements for high-rise office buildings. C i '7 ~ ~ ( ont nued) Assis":ant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown su~narized the Report to the k Commission regarding the staff's study made on parking requirements for high-rise office i buildings and reco~ended that this amendment to the C-0 and C-1 standards be set for public hearing. i:i~~ :;r;~ ` Commissioner Thom offered a motion to direct the Coartnission Secretary to set for public `~ ""` hearing consideration of an amendment to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code Chapters , , e7,i 18.38 and 18.40 relative to the parking requirements for high-rise office buildings. ` `'~!~'~' ,~_~ r# Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. '~ u ~ _- r Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 5:35 P.M. .~ ! " ~ c~ ,.w . i:'_ ' p'',,. ' ITEM N0, 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 904 - Proposed expansion of ~ ~ an existing children's day school facility, ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the building plans submitted to the ' Development Services Department proposing to expand an existing day care nursery ~ located at 744 North East Street and then reviewed the original conditional use permit r, , :; - approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, 1967, in which the applicant stipu- Y ,. lated that there would be a maximum of 30 students and 3 staff inembers located at this ~ ' i site; however, the new plans indicated an addition of 880 square feet which would permit ` a maximum enrollment of 56 students and could include a supervisory staff of 6 persons . Furthermore, the day school currently had a total enrollment of 38 students and 5 super- ~..~; ~ ~ visory personnel; that the ori inal lan a 8 p pproved under Conditional Use Permit No 904 ~ . indicated a cir.cular drive with employee and guest parking spaces located in front of :! the existing garage - however, a recent review of the site indicated that only a very ~, ~ ' small portion of the front yard was now landscaped, and the balance had been cemented ~ - ~j in an effort to provide adequate off-street parking, and the applicant had indicated th t ~, 1 a to date staff inembers had made arrangements with a nearby service station operator f + { or parking on that site. TheY~fore, since the petitioner was proposing to almost d ble ~1 ou the initially approved scale of operation, it was questionable whether this site ~ .~~ could acco~mnodate the necessary staff parking within the front setback and provide safe ; off-street loadin a d l d g n un oa ing of the children, together with the fact that the ` ~ Commission had approved the use for a maximum of 30 students and 3 staff inembers and ~ , said plans were far in excess and could not be considered substantially in accordance ~ i with plans - thus the Planning Commission might wish to direct the petitioner to file Y ~ ~ a new conditional use permit in order to afford ad oinin j g property owners the opportunity to evaluat a d ,~, ; e n cort~ent upon the proposed expansion, ~ Commissioner Allred offered a motion to dir.ect the staff to advise the petitioner that ' r the propoaed expansion of the existing day care nursery approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 904 could not be approved without another public hearing, and that a new ~ conditional use permit should be filed. Coa¢nissioner Thom seconded the motion MOTION , ~ . CARRIED. ITEM N0, 4 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 69-70-13 AND VARIANCE N0, 2125 - Property located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, east of the centerline of Haster Street - Clarification of Commission action on carport walls. -~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission their action taken on October 6, 1969, on Variance No, 2125, in which some o° the waivers were approved to establish a three-story, 48-unit apartment complex on the north side of Orangewood Avenue and east of Haster Street, while other waivers were withdrawn by the petitioner's agent who stipulated to meeting Code requirements. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the development plans with the Connnission, noting that when he had discussed the Commission's previous action with the designer, Mr. James Hodges, the designer brought out the point that the walls of the apartment structure and the wall enclosures around the recreation area were intended to satisfy the third wall require- ment of the carports, even though there was a 10-foot separation between the two. Mr. Roberts further noted that it was the staff's opinion that this would not meet the requirement that carports be enclosed on three sides, and he was requesting an inter- pretation on the matter by the Planning Commission. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposal to use a wall of the main structure as one wall of the carports, and the Commission inquired whether or not this i ~ ~~ .,q: '~:, - _ 9 ~ i 'i ....,.. r~.~ ~_ . ~_.. .. .,, . . . 1 ~~ ,'Ph~' c~'." j~'~ij`F~'~°3.; ~:'J' ~ f'~1^ ~ ..+~~Y .'~~~`f*~ d n3'eT c,"~!. ia _ ~~. ~~ ~. ~. y,.. ~~ ~~ ~YI".: ~ Y g. I~'~ y~'' ~:,, ,.: ;:. ' , , ; ~ - , ~:, , ;' ~. „~,. ~ ' ~2, , ~ . . . . , -., ,.~... ,. ~ . . . . . , „ . , . . . : . +Y, ~r r~r ~.:.~ 1~(a `t - . . ~ . . . 5 ~ ~~ y r r ( . ~ ~ .~ ~ ` .'~~ ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 20 1969 t~~}j' `~ , 4871 ;;'~+ t REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ~ ~ ~ - ITEM N0, 4(Continued) ~ , ~ i was the same plan in which the Fire Chief asked that there be a one-hour fire wall between every five car orts f fi " ~ p or re protection. ~~' . Mr. Roberts replie~ that this was so. ~+ ;,~ra t . Mr. Hodges advised the Coaunission that hia intent in the proposed development was to have the residents gain access to the ;~ ;~ ~:4_„ carports directly after leaving the main building and not have them go around to the back to the alle ~ ~ ~~ t; y. ~ ;, ~' : The Commission advised Mr. Hodges that his plan was not in accordance with Code; that although the Building Industr Associati ~ ~ _. ~ j ~" y on (BIA) had recommended carports with a roof only and no side or back walls at the time the Cou~ission had considered sit d l " ~4 e eve op- ment standards amendments as to parking, etc., said ordinance having become effective September 20, 1969, the Commission and Council dete i d ' t. rm ne that carports would continue to be enclosed on thsee sides. ~ ~ Mr. Hodges noted that they were attempting to eliminate the ugliness of carports. i • j ' Chairman Rowland no~ed that the discussion was only for clarification and wa ~; ~ s not a public hearing. . ;>.,.. 4, : The Commission then noted that a variance petition had been continued at the a y; r s me meeting because the petitioner proposed open carports with only a roof, which was similar in , y concept to that which Mr. Hodges proposed, and that the petitioner was directed to revise the plans so that walls wo ld b I f' S~ u e provided in thoae carports; that the statement that they wished to create more open space would also creaCe ugliness since there would b I 1 e no way to shield these parking areas; that since the waiver to permit o en c ` ~ '~ p arports had not been advertised for the public hearing, and the Commission had acted o th ~-„ i~ *+ n e variance on the assumption tha: the petitioner was complying with Code requirements, Mr. Hodges' proposal would have to be adverti d f ~ ~ se or public hearing. Furthermore, tl~e Co~ission was very specific in their partial approval to indicate that the etiti , w '~ p oner stipulated to meeting a11 Code requirements excapt for the building height waivers, and that the pro osal as l z ~ ~ ~ ~ p exp ained by Mr. Roberts and the agent could not be construed to meet the carport require- ~ ment ~ .y ~ . ~'' '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. Roberts then noted that his reason for bringing the plans before the Commission and having Mr. Hodges present was so that M ~~ r. Hodges would be fully aware of the Commission's interpretation of how carports are to b d ti e eveloped. ~ Chairman Rowland noted that at the time the Commission had considered amend t men to the site development standards of the R-3 Zone, they were very explicit in their : i ~, -; requ rements for a carport. ~ • Mr. Hodges then stated it was his feeling this was a sound architectural prin::iple, and he could present statiatics to verif this ~, y . Q' ~' ~~ Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that since the staff onl a k d '~.' y s e for clarification on the Cmmnission's action on the carports, no action need be taken since the agent was appraised of hi l s a ternatives prior to applying for a building permit. ~ ` :i f ~ ,. ~ ~.s, ~ ~ h ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Co~nisaioner Farano i C ~ offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Thom seconded ~ x ~ ~~ e - the motion. MOTION CARRIED. `,r~, r' The meeting adjourned at 5:48 P,M. $ : ~ ~, Respectfully submitted, x ~a. ~ ' ~ / ~~~ ~ ; ~ ~ / ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary _ x' Anaheim City Planning Commission ra-~. Gt