Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/11/03~ 4 ~ City Hall Anaheim, California November 3, 1969 A REGULP,R MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY YLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Rowland at 2;00 o'clock P,M., a quorum being present. ~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland, - CO1~AfISSiONERS: ?,llred, Camp, Farana, Gauer, Herbst, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson ' Assistant City Attorn~y: John Dawson ~ Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Superaisor: Charles Roberts i Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown ~ Planning Commission Secreta•ry: Ann Krebs j PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ~ Commissionec Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPR~VAL OF - Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve the Minutea of the ~ THE MINUTES meeting of Uctober 20, 1969, as submitted, seconded by Co~nissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED. I VARIANCE N0. 1972 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EMPIRE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owner; property described a A TRACT N0. 6509 s; . rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 9.7 acres of land ~ having a fronta e of a ro i t l g pp ma x e y 657 feet on the east side of Aladdin Street and a maximum depth of approximately 642 feet, the ~ f th e northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 615 feet south o e c nterline of Crescent Avenue, and the westerly boundary being approximately 1 350 feet east of the , centerline of Brookhur.st Street. Property presently clasaified R-3~ , MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. , REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO PERMIT A SUBDIVISION COMPRISED ` OF 36 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIUENTIAL, ZONED LOTS. `' ~ i TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: PERMIT THE SUBDIVZSION OF SUBJECT PROYERTY INTO ~ 36 R-3 20NED LOTS, i I Subject petition and tract were continued from the meetinga of April 22, May 6, June 17, ~ and Auguat 12, 1968, and February 10 and August 11, 1969, to allow the petitioner time to submit a revised tract map. Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the waiver requested, and the fact that subject property was already zoned R-3; that subject ~ petition and tract had been continued by the Counniasion at April 22, May 6, and August 12, i 1698, and February 10 and August 11, 1969 meetinga to allow the petitioner time to study ~ the project and submit a revised tentative map. 1 i Mr. Brown noted that he had discussed the matter of further continuance of the variance j petition and tract with the petitioner, and the staff had recommended termination of the ~ two petitions since a year and a half had passed since the original legal notice had ' been sent out to property owners in this area, and that no revised ma~ had been submitted ~ to date. ~ Mr. Browa then noted that the petitioner's representative, Mr. Howard Frye, advised him ~ they were presently investigating a new development approach to the property which was a ~ different concept to that uropoaed under subject petition, and, therefore, would submit a letter requesting termination of the variance and the tentative tract map, and said ; letter was on file with the petition. ~ Commisaioner Herbat offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 1972 ' and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6509 oA the basis that the petitioner had advised an entirely ( different approach was proposed and would be different in concept from that originally 4872 4 ~ ` ~e=4a - . . . . .,~~ . / `~ nr x ,~;` Q ~ ir/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4873 VARIANCE N0, 1972 - presented under subject petition; therefore, he requested termination of the zoning action before the Commission. Commissioner Gauer TENTATIVE MAP OF seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TRACT N0. 6509 (Continued) ' VARIANCE N0. 2115 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. BALL ROAD APARTMENTS, 2021 East 4th Street, Suite 108, Santa Ana, California, Owner; WAL TER RICHARDSON ASSOCIATES, A,I.A., 230 East 17th Street, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM UNIT SIZE, (2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS, (3) ENCLOSED CARPORTS ON THREE SIDES, (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (5) MINIMUM STORAGE AREA PER PARKING SPACE, (6) I;fAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN UNITS AND CARPORTS, (7) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE, AND (8) MAXIMU(~1 NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS ON A SITE TO ESTABLISH A 226-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as; An irregularlv shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.1 acres, having a _. fs~ontage of ap~roximately 450 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 835 feet, and being located approximately 284 feet east of the centerline of LoFra Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 6, 1969, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans, eliminating as many of the waivers as possible to more closely develop witliin the confines of the R-3 site development standards. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the waivers requested, noting that the petition was continued from the October 6, 1969 meeting to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans which would more closely conform with the site :' development standards of the R-3 Zone by reducing the requested nutiber of waivers; that ~ ;.~ revised plans had been submitted which indicated (2-a) was still in effect - however, with the Co~mnission s recent action on another petition in which bachelor units could be devel- oped with a minimum of 425 square feet and a maximum of 35% of the units to be developed ;,,_ :,:~' with such units, the proposed 76 units would conform with this new policy; that (2-b), r relative to off-street parking requirements, was being withdrawn since the petitioner's ' revised plans had reduced the number of units from the original 226 to 216, and the number x ` of open parking spaces had been increased so that the off-street parking requirements had ~~ ' f been met; that (2-c), relative to enclosed carports, had been somewhat modified in that ~. all carports along the property lines were proposed to be enclosed on three sides, and " four carport structures located towards the interior of the project were still proposed '~~ to be constructed with roofs only and open on all sides; that waiver (2-d), minimum distance between buildings, still was in effect, in that the petitioner was proposing a 10-foot separation between the main apartment structure and the carvort structure; ' !K that waiver (2-e), minimue~ general storage cabinet area, had been somewhat modified in % that the petitioner was proposing, under the revised plans, 14,500 cubic feet of storage ~ area located within 145 carports and 14,000 cubic feet of additional storage space con- '" veniently located in structures outside of the apartment units themselves - thus the Commissiun would have to determine whether the storage areas adjacent to the aparCment ~~ units met the intent of the ordinance; that waiver (2-f) had been withdrawn since the ~ revised plans indicated the distance between carparts and dwelling units would be no more than 190 feet; that waiver (2-g) was still in effect for a maximum building height within ,„l~ 150 feet of F-A zoned property - however, the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated this R-A parcel as being appropriate for multiple-family residential uses; and that waiver " (2-h), regarding the maximum number of main buildings on a site, was also in effect - _~ however, this was one item which wouZd be considered at a later date for possible amend- ment to the site development standards. :i~~;': >;:.;; ; Mr. Brown noted that since the redesign of the project indicated it was much more in line with the intent of the site development standards of the R-3 Zone, and two of the most critical waivers had been eliminated with two others having been modified, the only major concern would appear to be the request for open carports, the minimum unit sizes, and the matter oE location of private storage areas. Furthermore, according to Revision No. 1, plans indicated two secondary access points to existing private drives located on the apartment complex to the west, and to insure adequate vehicular accessibility for fire and trash equipment for both the existing and'proposed apartment projects, the Commission might wish to require that mutual easement agreements suitable to the City Attorney be filed and recorded, guaranteeing permanent mutual accessibility between these two develop- ments. Mr. James Sittman, representing the architect of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and noted that in Finding (8) there must have been some misinterpretation of the two access points; that he had discussed this with Mr. Roberts, and perhaps this could be explained. e:~i 'k.~S ~': r , ,;' ''r: . o . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 c~ 4874 VARIANCE N0. 2115 - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the ~o~ission that he had (Continued) spoken with the petitioner prior to the public hsaring, and if the Commission would notice, an access drive was proposed along the westerly end of the property which led to the multiple-family apartment structure to the west; however, it was the staff's understanding until just explained that there was also an access along the southerly boundary, and upon reviewing this, it was determined this w.s a utility easement, and the petitioner was proposing carports and parking sp~ces in this general area. Mr. Roberts then inquired of Mr. Sittman whether carports were proposed along the easterly portion of the easement; whereupon Mr. Sittman stated he was not sure. Mr. Roberts noted his reas~n for requesting this was that at the Interdepartmental Cocmnittee meeting a determiitatiun had b~en made that there should be some mutual easement between the multipZ~-family development to the west and the proposed development in the event of a need for mass exodus from the area - howeve~, there must be some misunderstand- ing on the easement; that at th~ present time the owner of subject property had a mutual easement on the northerly drive, but not for the southerly drive, which is a public utility easement - therefoze, with that ii~ mind, he would still have to refer to the comments made at the Interdepartmental Committee tineeting regarding accessibility; that there would be no effect on the parlcing proposed; and rhat only corner cutoffs in the carport structures would be required. Mr. Sittman noted that in requiring the easement across the property to the west - this was rather unusual to require an easement from an adjoining property owner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Rowland noted that [he easement which the staff had indicated was similar to other self-contained developments which would have to stand on its own merits. Mr. Roberts noted that at the present time the plans indicated a wall was proposed across the stub drive t~o the west where no wall presently existed and was a road easement; that the southerly access was not a road easement but a utility easement, and the point made by the`petitioner was well taken if the property owner did not desire to have a mutual easement. Cormnissioner Herbst noted that eliminating the easement would be undesirable since the easement afforded an emergency access to the garages which would be desirable. Chairman Rowland inquired what Condition No. 2 entailed as to secondary access - as to its legality. Mr. Roberts noted these were other than public accessways; that a chainlink fence could be erected unless prohibited; that the City had similar instances wherein a crash gate was placed so that the fire truck could break it down to get to a fire. Mr. Sittman, in reply to Commission questioning, stated that since they had already provided two access points to the project from Ball Road, this access, in their estimation, was not necessary or needed; that in his review with the Fire Department he had been informed that two access points to Ball Road were adequate, and thaC no gate was presently existing along the west property line adjacent to this secondary access. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that when the property to the west had been developed, this easement was one of the requirements, and at that time they had provided a paved alley. Mr. Sittman noted a paved drive did exist but was not a required access road; that the ease- ment ran in a dog-leg manner to Palm Lane. Mr. Brown noted that to clarify a point brought up by Mr. Roberts - when subject and the abutting property to the west were originally considered by the Planning Comnission, it was proposed to be,in a three-phase program and included subject proprrty; that the understanding at that time by members of the staff was that access to properties to the east, providing for through circulation, would be required; and that as evidence of this, a stub access or drive was provided, and if this were not carried through from subject property, it would be extremely difficult to have the fire equipment have adequate access to the southerly portion of both subject and the property to the west if the secondary access were not provided. Chairman Rowland noted that the secondary access was not a crash gate, but should be a usable, secondary access; to which Mr. Roberts replied in the affirmative. ~ ~ ~ i4IN[ITES,- CITY PLANNIAjG COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4875 VARIANCE N0. 2115 - Tir. Roberts also advised the Co~nission that Condition No. 2 of the ~ (Continued) recommended conditions should be amended, but not eliminated, and reference made to secondary access bging the northerly access point since documents on file indicated that the owners of subject property already had this easement to the property to the west. Co~issioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC69-216 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2115, deleting waivers (b) and (f) since the peti- tioner's revised pl.aas met Code requirements; that waiver (a) was acceptable in light of previous Co~ission policy whereby a minimum of 425 square feet and 35% of any apartment complex could be developed for bachelor apartment units; that the petitioner had modified the enclosed carport requirement in that all carports visible from any property line or the street would be enclosed on three sides, and only those carports within the interior of the complex itself would have only a roof as coverage; that the storage cabinet Facili- ties propased on the revised plans were adequate to serve the proposed development, al- though a portion of them were not confined within the carports proper; that waiver (g) was granted since properties in close proximity have already been developed for multiple- family residential purposes, and the Pr~liminary General Plan-1969 projects said R-A parcel for medium density uses; that waiver (h), maximum number of main buildings on a site, had been granted in the past - therefore, approval would be in accordance with previous Coam~ission actions; and that waiver (d), minimum distance between buildings, had also been granted in the past by the Commission; and subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 2 to read, "The northerly access located approximately midway between the north and south property lines". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ,,f.~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMIS~SIOPfERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMI;ISI014ERS; Camp, Farano. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNI:IG ~:'.VAHEIM MUNTCIPAL CODE COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Aaaheim, California; to consider an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.37, Coimnercial-Recreation, Zone by the addition of auto rental agencies to Section 18.37.020 as a permiEted use. Subject amendment was continued from the September 22, 1969 meeting to allow time for further study regarding sutomobile and trailer rentals on service station sites and possible amendment to the site development standards for service stations. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the proposed amendment to Chapter 18.37 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, proposing to establish auto rental agencies as a primary use and the reason for continuance, noting that in the Co~mnission's previous considera- tion of the proposal, the Commission discussed combining auto rental agencies as a combination use of motels and hotels in the C-R Zone - however, concern was expressed relative to similar uses in motels not a part of the C-R Zone, as well as possible use of the minimum Code-required parkfng spaces of existing motels by the additional storage of. vehicles; the possible rental of trailers, campers, boats, etc. at service station sites; limiting car rentals to service station sites located within the C-R Zone only, which wuuld then grant them a privilege not shared by other service stations in other zones throughout the City; control of auto and/or trailer rentals at service station sites by either a variance or conditional use permit; policing problems which might occur if a mixture of auto, trailer, travel trailer, or boat rentals were permitted at service station sites; possibility of vacant service station sites being utilized for vehicle r.ental facilities and possible amendment to the definition of a service station site; and a need for a more in-depth study of these areas because of the more than 200 service station sites already in the City which could be affected by any decision. M.r. Brown then reviewed the results of the study made by the staff, noting there were 232 service station sites in the City, 20 of which were non-operating, and 17 were located in the C-R Zone, all of them in operation; that the definition of an automobile service station permitted the storage of a maximum of 10 rental trailers on a site, provided they were backed against a 6-foot masonry wall, but in no instance where a service station was located within 75 feet of a residential zone would more than a maximum of 5 two-wheel, uncovered, utility rental trailers be permitted; that the approximate dimensions for various types of vehicles were: 1) two-wheel utiYity trailers - 4 x 6 feet (24 square feet); 2) largest closed trailer - 6 x 14 feet (84 square £eet); 3) Volkswagens and other compacts - 5 x 13 feet (65 square feet); 4) Cadillacs - 6~ x 20 feet (130 square feet); 5) larges~ truck-camper combi.nation - 8 x 21 feet (168 square feet); and 6) small travel trailer - 7'~ x 15 feet (113 square feet). i ,., Fe ,~ "i~ `:~~ .;~ - r 4 ~.i. i '~"~,~ a '~~~yf ~ ,~°~kt~-'~ ~ y yr ~ s~-h l ~~: ~~~ ' " ~ W ~'r~ 1r , ~~~~ . ~, . t 5 ~.iytt ~r ~:L ~ T ~ J - ..t_t~ .~ L Y;4 r~..,., i . . .;~. i r I . . . .: . .. . .. .~ R . ~ ~ ~ . . ~c~r! ~ ~ yxt ~ ~! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4876 "~ :r~. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - Mr. Brown then, in applying these various dimensions of vehicles w ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE to a hypothetical problem, reviewed the possibilities which ~'~'` ~ (Continued) might occur at a s ervice station site as detailed in the ReporC , `~~~ to the Commission. ~~r~ Mr. Brown then continued reviewing the detailed analysis to the Commission (copy on file in the offices of the Development Services Department) and then noted there were six alternatives which the Commission could take, namely, 1) allow auto rental agencies as an accessory use in the C-R Zone; 2) transfer auto rental agencies from the accessory to the primary use section of the C-R Zone; 3) transfer auto rental agencies from the accessory to the primary use section of the C-R Zone, except that they shall not be permitted in combination with a service station operation; 4) amendment to the definition of a service station to permit auto rentals; 5) add auto rental agencies to the conditional use permit section; 6) establish rental agencies for campers, travel trailers, and boats. Mr. Brown then noted that with these various alternatives, the Commission would have to consider the fact that in a11 probability most uf the national auto rental agencies were already represented in the C-R Zone; on the other hand, if sutomobile, motorcycle, bicycle, and other rentals were permitted as a matter of right in conjunction with serviae stations, it was conceivable that an extremely large portion of the station site would be used as storage areas for these vehicles - whereas, the number of such vehicles could be limited in the approval of a conditional use permit if the use were deemed appropriate. Therefore, Che staff's recommendation as to auto rental agencies would be that they be allowed in the C-R, C-0, C-1, and C-2 Zones by conditional use permit, or that the location of such uses be approved, as in the past, by variance. No one appeared in opposition to subject amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission, in response to their question- ing, that the staff. had presented two alternatives in their recommendations: by condi- tional use permit or by variance. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the most appropriate means of permitting said uses, and after conclusion of the discussion it was determined that the use should be by conditional use permit since no hardship could be proven if the variance vehicle were used. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-217 and moved fo.r its passage and adoption to recammend to the City Council that amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.37, Section 18.37.020, Permitted Primary Uses, by the addition of suto rental agencies be denied on the basis that said use should be approved through the application of a conditional use permit wherein adequate site development standards could be required, and that to allow the auto rental agencies as a permitted primary use would permit said use at service stations in the C-R Zone, granting a privilege n:t afforded other service station sites in other zones. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Nerbst, Thom, Rc~wland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 2131 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GULF OIL CORPORATION, 666 East 17th 5treet, Santa Ana, California, Otener; WILLARD L. WEYLAND, 231 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE PERMITTED USES IN THE C-1 20NE TO PERMIT AUTOMOBILE AND MOTORCYCLE RENTALS IN CON7UNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION SITE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Clementine Street, having approximate frontages of 112 feet on Katella Avenue and 121 feet on Clementine Street, and further described as 231 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 6, 1969, in order to allow the Commission an opportunity to review data regarding storage and rentals of both auto- mobiles and trailers on service station sites. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses ~ established in close proximity, the reason for continuance, and the proposal to rent ~ both sutomobiles and motorcycles in addition to the normal functions of a service station .; at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Clementine Street. ~~. ..4_::; ~~' ~ ~'~„t~D~.ya? ~ ~„'~4 d2~n`~'~!r~ti'S~"S*~ .~..,,~.~'~"rt~~',~"~' ~ . _ a,, ~~ , •~ : ~,,, r 1C ,, I ~ :;,e ~ w ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4877 VARIANCE N0. 2131 - Mr, Brown further noted the Commission's action on the proposed (Continued) amendment to the C-R Zone relative to sutomobile rental agencies. Mr. Willard Weyland, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he was aware of the Commission's action relative to suto rental agencies - however, they were desirous of providing a service which could be confined to a small area, but which °'~ could also be visible from the street since signs could not be used to advertise the use, The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner serviced vehicles on the property - and whether he operated a rental of motorcycles at the service station at the present time; to which Mr. Weyland replied he serviced both rental and privately owned vehicles; that for the past year he had been renting motorcycles from subject property and at another location two blocks away for the previous two years. ~'~, -; The Commission then inquired where these motorcycles were being driven by the renters; to which Mr. Weyland replied most of them were rented by servicemen who were not old ~~ enough to rent sutomobiles and provided them a means of transportation while visiting _~~ the Commercial-Recreation Area during the weekends. The Commission then inquired where it was proposed to store both the rental autumobiles .~':~ and motorcycles; to which Mr. Weyland replied a portion would be to the west on the service station site, to the rear, adjacent to the planting area where three would be located and alongside the building; and that not more than 15 vehicles would be on the i property at one time, namely, motorcycles. Commissioner Gauer noted that aside from the fact that the petitioner was request:ing a use of L•he property through the variance procedure, the very fact that he was proposing this on a service station site would be projecting an additional business on a site already varied and would open up "Pandora's box" wherein it was possible the more than 200 service stations existing in the City of Anaheim, many of which were not successful just pumping gas, to convert these service station sites into the proposed type of use; that service station sites were now permitted to have U-haul trailers and other merchan- dise sold and rented - in all likelihood any merchandise that was on wheels would be allowed to be rented from these service station sites, creating a condition which would be detrimental and deleterious to the City and the area in which the service stations were located. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, noted that a special setback had been established along Katella Avenue of 20 feet, and 50 feet along Harbor Boulevard; that service stations were unique in design of the structures because of canopies and pu;np islands which were permitted to extend within the secuack area in the Commercial-Recreation Zone, and other legitimate suto rental businesses within the Coi~m~ercial-Recreation Area would be required to set back 20 feet, whereas the petitioner was proposing storage of the vehicles within the landscape area and setback. The Cocmnission further noted that if subject petition were aoproved, the Hertz Rent-A-Car located i~nediately east of subject property would then be permitted to store their vehicles within the 20-foot setback - therefore, there was no apparent reason to allow a service station to perk vehicles in its front seCback and deprive any other commercial venture to park its vehicles behind said front setback. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the fact that service station sites had a specific lot size and other criteria which could not include sutomobile rental agencies; thatbefore favorable consideration by the Commission to storing of automobiles, boats, trailers, or cycles, etc., for a service station site which was inadequat~ to handle all these peripheral uses, additional land should be required, especially since the existing service station site was less than the recommended 150 by 150 feet. Co~nissioner Farano offered Resolution ho. PC69-218 and moved for its passage and adop- tion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2131 on the basis that the petitioner had not demonstrated that a hardship had been imposed upon him wherein he was not able to enjoy the same rights and privileges enjoyed by other service statio~s throughout the City, but was, in fact, requesting special privileges not enjoyed by said stations; that the petitionez proposed to park both motorcycles and sutomobiles within the required setback, thereby enjoying a right not granted to the auto rental agency iimnediately to the east; that approval of subject petition would set a precedent for similar requests from the more than 200 service station sites throughout the City; that service station sites were now permitted to store a maximum of 10 rental trailers on the service station site, and to permit the proposed use in addition to the uses already permitted at said sites -- '~ ~ y ~.. ~.. µ~„~~~,; ~ s~;~ ~ . , 'l' ° •, . - - . '.;~ u ~ i ~ , ti"ct, P w,5 ~'i' ~ ~i `i ~ M,~'.',•~ c' ~~ <" . L, i n, rs .. y r rW / :.~t ~ _ 4.' I o _" ^ ~ ~__~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 - ' ~ ~~ ~~~q r.7 I ~ '~ ` 48~$ y '`:y VARIANCE N0. 2131 - would promote the utilization of currently non-operating service " (Continued) station sites or the conversion of operating service station sites ~ to th~ vehicle rental business~and could create policing problems; 1 that although the petitioner indicated this service station site ',~ was located at a very poor location and could not exist without some other type of business to add to the revenue, the City was not responsible for rectifying poor business judgments of the oil companies; and that the Commission deemed that all rental agencies should be permitted only in the C-R, C-0, and C-1 Zones by approval of a conditional use permit. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the for;.going resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ,, ~ ':~. ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom Rowland ' ? , . NOES: COIRSISSIONERS: None. ;i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ ~ t VARIANCE N0. 2135 - PIIBLIC HEARING. EARL HARDAWAY, 219 Poinsettia, Corona del Mar ~ , California, Owner; GEORGE HARVEY, 5670 East Washington Boulevard 1.' , TED USES IN THE C-R ZONELTO ESTABLISHCAN1AUTOlRENTALnF S n W _ ACILITY IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT STRUCTURE AS A PRIMARY USE on property described a A s: rectangularl•-• ,~•sped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the north side f K .~ o acella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 130 feet and being located approxima~~ly 565 fe t e west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 711 West Katella Avenue. Propert r s tl l y p e en y c assiiied C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. _ ,: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in clos ; e proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the proposal to establish an auCO rental facilit in an e i ~ y x sting restaurant structure; that plans submitted with the application indicated a proposal to us ~ ~i e a portion of the existing coffee shop restaurant structure as an suto rental office with the rental cars bein k d j g par e on the property; that the petitioners had indicated the wished t off the Y o petition front h lf ' y~ a of th e structure which would be used as the actual office and would move all dining and rest ~~ ;j aurant facilities to the rear portion which, for the present, would remain vacant as to use thac t th ~ "~ ; a e time the restaurant was constructed on the property, development in accordance with the C-1 Zone and th ~ ''1 ~ , e special Katella Avenue setback site development standards was accomplished; that there were 26 ' - i existing, striped parking spaces and a 20-fool• landscaped area adjacent to Katella Avenue; and that the S t petitioners were proposing a maximum of 10 vehicles on the site at one time with six ~ l { , emp oyees, with three of these employees being primarily engaged in shuttling cars back and f h f ;j ort rom the Los Angeles office. ~ Mr. Brown, in his evaluation of the proposal, noted that suto rental agencies were permitted as accessory uses in conjunction with an existing primary use complex in the C-R 2one - therefore, the petitioner, in order Co establish a primary use, had filed the variance request, and a variance would also have been necessary in the C-1 Zone; that similar requests, five in all, have been granted in the C-R Zore by either variance or conditional use permit, and the study made by the staff relative to the proposed type use had been presented to the Coimnission; and that the proposed use would appear to ~~ appropriate to the area in light of recently approved uses of similar nature - however, due to the nature of this operation and the fact that the parcel involved is Located in the heart of the C-R Area, together with the fact that most of the property was exposed to public view, staff recommended, in discussions with the applicants, that a decorative screen wall be constructed to the rear of the required setback area, 6 feet in height, which would provide screening of the car storage area from adjacent facilities and Harbor Boulevard. 3 ' Mr. George Harvey, representing National Car Rentals and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commi i ~ ~ r ' ss on and stated that the restaurant equipment would be completely removed from the building and no lans f Y , p were ormulated to utilize a portion of it for a restaurant; that the maximum number f ~~ o cars proposed to be stored on the property would be 10, six employees being on the property and the r ~ ~ , ecommendation of the staff as to erection ot a 6-foot wall around the storage area a d ~;f ,' ppeare to be super- fluous since it was proposed to have 1969 and 1970 vehicles on th ,_, ,,'? e property, and with the Convention Center across the street having their parking area av il b ~ a a le and in view of the general public, this would be a hardship. ~, Commissioner Gauer inquired of Mr. Harvey whether or not it was his intent t o operate only a car rental agency and no other uses would be contemplated. *' Mr. Harvey replied that this would be a car rental agency only. .+~x .. A letter from Gordon Fisher, owner of the Waikiki Motel located north and east of the „~'_~i' - , . ,., ~ ti 1,. *.~ ,~t a~7, , ~ „ 5 ~ ~. .~"" ., ~~ _. ,~ ~. . , . ~ . , ia? ~ ~+r~ h . , x a ,~ . i . jfp ~ <` ~ 4~ r zrv,rl"" ,4~p . ~ { '' ~'.'S~ ~ ~ k , 7 u " _^__ ~~.. _._~ f .~Y~ .~; ~;1 r Y t. {r i`'. ~,': ~ ~ ~ . " . . ~ . , t . ~ ~ . .. .: ~ ~ ~ .. . . . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4879 VARIANCE N0.-2135 - proposed site, was read to the Commission. (Continued) Mr. Harvey, in rebuttal, stated that the Waikiki Motel presently operated a car rental agency from their motel - therefore, their opposition to the proposal seemed unfounded. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not it was planned to have gas pumps installed on the property; whereupon Mr. Harvey replied in the affirmative, but stated it would be in the futuice; that it was their plan at the present time to utilize the facilities of the Katella Car Wash for washing and gas operations of these vehicles; that when they planned to put in their own gas pumps, a hosing operation would be utilized to wash the vehicles. The Commission then inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate that the gasoline servicing wou13 be for the sutomobiles of the car rental service only and not for the general public use; to which Mr. Harvey replied in the affirmative. ~ The Commission also inquired of the staff what the requirement was for the location of gasoline pumps from residential uses. The staff indicated they were unaware of a specific distance; however, the petitioner responded that a minimum of 15 feet from any door or window opening was the minimum distance. Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion that the location of gasoline pumps adjacent to the motels to the north, east and west would be detrimental from the standpoint of gas fames entering the air conditioning units and creating a health hazard for guests of the motels. ~ Mr. Harvey noted that the gas pumps were planned for the future. Coam~issioner Gauer then noted that when he had first asked the petitioner whether or not it was planned to utilize subject property for car reatal purposes only, he had stipulated that this was their only intent - now he was proposing to provide anoth.er use for .he property by servicing the equipment with gasoline and car washing. Mr: Harvey nofed they'were presently interested in'car rentals only in the present building, : Commissioner Aerbst noted he would not oppose a car rental agency only, but would opFose any type of servicing, such as washing cars and gassing up said vehicles, since the proposed site was surrounded by motels on three sides - therefore, if the petitioner would stipulate that no servicing of any kind would be contemplated, he might favorably consider this. Mr. Harvey then stated he would stipulate there would be no car wash or servicing with gasoline. . Co~nnissioner Farano inquired whether the Waikiki Motel, which had auto rental, had i servicing facilities; to which the staff replied that they had none and did not store their vehicles on the property. Mr. Earl Hardaway, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was the owner of the property, and prior to the erection of the restaurant there had been a gasoline pump on the property; that when he had purchased the property at that time, Mr. Eisher did not oppose said gasoline pump, and prior to the car rental agency presenting their request to him, they had been negotiating with Mr. Fisher. Further- more, the fumes from the gasoline were not nearly as objectionable as the fumes from cooking from the restaurant which had been operating twenty-four hours a day. The Commission noted that prior to erection of the restaurant, subject property had been utilized for farming purposes, and the gasoline pump, in all likelihood, was for the use of the owner of that property. Mr. Hardaway stated that one of the requirements of the City prior to erection of the restaurant building was the removal of the gasoline pump. Co~mnissioner Gauer noted that it was very clear the Coimnission should be separating servicing automobiles from rental agencies - therefore, no 3ervicing of any kind should be permitted since the previous petition was to permit auto rental agencies on a service station site, and the contrary should be made on auto rental agencies per se. ,$a ~k ;::::M's F~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. • -- ;. z. ` , '~~.':~'~~ - -- A~ ~ . . _~ __ . . ... _ _,.,-_ , . ; _ ~ ~ ~ ~ MZNi1TES, CITY PLANNING COMPfISSION, November 3, 1969 4880 VARIANCE N0, 2135 - Mr. Roberts, in'response to Commission questioning, noted that since (Continued) an automobile rental?agenc,.was a permitted accessory use in one of the zones, it was felt the variance vehicle was more appropriate at the time subject petition was filed; however, with the'previous action by the Commission on amending the co~mnercial zones to allow sutomobile rental agencies by conditional use permit only, this would be Che vehicle in the future. The Commiasion inquired whether pr not the variance could be changed to a conditional use permit at a later uate. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the City Attorney had ruled that the variance vehicle had to be used, and'the conditional ase permit was not the vehicle under the present Code requirements. .~'- The Co~maission noted that if subject petition were a roved the pP , petitioner could not ~ prove a hardship existed. ~~t Mr. Dawson noted that he had discussed this precise problem with the Commission a number '," of times - on most variances it would be difficult to sustain their action in court; ~• however, if the objects of the Co~nission's~desires are sufficiently sound and in line ,, ~ with planning, ~ve c~ften do not rely heavily on the hardshi but findings with the exception of hardship itself, then this could belconsideredpanseconomic hardship - but this is not the true intent of the variance. ,~~ ~~-',' Co~nissioner Fsrano noted that Mr. Dawson's interpretation meant a form of rationaliza- tion could take the place of codification. Co~mnissioner Allred then inquired what was proposed with the existing restaurant sign; to which Mr. Harvey replied they were presently advertising for bids for the sign, and they would just replace the identification with National Car Rental. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-219 and moved for its passage and adoption' to grant Petition for Variance No. 2135 on the basis that althougn the Commission in '' their action on amendment to germitted uses in the C-R Zone determined a conditional use permit should be approved for such a use, in order to facilitate action on this proposed request the variance petition was to be considered;in lieu of the aforementioaed;:that ' the petitioner stipulated that all restaurant equipment would be removed from:the premises, and the existing srructure would be utilized exclusively for the suto rental agency; that there would be no mechanical work, painting or car washing of the.automobiles . nor the pumping o.f gas to service the vehicles on subject property; that parking on Ehe property shall be limited for the rental of vehicles and employees' automobiles only; and subject to the conditions as outlined in the Report to the Commission, together with an added condition that passenger automo~bile~ only shall be rented from said facility. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 2129 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ERNST KRAUSE, 1919 Glenwood Lane, Newport Beach, California, Owner; KENNETH KRAUSE, 434 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL WITH WAIVER OF THE REQIIIRED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS on property described as: 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, having a maxi- mum 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. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,.ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 20, 1969, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit certified copies of the parking analysis presented with the petition and certified evidence of his agreements or contracts with various airline agencies relative to package trips for guests at his motel. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown rev:ewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to permit the expansion of an existing motel with waiver of the minimum number of required off-street parking stalls, noting Y.hat the one-third reduction in the number of parking spaces was proposed based on evidence previously submitted and which the petitioner had now verified through documenta- tion on file. ~ ( i 1 ~ ,~^471 , ~. , j, . y y~ '7~ ~,+.7~~ 'j .~ .. f 4 ~tl,,.mb ~K ~ G: r ~ _ " ~ a y h~1 f'k: r ,r4 t ~r ~:'.rs ~.c r (t ri~~*.~" ~ `r~sk . ~uK .'C (.i.. _ .:.3 ~*k~% ~ . . , ., _ . . . . .. t, . ~ ~ ~ ~. .. ~ . . ~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 ~~;: i ' `~~ 4881 VARIANCE N0. 2129 - Mx. Kenneth Krause, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the (Continued) Commission and noCed they had obtained the services of an impartial auditor to substantiate the figures presented at "the previous meeting. Mr. Krause then noted that an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times on October 22 indicated that the area around the Disneyland facility led the state in tourism; that this interested him considerably so that he contacted the State Department of Tourism, asking for.a breakdown of the type of tourists and was infor,ned that 34.8% were motorists, 22.4% were airline visitors; that the contracts and brochures he was presenting to the Comnission bore out the statements made by the petitioner in which travel tours, unit tours and transportation consultants, as well as major sirlines, provided these visitors with special tours; that the unit tours group worked together with United Airlines and Disneyland and put together a package tour; that he was happy to state that they were the,only motel selected, and they had guaranteed this tour grouF 20 units per night; that a letter had been received from William Schneider of the Anaheim Convention Center in which he stated there would be a vEry bright future for the Convention Center which, in turn, would affect the business of the motels in the area, and this would start with the 1970 convention season, with a number of very large conventions, and there were already 439 conventions scheduled between 1969 and 1982; and then, in response to Commis- sion questioning relative to whether the letter indicated conventioneers would be booked, replied he was given a list of the conventions that would be booked, and he had made personal calls to the various groups to imvite them to stay at the Ivanhoe - however, many of these conventions were becoming larger and larger and hotels were limited, and they had experienced an increase in business where the conventions were larger than the hotels could accommodate, and people stayed at the Ivanhoe instead. Commissioner Farano noted that he had recently attendsd a convention by his company, and approximately one-quarter of all the convention delegates rented cars; that 95 to 96% came from outside of California; that both motels and hotels had car rentai facili- ties, as well as car rental agencies estabiished within the Com~nercial-Recreation Area; and that he was curious to know whete all these vehicles would park if they were being rented by guests of motels which did not provide adequate parking, and then inquired of Mr. Krause where he proposed to park these vehicles if the parking facility were filled. Mr. Krause stated he would agree with the statements made by Mr. Farano - however, the Ivanhoe Motel had made agreements wherein a block of rooms would be reserved for airline tours, and even if one-quarter of ~hese people rented cars, there still would be adequate room for any potential guests. Commissioner Farano noted that although conventioneers were more likely to require additional transportation than regular sightseers, what type of transportation would be afforded the guests coming in on these tours to the Ivanhoe Motel. Mr. Krause concurred with Commissioner Farano's statement that conventioneers required more transportation - however, in his discussion with Mr. Schneider, it was a nationally known fact that all convention people used air transportation; that in the brochures and literature advertising to obtain convention business, i.t was stressed there was no need for additional automobile facilities since the conventioneer could walk to the restaurant, the Convention Center, or Disneyland - however, when said visitors were staying at the motel for a week, there would be need for an sutomobile; that the Commercial-Recreation Area could not be compared with convention facilities in Long Beach and San Frar.cisco wherein the convention facilities were far removed from hotels, motels, restaurants, and recreational facilities. Commissioner Gauer noted that the W2ikiki Motel also advertised with American Airlines fot package tours to Disneyland; how~;.rer, they werP presently required to provide Code parking, and if subject petition were approyed, then the owner of that motel could also ask for the same waiver, and even though these tour groups came to the mote~ by air, there was still the likelihood that they could rent cars and use a parking stall. Mr. Krause noted that Commissioner Gauer had not been present at the previous public hearing - however, he would like to mention the fact that they worked very closely with the sirline people and had 50,000 brochures printed indicating the fact that the airlines would be using their motel, and that there were only two motels in Anaheim working with the airlines. Furthermore, in a recent trip he had made with the Convention Buresu and other Anaheim businessmen to Mexico, he had spoken with many airline people, including American Airline's representative, Mr. Swanson, which was a new facility, and they took 10,000 brochures from him; that United Airlines, in unit tours, also had the Waikiki Motel's guarantee of 20 rooms per night, and these people were not driving. Furthermore, he had been pursuingrather vigorously, and presently he had a major "book" which is dis- tributed to all the airline employees, said book coming from New York, and in iC only one other establishment had a similar listing; that this was rather a large field .~ °..,7 ~ : <x ,:i ,~'~ ~ ;~~. .. . .. ~ ~~ MINUTES,~CITy pLAI~NING COMMISSION, November 3 1969 ~ 4882 VARIANCE N0, 2~<y - was one of his arguments at the previous hearing - that his motel (ConEinued) was striving for the airline business. Commissioner Gauer then inquired what would:happen if a potential guest drove up and ;requeated a room - would he indicate he was cater.ing only to airline business? Mr. Krause,then stated no - that in,the Report to the Cammission at the previous public hearing a report was submitted in which records were maintained for the past year regaiding the source of th~ir business and the number of cars or vehicles that were parked in the parking stalls during the hours of 12:00 midnight and 1:00 A.M. for the busiest months, June, July and August, which indicated they were not turning away any motoring tourist business because of inadequate parking facilities, since said report indicated there was more than sufficient parking even though at times all rooms were I rented: Furthermore, said report indicated there was a trend toward airline business. Mr. Krause, in response to Commissioner Farano's questions relative to the brochures submitted for Commission inspection, stated that the package tours were operated through- out the year; that they gave sirline employees a discount of 15% the year around - how- ever, the dates on the brochure indicated September through May, and this was because the airline rush business period was comparable to that of the motel and facilities in the Commercial-Recreation Area - therefore, these people would not be taking vacations during June, July and August; and that the brochure which the Commission reviewed was the first one he had presented to airline employees. Chairman Rowland inquired whether or not the questioning being held by the Commission was going far afield. Commissioner Gauer noted that he felt this was pertinent to approval or disapproval of subject petition since in previous motel requests for additions, Code parking was required. Chairman Rowland then noted that perhaps the petition should be continued if the Commission felt there was insufficient information; whereupon Commissioner Farano agreed there was insufficient information since the Commission was being asked to waive the parking requirements, to which the City had been diametrically opposed; and that : a criteria of requirements should be drawn up by the staff xo establish a pattern for others who, in all likelihood, would be requesting the same wa~ver. Chairman Rowland noted that the information submitted as audited prooE by the petitioner was requested by the Cormnission, and any other requests of a similar nature would also be required to submit the same data. Furthermore, motels as opposed to hotels had some inadequacy as to required parking since they derived their business from the same type of patron - both airline and automobile. Continued discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the data submitted; the required criteria if other motels in the Commerci.el-Recreari.on Area requested the same waiver; the evidence submitted relative to solicitation of sirline business by the petitioner which should be considered as proof of hardship - the statistics which indicated more than 500 rooms were rented for other than airline purposes. The Coimnission then inquired of the petitioner whether his definition of "front door business" meant sutomobiles; to which Mr. Krause replied in the affirmative, and stated these were different groups which they had solicited, and no automobiles had brought them - that the facts were not indicated in the figures. Mr. Krause, in response to Commissioner Herbst's questioning relative to whether or not he would rent any vacant rooms if there were no parking spaces available, stated all he could repeat was the evidence submitted on their records as to the number of cars which were parked in the parking area, and if a special situation occurred wherein ten rooms were vacant and a11 stalls were filled, he would so advise the potential guest that there was no parking space available - therefore, he would lose this potential guest; and that si.nce the auditor who had verified the figures as requested by the Commission had never appeared in their office before, it was his opinion the evidence submitted was very substantial. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CL~JSED. ~ ~ Commissioner Herbsl• inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate that if all parking spaces were f?lled, and rooms were still available, he would not rent a room on the basis that no parking was available; to which Mr. Krause replied in the affirmative. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 ~ 4883 VARIANCE N0. 2129 - Co~issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. Pr69-220 and moved for its (Continued) passage and adoption to.grant Petition for Va.riance Na. 2129, subject to conditions, on the basis that the petitiot;er had stipulated that if all parking spaces were filled and rooms were still available, that he would.not rent the rooms on the basis that no parkiao was available; that the petitioner had submitted substantial evidence that a hardship existed and had complied with the request by the Commission to have an impartial audit made to substantiate the documenEation presented to the Commissian; that approval of subject petition was not setting a prPCedent for similar reauests unless anyone requesting a similar waiver would have to submit similar,proof in the'same manner as the petitioner had; that there was a need in Anaheim's Comnercl.al-Recreation Area for additional rooms; that although hotels catered to the same type of clientele as motels, they were given an advantage by requir- ing only one parking space per two units; and that motels located outside of the Coimner- cial-Recreation Area could not qualify for this type of waiver since there was little • public transportation, and adequate parking for automobiles was a necessity in their instance. (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: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. VARIANCE N0. 2132 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, LOUIS JONES ADID EVERETT DEAN, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; JAMES NODGES, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETGTEEN 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: ltoo rectangularly shaped parcels of land consisting of approximately 1.7 total acres, having a frontage of approximately 254 feet on the west side of Webster Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 298 feet, and being located approximately 510 feec north of Che centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 909 and 911 South r~ebster Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 20, 1969, as a result of a tie vote for denial and approval. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses s established in close proximity, previous zonin action on the propeity, and the request ~'~. to establish a 52-unit, one and two-story apargment complex. ~~' Mr. Brown noted that subsequent to the October 20 meetin the u,:`~ revised plot plan for the project; said plan indicated relocationtofltworofuthetmain8 ; structures and provided two 25-foot wide drives entering the property Erom Webster ~ Avenue; that as a result of these adjustments, waiver for building separation as originally advertised had been eliminated; that although the number c~f units remained the same, the coverage had been reduce.-~ from 54.1% to 49.4%; that the revised plans .'~~: provided better circulation and accessiLility for fire and trash vehicles, as well as ; providing more green area and open space and eliminated the undesirable 10-foot separa- >~ tion of main structures with windows facing each other across that distance; and that ~ the designer of the proposal had advised staff that if sub ect ``?T' and the project constructed there was a ~ Petition were spproved , possibility the present owner of both legally '~ recorded lots would se1l one of these lots and its portion of the complex - therefore, ~ since the vehicular circulation s stem as desi 4~ Y gned under the revised plans would have ~; a mutual access used by the total proposed project, the Commission might wish to require ,~,,, h!' that a mutual easement agreement acceptable to the City Attorney's office be filed and ' ''d~ recorded. ~. x z ~ Mr. James Hodges, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence and availability ~' to answer questions, stating he was in agreement with statements made by the staff. ~~;~ r~ ` ~ ~ ~, ~ Commissioner Camp noted that the only waiver now to be considered by the Commission was '' ~,. the number of mairi buildings on a site, and that the staff was presently studying this ;,:;~ waiver for a possible amendment to the site development standard8 of the R-3 Zone. ;' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;;.~ s~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-221 and moved for its passage and adoptian f to grant Petition for Variance No, 2132 for waiver of the number of main buildings on a ~_:, _......, site since the petitioner had withdrawn the waiver of minimum distance between buildings, ,~ke s' subject to conditions, and an added requirement that a mutual easement agreement ~, s~ ~~ ~ ~ ;;?~j <,>s'~ .::h 'R 4' r, - rs.t7r ~, . r 4 ~ ..j:r ~'S u.~~ AF ~,y ..~{~., .-~ ;~w.,r''/~i ,~,"fi.'~„w ~ ;.+~ ] er. ~. t ; ~ f~ . 4.~ 7. ..r:3~ rL ~ r.:Y' _~ ht ws,C~` ~~~, ~7~ r - . J. . ' :' . . . ~ .'..•.'. . . . . . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY .PLAIVTIING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4884 VARIANCE NO.: 2132 - acceptable to the 4ity Attorney's office be filed and recorded. (Continued) (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECESS - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:45 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 3:58 P.M., all Commissioners being present. f TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, 2481 East Chapman <~~~ TRACT N0. 7003, Avenue, Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering ~; REVISION N0. 1 Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject - - tract, located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approxi- '': ;..~~~ mately 350 feet east of Solomon Drive and containing approximately ~_~ 14.1 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 57 R-1 zoned lots. ~.:; :;i',_~,"~' ~l Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Coimnission the location of ;?-:*;:;Kw subject property, zoning action wherein a resolution of intent to R-1 zoning had been r ;s approved by the City Council as was a variance which granted a waiver of the minimum °.':::-';~ lot width, and that subject tract originally consisted of 118 lots and 29 acres; K;,-;:;.,- however it now was ~'~'``~"~~' , proposed to develop the property into two separate tracts, which ?''~' ~~? necessitated the filin ,~;..;,;:~~; g of a new tentative L•ract map, and that no lot or street changes ,L""'• ,' were found on said tract. ;~i::?,', ~";,~,(~~;t~M ;,~_~~:r~ Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7003, Revision y =-- No. l, subject to the following conditions, said motion seconded by Commissioner Allred a r ~ ~'~ and MOTION CARRIED with Commissioner Camp abstaining: r ; 1. That tl~e approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7003, Revision No. 1, is granted ,", - subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-98 and Variance No. 2097. az r„r~.>'~~ ~D 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each ~, subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~' 3. That necessary drainage facilities for the proper control and disposal of storm `~ . ~ti; runoff arrivins at and originating within the tract shall be designed and G:;` constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer, and the necessary easements therefor shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ~ 4. That all lots within this tract siiall be served by underground utilities. ~ a~ S. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval ,.-,`,:,~: of a final tract map. r:~ ~ s TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVEI~PER: DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, 2481 East Chapman '' ~=" k^ TRACT N0. 7118 Avenue },-:;~;,:, , Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering H Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject ,~ {~; tract, located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon P.oad, approxi- ~ ~ mately 350 feet east of Solomon Drive and containing approximately ~- ;;~. 14.9 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 61 R-1 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Commission that Tentative Map of Tract No. 7118 was the northerly portion of the former, original Tract No. 7003, and would be located north of the easterly extension of Constantine Road; however, no lot or street changes were noted from that originaily approved. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7118, subject to the following conditions, said motion was seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, with Commissioner Camp abstaining: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7118 is granted subject to the apvroval of Reclassification No. 68-69-98 and Variance No. 2097. ~ r '~s ~~.,~j~~ ~ . . ~~ .~„ ...a'r s~, ~~,'~: ~ti `"~~4rC . N ~. . ,~ ~. 7 r ~ ~ ~ ~`'~...~ .. ~.. ~,-'Q:-, ;1 ~ k . ~,~1 , ~" ~~ `~ {.:r:i? ! r. ". +~* t ~ s -bf` ,- . . . - : ~ V. ~ ' . . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . V MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3,' 1959 4885 TENTATIVE MAP,ilF TRACT N0.:7118 (Continued) 2. That should Lhis subdivision be developed,as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed in the north portion of the lots adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Subject wall shall be measured from the highest finished grade level of subject property or Santa Ana Canyon Road, whichever is highest, Reasonable ~ landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed northward ~ from this wall including any required Santa Ana Canyon Road parkway, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to Che approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the property owner(s) shall assume responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping to the northerly lot lines regardless of the location of the block wall. The City of Anaheim shall assume responsibility for maintenance of landscaping ;iortherly of the north tract boundary. 4. That the necessary drainage facilities for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff arriving at and originating within the tract shall be designed and constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer, attd the necessary easements therefor shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 5. That all lots within•this tzact shall be served by underground utilities. i 6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 7. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to Santa Ana Canyon Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ~ VARIANCE N0. 2122 - PUBLIC HEARING, C. WEAVER, 4004 Southern Boulevard, Youngstown, - Ohio, Owner; HEATH & COMPANY, 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles, Calif.ornia, and SAMUEL E. HART & ASSOCIATES, 8417 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agents; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES IN THE C-2 AND P-L ZONES,,TO E~TABLISH OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT DISPLAY AND SALES IN CONNNCTION WITH AN EXISTING DEPARTMENT STORE AND MARKET SITE, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A FREE- STANDING SIGN AND A ROOF SIGN, AND (3) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AREA OF ALL SIGNS on Property ~ described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 17.1 acr.es, having approximate frontages of 600 feet on the east side of Hart,or Boulevard and 970 feet on the south side of Wilken Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,270 feet and being located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Wilken Way, and further described as 2232 South Harbor Boulevard (White Front). Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND P-L,•PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses i established in close proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the proposal to ~ establish an outdoor playground equipment display and sales area at the westerly end of ~ a newly constructed building facing Harbor Boulevard; said display area would project i 30 feet into the required 50-foot Parking-Landscaping Zone established under ~eclassi- ~ fication No. 59-60-28 wherein the front or westerly 20 feet of the P-L Zone was to be ' devoted to ~andscapirg and the rear 30 £eet to be used for parking purposes only; that the petitioners were also proposing a combination wall sign and roof sign to be located ~ on the building adjacent to the display area, and this sign would be within 126 feet of an existing 659-square foot free-standing sign, whereas Code would require a 300-foot ~ separation. In addition, the aggregate area of the two signs totaled 768 square feet, j whereas only 600 square feet were permitted by Code. f Dir. Brown, in evaluating the proposal, stated that all uses in the commercial zones } were required to be conducted wholly within a building except for parking lots, occasional banquets as a part of a restaurant function, and plant nurseries displaying merchandise other than plant materials; that a 6-foot masonry wall was required to enclose said site; that the proposed outdoor playground equipment display and sales area violated two sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code in that it was not enclosed within a structure and that it occupied the rear 30 feet of a 50-foot P-L Zone which was designated to be used for landscaping or parking purposes. Furthermore, the proposed location adjacent to Harbor Boulevard without any screening other than a chainlink fence did not a ~ ppear to meet the intent and purpose of the site development standards established in commercial zones within the City - therefore, screening of this proposer3 facility by a 6-foot masonry _ wall would greatly reduce the detrimental visual effect from one of our major arteries, ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 ~~ a,tt tv ..:~ r~ ,;~ ~ ~:. 4886 VARIANCE N0. 2122 - but an even better solution would be the relocation of the requested (Continued) use somewhere else more appropriate in the interior of this very large parcel of land. Mr. John Devine, 2232 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and edvised that ehey were an entirely separate entity from the White Front store - however, they were owned by the same company but dealt in the sale of toys only. Chairman Rowland inquired whether or not the spokesman owned subject property and was advised they were leasing the property through White Front; that the proposed variance was in keeping with the purpose of the commercial zoning in that the commercisl area was being utilized; ~hat they were the world's largest toy store and offered many types of toys and games; that while others disp2ayed their wares indoors, by photograph or catalog, or on a temporary display basis, it was his feeling this was an unsatisfactory means to display the type of inerchandise they had, and it was their desire to display this mer,ch- andise in its more natural habitat - namely, outdoor display which needed to have the visibility of the customers who could make their selections prior to entering the door - therefore, a complete exposure was necessary for the merchandise; that since this was directly in front of the store, it must be attractive since this would create the first impression of the potential customer of their wares; that the proposed chainlink fence would have a green vinyl covering through which the toys could be viewed from the street and provided a minimum upkeep; that it was their desire not to detract from the appear- ance but to enhance it, and since gas stations were permitted to have gas pumps and out- daor restaurants and nurseries were permitted to have outdoor display of their products, the proposal was in line with otfier established uses. Mr. Devine, in response to Cotmnission questioning, stated that the outdoor exposure was necessary to displ,ay the equipment becguse there was approximately 20 feet between the main entrance and the building, and it was their desire to utilize a portion of the property which at the present time was not being used. Co~issioner Herbst notecl that the petitioasr was praposiag ta have dis~ilay in the £ront setback which was required to be landscaped; whereupon Mr. Devine stated that it was their intent to re-landscape this entire 20-foot area with additional landscaping. Commissioner Gauer noted that in a recent trip to Washington, D. C., in a shopping mall, Sears-Roebuck had a screen which was a wire fence fabricated with steel screening which could be seen through - however, items were not readily identifiable, buk he could not see a galvanized fence with green caating on it since this would still create the out- door display, and he was more in favor of the steel, open mesh fence. Mr. Devine noted that the proposed fence would not have as many or as wide openings as a fabricated screen, but would give more the appearance of a fence. Commissioner Farano noted that the petitioner was stating he was proposing a chainlink fence with dipping and wouid still not shield the outdoor display but would be completely seen through. Mr. Devine noted that the green coating was an integral part of the fence and would not go away, such as other temporary vinyl coverings did; that the gentlemaa. from the sign company would explain the proposed sign, and that they had come from Washington, D. C. to Southern California; that the motto of the store was "Toys 'R' Us", and the merchan- dise was specifically made for them; and that the giraffe was part of the registered trademark of the company. Mr. Harry Epstein, Vice President of White Front, appeared before the Commission and stated the parking facilities f,or the entire store were more than adequate; that the use of the 30-foot parking-landscaping area for outdoor display would, in no way, endanger the parking requirements; that he had seen several other stores operated by the proposed toy company, and they were very artractive, including the fence; that the proposal wauld be very compatible with all motels along the road wherein pools on Harbor Boulevard were placed behind the front setback; and that in his estimation, this would be a very attractive addition and would not create any problems for White Front. Mr. Eugene Breisemeister, representing the sign company, appeared before the Commission and noted that 20% of the wall for the wall sign would be permitted, or 714 square feet of sign area; that including all the letters seen on the picture, there would be only 513 square feet, or 200 feet less than permitted; that he was under the impression that the Harbor Boulevard frontage was sufficient to permit Chree free-standing sigrs - however, the staff interpretation made it possible for only two signs; that the variance request was needed because of the location of the free-standing sign being less than required for distance between a roof sign and a free-standing sign. ~ i ~ ~;:::'? : ` _ . ~. 1 ~ ` _ .'..' $ ,.. . , l . .~ r ;~ ~ ~ {~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4887 VARIANCE N0. 2122 - 7.oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the (Continued) Code stated the aggregate area of all signs facing each 300 lineal feet of street frontage shall be limited to 2 square fe~t per each lineal foot of street or highway frontage, and since the service station site at Wilken Way an:! Harbor Boulevard had its own sign and was a separate parcel, the frontage of this parcel was reduced; that a 659-square foot sign on a 400- foot frontage already existed, and the petitioner was now proposing an additional roof sign of approximately 620 square feet in area. Mr. Breisemeister then stated that the distance between the two signs was just 11 feet short of 300 feet - however, the roof sign and the free-standing sign were 126 feet apart. Mr. Brown advised the Commission that in the staff's evaluation of the proposed sign and its location only the frontage, which did not include the servi~e station site, was included in the aggregate area. Chairman Rowland noted then that the pc~:.itioners had already availed themselves of the maximum permitted by Code. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed sign and the fact that although there was almost 600-foot frontage, only the first 300 lineal foot frontage was used. Mr. Brown then advised the Commission that the staff interpretation as to measurement of the aggregate area was based on taking a 300-foot segment of the remaining 450 feet - therefore, the aggregate area of the existing sign was more than 600 square feet. Mr. Brown then illustrated on the blackboard the manner in which the staff interpreted the Code. Chairman Rowland noted that this was not an unusual interpretation of the site since this also had been discussed when the City wa~ not as well developed, and since this interpretation had been made on all previous requests for signs, it had become a fact - whether or not it was right or wrong. Commissioner Camp noted that this interpretation would mean that someone with a 300-foot frontage could have the same size sign as someone with a 450-foot frontage. Coimnissioner Herbst then stated that as long as the signs were 300 feet apart, the signing could be that way - however, the petitioner's sign was only 126 feet from the free-standing sign. Mr. Breisemeister stated he concurred in the manner in ahich Commission~r Camp inter- preted, noting he felt they were being penaii.zed by not taking advantag~ of the full frontage; regardless of the frontage of 3U0 feet which was less than 600 feet, no credit was given. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the sign could be relocated to Che southerly portion of the building; whereupon Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that a roof sign was similar to other signs, in that it must be in the center of the property, and if the wall sign were located on the south side, this would also create a problem. Mr. Brown advised the Commission that the existing White Front sign was 350 square feet larger than that permitted by Code. Cownissioner Camp noted he wished to clarify his discussion, this being that his purpose was to dete:mine the Code interpretation and whether the petitioner could redesign within Code requirements. Mr. Breisemeister stated that he felt the petitioner was being penalized since this was a national trademark for their facilities. Chairman Rowland noted that the claims made by many national companies to retain their national images had been before the Co~nission a number of times, and after considerable discussion, these requests for retention of a national image were redesigned to comply with the standards of the City, since the City was making every attempt to protect as well as project the image of the City. Mr. Devine then advised the Commission that he would be more than willing to comply with the City's requirements if the White Front sign could be relocated northerly - then they would be within Code requirements. ~ ~ ~ i ~ f ; Commissioner Camp noted that a building permit would have to be issued to relocate the sign-since the sign was already a nonconforming sign, it would be illegal if moved, }y?~ .~~f ~~"y ~ ~,n k' .:'f:?+°'~`` Y~K" ~~SJ ~" f~'ar if ~.~'k.; lrt ~ : G -~t~,- !,. ~ a~ ~ ~-:., i ' "~; "" ~-/ ~.~/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 488g VARIANCE N0. 2122 - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. (Continued) Commissioner HerbsC noted that he was not in favor of allowing a businesa to operate in the required setback; that the City had a lot of outdoor.storage, but this was completely screened with a 6-foot high wall; that nurseries were permitted with some screening; and that some nonconforming uses were still in existence - however, to permit the proposed outdoor sales would establish an undesirable precedent and could bring every department store in the City requesting outdoor display of their wares. Commis$ioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-222 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2122 on the basis that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that a hardship existed or that he was being deprived of a privilege afforded other property owners and denied to him; that the granting of petmission to have outdoor display and sales in the required setliack would be granting a privilege to the petitioner which other property owners were denied; furthermore, the required setback was for the purpose of parking or landscaping; that due to the si.ze of subject property there was sufficient area elsewhere, other than in the setback area, where the use could be located; that the approval of subject petition would set an undesirable precedent for similar requests for outdoor display and sales from other commercial facilities where such uses have been required to confine said operations indoors; that signing of subject property could be accomplished within the confines of the Sign Ordinance, and to graut the proposed signing would be granting a privilege not afforded to adjoining property owners. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thocu, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMI~IISSIONERS; None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LENORE KOEBRICH, 2130 East South Streel•, Anaheim, N0, 69-70-22 California, Owner; J. ROBERT ALBERT, 2013 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly VARIANCE N0. 2134 shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the south side of South Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 618 feet, and being located approximately 670 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further described as 2130 East South Street. Property presently classified R-A, ~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, rIULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS ON A SITE, (2) MINIMUM FRONT SETB9CK, AND (3) MINIMUI~1 DZSTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO ESTABLISH A ONE-STORY, 32-UNIT APARTTIENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a one-story, :,2-unit apartment complex with access provided by a 25-foot wide, private drive from South Street runniag along the easterly property line and culminating in a 70-foot diameter cul-de-sac, and said cul-de-sac drive would be approximately 600 feet 1ong; that the density proposed would be approximately 15.6 dwelling units per net acre and a ground coverage of 43.4%; that the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated low-densits residen- tial land uses as being appropriate to the area, and the proposal was low-medium density multiple-family residential use; that subject property was the only large, undeveloped R-A parcel left on South Street between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Street; that with the exception of an existing church facility immediatel,y to the east of subject property, said property is completely surrounded by R-i, single-family residential tracts; that although no other muZtiple-family residential uses existed in this general area, R-2-5000 zoning was approved for 30 acres of land further south having access to Wagner Street; Ehat che requested waiver of the minimum front setback could be of co~icern to the Commission; that the designer had indicated that although South Street was classified as a secondary arterial, it was'desa.gnated to have only a 32-foot half-width rather than the sCandard 45-foot half-width - however, this only proved that a 20-foot setback was of even greater importance due tu the reduced street width; that three areas where the waiver o1~ minimum distance between buildings as requested was applicable wherein either a 2 or 3-foot deviation from Code was proposed -however, with slight redesign, this waiver could be reduced to where it would apply only Co the width of private patios and consequently open up the court area; that prior to submission of the proposal by the owner and the prospective developer, staff had indicated that R-1 zoning would be the most appropriate zoning for the area; that eight R-1 lots could be desir~-ed for the property, includ'ing a dedicated 60 to 64-foot wide street - however, the petitioners indicated E t i ~' yxi~"r.` ~~r ti.:, x ~t"'~"'l ,~+',v ~ ~ .~; ri ? ~y ,s~.. y ;,~ --~.;;';. ~ : ;::: :~:.;>':: ;.,. . ;:: i;;', ', `.J ~ ~.~+/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4889 RECLASSIFICATION - that for financial reasons, such a project was unfeasible, and the N0. 69-70-22 present proposal would be the most satisfactory to them; and that the Commission would, therefore, have to determine whether subject VARIANCE N0. 2134 proposal with densities approximately four times that which was (Continued) designated on the General Plan indications was appropriate for the area since over a period of several years there had been no signi- ficant changes in'this general area as to types of land uses. Mr. J. Robert Aluert, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coimnission and noted he was the designer- builder of this project; that sub~ect property was rather unique in size and would require development with a street along one side ,and homes on the other side; that developing of subject property with single-family homes would be considerable and also prohibitive - therefore, the proposal to develop one-story apartments was pro- posed; that he had constructed similar facilities throughout the County, and these developments had never been a detriment to the adjoining property; that the private patios would be in complete compatibility with the adjoining homes to the west; and that the alternative of one-story apartments would be the construction of two-story homes adjacent to those homes to the wesE. ~ ;''y; Mr. Lee W. Morris, 804 South Plymouth Place, appeared before the Commission, noting that ~y; he abutted subject property and was representing six persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition and had a petition of opposition signed by 31 property owners in ~~ the tract to the west; that their opposition was basically because the entire area had ~ been developed for single-family residential uses, and the property values would decrease `•' if apartments were approved and developed; that although these might be quality type apartments and in a higher price range, they could also attract a cross-section of people .~ who had no concern for upkeep of their property; that in reviewing areas where apartments were developed adjacent to single-family homes, it was noted the streets were crowded with automobiles parking on the street rather Chan in the apartment development where parking was provided; that the schools in this area were already becoming crowded with :i the single-family home residents and would be further overcrowded if apartments were ,;; permitted wherein tenants did not share in the taxes as the homeowners did; that the ~`~ apartment patios backed up against the existing block wall on the west side of the ,-~., "~ proposed construction and master bedrooms of these homes, and residents would be affected ~,µ~ by excessive noise from the residents of the apartment development; that the construc- Li tion also called for a pool and cabana to be located in the center of the complex, ~ r~~ backing up against the masonry wall, which also would create excessive noise for the ~~,~ residents sleeping in those bedrooms facing the east. R ~? Mrs. Maureen Brown, 2240 East South Street, appeared before the Comnission in opposition, stating that she lived east of subject property; that about three years ago the property ~ immediately west of subject property had requested R-2 zoning, and at that time the ,~;; Coimnission and Council had sl•ated that this entire area shouli; remain R-1 - therefore, this statement should also apply to subject property. .; V~ Mr. James Elli.s, 812 South Plymouth Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that his property abutted subject property, and the proposal to have 32 apart- ments would increase the amount of traffic utilizing South Street; that it was difficult ' now to drive down said street with the existing development - therefore, he urged the '` Commission to deny subject petitions. - ~z ;; A showing of hands indicated seven persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition. _;~ ~5 Mrs. Lenore Koebrich, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that all the single-family homes had been built around her without any consideration of her ~~i:;~::':;:~• desires; Chat she had two-story homes all around her, as well as a church to the ea~t; ~` y that she had resided on this property for fourtezn years, had no children in school, and s~nf her taxes were $100 per month; and that she had a:ways had the 165-foot frontage and ~ did not split her property from the church property. - 3*` ', ~ The Commission noted that many times people held out pieces of property in anticipation ? y~ of higher prices, thereby creating a problem parcel; that they were not certain this was ~,. , the case in subject petition - however, many times these people had the opportunity to \ sell their property to developers but refrained Irom doing so. ~ ,~ ' A Mr. Albert advised the Commission that parking was in accordance with new Code require- ' ments• that he was sure the o pp y p ~ ~: , pposition had not had an o ortunit to review the lans 1~ e~ nor similar apartment developments; tha~ these apartments proposed would be renting from $185 per month up and would be deluxe units. - >:~ ~~ Mrs. Brown advised the Commission that she had Zived on South Street for over four years ~X '" '`" and knew for a fact that Mrs. Koebrich had boarded many horses on her property, which ~' wos more than allowed by Code - therefore, after complaints were filed, Mrs. Koebrich -'y had to remove the horses from subject property. .., ..3'~:3 ,:~ "3 Y::, 7 . Yi~ ~~ ~r_~ «'~'t 5~~:r r sY1"` 9Fs`r..3: r~i t:~`"'~sQ r,t~°S~~y,~~ 'F'rY~;.~'t'a~e 1'... ~ L ~ Jt 1 ~,:.~. - --------- ~ ,~. x : ~ (~ ~.~ ~?-'` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 4890 ~~"" RECLASSIFICATION - A letter of opposition from Joseph A. Smedley, 2109 East South Street, - N0, 69-70-2'E was read to the Commission, '''`~ VARIANCE N0, 2134 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~. ~ (Continued) ~`~.i:; The Commission was of the opinion that multiple-family zoning was f`~`' inappropriate for this area since it would be spot zoning where :;J;;: single-family homes surrounded subject property; that subject property was developable for single-family homes, and eight to ten lots could be made - however, in order to make this more economically feasible, it might be possible to permit smaller lots. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the single-family subdivision to the esst was zoned R-1 but had a waiver of the lot width 7 t, ~~`~~' wherein some lots were less than 7200 square feet and less than the required 70-foot q4r ~:' width, and this was granted on the basis that the narrow, deep parcel made it difficult to develop in conformance with Code requirements and also due to the fact that a number ~ , of homes to the west had been developed with 5600-square foot lots. :,;~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC69-223 and moved for its passage and adop- '•'! tion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-22 _, be disapproved on the basis that subject property was surrounded on three sides with single-family homes, and to approve subject petition would create spot zoning in an area ~ already well established in low-density development; that no significant Land use change ;';i had occurred in this general area to warrant favorable consideration of a more intense ,:,~ use of subject property; and that subject property was developable for R-1, single-family ky homes. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COPIISISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Allred offered Resolutian No. PC69-224 and moved for i.ts pas,age and adop- tion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2134 on the basis that since the Commission had recommended denial of the reclassification of the property, the•requested variance would not be applic able; that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved nor to the intended use of the property that`did not apply to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; and that the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT; COMMISSTONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARI:IG, HUYETT HOWARD GAINES, 899 South West Street, N0. 69-70-23 Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 160 feet CONDITIONAL USE un the west side of West Street and approximately 60 feet on the PE~tMIT N0. 1141 eastern"Eerminus of T'prns•.~t Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 180 fe« •~.id being located approximately 690 feet north of the centerlin.: of Ball Road, and further described as 899 South West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, 20NE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERNfIT A CAT KENNEL FOR THE BREEDING AND RAISING OF DOMESTIC SHOW CATS FOR SALE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify subject property to the Comnercial-Recreation Zone since the southerly 30 feet of subject property was already within the Co~nercial-Recreation Area and to permit an existing cat kennel located totally within a specially designed sf.ructure attached to the garage located on subject property as a permitted use, said structure located approximately 5 feet from the west property line ad3acent to the stub end of Vermont Avenue, 8 feet from the south property line, with vacant property further south, and 50 feet from the nearest residential structure located to the southwest; that a 6-foot high masonry wall surrounded the ~ r; _;, }a f - :. ~ r ,.; . ,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ MIATIJTES, CITY PLANNING COI~ASISSION, November 3, 1969 4891 RECLASSIFICATION - entire pro~erty; that the request for C-R zoning appeared to be a N0. 69-70-23 reasonable one since properties to the east and south had either actual zoning or resolutions of intent to the C-R Zone, as well CONDITIONAL USE as the southerly portion of subject property; that the requested PERMIT N0. 1141 establishment of the cat kennel as a legal use would also appear (Continued) to be xeasonable in that the applicant had indicated the cats were kept within their special kennel structure, and over the several years this activity had existed, the Zoning Division was not aware of any complaints from surrounding neighbors. Mr. H. H. Gair.es, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that a letter submitted with the petition relative to the cat kennel fully explained his intent and purpose - therefore, he would not repeat this unless requested; that he had purchased the entire parcel of subject property and the properties to the south-approximately four acres-subject to the approval of a motel - subsequently, the Stardust Motel was built on the southern portion, and this structure was designated as part of the motel use; however, he had sold the motel in 1964, and the structure on subject property was developed as an apartment, not a garage, under the original variance; and that because of the close proximity of subject property to the Commercial-Recreation Zone, taxes were assessed comparably. 't:, No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ,~ THE HEARING WAg CLOSED. ;sz;:.. i Discussion was held by the Commission whether or not the use under the conditional use `~: `5, permit should have a time limitation, and then inquired of the petitioner whether or not ; he intended this as an indefinite use; whereupon Mr. Gaines replied that considering his y ;'~'{ age and the fact that he had sold the motel, he needed another type of business for some 3+ form of outlet and had started the cat business; that the amount of work this entailed ,l,_. ;fi was considerable, and there was no intent to increase the size of the facility since he ; ;-~ would be unable to handle it; that the few remaining cats he had were top show cats ~4.,,,,;:.`i which he could easily dispose of; that he realized that the granting of the conditional ~,~'~' ~# use permit would go with the use of the Zand - therefore he would request that when he ~..,,.F,;~ stopped his cat business, or if the property were sold, that this use not be extended ~t, ,a,.~ to the future owner. _~ a:~ ~" ~,~ Commissioner Thom then inquired whether a three-year time limitation was adequate; >~ K- whereupon Mr. Gaines replied that this would be adequate sir;ce he £elt a maximum of ~ ; five years would be the longest he could raise and sell cats. ~ u. ~ >s ~ ' The Coimnission then advised him that upon the expiration of said three years, if he `~~ so desired, an additional year would be granted upon a written request to the Commission. ~ ~j Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-225 and moved for its passage and adoption '~ to recommend to the City Cauncil that Petition Por Reclassification No. 69-70-23 be ,~ approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: r ` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. , ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. `<5 ~ `~ Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-226 and moved for its passage and adoption "` '~ to gzant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1141, subject to conditions and the `~ f,~ added condition that a time limitation of three years for the requested use be permitted, ~. ~^~ and further subject to an extension of this time upon approval of a request from the ~ ~t petitioner for an additional year. •(See Resolution Book) ~,V f On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~" ~; y AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~,,;.i,..,~i NOES: COMI~IISSIONERS: None. ' `~; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~: ..':: ~' ~!:?''.: +',~Y~ ,;~ ~ ;, *','; :;.+~:,°;: ~'; i ,~,~ ,. x,..; ~", . ..> 4*~' . ~- • ~ :, .S.~e~ ~ . _.. ..,,. . .:. r,:. ',:: ` - G-_: ~ ~ 1,.~~ tnp~ q, 4 ;: tl {~IP n' ~1 : ~, f j~l _ ~' .~'~~I!.i~ °r.r....~~u~.:~:a.,. . ;~ 5°.~, .,,_.,. ~_,. ...1~~_. _.~'.i! a '"rt >...~ . , -~.~ .. . . . . .. ., , C- .. ._. .~.;'?I~~;!e' MINUTES ~ Ty pLANNING COMMISSION, Novemb~ 3 196 , 9 ~/ 4892 AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East PLAN N0, 104 Lincoln Avenue; to consider ah area development plan encompassing r properties generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue on the south, Ball Road on the north, Lewis Street on the east, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on the west, to provide for vehicular circulation and access. Assistant Planner Malcolm Slau~hter reviewed for the Commission Area Development Plan No. 104, noting the study area as part of the Southeast Industrial Area, comprising approximately 75 acres and Ehe desirability of a local street system which would provide access to and circulation through the study area; that Portion A, as indicated on the exhibit, would be developed for industrial purposes in the very near future, and the developers were requesting that a street be located in the general area as indicated; that the parcel to the east of Portion C was also about to be developed, and the existing Al1ec Street would be extended northerly to Che north property line uf that parcel - therefore, the only area which would be affected would be Area B, and this was owned by Monsanto Corporation, who had no immediate plans for development,~ and, therefore, the precise alignment of said street on Portion B should be left open in order to allow flexibility of design development of that portion of the property. Furthermore, the Traffic Engineer felt the proposed street was a necessity, and his projections indicated an expected average volume of 6,500 vehicles per day, which would provide two-way ingress and egress at Cerritos and Ball Road, negating the need to use Lewis Street and Anaheim Boulevard to gain access from one area to the other. Chairman Rowland inquired whether there was anyone interested in presenting any thoughts on the proposed,area development plan. Representatives of the Monsanto Corporation indicated their presence, but were present only to hear what was proposed and had no opposition relative to this proposal since their Corporate Realty Department would have the final say. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-227 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 104 be adopted to establish a logical local street system through the study area in the Southeast Industrial Area; however,: reco~nending that no precise alignment be adopted for Portion B in order to allow more flexibility of development. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom. NOES: COMMISSIONERB: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland stated that in voting no, the City Council was £ully aware of his opinion to inundate a community by vehicular circulation since the moving of people could be accomplished in a more econamical manner, and that where industrial properties were proposed for subdivision, then a road could be requested by the owners - however, the City should not be a part of requiring roads, Co~nissioner :lerbst noted that one of the problems which the City was faced with today was the fact that there was inadequate circulation in the industrial area. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue; proposing an amendment to Chapters 18.38, C-0, Coimnercial Office, Zone and 18.40, C-1, General Commercial, Zone, e~tablishing off-street parking for high-rise structures as part ~f the site development standards in Sections18.38.050 and 18.40.070. Assistant Planner Malcolm Slaughter presented the findings of the Report to the Commission relative to the proposed amendment to Title 18, Site Development Standards of the Commercial Office and General Commercial ~ones to permit a reduction in parking for high- rise structures (copy on file in the office of the Development Services Department). Commissioner Farano noted that most parking studies had indicated additional parking spaces were required for offices providing customer service than for corporate offices not serving the general public; that almost tialf of the jurisdictions decrease the number of required spaces when the floor area exceeded a certain point; and that Anaheim achieved this same effect in the Commercial-Recreation Zone by basing the number of required park- ing spaces on 75% of [he gross. Eloar area. ..... --.-,.,.o .r,:c~ n ~ - . ~~ , ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ . . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 ` 4893 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - Mr; Slaughter noEed, in conclusion, that the results of the ANAHEIM MITNICIPAL CODE sur.~ey.and study indicated the present City of Anaheim C-0 . (Continued) and C-.1 Zones required more parking than was actually needed,, ~ and that the number of parking spaces should be related to-the usable.floor space in`a building - however, since it was diffi- cult to determine the exact usable floor space o£ eqery building, it ~,-as'reasonable:to , assume that-a high-rise building having more than-three stories de.u~ed,to office use`. was only 75%.efficient - therefore, parking,.requirements should bz directly'related Eo this;figure, and the amend~nents as depicted in the Report to the Commission reflected the reco~ended changes. - Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the report, making comparison of the number of required parking spaces which the City of Anaheim site development standards required and those of other cities. . Fissistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that in order.to take the figures of the City of Los Angeles in a more xealistic fashion, these could be attributed to the fact that they had better public transportation, and that architects state they had one type of parking requirement for outlying areas and another for the Los Angeles area. Mr. Slaughter, in response to Coaunission questioning, stated that a four-story office building would not necessarily meet the criteria of only 75% of usable floor space - Chey would have to have a minimum of four stories of usable office building space. Chairman Rowland inquired whether or not where other uses than corporate offices were proposed, these would still be assessed the same - 100% as depicted in the Code. Mr. Slaughter stated that the staff was doing an in-depth study on the parking require- ments in other areas of the Code w-iich might need refinement. - Mr. Thompson noted that buildings above four stories which had an sir-conditioning room, elevator shafts, etc., could not be assessed usable office space in the same manner'as. structures of one or two stories; furthermore, where structu~es were over three stories in height, a different type of construction was required, and the staff has been apply= ing the parking standards of the G 1.Zone for the C-2 and C-3 Zones s,ince_.these.zones:._, , required 66% of the land area for.parking purposes alone. ' ~' No one appeared in'opposition to subject amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-228 and moved for its passage and adoption to Yecommend to the City Council that amendment to Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapters'18.38 and 18.40, Sections 18.38.050(4)(A-6) and 18.40.070(4-a)(1-d) be made an addition as follows: "Parking for buildings containing four or more stories of usable office space (not devoted to vehicular parking or mechanical equipment used solely for the function of building maintenance) shall be provided on the basis of 75% of the gross floor area", on the basis of the foregoing findings. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 ~ RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE N0, 2022 - Demetriou & Del Guercio (Ponderosa Moible Home Sales) - Request for an ~, extension of time - Property located at 2300 South Manchester Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Commission a request for an extension of Cime for the use of subject property located aC 2300 South Manchester Avenue as a'temporary mobile home sales Lot granted by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1968 in Resolution No. PC68-307, with an additional extension of time granted on May 5, 1969, to expiTM ~ctober 21, 1969, and the staff recommended an . additional six-month extension of time for the use on the property.'. Co~mnissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of'time for the use of property located at 2300 South Manchester Avenue as a temporary mobile home sales operation, said time extension to expire April 21, 1970. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ i . .. f.~ ~-~i ~ ~~-.'K,,~.~ '~ r .n 3~~ ~' ~ h ~tv ~ ~; s~ r ~,~' t ~ .+ s,, ,~ f ~ ~{~c ,r',s..'N~,:~K Y ~p ~ f.:.~.~~, 1 ,~`7 Y`+:,r:Mi~'~ S t , v ':} . `. . .. . . .. .._ , .. ~ : .~~ ~ . ~ :'~. . ~ . ~.r,. .. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~. '~ ~ ~ . k J . MINUTES, CITY PiANNING COMMISSION, November 3, 1969 " 4894 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 `RECOMMENDATIOP]S Proposed amendment to the R-2 and R-3 site development (Continued) standards of Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code - Size and number of bachelor uni_s, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the study made by the sCaff relative to a request by the Commission at their October 6, 1969 meeting regarding the minimum floor area figure for bachelor units and the appropriate percentage of an apartment deve3.opment which should be devoted to bachelor units, said report being a part of the Report to the Commission of November 3, 1969, and that the staff recommended said amendments and addition be set for p~t;li.c hearing. ~ Commissioner Camp offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing~consideration of amendment to the site development stand'ards of the R-2 and R-3 Zones relative to size and number of bachelor units. Commissioner Thom seconded the motian. MOTION CARRIED. Said public hearing was scheduled fo.r December 15, 1969. ITEM N0. 3 ~mendment to the site development standards of the R-2 and R-3 7.ones, Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, relative to number of ma e buildings. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the report by the staff regarding the number of times the Commission and Council had approved waiver of the requirement of no more than two main buildings on a site, said report indicating that from January, 1964 through AuFust, 1969, there werE a total of forty-one zoning actions dealing with this facet of the site development standards, and of these cases, ~ twenty-six were filed as conditional use permits for multiple-family planned residen- tial developments, and the balance were waivers from the R-3 Code which required only two main buildings; that all Eifteen waivers from the R-3 standards had been granted by the Commission, and none of those which were requested under con~itional use permits were specifically denied, and because of previous action hy ,the Commission, the staff J'ecommended that the limitation of the maximum number oF ;:s:va main buildings on a single ~;te be deleted, as well as references to the planned r•r*:;~.'F.ential development being ~:~.ieted or amc:nded. Ca~ranissioner 'Thom offered a motion to direct the Comfr,ission Secretary to set for public hearing consideration of amendment to Title 18, R-2 and R-3 site dcv~lopment standards pertaining to the number of main buildings, said public hearing to be set for Decemher 15, 1969. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEU. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ANN KREBS, Secret'ary Anaheim City Planning Commission .,,~- ~° y t !' , .. , . ' , . , .. f ~..~ ~4~~ ~~.~...~.~.~ ~ :~'~„~ ~'~r': a a ~ ~ `