Loading...
Minutes-PC 1970/09/10r a.~.a~v vu;,ya~ycrcy aescLiDOa 89, A:28CY8Agu18Tly'.Dhtpld'.~~=C!Z';.Of 1~~~~OCB~M ~ at~the,;southwest co=ner of:Zeyn Street and La;.qerne SEreet; having;;:ap~roziuiet~"frontages•. 'iof j57 ..feet on' the west side of Zeyn Street' and''113;feet on: ftie aouth: side' of p,a ;Verne ~',Street;, and,.further`.`described as;853:North Zeyn Street. Property!presently~ clasaified .` R 2;FMULTIPLE-FAMILI RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.~ ".,f. `Zoning:Supervisor Charles Roberts-;reviewed~the location of subject property, uses estab- lished~in close prozimity,,'and the proposal to establish a combination boarding`house- ~nursery for.,children whose:'mothers had;rubella during.;tHeir_pregnancies, and the children'. were afflicted with`different,[ypes of physical deficiencies; thaE the petitioner intended .,., , ,.. '.,to continue'using :the u1>per floor,of tfie;rea= building'for'his own family - therefore, the origirial advertisement ~Eor,waiver;of parking would not be necessary since there'was no 'intent~to rent this;~'facility; ~and:that.';the children proposed:to be cared for would be in .addition to Ehe applicant.'s awn';family who.would all reside on the premises. Furthermore, 'if subject petitiori'were approyed,.the existing gasoline storage tank would have to be ~removed prior:to.commencement of the uae: Mr. G~inn,B. Girard, agent'for Ehe~petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted i.that.tlie childreri Ehey proposed to take care of were'suffering.the effects of rubella ,which~their mothers;had 'contracted during their pregnancies,,and this:included sight,and hearin deficiencies and ver elonr.in.walking;.andphysical~.problems.sucti;as muscular contractions; that they were Y y,,. Ehat.tliey did not contemplate hav~ng more than six children because the required indibidual attention. - ~ Commissioner Seymour inqu"ired whether or:'not ttiere was a specific agency that would licenae this type~of facility, and :if so, only,a`:given number coald:be-hand?ed through such a license. >:_ r: ;. ,_': _ Mr.,Girard replied 3~r~+ the'affirmative. : A 1'etter of opposition was' read, in part, to the Commissiou.summarizing the opposition from,the owner,of pruperty:to.the north'of subject property. Mr. Girard; io rebuttal, stated that they would.operate in a-,similar manner as tttey had Ueeri operating'in Santa Ana; thaE::noises'had been a concern .of his while'in,Santa.`Ana, and he'continually.asked~the neighbors'whether or not the noxses created any digtraction - however, they assured him there was no'complaint~ and that they had ne~ter had ~arking 5313 ~ . . ~ - a : a ' ', ~ ;: ti M~ ; MINUTES, ~iC pLp,Nl12NG COML~fiSSION, Septemb 0, 1970:; 5314 ,,. . ~; ,} ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE problems_since ~the children's parenEs visited them only°occasionally.;. "PERMIT> N0 ~vI199 and arki s l s ~ ~ . p ng wa a way ; ample ,, . ' . ~ (Coritinuc~d), ' ` `~ Y ; ~' X,~ Co~issioner Farano inquired whether or not Mr ,aad Mrs~ Girard were; ' the same ersons h ad b " p w o h een voted`the March of Dimes;Parents of Orange~Counx,~' last:qear, and if so, these were children which this`family had-taken'in ;to take care,of as their opm since the "could not be:le all ado ted ~buE:the;children°-' . , ` y 8 X: P , ~they hadt h'ad ;resided with `them for a ninuber of ears ~ ''~ ~ ~ y : . t . F,-• .... . ~ :. .1 ; ,. ~ 1 ~~.. '~ ... :..: .~,: -.. .; -~ ',: . ~ ' ,.'~ ~`-Mr Girardrreplied in the affirmative and noted it was their;inCent:to maintai a f il • ~+ n am y- °like atmosphere since this~~as needed to assist the~children'3n,improving;'more.quickly.;. ~Co~eiasioner;Farano inquired whether or~not these children were reared as.~their own and . ~ ~were fhey the,same childreii who had appeared;oa the.March of:-Dimes'poster`last yesr; : ,, •: .. . , whereu~on Mx,~Girard again~-reaponded"inithe affirmative. Commisaioner,Kaywood inquired whether or~not there was special equipment;needed:in the r , , . :. ~.room which housed and, s1epE these`+chi~ldren. ;' -, . . ~~.,~ r" ~ .^ = -; ~ ; .: .. , ., _ . ~ . . . . , ^ ~` , Mr Girard responded that.there was nurser,+ equipment, play eq`uipment, and two swing sets y~~ .which would be located under the covered patio . . ' ` , : . .; ; .,, , . . ~ , . ., ~ ~ ., 'Commissioneri Farano"inquired~whether or,not the petitioner received:compensation other ~~ ~°t .than the March of Dimes or'County>agency for this work, aad wauld this~be conaidered ` ;~~ ; s co~ercial :_venture: Mr.~ Girard replied that Chey received compeasaEion from the-State and County, but none ;~,~ ',' . " from Ehe March of Di~es,.and that this•could~.not be.co~sidered a profit-making.operaEion. , .• .. , !..- fTHE HEARING WAS CLOSED.. :~; ~i 'Mr Roberts noted that in view of the fact tk~atl.the waiver advertised for parking was no `longer';necessary because of the petitioner's inE t to h n r F~a'~ ~'t? en use t e e ti e facility for his , -own family and did aot iritend to-rent.the unit.over the garage, this should be deleted. : , . ,Commissioner Farano'of£ered,Resolution No. PC70-'L60;and moved for its passege and adoption ti;~e ` 4e ~~~ to grant~Petition for Conditional,Use Pennit No: 1199 `subject.to conditiona, on;the basis that the proposed use woul3;not~be detrimental';to the~nei hborhood :si i u '~.~~ ~ g ; nce t wo ld be : - conducted similarly to a,family us,e,.as tHdugh.the number-of~children housed there .had been b '~~ , . urn into tfie:family.and were part of-the household. ` ~ - Discussion.was held by the Coaunission regarding the pr osed rea l ti an ~~ op . o u on, d it.was noted that aZthough.;the petitioner.might operate.this facility as indicated,.ia`the event the N,. *."~~~ chome~was sold.;;to another person,:the use would go with the lend, and since this was ' ~~ ..primaiily a residential area, a regular chiid care nursery might be conducted. Therefore, it might be desirable to limit this use;s ecificall t t ~; p y o the peti ioner on the basis that the use approved was;very specific, and'if the home were sald the use a • pproved by this ~~ '~ . , ~;. ;petitiori would be terminated. , ~ ,c. ;: Coa~issioner Farano.tlien amended his motion to limit this use.to the specific operation ~ in which children ~ere boarded.and trained as part of the femily and that the uae could ' not'be.interpreted as a commercial-fype operetion; however, in the event the use of the ''7 'property. by the petitioner was no longer exercised, then this apecific use granted under this conditional use,permit would be:terminated. Furthermore, that an additional condition , be added to require removal of: the gasoline ta k d ; ~ ' : . n an filling of the excavation as stipulated to by-the petitiuaer: (See Resolution`Book) - ' ` ;; .`} , - 'On roll call the foregoing Yesolution wes passed.by'the following vote: ~ AYES:'' COP'IIiISS~bNERSt Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: COP4:ISSIONERS. None. '' ~ • ; ABSEIVT: " CO1~AfISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~ " ~:: :~ ~~'' j;. ~- .:; ~.f MINUTES, ~ py~NING CONIl~iISSION, Septemb~l0, 1970 . ~ 5315 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEp,RING. KEN GEORGE`DOI, 313 Ramona Court, Anaheim, Califomia, >,PERMIT~NO " 1200 `Owner; BURGER,CHEF SYSTEMS,~INC., c/o Gary L. Graham,,9841 Airport ,: -~ Boulevard Suite,730,'Los'Angeles,:,California; Agent;'requesting ~• ..,'permission to'ESTABT.ISH SEL$=SERVICE GASOLINE PUMPS IN CONJUNCTION '.WITH A PROPOSED DRIVE-THRU DRY CLEAIQING:ESTABLISFQSENT:on property described as: A : rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at:'the 9outhwest'corner of Lincoln Avenue and.Laxore.S,treet, having';approximate frontages.of 125 feet'on Lincoln Avenue'and 175 , feet on Laxore,Street, and further described~as 2950 West Lincoln Avenue. Property preaently.classified C-1,`GENERAL C01~41uRCIAL, ZONE, _ - Zoning Superyisor Charles,Roberts.,reviewed the location of scbject;property, uses estab= liahe,3 in close proximit}=, existing zoning on the property,-and Ehe proposal to establish . `self-,service`;gasoline puiosps in conjunction with a drive-thru'dry cleaning establistwient whicti would 6e located almost adjacent to Lincoln Avenue.at the weaternmost entrance of the ~roperty; that,the dry`cleaning establishment.was a permitted.use in.the C-1 2one - therefore,;,the onl,~ question.be~ore the'Co~ission would be the appropriateness of self- service gasoline'sales at this location aince 157.'of the existing se;vice station sites 'and structu;e$ were vaca~nt,'and Ehie might increase the rate of vacancies which service stations have experienced,._' Mr. Gary Graham, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the Burger Ctief Company'propoaed to sublease subject property; that the Code requirement of a-service.station,at the,intersection of two,arterials would appear to be more hazard- ous than Ehe:proposed location; that traffic could exit to Lincoln Avenue and take advantage,of the opening,in the divider to make left-hand turns to.go west, and from the standpoint of safety., Ehis use would be less of a-conflict than at.other intersections; that;it was~their;desire.to,put this pro~erty to work so that it would be kept clean; that thei had'been-having problems with the property with people living in the building and the windows.being broken; together with fixtuzes being stolen or broken; that the pumps"could;be.relocated; and that this means of having dual uses might be a way to solve the vacancy factor of service stations which could,lea~3 to a pattern of permitting dual . uses if the-dual uses were compatible.' Co~issioner Kaywood noted that a fourth s~ervice station formerly was located at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln•Avenue - however, on.e was removed and replaced with a resfaurant, and she'could see no reason for adding gasoline pumps when it would -_appear'that:three service stations a block away were adequate and there appeared to be no need to project.pumps:,in,the,middle of..the block. Pir. Graham replied:that the gasoline sales were onlp incidental to the main use and were a convenience for the people delivering and picking up their cleaning. Commissioner Seymour-noted that in light of the prolific number of food franchises through- out Southern California, he was somewhat surprised that the agent for the petitioner had not been approached by other food company operations. Mr:.Graham replied that his company had a ground lease on the property, and the exiating building suited only`their type of operation - thus, in order to utilize this building it.would be necessary to almost start the building from the bottom, and they were not desirous of tearing dowa the building themselves to recover a ground lease. Howevar, they had had independent people approach them as to possible use for the property. No one appeared in opposition to aubject-petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-161 and moved for.its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use:Permit No. 1200 on the basis that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses; that the high vacancy factor of existing service station sites was indicative that self-service gasoline pumps would further reduce the potential of regular service stations; that the location of a tqpe of service statiori not at tha intereection of two arterials would be detrimental to the traffic flow along a highly-traveled arterial; and that approval of subject petition`would establish an un- desirable precedent for similax dual use requeats of exiating service station sites. (See Resolution Book) On roll call xhe foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COP4fISSIONERS; Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seytaour, HerbsC. ~ NOES: COI~AfISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. , ; ~.:_ _ ! -.. ~,' . MINUTES, ~ pyANNING CON4fISSION; SeptembeT 10, 1970 ~ 5316 CONDITIONAL"USE -`PUBLIC~F~ARING MAX F, AND Mp,y E.:.HILTSCHER, Box 156,:Hubberd Creek Road, . PERMIT N0.',1201 Umpqua,.,Qregon; Owners; TAX:,SHELTERED,INVESTMENTS, INC;, 14724 Ventura ~ `BouTevard, Sheriuan;0aks, California,;Agent,~requeating•.permission'to ~• ESTABLISH AN.AUTOMATIC CARWASH.WITH'ACCESSORY.GASOLINE SALES on~property described as An`irregu'aarlq~sHaped~parcel of landilocated at:~the,northeasC.corner of: Balsam Averiue and State.College;~Boulevard; having~epproximate frontages,of',100 feet on the south,side~of Placentia:~Avenue,':42 feeE'on`the.east,-side of:State College:,Boulevard, and 148 tfeet on;;the north side of Balsam Avenue.•.;Property.presently;class3.'fied,G-1~ uENERAL COIIMERCIAL,;'ZONE. ` . _ .. , ,.; ,... - - ,,.. ..,. ,. , , _ ,, > Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed!the location of.;subject property, uses estab- liahpd in cloae,p;oximity, existing zoning on;;the property,,add Ehe request;to.esfabliah a"carwash with.accessory,`gasoline sales`and noted that subject property had been zoned: , for a serpice station or'.any`C-l or R-3 use under tlie C-3`.zoning'with deed restrictions; . thmE i~;~1965 the.;Co~mniaeion had'rezoned the:.aervice:statian site'to C-1 and.initiated a " conditxonal'use.permit to allow said`service.atatioa.within 75 feet:of regidential uses - : howevrer, in:1969, this service station was removed;'thst.the proposed carwash building would be.parellel to Placentia,Avenues'snd the.gasoline pumps would'be.provided.along the Balsam Avenue frontage•.with,primary access'to the property,`from.Balsam Avenue; that'the Commissioa'_wouTd tiave to`determine whether the proposed uae was~=appropriate since traffic iwould be entering-this co~nercial facility from a local street FriCmarily serving residen-. ': tial uses which would , presant traffic conflict`s to Ehe residential use; and Ehat if the Commission:deemed this an'anpropriate use,"Ehey:might wish to consider a more appropriate design for the building since.a similar.facility was under conatruction on Garden Grove - Boulevard which'had a desiga, color, and appearance that would be detrimental.to the ' residential uses,.and:redesign of the structrire.:to present a less obtrusive appearance. would be in order: Mr. George Boggio, 3670 Wilshire Boalevard, engineer-designer of the proposed carwash facility, appeared before the Co~aission and noted that subject property formerlg had a aervice station on it - however, because of the £low of traffic at that intersection, ` the ingreas`and egress were extremely:difficult and the busiaess deteriorated - however, ` his client,was attempting Eo establish-a different;type of ingress and egress for the, proposed`use that:would'be more compatible; that iti`was intended to eliminate one of the driveryiay.app=oaches on Placentia Avenue,-atid the remaining one on Placentia Avenue would . be uaed for all. practical purposes to handle the oyerflow from the,exits on Be3sam Avenue and SEate.College Boulevard;:thaE fhe exiating drive approaches on Salsam Avenue and ' State:;College'Boulevard would-remain'in order to be able to utilize the property for j commescial purposes; thaE tlie Balsam Avenue exit would be extremely difficult`because of I the'iight-turn,pocket on State.College:Bouleverd; that the noise Ievel would be consider- ; '~ably reduced since.the design'of the building was to compietely enclose the carwash ~ ` facility which was`a convenience-type operation since the customer would not leave the ~ vehicle but rode;.through the operation; that there would be no interior finishing nor outside finishing details such as a regular carwash provided; and that because of this, only two employees were necessary to man Che pumps and/or the carwash facility as needed. The Commission n~ted that there could be a s~acking of cars which could extend into State ~ College Boulevard'when people wanted to utilize this facility; that traffic entering ( State College Boulevard would have to enter the fast-lane traffic which could be extremely hazardous, :and if the proposed facility had specials which they would be offering to the ; public, it would be extremely,difficult to handle many vehicles because of the speed of ~ traffic at thia intersection. ~ Mr. Boggio indicated it was their intent to exit onto Balsam Aveavz rather than State f College Boulevard since two drives were proposed for Balsam Avn,;;e, and this facility ~ could handle 30 to 40 vehicles per hour, while other types of facilities itaadled 100 ~ cars.per hour. • ~. ; ~ ~ The Commission was of the opinion that the petitioner could not handle as many vehicles ~ as he had indicated.because of'the inability to enter State College Boulevard either frrna ~ the facility or from Balsam Avenue. ~ . ~ ;.1 Mr. Boggio further noted thaE the cycle time for this operation was three minutes. ~ Cormniasioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner had ever tried to make a { left-turn onto State College Bouleverd aince the Commisaion had visited this site oa ~ their,.fie~d'inspection of zoning petitions, and they had to wait more than three minutes because ot heavy tra~fic at 1:30 p.M. on a Thursday afternoon - therefore, it would be ~ almost impossible to,'make a left-turn during the peak hours of a given day. ~ Mr. Boggio noted that he had advised his clients about,this problem - therefore, they ~ were fully aware of this type of a hazard. ' ::, Commi~sioner Farano noted that with a cycle of three minutes, together with gassinp up ' ~ ~~ c`~ `MTNUTES, C~ PLANNING COt~AiISSION,..September~l0, 1970: ~ 53 ,. _ . 17 ~ CONDITIONAL USE ';from the;.pumps; it was probable a-customer!could,take at least.fifteen '.PERMIT N0.'•1201 minutes:to get.,~tbrough a,caiwash operation, and aince the timing was (Continued) en impoitant.element,:it would appear that. it would;be e~:tremely ; difficult to,serve.these cars"without a'large amount of stacking on ,, -' ` the premises..and into::the streets.- `Mr Boggio noted-that they had space for 14 cars ~to stack up for both gas pumps and the , ;- carwash ; ~ ..~~.. ' A letter of,;opposition wes:read,regarding the noises and hours of operation and requesting .' that, a' 6 foot' masonry wall;' be constructied if'sub ject <petition :were approved. ' .THE":HFARING WAS:CLOSED. . The~Cou~iasion inquired ifithere.were a traffic count on Balsam Avenue; whereupon.Office Engineer-Jay;Titus noted there was no.traffic:count on:a locel street -'ho°,aeder,.he would reco~eud that. if subject petition were app=oved that;.all existing drivea to SEate College ` Boulevard.be c4osed?and.`the exieEing.drive approaches':removed and replaced with standard =curb~and gutter and:other driveways be reconstructed to meet-City standards. Commiseioner:Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-162 and moved for:its passage and adoption to deny,Petition fo; CondiEional Use Peimit No. 1201 on the basis that the proposed use would`.adveisely affect the adjoining land uses; that the proposed uae would causr_ hazard- `ous tieffic conflicts both on ingress and.egresa to State College: Boulevard and Placentia Avenue; that there vas.insufficient area for,•stacking of cars waiting for carwash facili- ~ies'-or gas:s'ervicing;.and the line'could extend into- a.heavily-traveled atreet; that the petitioner wae proposing to-ezit onto a local, residential street,,thereby creating two incompatible traffic patterns; and that'the discontinuance uf the service station on subject property was indicative that the traffic:paEtern at this intersection was too intense to make any automotive,service business a success - therefore, the proposed use would not only be incompetible to the adjoining residential uses,but the traffic would ~ discourage patrons from,utilizing the facility'unless the traffic flow would be to and '-through a residential street. '.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed.by the following vote: ;AYES; 'C01~4tISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. ` NOES: - COrItfISSIONERSe' None. . ABSENT: CONIZSISSIONERS: -Allred. VARIANCE N0, 2197 -,PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN T. AND'PHYLLIS J. ALLEN, 18211 Mandarin Lane, - Yorba Linda, California, Owners;.reqesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SI2E.AND (2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO ESTABLISH AN EXISTING,APARTMENT UNIT AS A CONFORMING USE on property described as: A:rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 73 feet on the north side of Sycamore Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 248 feet, being located approximately 147 feet east of the centerline of Century Drive, and further described as 1609 East Sycamore,Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENT2AL, 20NE, Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed.the location of subject property; uses estsb- lished in close proximity, existing zoning, an3 the request to establish an existing nonconforming, 330-aquare foot.apartment as a'conforming use vtith~waiver of the required parking. ,:: Mr. Roberts reviewed'the background of the zoning action on-subject property under which subject property was developed, with an 8=unit apartment complex under the R-3 standards existing; that.subsequent to the final building inspection the petitioner had converted one of the garages and approximately.two-thirds of a laundry service area into an addi- tional living unit, and as a.sesult, the minimum required parking was reduced; that subsequent to the development of the apartment development, parking standards had changed and now,9 covered and 5 open sp$ces would be required - therefore, it would appear that ~the requested variance wes totally inappropriate in view of the findings as to parking and Ehe fact that the 330-sguare foot.unit was 25% below the Planning Commission policy for bachelor units; and that the most important,point:to consider if subject-petition were,approved would be the fact that:it would establish a violation of many City ordinances and could encourage:further violationa and lead to the weakening of the zoning and building codes which were necessary to insure the safety and general welfare of residents of the City of Anaheim. Mr. John Allen, the petitioner, appeared befoxe the Commission and noted he was unaware of the fact that-he was violating the City's ordinancea when he converted a garage area and storage facilitq :into.a. bachelor apartment; that the conversion was a considerably ~ - E : ~ : ~' ; ," . .., ' ' . e`7 4 .` MINUTE$ ~Y 'PL~ NNING CO ~ ~ i =;~~ ~ , : , PIIiiSSION; Septemb l0; 1970 5318 _ ~~ + ~~ VARIANCE N0.'~2197 larger'job than he had anticipated; that':there'were no~outside ?. ' ;(Continued)_, ;structural changes since the walls and roof were on; arid then; in . ~` ";;~~`~ ' response to ,Commissi_on questioning, staEed that :all. ; ' ~ his tenants had ' ~ ` : , '• ' adequate parking spa~ ~ m~.~e he;;frequented the.=development and never: `• ~-` . saw any parking problem, and that he 2~~• ~t~,~*o?.,:~ the,property from the builder:: S ~, ~ Chairman Herbst inqqired how the peti~:~~at~ce~ r„-~::z~f ~°~-:unaware;o£ the=~fact that he would ;; ~ : ~. ~ need a:building permit if any constrt~i' ~ss; ~f~:,s q tx.~.~eRd on the apartment :development. ~ ' '~ ~~' ~.. _1 ~t ~: . _,~ .' . . .. .~ ~.. : Mr Allen replied that it was not ,unC? ~~si~z ~x~ ';;~ ~~a~ :started ,did he:~realize a permit • ` ~~k~$tj~',; ~'~ti stiould have beeny obtained, `and `~that no ~~ ~~ :~,~s,,,N",~~~ ; Space was~. needed since: 'if there were ~ any, it;would':be~`used only~for atorage p'u`rposes: Fuithermore; he owned..aaother:.apertment ` ;ti.' development iri Yorba'.Linda„but"this was`;the fiist development in which he,had:,aEtempted: . . _ `•` , ;to make:an addition,'and,it:would';be the:-:last.;because;:of the,trouble it tiad-caused him. Chairman Herbst noted that the reason a building permiE and building inspection were ~ ~~. necessary was-to insure the~safety;and health~factor of the residents of ;~the area; and - ~ , •~then inquired~just;how'the petitioner proposed`to•reconvErt`this fscility:to iEs original °"~"~ use as :a carport and:'storage or laundry room : ` . ; ~'~ , : ~~ Mr Allen noted that:the width of the.driveway was ample for ingress and egreas even '~` , though a car might be -parked ~ ~~ . : '' ~, , : . The Commiasion then.inquire'd whether'or:not the width of the drive had been reduced because a~ :of this converaion:";. -. , _ , ;.~ , i ~~ Mr Allen re lied tliat there was am le room to P p park adjacent to the. aew apartment unit,.'. ''~` " , - P as could be noted f~ ~ictures,the staff.had. resented ;. . ~ ~ ~~ "Commissioner`Raywood~'inquired whether or not the driveway ~,,is wide:enough to permit -''"'`~ 'emergency vehicles to gain"easy.:access if an automobile were parked in the'area indicated. . `. , .*~~ ; ,. Mr Allen replied that a large trash truck'always,eritered to_pick.up their trash - there- f t a m ' ~ `t :~ :`~ ore, i was ssu ed .that:the.average,.vehicle could maneuver.into this area. . r' `~ r . ~~ ~ Mr Roberts adyised,the Co~issioa'that the Fire Chief was of.~the_opinion that there was . : , . ' ,- ~~~~ . , inadequate fir, e vehicular.~accese to~the unit, and this was e'ma~or problem; that Ehe one ~.; ;~ , open~space was-inadequate, especially if a car were.parked;,and that the firemen could ~ , ~ .-.not-:.get the hoses through:to combat a fire. ' . ' ': ,.. • . ; _ : ; ~ Commiasioner;Gauer noted that the.petitioner not onl~ had inadequate parking, but the ,;, size of the unit was:.far below'thet which the Commission determined wss adequate for ;~ bachelor.units. ~,~ Mr. Roberts also edvised the Co~ission thaC there was no way the number`of parking.spaces r a `:,;; could be prodided on;the property now since the property hed been developed when tr.~ ~ requiremeat was 1~ spaces per'unit: ;, ~; A showing of hands indicated six persons present in opposition to subjecC petition. Mr.'Bill Daly, 562 tJorth Centuiy.Drive, appeared before.the Co~ission in opposition and ( 1 ; stated that the facts presented:by staff spoke for themselves;,that the petitioner was . ,5,: not eqen providing the required number of parking spaces under the old code when the apartment complex was built; and this situation•was compounded because.o£ the new`parking _.. . .X~ requiremenr;`that.he; as a neighbor, requested"that the illegal~apartment be removed and ~':; `~: 'the parking be brought to code; that there were at least four.vehicles parked in the street ` all the time; and.from his observation;`.theae vehicles were'from:the apartments on subject property; and thet although excess parking was:taken on the street, this wes not the major factor .- it was the fact'that tae peCitioner was in violation of the Anaheim Municipal ~' Code,..and this.ahould not`be a:lowed. ' ; Mr ~ Richard Smith, 16Q8 East Sycamore Street, appeaied;before the Commission in oppoaition ~ arid no.ted he.resided;in.a.aingle-family home directly:acroas from subject property and had 'lived there for seventeen years -'therefore, he was fully aw.are'of the happenings in the neighborhood; that regarding the statement made by the petitioner when this violation was . found that Etie:builder received an occupancy`permit prior to.final building inspection `` " 1 and the apartment was then conatructed -':it was his o inion the builde*--- ' p, ..~mpleted this ~ ` I project_in accordance with Code requirements and afterwards Ehe petitioner present before •' : 'the Commission purchased:this complex and developed.:the Iiachelor epertment. Furthermore, ~ `' one fact which had not been bronght out was whether:or not.there was'sufficient land area : for the number of units now existing since this`could be another Code violation,,and,,in ` conclusion, he could see no`justification to . allow this situation to exist because every- ` one had to.live by the laws,and regulations of the land - therefore, it was incumbent on the present awner to meet these requirements and also incumbent on the Planning Coa~ission - . . . . ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . ~ ~" .: 4 .. ' . ~ ~ , , . .~... L. ~ ~~.' .. .. . .~.. .e .,. ~~,:-v.,.,,.mra.W'vw:+nem~e. . 'crr-~.:tisar~%1;7'e~dnf~'~ 1d.r'"F"'`v. , ~,~rS,~r! Vr7` a 4.y{. .... ~~. -..; . .::. ~.~ ~ . .. ., . . .... ,.. tA ~ ' ~, t . :. ._ ! :- 4 ~ MINUTES , pLANNING COh4tISSION, SeptembeT 10 1970 ~ , 5320 < ~ ,; _ ~ 5 VARIANCE-N0:° 2198 Mr Jack Barron, representing Federal Sign & Signal Co,rpo=ation,.the . (Continued) a ent; r g appea ed beforei~the_Commission and noted the,main"reason:for ~ ' ` ' ' ~ , ~ : requesting these free ataading`~aigns was the fact tHat in,the.deai ' ' ~ 4 ; ; _ , ~ of the building most of tlie wall's were:windows?,at "` ground level,.and there,was no suitable s c f ' '~ . pa e or ident ification•other:~than ten floors above, which was not ~ ~ a good choic of id tif a h ` , e en ication, s toft e entrance of the~building:;or'the`garage parking * buil''din a „ i d f a ~'~ ' g s _ v ewe rom H rbor Bouleva=d except from;two blocks away tlierefore, the :! ., . . , k: , signs ~proposed would be 'slightly above';grade 1'evel ~ , „ F -:; ` . ~J l " . . • , G ' The"Coamiission inquired wh,ether or not the petitioner!felt people could not see this • ,; building from any"point,in~Anaheim : ~ ;: -::. ' ' ,' ; „ . t , ~Mr Barron replied that his primary concern was the people in the area siace-residents of ,• the City might be familiar with the buildi ; re ~ ng, but st ngers>.;to the,'City ;did not know it. ;The Cormnission noted that,this might be<true in Los Aagales.where Ehere were'many tall`. buildi b t n ~. ngs, u in A aheim:this was the tallests:building and:could be seen:from,a..consider- ~able di`stance without a ob c . ~ ny stru tion,.that identifying signing could be placed'in the •windows to direct people at ground level and the barik ss s t ' ~ x~ " , , . acro the, tree s from subject property did'not habe any''free sEanding."`aigns•nor did~the police de arEment or 1ib=ar , ~ p ~? `~ y . -but people somehow found them =' ' ~ . : ; - . , . ~ " ` , ~~,~ The Commission further noted that`the C-0 Zone;permitted both roof and wall signs which ! h ld ~'~ s ou be adequate:for identification:purposes: .. . ,;~ ,, ; Mr Barron replied,that Ehey had:asked for~just,the roof ai ns at ~ ~ 8 present`since'it would ~~~~' "~ ~ , not appear there was available apace for,a wall,sign, and if.said petition were`granted, . ' ::there would be no reason Co h a T ` 1; ave: wal .sign. . = „_.. . ::;. r , , : • ~... ~.~. `No one appeered in opposition to subject petition. - , . : , `,:. .. ~ , " . .,. ~,.~ . ~,. ~.. . . . . , , , . . ~ ~ ,. . . ~.,. ;. , -. ,THE HEARING WAS:CLOSED.,..:- ~ . ~ ~ }~. •. ~ ,Commissioner Rowland noted.that,,the Bank of America was the:most progresaive bank in.the ;world ,today,:that 'tfiey fiad'done"thin s th ho t t ~~~ g , roug u his ory that were unique in ;Ehe banking bnsiness since they;were the first to make a • o r~~ per onal l ans to peoplezwithout collateral normal;ly required;.that;they were.the first to develop the credit c d '~w~~ " 1 ` ~ . . : ar - the first of,'3ts kind, that it was;inconceivable to him.Ehat the Bank':of~America would not'let eyerqbody_ 'in th ; l kri t a Y r ,f „ , y: , e wor d;; ow hrough other advertising media.,that they.were in a new, magnificent structure which was a l dm k in n e 4 , t:i ; an ar A ah im for some time to come, and the building itself ,would,-absorb,''all the teriants for office spece ;for th : n t te : '~~ . . e ; ex n to fifteen years;:that ' the ioae~in'which they were estatilished was a:zone,that was carefully design~d to protect . the inhabit nt f m i '"; ~~ a s ro no mal advertising:signs in order'to aEtract quality buildings and`I tenants who cou2d have these types of"sEructures thaE h d ~rx~~; ;. t e,a vertising sign required was probably tbe ;figment of a, si ' gn'company';s imagination; that:no hardship or need had be e ~ ?'' ~ . en prov n; nor was'it.reasonably demonstraEed that a need existed except that the entrance for the buildin an th a n ;, {~ g d e p rki g atracture was important;.and that perhaps this request was a,test of the requirements of the C-0 Zone `- however the ti r a ,;.:~?, , pe tione h d failed miaerably to test the validity.of the ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~ ~:.J Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC70-164.and moved for its passage and adoption `to deny Petition for Variance Yo 2198 ~ . .on the basis tUat the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation of a substantial-property right enjoyed by othe;s in the zo (' ; same ne and bicinity;_that there were•no exceptional or extraordinary circumsEances applicable to`th pro t } i. ,•~ e per y and the intended use that did not apply generally .to other properties in this class of use; that the hei ht a d i 4' ~ g n s ze of the.structure were adequate to serve as its own ~dvertising.sign, and a ioof and wall si were gn permitted by Code a d wo -? ~ n uld suffice to direct any stranger to the building location; and that the granting of subject petition would b t I` ; L e gran ing a privilege to the petitioner which was not enjoyed by other co~¢nercial office zoned structures. (See Resolution Book) + ( ' t On roll'call the foregoing,resolution was passed:by the following vote: I ~' AYES: COc1MISSIONERS: Farano,. Gauer,.Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour Herbst ' , . NOES: COMLiISSIONERS: None. r - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. _ ~ ~ ~ . ~ .,.., . _ . ~ i.. I- ` ~,M ~ j', f~ ~~~ l! ....'~ € - MINUTES, ~ pI,ANNZNG CObAiISSION„ Septemb~l0, 1970 ~ 5321 ~ . .., ~ VARIANCE N0. 2200 -; PUBLIC HEARING. MRS, FAYE COTLER,.731 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, k ; California; Owner;. C. M,.'THOMSON, 2912 Collyer Lane, 6naheim,.California, ~ ,' Agent"; requesting WAIVER.OF (1) MINIMUM:FLOOR',AREA PER_DWELLING UNIT £ ~ AND E2) ~IMUM:BUILDING HEIGHT.WITHIN,=150;FEET OF AN R-1:ZONE TO-PERMIT,CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING~UNIT on;propeity described,ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of ` land':having a fronEage of..approxisuately 50;fee,t on the west side-of Harbor Boulevard, " ' having a maximnm.depth,of'app'rozimaEely;109.feet, being located approximately 135:feet ; south?of the centerline-of Sysamore Street; and furEhe=.described.as 417 North Harboi. Boulevard. .Property presently classified R-3; MULTIPLE-FAMILY'RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Zonirig Supervisor~Charles',Roberts reviewed the.location of subject.property, uses eaEab- " lished in close pr:oximity,'and the proposal Eo waiye the site developmenE standaids of ' the R'.-3 Zone`to periait constructian of a 431-square'foot bachelor,apartment over the roof •: of ~ttie, garage, said aeaond story:baing within 30 feet.of an R-l zoned parcel located on. Pine $treet,,whereas Code would require 150 feet; that a 3-unit, two-story apartment, complex;existed to'the north which might have been established prior to':the -150-foot, ,two sEory:setback required; and that the proposed.awners of the property indicated.their ~3ntent.to operate'a`.beauty salon'in'the future in the eicisting residential structure under`the authority;:.granted in Variance No. 887 - therefore; the Planning Coa~ission would :have to determine whether there.was any justificaEion for',granting these waivers. Mr. C..M. Thomson, agent for the~petitioner, appeared before,tf~e Commission and.noted he represented the coi~tracto=; that,the prospectiqe owners, Mr::'~and Mra. George Ehr, who presently resided`in Burbank, were desirous of relocating:in Anaheim because their son attended SC. Catherine's Military Academy,.and-his company,had been sequested to draw the plans'to determine Ehe.,amount it would cost to renovate this property to convert it into a residential home from its former commercial appearance; that he was somewhat concerned regarding staff'st co~enfs;that one of the rooms was proposed'to be used as a beauty salon..because this would mean a poseible change in the parking requirements, together with;the facE that the property was zoned for multiple-family uses - however, upon asking 'Mr. Ehr regarding`the.existing plumbing;`whether or not the beauty salon was proposed to be establi§hed, Iie was informed.there was no.plan at the present time for this use to be exercised; and that because of:the widening ^" 'arbor Boulevard, together with the fact that no parking was permitted on the street, •,,,is would.require all parking to be located ta the.rear of the structure. " Mr. Roberts~noted thab he`had had persona;~. conversations with the.proposed owners of the , propert; regarding the beauty salon and exercising this old variance. Mr. Thomson:then noted that if the prospective purchasers planned to uae the studio for `a beaufy salon, there could be a parking proBlem; that he was requested only to prepare plans for renovation'of the existing building together with the plans for the over-the- garage apartment for the father who would be coming from Canada; that with the new addition.there would be only space available for two additional'cars in order that an adequate turning radius could be provided into the alley; and that his primary reason for filing aubject petition was to permit two-atory construction within 150 feet of the R-l property since the zcning was already R-3 and two-story buildings already existed in the area. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the Planning Commission was very concerned that the two uses might not be compatible to the:area because of the extremely difficult parking problem facing all properties along Harbor Boulevard, and that perhaps subject petition should be continued until the agent was able to determine just exactly what the proposed purchasers ~ planned for.this property,;and whether or not they would still be intereated in the property if the beauty salon variance were terminated. Mr. Roberts advised the Co~iseion that even if the variance were exerciaed, there would be adequate parking spaces on the site with two spaces in the garage and three open spaces provided - however, thia wss predicated on the fact that the beauty salon would be confined to the square footage originally approved. A showing of haads indicated five persons present in opposition to subject petition. Mr. Clarence Maertz, 407 North Harbor Boulevard, appesred before the Commission in opposi- tion and noted thaE if subject property were used for two families, together with allow- ing the beauty salon, there would be a considerable problem in the amount of traffic that would.be generated in.a.substandard alley, and that when the original beauty salon was ~ established; there was no combination of residential and commercial uses of said property. i Mrs. Harry Urbigkeit, 415 North Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Coaunission in opposi- ~ tion and noted that they had resided at this address for a long time and lived there when the beauty salon was approved; that it seemed they had to be present aE public hearings ~ every two years in opposition because of the diff•erent types of uses being prop,osed for ~' ~ ~ ~ - - MINIITES ~ PLANNING COMMISSIO S b~ , ,, eptem N, 0, 1970 5322 VARIANCE N0:_.r-22200•- this,.general area;`that when properties were converted.for other usea ~ (Continued) ' along:.Har6or Boulevard, :these uses hsd a11'on-street;parking -`however . ;~' , '. no~on`street parking w~s now peimitted, end;:the substaridard alley had ~ ; ~~~~ ~ ~ to ser.re thirty homes in this.block;.that the day achool to the south ~`.z had.children bussed~in~four'.times a day; that deliveries had to be made from the alley, ~~ .thus the•milk trucks,.ice cream'trucks, etc.:were also uaing.this alley which was becoming ~ ,~~ _.. a thoroughfare; tfiat wlien he=.husband backed out from the;garage:into the alley, ahe had ` ' 1~y~t ;,,~~. to atand and dir e,ct him because of'the`heavy traffic in the•alley•, and that tc permit ' r-' these two`incomp aEible.uses.would add`,:to the'alreed undesirable traffic y pr'oblem in the ~~= alle ; y , ' :, :;t't ~ Commissione=.Seymour offered,a motiori~to continue'Petition 'for Variance:No. 2200 to the ' ~ ~ J ~ meeting of•; September 21, 1970,-to allow t~.me`.for the,agent to determine whether or not ~ , ~ the.petitioner intended to exercise Variance No. 887.foi a beauty salon. . _ ~w ' ^ , „ ~'~ Mrs. Sa11y White,:White Realty;-91& West Lincolri;Avenue, appeared before-fhe Commission ~ ~;~ ~ and steted she .was; the agent 'in the'sale, of this p=operty;;'that ,the question cefore the f,~ Commission•was whether:or not an aparEmeat -,two-sEory - could be,built within 150-feet ' of R-1 property, 'and the beauty;salon~was not.under consideration;,that'the proposed `~~ purchaser planned=,this:.apartment for one of the parents who would not drive an automobile; ~ ti~at',considerable.money was going to be spent:to improve the prop~ity which had been } ;, setting idle for years.without a tenant the':majoriEy=of the.time; that it was imposaible ' ~' ? to conduct.a business on Harbor-Boulevard:because prospective ci.ients could not.park om . ~ . '~i • the street,;and the present:interior decorating buainess.ia this•home was losing heavily because there was not sufficient business and, thus; was:one-of the reasons the'property '~ • was;always on tHe market, and if these people;did not purchase tfie property, it would '~ remain vacant for another five or six`years; and'that the sale of~the propertq was `~'~. contingent upea being able to exercise the variaace'allowing the.beauty;salon. However, = ~~' she was not_as concerned'with'the loss'of the.sale as with the.appearance of-the property ~' . and its bein uno g ccupied again.` .. . ~ ~ Chairman Herbst aoted that since Mrs. White had ateted the prospective-purchasers would , :+u t'"~`'` rat'be interested.in.the property unless the:use.for a~besuty salon were;permitted, then ~ j this variance before the:,Commission would be a.consideration which the Commission would .. o~ be ;interested in. ~ ~~ ~:: ~ Mrs. Whit~ noted.Ehat since~the variance had`been granted and used in the past for a - ~2< _ beauEy,:salon or comparable uses in the R-3 2one, it was their,plan to:improve the property ' ~" to make it a residence again and to.ad~ e ssnall unit for the use'of the parent, and that l:i : there would be only;two cars since the son was only eight`years of age.' i Commissioner Seymour noted that the variancea permitted either a beauty salon or a real t ~ estate'office - however, en interior decorating'shop was located there aow, and, therefore, f would these prospective purchasers still plan to live there.and operate.the besuty salon ( knowing that commercial uses formerly were in the building for.years and the place had not ' been lived in; whereupon Mrs. White responded in the affirmative: ~.. :~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired what use did the prospective purchasers intend for the I property; whereupon Mra.,White stated that it would be a home for the man, wife, child i and a small apartment for the father, and that since the woman formerly was a beauty , operator, it was her desire to retain the option to establish a beauty salon in the event she wanted to go back into that buainess again. ; ; Commissioner Farano noted that since the petitioner proposed:two separate uses, a plan ~ f~, ~ , would have to be submitted iri the event the petitioner proposed to exercise,the variance w for the beauty saloa. However, he had reservations as to whether or not this really ;i~ could be doae. i ' ~r Chairman Herbat noted that the variance had not been exercised for a r>eauCy salon for some ~ :; time and inquired how the interior decorator operation was permitted. - Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised.the Cowniasion that the use was similar and compatible to the two uses approved.for the pro~erty under Variauce Nos.887 and 994 for a beauty salon in 1957 and a real estate office in 1958: Coamisaioner Farano stated that although the two uses might be compatible and the variance ran with the land, he was not willing to vote on the petition at this time. Chairman Herbst noted that a change had taken place, and although the variaRCe went with ~ the land, it had not been exercised, together with the fact that parking was no longer ~ permitted on Harbor Boulevard - this tfien limited the use of the property. ~ i :; ' Mr. Roberts advised the Cou~issiQn that one of the conditions of approval of the beauty ~ salon was the requirement that all parking be to the rear of the property and that there ~ :~ :. MINUTES, C~I'~C;PLANNING C0t4IISSION, Septembe~l0, .1970 . ~ . . 5323 ,, VARIANCE N0;'"2200.-:was sufficient parking at the rear even.if the bEauty salon~were - „(Continued), `;operating. : ~`~ - Coa~issioner`.Gauer,noted that when:the nursery..school was granted, they were,able to d and :Eherefore theischarge.the:child=en on Harbor.Boulevard.- this was no longer true; , ,, ;;alley was suggested to~deliver and pick up.childien as well as other ' general .deliveries, ~. - . Mrs ;White advised"the Commission thaf this would be a one-chair facility which the pro- specEive purchaser.was.desirous:of retaining,`and,that the.property was of no use now to ;:the piesent'_owiier.or to the`neighborhood. " ' °- _ ~-Chairman Herbst noEed that"-the Co~nission recognized:that;fact and`they were also concerned with.;upgrading t~e:;area'--however, the;e were other people.'living in the area who had" - ;expresaed their.concern regarding,the.incompatible uses that.could ~toa~n-grade the a'rea, . and the Commission, as well es the adjoiriing property.owners,.were ~ust as concersied with making;Anaheim a better place to;live,'not whether or not:a building would"be vacant. 'Mrs. WhiEe noted that the proepective purchaser planned to'uae the area marked "studio" 'for the beacty salon in the event she decided to`exercise,.the option of the variance. Co~issioner Farano..expressed concem that all the.evidence'as.to a:besuty salon was not `prespw;:ed•as,;:part~'of the original petition, and if'it,were not for the facb'that the. 'staff'.had.made.a Ehorough investigatioii'of the;petition, this information would not have -been broughE:to light, and all the information as to the exact location was brought to light~,only;.,by diligent, prodding'by the Co~ission - however, this should have been a requirement:of the yariance'petition'that EHis.infoztnation be presented as part of the petit{.on~by.,the petitioner. Mrs.;White noted it was he.r understanding that the consideration before the Commission was the addition of:the.two-stoiy uniE since the room was.already established for a 'beauty;salon:-located-on:the Harbor Boulevard'frontage of the property: Mr..Roberts'noted he had had conversations with Mr. White and the prospective purchasers; that:it was.their intent to;purchase~the property.based on the fact that=a portion of the ;properEy:had a.veriance to permit a beauty,salon, and since-the variance went with the land,:the only further considerefion by the~Commission would be the waiver of two stories and-aiz'e of.unit:.. . Commissioner Kaywood.noted:'that even if,_this were a one-chair operator salon, she had ` `been a`,paEron,at a similar. operation wherein the operator had three customers at one time - therefore, tiiree parking spacesl.were.needed. Chairman Herbst noted that the entire property had been uaed for commercial purposes at one time and:there seemed to be no problem to the existing zoning -'however, now the prospective purchaser proposed to.not only.exerciae the variance but to develop under the R-3 Zone, and,:therefore, it was his feeling that the variance no longer went with the land since a different use was proposed: Commissioner.Seymour inquired:whether or not the variance could be terminated or whether or not some`13mitation could be attached to the original variance for the beauty salon which.would limit the number of customers on the premises at one time. Mr..Roberts'advised the Commission that if the Commission so desired; additional limitations could.be placed on,the variance for the beauty salon, and the new va=iance would be tied into the petitioner agreeing in-writing to these additional conditions:as`s condition of use for•both.residential and commercial: Commissioner Seymour, in reference to'comments made that there had been a change in this area since the.variance was;granted for,the beauty salon because no parking was now permitted on'Harbor. Boulevard, coupled with the fact that t~p property would meet the ,;, required parkin~,~'stated that if`any.injury were done, it :~c:uld be to the user of the property, and the beauty salon would not be busy if there were no parking available. - Chairman Herbst noted that'the property was zoned R-3, and the new use proposed was R-3 - however, uses,granted under-the variances 3n the past.were all commercial, but because of , the undesirable parking problem, commercial uses could not survive, and it was his opinion i that both co~ercial and multiple-family residential uaes should not be granted. ~` Commissioner Seymour with~rew his motion for continuance. I ~ THE_HEARING WAS CLOSED. ! ~, {- ~." _ ~> FI ~.- : ,_. -- ~'~F;-~ ~ MINUTES, CIfiY PLANNING C01~4tISSION,'; Septembe 0 1970 ': ~ 5324 % , _ ~, .: a . - ' . ' ~.~ VARIANCE N0..2200 Discussion was`:~held,by the bo~ission on what'could be approved for a~ ,~ .`(Continued) :: sub jecE s;pioperty, sirice this=; area,,had` beea; broken ~ down a long time ' ~,;~ _ r`. '~ ago fo=' single=family,; use, -:that the .petition before' the; Co~ission ~. t;' ` was to waive:the setliack requirement for_two.story R-3 to permit a bs t ~ ;su tandard.apartmen 'over a garege - Ehis would,not only meari increasi'ng the resideatial d it ~~ b r n m t ~~ a ,e;# ena y . ut e aini g co mercial'_uses, whicfi might not be.compatible with.the area; that .~ perhaps:the one chair facility could be considered a normel'business operatiov or a '•ti~~; `:commercial use'• that`where;"6eaut ~ `' ' . y:shopa ~aere.permitted.in other homes,as a,one-.chair ~ '°''~a •. ,.operation, a namber,"of complaints.had been~received because of the'increase in,traffic ~ „ ~"" ~~sr x to the~resideatial area, that a beauty,salon was a hea'vier ~ommercial use.than many ~~-~c '.permitted in•the C 1.2one; and even if this were,limited to flie number of-custome=s, it ' ~y~=~ could not be controlled effectively unless the neighbors kept a watchful eye and reported '~" ~any violation .to the Zoning Enforcement~Officer. ' : ~ _ ~ . : , ' Mr Lowry advised the Cou~ission that it was within.their power to add any,additional ' ~ ~ t~ -conditions or:limitations,.but these worild have:to be:stipulated to by'the petitionei ~=r aad•approval of."a new petition could be contingent upon a written agreement: . _ : _ _. ,; ''"i ,,a Commissioner Seymour offered Reaolution No. PC70-165 and moved for its passage and adop- ~ a; tion to;grant,;Petition for Variance~No. 2200 on the basis.that adequate parkin~ was proqided<for.Ehe:.two'.uses.proposed, both under subject petition and Variance No. 8 87, > . .as conditions_were amended,;under the latter variance wfiich would ensure that adequate parking was.available; and that said condition granting_Variance No. 2200 was made ~:; subject,:to ttie,;petitioner sfipulating in wriEten:form to the limiEationa,attached.to ; Variance No.-887 in Resolution No.'PC70=165-A, togetHer with ICPS&GW recommended ~' conditions. '(See Resolution Book),: ~; On roll, call Etie fore oin resoluEion was ~. B g passed by the following,vote:, ~ ~~ AYES COMMISSIONERS:' Farano, Gauer,:Kaywood, Sey-mour:. .~,'~ • NOES ' C01~4IISSIONERS: ,Herbst. ; ABSENT:': CO1~fISSIONERS: Allred.'. : ~, ; _; ; :. ABSTAIN:`COMMISSIONERS: Rowland: . ~ , ~~~ . . . . . . .. N~Y Co~issioner Seymour,offered Resolution No. PC70-165-A:and moved for its passage and ' ~r adoption:to amend conditions of Resolution No. 145, Series 1957-58 approviag Variance ' I , No 887 on the basis:that an,additionaL dwelling,unit.was proposed to be developed, and ~ '. subject,;:variance was;proposed to be'.exercised = therefore,.the use o£ the property would ' . be intensified to the, point'where;specific,limitations should be imposed upon the number of customers~;,that should be permitted to patronize the premises at one time in order to - avoid a;critical traffic end.parking situation that would be created by the dual'use. ~~ Therefore, it was determined that a maximum of two customers at one time-should be per- ` ~ mitted to patronize the beauty salon since a total of only five off-street parking spaces .;:y wodld be supplied to the.rear.of the structure for all uses oa the property, and no parking was.permitted on liarbor Boulevard, and, therefore, Resolution No. PC70-165-A ~ would eatablish a portion of the existing structure for a beauty salon, limiting the t,: number of patrons to a maximum of fwo on the premises at one [ime to minimize the possi- bility of shortage of parking spaces for additional patrons. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COI~AIISSIONERS; Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. ~ ; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbat. . ~ ABSENT: COMI~IISSIONERS: Allred. ( ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. l i .:. : `. RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a ten-minute recess at 4:15 P.M. ~ RECONVENE ' - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:28 Y.M., Commisaioners Allred and Rowlend being absent. : {f l., ~ ~ I ~ . ;. I : -- ~: '• ~' ' ".^: . . ._ .._.. ._.. ..-.~..-..-...~.,: :._...~?4?,:I. H~~^'~}'AC~~ ~.. ~ .. . ..' . .~.. ...Is.:'l. .':~;::~i~.~. : MINUTES, LTiy pLp,NNiNG CO1~QfISSION, ~Septemb~.10, 1970 " ~ , ,.. 5325 VARIANCE NO.= 2201 -.PUBLIC'HEARING ~HARRY E: HOWARD..AND CHARLES.AND,VERITY HOBBS, 1166<.Locust:`Avenue,:Anaheim, California, Owners; CHARLES:R,.HILLER, = '' ~421 North Brookhurst StreeE; Suite;216,,Anafieim; California, Agent,;_ :.~.requesting WAIVER OF+(1)„MINIMUM~REQUIgED.FRONT YARD'.SETBACK AND'.(2) MA}[7MUM BUILDING ` HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY.RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY T0 CONSTRUCT A 6-lTNIT, ~ TWO STOR1 APARTMENT~; COMPI;EY{ on, property !described. as: , An irregularly shaped parcel_ of '.land.having~:a frontage of approximately 105-~feet on.the easE side of Cambridge Street,: ; having a maximum depth of approximately'100,fee , being located.approximately 240 feet ~_•north:of the centerline_of'Camden`Avenue; and;further described:as.924 South Cambridga :',Street Property~presently classified R-3,'MULTIPLE=FAMILY'RESIDENTIAL; ZONEr 2oning;S~xpervisor Charles:Roberts'reviewed the`location of subject,property, uses estab=. 'lished:.in close proximity,,;and,the proposal to'.establish~a two-story, 6-udiE apartment compleic - however, R-l,property.'was located approximately 100 feet southerly of subject property;,thet the petitioner was;.proposing one open;parking'space.'within th~ required 'front':setback area;,thereby proyiding oaly a:.10=foot setback and -0ode would xequire a '15 foot landscaped setback; aad,-that the Commission-would':have to deterwine `whether `:there,,;was aay;justification to grant the'.variance;in view of._the-;past Con~ission action '?on maintaining,orie-story epartments witfiin 150 #eet of R-l property. Mr: Char3es`Hiller,`architect and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission •and noted tfiat this parcel was an odd-shaped parcel for,development.for R-3 uses and wes located on a.cul-de-sac which.cuf into.a:narrow section of, the property; that the waiver :permitting an encroachment of.30 feet was requested`since it was xather difficult to make this~development economically feasible with.less than.si~c.units; and tha[ most of the building would be,set back 20,feet, whereas the waiver.from the one-story.height limita- 'tion was~also beceuse of tl~is difficulty'in deqeloping the property economically. A showing of handa indicated six persons present in opposition to subject petition. I Mr. Jack Bush, 704 South Dickel Street, appeared before the'Commission in opposition and noted:he.owned an apartment developinenf across the street from subject property; that it was his opinion the,parcel.was:toa small to accommodate'the type of building propoRed - therefore, the.peEitioner was requesting waivers from the Ansheim Municipal Code; that he had,'explored the"idea of.purchasing,aubject property to construct a duplex but found , it was;'not..large enough since garages woald be required of this type of development; that when he.const~~cted't'he triplex of his on his property, he was not-permitEed to construct a more',intense'development:`ev,en though.his property was larger tk~an subject property because.he'was' required to provide three garages at;the rear; that there were two-story apartments to the,north of his~develop~ient and.an additional development to the northeast on"which eight units;were developed which had onLy;five parking spaces, and due to the location o£ these properties oa a cul-de-sac, ttiere was less on-street parking area than normal;'that.this area was,a very desirable apartment area - however, there was a parking problem because none of the apartment developments had adequate parking on their premises; that the tenanEs in his triplex could:not park.in front of their apartments because of this deficiency - Eherefore, if six units were permitted, this would increase the parking problem and act as a detriment to the area; that most families had two automobiles and some families even.had three automobiles, although his tenants had only one automobile per unit; and that'because of the size-and shape of the parcel, the property would be inadeqaate to provide for six units and parking in,accordance with Code. Mr. John Crawford,_937 South Cambridge Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and presented'a petition signed by 52 property owners in this neighborhood, protesting the waivera'.requested, and noted,thaE although.all those in opposition were fully aware of the fact thaC the petitioner had R-3.zoning,_any waivers of the Code would be detrimental to the area which had`been developed with very attractive apartments having considerable landscaping and in which all developments were required to maintain the 15-foot setback as well as have one-story apartments; that a heavier density than that presently developed would overcrowd the small cul-de-sac street in that many.times he.had to locate persons who had parked their cars illegaliy and ask them to moved their cars so that he could drive into,his own driveway - therefore, the.street could not handle any more on-street parking'which cauld be created if,the waiver of the one-story height limitation were granted: The Commission noted that the petitioner would be able to develop two-story along one side of his property and still be within the limits'of the R-3 Zone. Mra. Ray Turek, 932 SouEh Cambridge Street, appeared before the Commission and noted her property was i~ediately adjacent to subject property and she objected to two-atory construction whereliy t.he tenants of the fwo-atory apartment would be looking into her single-story apartment development, thus invading the privacy of her tenants who would only object by moving.: , ~„ . , : : . . . . _ _.... .._ . - ...-...-... . K.,rg~,rat~ r.:mYrw;.u.,pa,r - ..,..ri:.._~~.. ~..:._.~: r .,_~ ~ MINUTES, .~Y py(~~~G ~COMMISSION, Sep'temb~l0, 1970 ~ s .. , ,;.. : 5326 „ , . ' _ , : : , :" VARIANCE N0: 2201'~- Mr~,~-Hiller, 'in rebuttal, stated;that Ehe proposed ~evelopment ~ould be (Continued) ~ in conformance.with,the new,.Code parking requiremeat which was;more , - than:'required of,;the,aparEments. prese`ntly existing;in this area; thet ~ ~ =;~ the~R=3 Zone permitted,two-story:.construction along`,.one side of the ; propoaed project,:and that if the proposed development were to meet the one-sfory;height. ~ limitation'within:150;feet of R-1 to.;the south, two`;units would be lost"'-.therefore, with' _ , ~ less:parking required,:,the setback waiver would~not;be necessary,.- however,,this would be ' getting to,:,the'point,of'whether.':'or.no,t'it would;be economically.,feasible,.because costs- had° :risen.3n apartment construction from tHat when the exi'sting.apartments'were built. ,. ; , ; ; >: . ~ _ , - .: . ~ Co~issioner Seymour inquired whether~if the variance were granted from the required'set-. back;-~would';the pe'titioner be willing Eo construct a.six-foot masonry wall.along the'south ; property line and.increase the,density.of the:landacaping; whereupon Mr. Hiller indicated' ; they would-have-no,;;objection. :. . , , ,,. • . THE HEARING WAS-CLOSED. ~. - ` Discussion was held bq.the Commission regarding the appearance,of the ap'artment develop- ments in this general area; the-.cu1-de-sac street, maintaining the.one-story height " limifation which would then eliminate the need for the front $etback wafver, and if , subject petition.weie granted, the petitioner'would.be enjoying a;privilege not enjoyed by the R-3 prope;ty awners in this area and throughout the city. Commissioner'Gauer offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2201 on the basis thet.granting subject petition would be:granting a privilege not enjoyed by other property owr.ers in-this area; and that if the-one-story height limitation were maintained, this `would'reduce the number of required parking.spaces, thereby eliminating the need for the waiver of the front yard setback. Discussion was held by the Commission on Co~issiorier.~Gauer's motion and upon its conclu- sion,.Co~aissione= Gauer amended his motion. Commissioner Gauer offered,Resolution No. PC70-166 and moved fur its passage and adoption to grant PeEition`for Variance No. 2201.in part, peimitting two-story construction within - 150 feet of R-A property::to the northeast since this.wsiver had been granted in the past,. and~requiring one=sEory construction within 150 feet:of the.R-1 propertp to Ehe south, denying the waiver of the required front yard:setback on the_basis that construction within the'confines of the R-3'Zone,.except for waiver of.the one-story height limitation within 150~feet,of R-A, could be accomplished, and subject to;coaditions. (See Resolution Book). ` :On roll call the foregoing:resolution was passed by-the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Gauer, Kaywood, Herhst. NOES; ,COrASISSIONERS; Farano, Seymour. ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. Cormniasioner Seymour, in voting "no", stated, "I am certainly not opposed, and I strongly - sapport the technical waiver granted in the past - therefa*e; my vote of "no" does not in any way indicate this is seEting some type of a precedent that we would not continue to grant that 150-foot waiver from'R-A. I look at this particular development here on.its own merits and I quite honeatly and straightforwardl see an o ~ Y pportunitp to help a neigh- i borhood that has a problem. Thus, if:g have•to rely on a technical waiver, I will. ~ Therefore, this is my reason for'votin no i VARIANCE N0, 2202 - PUBLIC HEARING. A1:BERT AND DOROTHY KIRKpATRICK, 2441 West Mall Avenue, Anaheim,-California,.Owners, requesting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SET&1CK.TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND FENCE IN THE FRONT . YARD on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 74 feet on Ehe north side of Mall Avenue; having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 100`feet, being located,approximately 403 feet.east of the centerline of Monument Street,,and further descri6ed as 2441 West Ma11,Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,`ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab- lished in cloae proximity, and the proposal to construct a swimming pool within the front yard setback,enclosed with a 6-foot high, wooden fence locaEed only one foot behind the ` `front property line; that a field•inspection of the neighborhood,was made which indicated f that three other residential lota in this tract.have fences which do not confozm to the ~ required aetback - these are 5, 10, and 15 feet; that two"of these setbacks were approved ' while the property was`sEill under..the jurisdiction of the County; and that if the ' Planning Cormnission determines that ehe varianae is jusEified,' they may wish to require •;. :~*'...r9:: E _ .,~'~.~'~m~" . ?,.'. ' ~i _; ~ : ~~ ~. - ~a :.r ' ` ~ ~- . ; , 1 MINUTES, C~Y PLANNlNG CO1~iISSION, Septemb~l0, 1970 ~.5327 i ;.. , ~' ~: ; •: . ~ ~ VARIANCE NO r-2202 ~a minimum 10':foot setback,in order that some landscaring may .be , .~ , , . (Coritinuedj provided to,the front of said fence Furthermore *he Commission ;. , . ° '; •might~"also wish to consider the desiraliility".of-requiring'a:decorative ~~; ~ ~ ` ; ,amasonry wall;~-in lied of ttie proposed fence since woodea fences were ,. . ~ } ,., more likely,to fall~into'disrepair -. . ` ' "° . ' w .No one appeared in opposition to _subject petition ~ ~ u F ~ `~Mr Albert Rirkpatrick, the petitioner,;appeared before the'Commiseion and stated they` ; ;~ ~ , . c would;;like to enjoy' their 'propeity as ;'some of :their,:neighbors did=;by conatructing a, ~ r. swi~uing pool in the fronE:yard setback; that`it was~aecessary.to;tiave,sufficient room' t all o o w . ar und the pool ~;however, they.might=~be able`to iaciease,the.setback;from.that- + igin ~ ,- or al y proposed; that•'the proposed~development would not harm,'the attrectiveness~of :th a d e rea, an that;they were.,unable.to.place..Ehe pool;in the;rear;yard'because there.was l a ' ;on q 15 foot width, which was_too small _The Commission inquired whether'or not the petitioner.had considered coristructing a d ati a ~4 ~ ecor ~e m sonry wall instead of a wooden fence since this would be more practical F4' ! and safer ,~'~ : ~ _ ' ' > . ' " ;,~ Mr Kirkpatrick replied that they would.agree it would be.more permanent•and there would ~ be less mairifeaance;~therefore,,'he,would agree:•;to construcfioi-.of~a 6-foot masonry wall. : - ; ~ ~i ; `'~y . . . Co~issioner Seymour noted that there were varying front setbacks proposed and;inquired ~~; rwhether or;not tlie;petitioner,would stipulate:.,to providing,a minimum of.5 feet so.that ~` . some;type~of',:landscaping could be:planted.in front of the;proposed.fence.or wall. ~'~"~ . Mr Kirkpatrick replied that a 5-foot' @etback would~be agreeable with him. . ;: , . . ~~ ~ ~ ~ , _ _._ ,. ... . . : .T$E HFARING WAS.CLOSED. :.. . ° ; ' ~ ;~ _Y : . ~ , - , ., `.. , . ,,. ; ; :' • . : '-.. , 'Cammissioner'Gauer`.offered..Resolution No. PC70-167 and moved for i.s passage and adoption r ~, i ~ ~ to g ant Petition for Va=iance No: 2202 requiring a minimum 5-foot's[ructural setback, a 6 foot hi h,~d r i m o , ``~ - g eco at ve as nry`wa11, and a 5-foot`landscaped strip to:the front of said wall,-and that;;:granting of:the-petiCion was based on:the fact thaE'tl.iree=residencea ~~.~~ in this tract presently'enjoyed setbacks,less than that required by:thE A'naheim Municipal " . „' =Code, . ,[wo of =these -homes having been~ developed witn .tliese setoacks while `the property,was' `under th ri di i ' 't ,,~ ~.~ ` . e ju s ct on of he,County (See Resolution Book . , .. . . . ,. . ~ ' .~ ~ '. ~ ~ ~ /~L o' - . ., . . . . : :.. , . .. . . ~ . •~:i0n roll cail.the foregoing resolution was passed bp the following vote: ~ ~~`! ~, . . s~ 'AYES CO1~IIfISSIONERS: Fareno, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour, Herbst. , ~~ ~~. ' NOES: ,,.COMMISSIONERS:. None. . ' , , .' ./l ABSSNTs COMMISSIONERS:.'.allred, Rowland. : ' ' ' t~ ~ ~,,: . ~~ VARIaNCE N0. 2204 -, PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER,:TRUSTEE, c/o Ed Cnnrop, Attorney, ~t ~,,. 1680 North Vine Stre~, Los Angeles, California;•COVINGTON BROS. ,,`, , 24~1 East-Orangethorpe Avenue; Fullerton, California, Ageat; request- ing WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE ARE.4 PER'DWELLING UNIT AND (2) MINIMZM DISTANCE ~ , BETWEEN.BUILDINGS,.TO ESTABLISH A 108=UNIT APARTMEAT COMPLEX'on property described as: ` j~ i A rec£angularly shaped parael of land having a frontage of approximately 295 feet on the , east side of Mu11er Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 468 feet and beiag , located approximately 610.feet:north of,the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property ~ presently classified M-1, LIGHT:INDUSTRIAL,,ZONE, : _ , pro Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub'ect pertc uses estab- ~ ~: , lished in close proximity, pending zoning on the;property,, and the Report to the Commission , noting that;the petitioner proposed to.develop a 108-unit, two-story apartment complex 1 . providing only 1150 square feet of land area;per dwelling anit, whereas Code would require 1200 square feet; that when the'R-3 Zone.was approved for subject property, the petitioner s ' propo ed an 86-unit: aparEment camplex - therefore, iE would appear that the present ' S' proposal~was a step;backward, with the petitioner presenting`a more intense land use than ` Code would permit~- the areasof the.buildings and the lack o£ open areas appear similar to a'!barracks-type" appearance;permitted in the past;_that it would appear by reducing ' ' the number of,,units the petitioner could`provide additional open space and eliminate the ' need for the;waiver:of the site area: per dwelling unit;.snd that the waiver of the dis- tance between buildings-was:rather significant - therefore,.with certain revisions such as reducing the,density, providing additional open space, and'generally improving the ' environmental;qualities of the projecE; a more compatible apartment development could be ~ provided. ~ ,Mr. William Phe]ps, designer, representing the agent for the petitioner appeared before ~ , the Commission and noted he had appeared.numerous times before the Commission and rarely _ i. ~ ; , : . - : ~ }~ ; ` a __.. _. ...,, _ - ~ .:..,;; ~;~. . ; MINUTES, ~y p~ING,COIIl~fISSION, Septemb~l0, 1970 ~ 532 8. Vl~RIANCE N0.-2204 - asked';for.waivers,fiom'the Code; that the developer-agent had built (Continued) i.many:apartment complexes;:in the City"of Anaheim~and throughout the County, and one.reason fo=.proposing this type>of dedelopment was ':because the:developer didr::not,:want,any unit overlooking anyone!s`. ' garage.but facing..onto'private courtyards, and as:a`result,negatiitg a.._certain deaign criteiia~thet came`•up,:that,the entry;'court,was.145 by 70;'#eet;_ttiat;the recreational `.: acluare footage was~'adequate.for the numb~r of':units;~,that the lending groups no-longer. • d~~sired the;large open-air.court;with'balcony::and sEairs -.thus,:in.essence, a possible t snlution was?the,~plans presented;, thaE several::identical units;were built on Qanfield -" Lane which,presented a.corifiguration of"open,"grids -'in this way Ehe;individual would have!.his own;green=belt area,.but' he wopld have the view,from his living'roomr•; , '-Mr. Phelps•indicafed he was somewhat~surpriaed that.~the staff took such a dim.view of this pro~ect -,however,,:the density became a'.condiEion of economica since he'was placing the ' same aumber:of hnits in a.wide-open court - therefore, the plans before the Cormnission ` were to deteimine what~could.be;`done. - `Chairman Herbst stated that as far'as he was conceined, subject property was a dery large parcel-.and,was,guite adequate to':be developed'with`apartmen~s within the Code requirements rather.than reducing the numlier'of square feet of:laad area per dwelling_unit - therefore, this waiver should not be.granted since;;by proper design and.,with less density, the 'petitioner could-bring Ehe.development within Code requiremeats,• that no hardship had been `iadicated,or;proven; that;the plans,presented were adequaEe except thaC revisions had:to be made to•meet the land area:requi'rement'- Eherefore, tHis was something tiie designer of the',.project siiould.take into°consideration when~presenting.plans, and.that a variance sHould be granted:only when the petitioner could siiow.and prove a hardship existed other r tiien design problems. .-0ommiasioner Seymour requested that the agenE for the petitioner elaborate further on the.covered corridor concept. Mr. Phelps advised the Co~ission that the corridor effect.the developer was trying to ',achieve was an old concept,in esseace. However, the,Rainea, R& S Development Co. and the Covington group had.uaed this. It is an open covered corridor - that aeems ambiguous - but yau never look;;past two units as yoh come down the walk. There is growth of shrubbery inside,.then yoy b;eakover and go down another two units -~you never look past 40 Feet. Thea the balconies do exacEly the same. In some inatances, there is,a skylight effect, and,in ,instances atE,open:effect, but in'each case, as you walk dowa this corridor rather `than.having:a "sauerkrauf corridor", as he liked to call them, you will heve the openness of growth.and air. Coa~issioner Seymour concurred with Chairman Hernst's statement 3n that the designer r.ad done a#ine job.aith.the plans, but in order to meet Code, several units would have to be removed, together with a portion of the corridor, and if this could be removed, tnis could be.a fantastic project. Chairman Herbst noted that the.petitioner had considerabl}~ more density than the previous plans, but that he had gone just a little too far - therefore, if he would reduce this project,in order to meet minimum building site area, this would be acceptable and the waivers would not be tteeded. ~ Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that one of the waivers advertised regarding the minimum distance.between buildings applied to the area between the carports and the units, and the petiEioner proposed to provide private patios instead - therefore, if the Commission ~ intended.to allow this waiver, the veriance must still be acted upon as a portion of that , being granted. Co~issioner Farano then expressed the opinion that subject petition should be continued until revised plans had been submitted. Mr. Phelps requested a few moments to consult with his client; whereupon Chairman Herbst granted a £ew minutes. Mr. Phelpss'then advised the Commission that he would request subjecE petition be continued until the next public hearing eince Mr. Loren Covington would be back from vacation on September ll,: and he wouid like to discuas these problems which the staff and Coaunission presented to him, Mr. Roberts edvised Mr. Phelps that revised plans would heve to be submitted to the depar~ent no later than noon on September 11, so.that staff could analyze the plans prior to their being reviewed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting. `-Mr. Phelps assured the Commission that the revised plans would be presented to staff by the designated time. ,:;;:'; ) ( $~ x5~5. ,l~ij y{ ~ t'~ ~ ~ ' 4 : ~ ~. ~.. ~..: . : / .F 'Y'; : 1 t . ~ ,~~ ~ .. 6S, ~, pl,p,NNING COPIlYIISSION, Septemb~ 10, 1970; 5329 : ~. , ~ . f _ , ~ .. VCE~NO~',2204 Commissioner Seymour;offered a motion to continue consideration of• atinued).s' '' -Variance Nn ~2204 to_thetmeeting pfrSeptember:21, 19.70, in`;order tor. :~ w ~ a ; `'allow +time foi the desi ' ~ ` ` ; gner to consult with the,developer and to ~,~ "aubmit`revised plans ' Commiasioner Kaywood seconded;the motion', , ~ ~ ._,,... : ,:: ...MOTION.;QARRIED ' ti ~ ,; t ;, r ~ r ` r„ , ' ; „ ' ' ' 1CE NO 2205 PUBLIC;HEARING THE;COLWELL COMPANY, Frank R Jackeon', Box 2007, . ~ -` Brookhurat Stetion,.:Anaheim,;California,~-0wner,~requesting~.WAIVER . NE MAP. OF OFsTHE REQUIRFa1ENT THAT RESIDENTIAL LOTS;REAR•ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS,>' - :NO.. '4427, <TO:: PERMIT.:THR'F.F: STnF:nu•;T nTC ..... ------~-- •'-- -.. . .. .,. _ „ _._ . . , _ ., ,~ ~ _. ac~apea~-.parcel8 os land located~no=th and~,south of Riverdale'Avenue ; ~ ~ , , ~, r the noitherly;parcel":;consisting~o,f approximately 25 acres, having a . TENT~TIVE MAP Or . ; frontage ofFapproximately,T,420 feet on,fhe north.side`,of•Riverdale ;TRACT NO' S827 Av e : i h a i ` , enu -, w t a;;m xim im depth of :approximately~'750 -f~eE:°end ;located' ~REVISION NO 3 f ' east~o Bluerock Street, and the southerly percel consiating:of ?; a i ` xi ac . R ~~'~ ..;. ppro ~ ~ matel 10 2 res havin Y„ , g a frontage of approximately_55Q feet.. 1~ `;TENTATIVE~'MAP OF on th ~ ' ' ~ e south side of .-Riverdale Avenue wiEh a msximum depth of approxi- ~ TRACT NO 7284 `matel '1 400 feet lo at d 'ea t ' w ~~ > y `'~ ~ ; c e s of; Sweet ~ - ~ ater.Street Property '~ ~ ' ,~ preeently classified R A, AGRICULTURAL ' 'ZONE, ~ ~ `"'~' , ~ , . .r . ~ . .,~ . . , ,. , - ~ . ;:: ,: ,. .;-.. -~ ... ., . . , .. ,.. . , ,.~. , :., , ~ :. , .' '. . ; Uk ~:TENTATIVE TRACT RHC4TEST NO 4427,, REVISION N0. 7,,PROPOSES?SUBDIVISION.OF SUBJECT ~ ~ `y' ~- PROPERTY• •INTO q!} ,R-1 20NED LOTS: ' ~" " NO 5827, REVISION N0. 3, PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF.SUBJECT. °u ~ -- -` PROPERTY -:INTO 48 R-1 ZONED I.OTS , ' ~ _ NO 7284 PROPOSES.SUBDIVISION OF.,;SUBJECT:PROPERTY~INTO , , >. ,, : ~ : `, 41'R-1,-ZONED•LOTS... " `, Zoning Supervisar Charles Roberts:~reviewed the-loeatior of subject:property, uses.estab- , ]i h d ~~.~ '* , s e Yn close proximity.and,noted that-'a veibal xequest had~been received by staff from the developer, advising staff Chat he was att pti ~ `~~ em ng to redesign the project in order to eliminate the<need for,the pariance therefore it was; st d ~ , , sugge e .by staff that subject ;petition and tentative trects be.centinued,until October 5,:1470, fo aliow time`for the developer to l e ' si '~ '~.~ reso v : this de ori;problem. ~ a;~, Co~issioner Kaywood..offered a motion Co continae coneideratioa of Petition for Variance :No 2205 a d a r"~ n Tentative M oY TracE Nos ~:4427 Reiriaion No: 7•- 5827' Revision No. 3•.and P.. . ~ c . q. ~ 7284 t'o the meeting=."of October 5;' 1970 to al w ' ~~~~a , lo time'for thc developer to::redesign the pro~ecC: Co~issioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDI '_~}~ ~~f~' ~ ;~ CONDITIONAL USE -(READVERTISED PUBLIC HE.4RING) • CLADA PLETZ, 3302 West Ba11 Road 'P IT~ ..4i `~'~y , ERM NO 1197 Anaheim, California,,Owner;;WESTERN DEVELOP[9ENT CURP.;.FRANK E..HORPEL ;~,`+ , JR., 4050 Wilshire Boulevard; Suite 507,'Los Angeles;..California, Agen~ `4~;4 requestiag peraiission to.ESTABLISH A,:CHILD NURS.?RY WITH WAIVER OE (1) MINIMUM,'REQUIRED~FRONT YARD::SE'irBACK '(2) PROVISION THAT ` ~`' ~, :NO.FRONT OR SIDE YARD BE USID FOR 'PLAY OR P6RKING PURPOSES,,AND (3) MAXIMUM pERMITTED:SIGN-DISPLAY AREA on property described a A '? ;" ~ s .rectangula=ly:shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximetely 200 feet on the no;th sid ( , . e, of South Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 155 feet, being locate3'approximately 120 feet east of th e e cent rline of Sunkist Street, and further des- cribed as 2511 and 2521 East South Btreet. Property.presently clasaified R-A AGRICULTURAL ZONE , ,. . Subject.petition was contiaued from the meeting of August 24, 1970, to allow time far the staff Eo ew revi t:~e~:moat recent-reqiaed plans submitted too late for-'a reporf to the Commission.. , ., ; . . E = ,; 2oaing Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the.location of subject.property, uses estab- lished:in cl e m ~ ~. os ~,proxi ity, and the.: ro osal..to esta P P blish a child nursery.with waivers of the aiinimum required front yard aetback and mi u :u per tted:.; se of the side.yard,.and further ~noted that the'petitionei had submitted a second aet of revised plans on Tuesday, Septemlier 8, liowever; staff:had insufficient time~to'make a`fu11 ar.alysis.of these d revise plana 3n,order to present a` report to the Cosi~is'sion - however, iG would appear f o a;c r o " r m u a ry;examination of the.plana ttie front ya=d setback waiv~r would no longer be nec - essaiy,,bqt.the side yazd waiver'still'would be necessary eince perkin was 8 proposed adjacent to the r E t' e` ' `' eas p opeX y lin Nithin ,the front and side.setback`areas, and that if ~ aubject,petiti'op:were:fayorel~ly.considered ~attention sho d b i en ' , ul e g v to the fact that picnic"and play areas were pr~posed to the'north;~immediately:adjacent to;a single-family ` ' ' residence,,and because of the noises emanating from this.area, iE could be distracting to these residents. ~ _ Mr Frank Horpel, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and gave some beckground inform~-tion regardin their corp ti ~ `" g_ ora on and the proposed<operation and noted that nowhere in California was this use permifted by right - however, the location of ~ - . ~ . ., ' . . ~ - ~ ~ f~: . . .. . ~ ~ ~ ~l ~~~ a~ " ' ~%Fr!+o41 I . ,+: FAr'~..: i /. . , ~~~~"~%~ . j . . . . ~ •` MINUTES, ~ pLp,T*DjING COi~4fISSTON Septemb~l0 1970 ~ .',: ~ , , 5330 ~ ` ~3 _ ~ : CONDITIONAL.USE ` subject property was deemed ideal for.their use because of existing ' PERMIT N0,'1197 ' schools in;this a e ~~ r a therefore, the conditional uae..permit.`was }(Continued) before the Coumission, that the:property was'orie ted ,=~ . % n avray .from the . single family subdivision ~ ' , : .. ': ~ ,~ ~ ~ ' The Co~ission inquired wliether or not the pefitioner had attempted to.acquire the remain- ing parcel to Sunkist Street and what t ~`~ , ype of.conaEruction was proposed for:,this facility ~~ ~ Mr Horpel replied;that he had made an attem t'ito egot e p n iat ,for the ad oinin `had received;no response, and that it'was planped to have stucco;s~truct ' h e t ~: ow ures wiEh windowa - ver, the;bulk%of the windows'.'v~ould-~face into,.the ~interior ur =- s' ~ co tyard. ~: ` The Commission noted that the petitioner was p=oposing both the play and:.picnic areas immediately'adjacent to the ,~3s . . aingle family homes, almost next.to the bedrooms,of these , homes „ and noiaes from these chiTdren playin could b d r g . e very, isrupEive to the sleep of a person working evening hours. ~ . • :` . - ,.; Mr HoipeL'replied that the hours of'operation would be from 7;00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. and ~perhaps this might creat a e ,~ti e ,probl m. ~` :'Six peraons indicated their presence in opposition to sub ect j petit~on. r, `~~ ;Commissioner,Kaywood noted that since staff had not had sufficient time to plans'; subject analyze the etitio ho e `M~ { . p n s uld b contfnued in order that the Commission might have all _ ~'the.data before them "' . , . ~ ~-~. Mr. Fred Paulus, 252R-Standish Avenue a , , ppeared before the.Commission in opposition and roted his property was immediatel to the ~ x~ y : east of sub~ect property;.that'it appeared.to him that a more~thorough analysis of the plan was ce a s ,~ ? ne ss ry ince.from hi§ viewpoiat Sthere:could be considerable noise involved; that the ro ~ p perty owners in this area would like to know more about.Ehe plan proposed for this pro~:"erty; that.tt~ey had a major probl with eliildreri t i o ~~~ em .cu t ng acr ss thie vacant,property, arid deve2opment of the property was needed::~ however,.if the petitioner co ld i '~~y~'~'' u rev ew his plans with the interested neighbors, perhaps:any.ppposition could be dispelled.. r ^~,3~ .; : , . . : .. , Mr liarold Eichelt,,612 South Jambola a Street a 3' ,. ppeared befo;.e the Commission and noted that the.proposed use could h 9 ~ r~ x : ave 0.children on the premises, which could create a consider- ~able noise,and traffic problem; that he had vi ewed h y`'S~ `~ , t e;plans just before the meetiag - hawever, he did~not'have sufficient time to study them; and th i rj ~' . en nquired whether or not 'the waiver of~.the front yard setback had`<been eliminaEed - also was th po i a - , s ng e petitioner pro- free standing si"gn or signs on the property and would these signe face South Street or Sunki t 3 r ,~ s t eet. Chairman Herbst noted that any signing would be"controlled by the zone in which the use was proposed since the Commissio n ~ ~' . n was ot considerin a si petition. . However, the xevised plans, accordin to taff gw i g t i g s , ould eliminate the need for the front setback waiver. ; Mr. Eichelt.then inquired whether or.not the petitioner would have bussing of these children [o and from the facilit or ld i E r: , ~ y, wou pr vate cars be delivering and picking up these children. ~ Mr..Horpel replied that the children would be delivered by their parents in private cars . Mr. Eichelt noted he would like to see the property developed because of the nuisance factor from the many children coming throu h a d n ~: t? ~ g n usi g this vacant property for a play area. Mrs. C. L. Ainsworth, 627 South Jambolaya Street, appeared before the Commission and noted that her property was immediatel t 'the o h o y o n rt f subject property;.that she was unable to see the.plans since.they were not available to any of the adjoinin ro h d ' ~ g p s e perty owners; that fd not know what type.of structure was.proposed - however, it would"appear thaE the noise factor would be . considerable•, and that since there still would be vacant lots to. the west, there was a`possibility ,that a cul-de-s c s r , . a t eet could be developed on this property which could lie detrimental ta her living,environment: The Commission advised Mrs. Ainsworth that there still was a vacant R-A parcel to the west, adjacent to sub ject pro t , per y, and that the R-A parcels that would affect her property had access to Sunkist Street: Mrs. Ainsworth noted that she was also desirous of having the property developed since ~ many children played in that v acant:area and a number of fires had been started. However, { if subject petition were approved, she would e r quest that an 8-foot msaonry wall be ,constructed along the north, east, and west of subject ro t ~ p per y. ~ . -•- ;. _;; . _ ; ;.. _ . Y , r .:; MINUTES, C~ PLANNING CO1~AfiSSION, Septembe~0, 1970 ~5331 ~ ", ,;:: ti ~ _. - . ~ ~ 'CONDITIONAL USE 'Mr Paulus requested that,the petitioner.:meet with the adjoining ~ PE RMIT..N0..~1197 property owners and;explain the:proposal, and'then ;inquired.whether ' , ~ . ~- (Continued)` .;or not'parking was,proposed along the east=property:line;,whereupon l Chaire}an1Herbst adyised him that the plans.did?indicate parking ` ~ , ~proposed alorig the east property~line.... ~Chairman Herbst noted that}since .the opposition was~unaware'of the proposed type of :d a n . ,~. evelopment nd si ce the.staff had not~_reviewed the:latestr:reyi'sed,plaris, in-order to ;give a comprchenaive re ort t th C m i n ' i p o e om , saio subject~pet tion should.be;conEinued. ~ Commissioner;jKaywood offered a motion to.continu~ Coiiditional Use;Eesmit No ~~1197 to the ~~ tin ' f e r ~ mee g o $ ptembe 21,:1970, tosbe scheduled';the".first item.on the agenda td allow ~ ,, :. time ;for the,astaff "Eo complete a'review 'of the•:revised plans;;,and ~for the;:petitioaer to '= meet with the adjo,ining property.;owners;~to explairi`;ttie proposal and" plans 'in detail`: .' Co~issioner,.Seyaiour seconded. the'motiori«,.'.MOTIONrCARRIED.. '' .'" -; . - . . , ~ .. _ . '. RECLASSIFICATION .' ' , ~(READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING) JOHN R AND GEORGE W. EHRLE 1568'North , ~+~ ~ . , NO 70=71 7~ Bernice Drive; Brea, Californis,;Owriers;'INVESTORS DEVEIAPMENT CORP; ` ~ .~ :*%~ : ? 1345; Nortfi Grand Avenue, Santa' Ana,:California' A ent• ,s 8 . Property VARIANCE ~ ~ `~'i ~~y , NO . 2195 ;described as:; Portion A-'An irregularly.shaped parcel of land ' ' " ` a~ located north:and west of fhe northwest corner of State College. COIJD.ITIONAI. USE `Boulevard and:Romneya Drive,,heving approximate frontages of 478 feet ~ , 'PERMIT N0. 1195 'on the weat side of'State College'Boulevard and 459 feet on ;the north . `side:of Romneya Drive;-and'Portion B- A rectangularly shaped parcel ~ of land..locafbd at the nortkweat-corner of State College.Boulevard " and Romneya Drive; havin~ a roxim te fro esi ~ g. pp a . ntag of'150 feet on the west side of State College,Boulevard.and 150`feet~on the north side of Romneya Drive.. Propert prese tly -~ y n `clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. , ; ~~" ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: : R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RF•SIDENTIALy ZONE. f . r' ' ''REQUESTED VARIANCE: . WAIVERS,OF (1) MAXIMOM BUILDIN6 HEIGAT`WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A , "`^ PROPERTIES,; (2) MINIMUM-DISTANGE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (3) ~ ~ . MINIi`fUM• DWELLING UNIT SIZE,~ .TO EdTABLISH A 242-UNIT APARTMENT k ~~t~'~^'' ~ i' 1 COMPLEX ON~PORTION:A ONLY. - ; ., i . a f• ~ ~ Zoning,Supervisor Cherles Rob~rts reviewed the location of aub ect . , . ~ EroPe=ty, uses estab- `;li h d•i os ~ ~'` ~ ~ {ki rty~ ~ s e n cl e proximitq,!"and.the proposal',to establish a 242-unit two-sto , ry apartment ~com lex o Porti 'A R- ' ' i: y p n on ; although 3 zoning was, proposed for`both Portions A and B, and then ' ~ ` ~" • •-reviewed the original consideration before the Com~ission on August,l0, 1970 at which ' ~, . ; , time Ehe Commission.;had indicated'.*_hey would consider only R-3 zoning for the entire ~ ~ " parcel' and continued,subject petitiona un=ilthis date.to.allow time for staff to readver- ~~i . tise subject petitions for R-3 zoning for both Portions A and B and requested that the ~ fleveloper prepare`and submit revised plans incorporeti~ig botSi parcels for apartments and ~ relocation of the sin le-sto ~ y g ry apartments so that ca orts and drivewa s would not be "r 4 adjacent to'the R=1 properties to the north 'and west in order to'provide a maximum amount „ of protection to these residenta #rom noiae and environmental intrusion. However revised .; y , plans were not aubmitted, but ttie petitioner had aubmitted a.letter requesting termination f th ' it ' ~. o e cond ional-uae permit - theiefore, the original objections of the Commission still ~~ ~• appeared to be valid,since,there were no ade uate q provisions to buffer the parking and ~ ~' '~ driveway areas of the R-3 from the R-l, and it would.appear unlikely that apartments would f: , ever be developed on.a parcel of;land measuring only 150 by 150 feet.' Furthermore in view ' f` , of all,these problems and in view.of the fact`that,the petitioner had not submitted revised ~~ plans;reflecting the'CoaRnisaion's wishes, the.Commission might`wish to continue subject i ~ ~' -pe ~tions since even if bcth Portions A end.B were zoned R=3, there still would be con- ~'' siderable concern as,to off-site.improvements`for Portion B which might not be improved ~;~ '~ or installed for some time, and a bottleneck would be created at this intersection of ~'` " 'Romneya Drive.and State College Boulevard since.this.was the most critical part of the ~ ` ' ~°'' ,- street. :; ,~: Chairman.Herbst advised the`developer of the proposed,project that the.Commiasion had iequested reyised plans'.be"submiCted iacorporatirig~all of the reco~endations af the Comnission - however, this had not been done, and since Portion B coald hardly be devel- r oped.,as a regular R-3.project,.he,; as a Coa¢nissioner, could'not consider subject petitions , without.these>reviaed.plans. Therefore,.he would suggest that subject petirions be continued an.;additional four weeks to allow time for the submission of revised plans as originally requested by the Cou~ission since he did not like having his intelligence contested by ignoring the Commission's directione. Cormnissioner G.auer concurred witk the statements made.by Chairman Herbst, noting that::this would'present.a typical problem that had occurred throughout the city £or a number of years-when a portion_of the property was held out, then the subsequent owner would file a petition claiming hardship dn developing the parcel~whea, as a matter of fact, these ~ rrv~k n`IKdW~"+V:`Yk ..1~ .1!~.M'~~. . ~ . . ~ •. ?^ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ' Y . '~ r MINUTE$ ~ PLANNING COI~SISS S mb~l0 , ' ~ ~ ' f .. ; epte ION,; , 1970 5332~ ±~ ; , ' , ;• , ; , ; ,. ~ tt ;, - . • < r. ,~ RECLASSIFICATION small parcels.should have been included in the original consideraEion ~w~ , y~ NO 70'71 7 of the property, and by withholding them;`had created their own hard- ~~~ ~ -~ a.; ship, and it would appear that the?subsequent petitioner would again- ~3~ VARIANCE NO 2195 request',a service station on Portion B, and he did not:care to; consider ~ - '. : acting on subject petitiono:`.todav , CONDITIONAI. USE ;; ; C ~ : '~~ ~ PERMITaNO 1195 Mr Jack Davis; representing the egent.for the petitioaer, appeared ;~~ n r°(Continued) ; ;before the Commiasion and noted hia reason for not submitting,'plans ~ ;~~ was because they were:.still:'tryingr-to siegotiate:with the property . . ' owner `however, they,`did not have;sufficient•_time,in'escrow:; 1 ; ~ , Chairman Herbat advised the-.developer that the Commission had`no choice siace it was s~` 'imperative that the.,Commission p;ovide "s'oiae type of 'p'rotecEioa for,the single-family , ~ ~•L liomeowners who:had resided in tHis;:area,for a number,'of yeais: f. Co~issioner Earano inquired of the developer wtiether: or'not' he was desirous of having 'y;~• the Commission;take action`on his:petitions at;this hearing. , . < : :, . , „ • , , - ,. , ; ; , - ~ . ~ , , .. , Mr Davis replied that he was not~in a good position since he had.attempted to accomplish ~~ what Ehe Co~ission had reya2ated.by having the.last•continuance, and they did not arrive at '~ ;a "meeting of:minds°'with the`property.`ownera =;tHerefo=e,,he.requested that this'•be denied 4'~~ z ` !wifliout prejudice. " . .. . : , , . , . _ .~ e :: ; : : . ~.~ .~~ Chairman flerbst noted that:he would not even have the Commission.take,action on..this ,. petiCion, and`?either'the.Co~ission should continue~.the petitions for.:revised plai-s or the,petitionei should•request'withdrawal~=for zosiiag, etc., ; Mr Davis.adviaed the Commission that they would not object to further continuance if the ~ Co~ission so desi=ed. . , , ` . ` ~ ~,x~ ~ ` ;: : ~ Assistant Development'Services Director Ronald Thompson suggesced.that subject petitions ~~',r~ lie•continued;for.eight weekB which would allow;the•developer sufficient time to,contact `;,,~~; the,p;operty,owners:.and;in~orporate their`-desires and those.recommended by the Planning ' °- ~; ;.Commission ; .. ;' = .. ~~.,~ _~,: :, ;, . : . , .'~ ' .. .-. . . '...' .- ., Z~~ .Mr Davis noted Chat a four-weeks'. continuance,would be sufficient. ~ ~ Mr Roberts advised the Commission that if a four-week;con:inuance'were granted, this, ..,~~ 'in essepce,,:would be:'~ust:slightly over, three weeks_and.would`.not give the;petitiorier '~+' `sufficient time to prepare revised plans'if he;'did have a"meetiing of the minds".with 1~' >'theiproperty owners = therefore, Iie would;recominend a longer.continuance. ;+~ 'Co~issioner-Farana offered'a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. " 70-71-7, Variance No. 2195;'~and~qorditional Use Permit.No.'1195 to tYae ineeting.of ,~ November 2,.1970, to allow,time for"the petitioner to meet with the property owners and for the submission of revised plans incorporating all of the recommendations made by khe t~! Plar.ning Commiasion. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION'CARRIED. •':~ #', RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, ST. MARK'.S METHODIST CHURCH OF AN?,HEIM, 3718 West N0. 70=11-11 Orange Aven~ae, Anaheim, California; Owner; I. NEWHOUSE, 11301 Bixler i ,i ' ' Drive, Garden Grove, California, Agent; property described as: A VARIANCE N0. 2199 rectangularly shaped parcel''of land having a frontage of approximately ; ,232 feet,on the south.side of the westerly extension of Mungall Drive, ' "~ . ~ :,- ~ fiavin a maximum de th of a $ p pproximately 189 feet, and being loc ated ~ ' approximately 664 feet~west of Che centerline of Knott Avenue: Property presently classi- fied R-A,,AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. : _ _ ._, . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r:..,~':r . ,. . ..... .~~ . . .. . . .. . ~ ~ ~ r;r +;'z REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE..'WAIVER: OF MAXIMUM:BUILDING`HEIGHT WITHIN 250 FEET OF ' . " :SINGLE-FAMILY'.ZESIDENTIAL ZONED.PROPERTY TO ESTABLISH ~~ . ' ' A 29eUNIT;'TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX: Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject,psoperty,,uses estab- `lished;in close proximity,'and,the proposal to develop.a 29-unit, two-story apartment complex'on sub.ject property with.these units lieing within 50 feet of the R-1 properties -to the §outh in the City of Buena Park; that a letter from the dity of Buena'Park.Planning .- Director indi~cated they required a 50-foot setback for two-story construction of apart- ~ ~ ments from R-l homes - however, a.small portion,at.the extreme east of the property was i approximately:40 feet;from the R-l.property; and the Anaheim Generel Plan indicated this area as:being`appropriate for multiple-,family residential uses: Therefore, the Commission ; ° "would'have to determine whethei or not two-story apartmenta should be allowed within the ; .. minimum:required iri the City of Anaheim of 150 feet and wiEhin the S0 feet required,by ~ ~ ; _ ~ l . ,, `. .....~ ,~. _ ~ ~ ~:~ ~_ ~ MINUTES ~TY pLA1QiQING COMh1 ~ ~ . ~ , ISSI0N, Septemb 10, 1970 • 5333 .. - ~°~ ~ ` RECLASSIFICATION = the City of'Buena Park Furthermore, if the-Commissiori determined NO 70 71 1 t ~ 1 - that.the~proposal was_appro riate . , p , some appropriate:justification;, = for-grantipg this relief..would Have to~be made as part of':the approval ' '~ r~ VARIANCE,NO~ 2199 ~ of tiie variance, and in an ef£ort to asaure,Ehe extension..of:Mungall ; (Continued) " Drive'' f the t Eh ~ . . ar r o e wes~:, the_C ommission migtit wish':to_iniEiate an s area;developinent plan to.:provide:;for ultimate':circulation-in this..area,. r a; ~ said plan o b dori ~ ; t , e e in cooperation with the:City„of,,;Buena;Park. `~ Mr William=Phe1 s'~ desi ner re ,resentin the` etiti'oner a ~ •~~ ~ ~ • P a 8. P 8 P , ppeared before the Commission : a d not d h ,'~ ~~ - n e ,t at theY~property to the east was develaped with'two story-apartmentsiwhich'were' cl se th ~ ` o r an the proposed;development,.whereas:they~were no't:proposing,to have living areas turned into -the R=;:1 at .ttie one :corner where the ` w l s;` H : ' y , ere es t an 50 feet ;from tlie R-1. - ; ' ! - , + ;. . : , ; "` Mr Thompsoa noted,for the Coannission Ehat a small jutting,~portion was.being used by the R l pro t r' , , per y owne s for Tandscaping on~the rear of.the~r~ ro ert ' p p y;.and:it would be im- possible to cut off this small portion~:since it would be a;landlocked paicel and that ~'~ , the proposed development would not be-:any less desi,iable:than that:already developed in ~ ~ ~ the:'area ' , . . 1 . ~ . ' !_ ~,, ~' Mr Phplps noted fhat the'~~apartment development to the east had both th i l "~~ ~ , , e r iving rooa~e and b"edrooms facing the R-1 . . ' ~- ~s ' . ' " s', ' '~ ~~ ~ ~ Mr Robert indicated one;point which the Coromission might wiah to consider - the fact ` th t th ~ x~ a ; e R 3 in tiie City._of Anaheim was zoned`and.develo ped pr i o r t o a n y z o n i n g o r d e v e lop- ing of the R-1 in the City of Buena Park theYefore;.that might be the rea . o f tw ~ .. . s n or o- ; story,located that:'c2ose',in ttie.City,ofi"Anaheim. ." ' .. ,: ~ bo one appeared'in!opposition to'subject petitions ' < . , : t,. _ , . , , ~, :, ;~ TAE HEARING WAS.CLOSED. ~ a~ . Commissiener Kaywood inquired whether,or not.,staff:coald initiate an=area development plan K~~ ; in-oooperatioa with,the City of Buena'Park which would;irisure thaE'.Mungall Drive was ~ ~"'` . extended through subject property and ;farther..to the west and proqide additiu~ial.circula- ` tion in the City of.Buena~Park ` ~~ ' ~: : . • Mr Roberts noted Ehat the'staff.had discussed<this~;with.a staf~ member o£ the Buena Park t , ~ "~ . ; Planning Department; as~well as,th'e:setback -;therefore; staff would wor& with the Buena '~Pa k=;' e en Civ ~`'~ r repr s ta es regarding circulation, and that'a IetEer from the'P1&nning`Director •,of the City of Buena Park:had~indicated a 50-foo Eb a ;, t-se ack w s required.where two-story apartments were proposed adjacent to R=1 ~ ~~ , ~, ~ ,_ ~ Chairman Herbat noted that if the waiver of the 150-foot setback were granted, this would ~be.,gi~anting the petitioner a riglit whicti the :R=3 roper t th e . ~:~i - p ty o e ast enjoyed, said P P ' ro erty being aet back only 30 feet from the R-l, and t5at`since;the R-1>was built after ' the apartments were developed, 3t would appear that the`R,l had encroached on the multiple- a femily.development - therefo.re, fhis waiver should be granted on that b i ~ as s. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Co~niesioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-168 and moved for its passage.and adoption ti•. ~~ to reco~end.to the City Council that Petitiori'for Reclassification No. 70-71-11 be approved, subject to conditions. .(See Resolution Book) " y On roll call;the foregoing resolution.was passed by the following vote: f !c' _ _ ` AYES: COf~tISSIONERS. 'Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Herbst. ,; ! . s NOES:: COMMISSTONERS: None. ' 1 : ' ABSENT: COMLSISSIONERS; Allred; Rowland.' _ ' ~ ? ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Ksywood.. ' ~ ! ' • .',i ,~ `Commissioner-Farano,!offered Resolution No. PC70-169 and moved for its passage and adoption t ~` ' o.grant Petition for Variance No. 219,9, subject to conditions,.on the basis that it was doubtfi~~ that the:R-A percel;to the west ould be d S ed ` ; w e elop , for single-family sesidential uses and that the R-1 properties.in the City of Buena Park were developed after construc- ': : tion of the two-story aparfinents to the east of ~subject;property.::Therefore, the peti- tioner should be entitled to~the same rights en y d b jo e y the property owner to the east. Furthermore,::the City of Buena Park required only a 50-fooC setback for.two-story apart- ' ments;.and.the petit2onerwas proposing a.50-foot setback for all but two of the units. <(See Resolution Book) On roll call-the foregoing resolution was passed by~the following votec ~'`~; AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Seymour~ Herbst, j- `NOES:; COMMISSIONERS: None... ~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .Allred, Rowland. ~ . ~. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:. Kaywood. l.:.Y ', ! . ... . . . . . ,~ .. . . . . - ~ ~ . - - - . .~ . ~ ~ . . . . . ~ . . . ~ . - . . . ~y~`~ . .~ ~ ES, CITY'pI,ANNING:COMt~tISSION,.SeptE VARIANCE N0:.:2; approximately;; Allied, Rowland, and of State College"Boulevard Pro ert y '' " °° `~°_ ~ne cencerisne . ,p y p;esentl classified R A AGRICULTURAL ZO E ~ , , , N . '. REQUESTED CIASSIFICATION . R 3 ; MUI,TIPLE FAMILY RESI A ;` ' ' , DENTI I ,. Z6NE r ` REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF.(~) M(~(IMUM ,ggIGHT~WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN'R-A ZONE ~{ , (2) MINIMUM L.4ND AREA PER TJWELLIN6;.UNIT, ~3);;'~MINIMUM FLOUR" ~ =' - AREA' PER DWELLING..UNIT, AND (4)..MINIMUM REQUIRED PARIZING SPACES TO ESTA H }~ , BLIS A SO UNIT APARTMEIVT COMPLEX ` ~ ` ., ' ` ~. , :~ : Zonirig Superyisor Charles.Roberta reviEwed the.location of sub ect•r ro erE `liskred in close proximit a d th~ p ~~ . y,, n ; e proposal to,;establiah a~50 unit, two-stor~uapartment ' complex over;subterraneaa,i;parking wherein space was pr ide ~ ~ ~ , ov d,. for..:onl -whereas Code'parking would:require clear access parking for ~75 s aces y ndO e i . p , a the petit oner ;proposed to provide the additional parkiag with tandem parking for-18 s aces etiti tha th " ~ ~;~ ~ p p ;. t e, ; oner was also' providing onTy 900 s_quare feet of,;building site area per unit, whereas, Code required 1200, square `feet that 16';u~its' w ' ~'~.~,' ^ ,. . ere proposed with ..582 squsre feet; whereas Code would require,700 sqaare feet however,`the.Commission`; i the ' i~ n past .by policy,.had ~allowed a maximum.of 25% of the•uni~s as:,bachelor units havizg oely 435 squ the fe 16 an s ~ are se et, uniE d represented:33~ of the fotal n~imber of ;uaita.' : ~ < , . Mr <oberts noted that the.,Citp of Anaheim policy required~accessways for Pire depax~tment vehicles to be no ~~ ~~ ~ , , more_than 200 feet.from any'xesidential u~it -;tiowever,the rear apartment -: unit of this project'was more than 318=feet f o , ,, ~ r m Placentia Avenue;::that'the drive to the subCerranean"garage'did.not come:to wittiin 200'feet;of that st u h~ ruct re, but this:COUld not', be considered;.a..vehiculai.accees to accommodate-fire'department vehicles since the inaufficie w t ~ , re n as turning radius as required`by the fire department standarda;'and.thet the Assistant Fire Ctiief had ;reviewed th ro e . e p pos d:plans and had made,som~ suggestions for :modifications:by moying stairways; etc.,"which would make the lan m e h p or acceptable - owever, the Assiatant Fire Chief also ipdicated this was not th mo ~ e st desireble plan, but it could be lived with Furtheimore, the< •erall impression`:of thi o a t ~;, ' s pr ; jec indicated an ttempt through increase3',density to make the project economically:feasible for~r8sidential development in re ~ r 4; ~ ' an a a desigr.ated=on the recently adop-ted General Plan for,potential commercial.development ' ~ ;~ . ~_ °s` Mr R Jones,: 128 East Katella Avenue desi . ' ;for.the etitiorier a ' S~eL o~-the:project and:representing the agent P ' ea ed be ~, }? ' , pp r fore the Commisaion and'noted,that he had worked on a similar,development with Mr. Ray:.Rou h and th n ~ ' ~ ~ g ,. e o ly basic.;difference between those properties.arid subject property w8s that a-two-story apartment d le a ' j ~ omp x w whereas,those s proposed, .were three ato ry,'and the=latest.revised';plans;indicated the:.tandem parking had been el~iminated, and 79' i ~ / '~'' ~ park ng.spacea were~:being'provided; that thfs:'would be a very striking development with ample iecreation~facilitie ;' o i s ;some; f which were:subterranean while a-portion'~was'.above Ehe parking deck, and this .facility t6o ld b" ad s ' ~ _ u j e isolated from the cent property,' thereby .confining the noises:rwithin the" units themselve he h d s u m ' ~ a s: F -. rther ubmitted or the:revised plan to the:Fire Chief ss it pertained to the'200-foot e~ 'distance from'the street and h d ~ ` a been given approval.on the latest revised'-' lan =:`'this was after he;hed aubmitted the plan to the Development:Services staf E an t e ' - , o b d there.appeared a definite.need for"leaser'square:,footage'per apertmeat.because of Ehe exEremely high cost of'living which'yo ` ~ ung people and newlyweds;faced ; therefore,-they were forced to live in accoa~odations that did not require High rent , and this could be accomplished only through'smaller uniCe`than Ehat required by Code:of 700 s e t " ; : , . quar .fee . ' _ , ,c _. _ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ... ~~ . ~ _ ~ . - . . .. . . . . . . . . .. i ; .:~. -lrt : . . . _ .. . . _ , . : . '. . . '. . . ' .. ~ . . . , `.f[ . L ~ ' _ " . . .. ~ . ~ _.. ~ ~ . . . .. ~ . . ~' . ~ ~~1 73 " e ;¢s a^TQ":;r +r,.. S .'"; ~. •~ 4~`i"+•+.,:.?A~)~^•.i~ -a' ~ ~ " ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONAfISSION, SeptembeF 10,-1970 5335 ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION `Chairman Herbst informed the designer that the`Commiasion,was not as ; NO 70-71 12 , conc d bo h ~ erne a ut the bac elor apartme~tss ,as they: were, with Efie dens'ity ,' ;proposed of more than 50 units per acre~~and• rovidi l a ` ~ ' p ng on y 900 squ re VARIANCE NO '~2203 :fe t'of l d ~`a ~ ± e an rea for esch "unit 'instead iof 1200` square feet,, `aud. tHat (Continued)- this problem:would hav t b me e 2''; , e o e re died befor the.Ca,+mission.'could'' consider ub e et ;~ s j ct~p ition ; Also,_accessibility to the prope=ty,wouTd ', ` be extr l _ if c ' ~ i , eme y d fi ult since the Co~ission had.discussed this with ~ the T affi En i ~ - r c g neer, who had indicated`no left-turn,pocket could be provided:because o£ ' •tre a c l t e ' °' , c e era ion ne ded to make the overpass going-,easterly`and:the';acceleratiosi;of cars ~co d ; fr e "~~';` ming own ; om th overpass goirig4westerly .;Furtfiermore, after having;visited,*he ' ro t h ss ' `~'~ ;p per y, t e,Commi ion found it; extremely di'fficult'to gain access to.the`property , 'comi Sf th t' ng rom e wes , and a situation could ariee where.vehicles would be'stacked.all ' ~<the way to State College Boulevard awaitin a ch t - g ance o make':a lefE turn into the property. ~ :'Mr Joaes then stated he would like to-work with the.adjoining property•owners:in order to ,.provide an acceptable deqelopmenl`;- ho-aever; he no ' re ~ :was t awa of a.:traffic ar accesa ` m n = proble to a d from the property.' " . ; : .` ~ . ;Co~issioner Gauer noted tfiat if sub ect j,.petition were approved as permitted, the.Commission - ld ~ ~ wou fiave to;-rewrite their entire R-3 ordinance; furthermore, when'vehicl'es,,came`down.from the overpass of the freeway and passed in fr nt b c r `~'' R~ o of su je t p operty; the speed of:these `vehicles was<extreaely.fast, and''=there,could be innumerable accidents if this additional , _traffic•were'added to the flow of traffic on:Placentia Avenue. . ,.: ,. g ., Mr Jones noted;that subje`qt property should be allowen~to be developed with some type of e o v: ~ ,:dev l pment -:however; the'property was not conducive to single-family homes. ~ ~ ~ Chairman He:bst,noted that neither wss the property`conducive to the propoaed type of density. jk ~ ;e'`~ I "Mr 7ones=noted that:.since he was ,using Mr. Rough'.s project as a semple he felt the u ' ~~; , 'aevelopmeat would be acceptable. , t . ,r,~ ; ; "' , ` ~ Chairman Herb§t noted that there were very few areas in Anaheim that could be developed with tfie pro osed typ f de ' ,r~f p e o nsity; and this was'one of the areas it would not.be aFplicable to because of:the'.t;affic-problem: . ~~ ~'~ ,; , ° y ~, Mrs CTaire Adams, 215 Shakespear~Street, owner:of an 8-unit;.apartment complEx on the south side of Pl nti ' ' ,~ ~~ `$'~"„ ace a Avenue at .1238 and.I262"Placentia avenue, appeared before the Coaunission 'and nafed they were_ve conce d i h t ":>'~,; ry rne w t > ha waiver of..the required,parking situce they were 'required to piovide:l'~ aces p i iE `'s Rp er, in ,'and they had fourplexes , fuithermore,_the Evans ~ property`was:also'in<this aiea and;had a 350-foot frontage wherein'on1~ 16 u it w ' -'~ 4 r n s ere `develo ped, and, therefore,'the proposed development would be too dense for the size of ' ' ,the,pa;cel.- In addition to that,ithere were constant Eraffic problems on the street, and a parking problem arose ever ti e h . ' <' ",•; y m t e U A.W. held a meeting in their quarters. Lastly, ' _ the property-owners `of these apartments were als e , '" ~ . o v ry concerned about a possible fire hazard,:and'they were giad'to note that the Fire Department reviewed these plans and made reco~endations, and that.although;,they were not opposed to R-3 development of the property, the were co c d ab t Y~ _;:? y. n erne ou the same problems expressed by the Commission. Mr. Charles Hamilton, representing Mr: Joaeph Evans, owner of the apartment complex at 1216-1234 Piacentia'Ave ue a e e b n , pp ar d efore the Commission and indicated there would be a very.definite traffic problem since Ehe vehi le o i c a c m ng down from the overpass along the north side of the street were traveliitg at 60 to 65 miles per hour and i s d , ngres an egress would be difficult, as well as any on-atreet parking, since the petitioner was not proposing to p=ovide adequate or sufficient parking. Furthermore,.he could not see how"thi s area could support'the'proposed type of development since it appeared this was more lik t e a motel han an apartment house, and he recommended that the Planning Commission maintain sound planning and avoid burdenin ro e ti g p p r es already developed with any hardship. , Commissioner Kaywood offere& a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. C 70-71-12 and Variance No 2203 e '`- . to Ehe m eting of October 5, 1970, to allow time for the ~ petitioner to resolve the many.problems presented by the Co~ission e d t e e ' ~ n o pr s nt revised L glans. Co~¢nissioner Gauer secanded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ,, Commissioner Gauer noted for,the.petitioner's represenEative that the General Plan which the.Planning Commission and Cit Cou il h d y nc a adopted recently indicated this area, parti- cularly subject prope=ty,.as being;suitable for r comme cial use, and althougti this document 'was not sacred, it did reflect the thinking of the Commiasion, and that the petitioner ~ ahould lso : a prepare himself to address arguments.as to the Coffinission's thinking for this ~ general area. ~ _ : , .: ' ... , ,; . ., : .- ~~ ,r":~Siit3'ia"~"m'_°'~;~-w.+..7ii(l~,;F . 4''~ie~'~~.,-yvs~s~'~~,'":°'~~~ ~~c,~~•+„y~ MINUTES, C~Y PLANNING COrII~fISSION, SepEembe~0, 1970 ~' S336 y;, Chairman Herbst noted that in vtew of..the fact that:the•next item,might take.conaidersble• . " time'; he wou~.d suggest that the'Commission consider Reclaseification No:;70-Z1-10 prioi ' to Reclassification No :70 71-1°3 - # : r ': ~; . .< ., , _ ~' ' RECLASSIFICA~ION - PUBLIC HEARING HEIRS OF-LENA WIESE „DECEASED, c/o Bank of American. ~ NO ZO 71 ~' : Trus,t`;Department,;;801 North Main;StreeE; Santa Ana,',;.California;.Owners; ; ; STANLEY E BELL, 9I76 Katella Avenue,~Anaheim; California;.Agent;;: ° ; requesting that propertq described as:'. A rectangularly'sheped parcel . of land ha~ing a frontage-of approximately 120 feet.'on the-southiside.of.Ba11 Road,;having~ ' a mazimum depth of;;approximately:310 feet,,and being';located.approximately 340',feet"east ' : of th"e centerline::of Loaia Street, and':further described as`,;,1582.West'•Ball_.Road:; be; reclassified from'the R'A; AGRICULTURAL`, ZONE;.TO THE~R 3,"MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE: : Zoniiig Supervisor Charles?Roberts reviewed the locat~ion of sub'ect, ro ert ~ lished in close proximity, and.:noted;Efiat thei' etitioner. ~ p P Y, uaes estab- p proposed`~to develop a:'17-unit, , two story'apartment complex.which would be in`.conforinance~with all the.site development atandards of the~R=3 Zone, and that the'General Plan~indicated this general area as being ~ appropriate"for medium-density.;development~:Furthermore, the°petitioner had'been,advised = that(~the walls proposed within the frorit setback area ceeld`not exceed 42 inches in height unless=they were openwork metal fences., • Mr Stanley;;Bell, agent for the petitioner,.appeared before the Commission and stated that < the:proposed development of,sub.ject property would be in harmony-with other development in ' theraxea;~that'a letter was on file from the church indicating they.were in favor of the apartaient•developm'ent; that the`'property to tfie easE was"developed.for multiple-family : residential uses;~!tkiat tliey.concurred'with all of the requirements of the Repo;t to the - Commission,`;that.the proposed deyelopment would be a quality'type,facility with a number < of~good amenities;`:and that.this would;be'similar to other,`developments.in;Anaheim. Mr Darrell:Miller,•.1557 West Ball Road, inquired as::to what type of parking was proposed, since•there;already existed a.216 unit:,apartment complex to.:the east - hm,~ever, there', ~, never,seemed to be adequsfe parking space; and he was opposed to,eny waiver of parking `` requirements: The Commission advised the:opposition that.tlie petitioner was required to meet Code `~ parking requirement's which'had recently.been amended:and which sequired.considerably more ti •.than was required.when the aparEments to the east were.bu3lt. - , ; ,:, ~ ~: Mr Mi~ller'inquired.whether or not the petitioner would be allowed to present revised i„, plans>which would~.lie approved~without a public hearing'after Chese plans had been approved l'`: by the Co~ission. '' : The Commiss,ion noted that eny deviation:from Code would have to be considered through a ~ ` variance application at public hearing,,and all,.property owners would be advised as to 'any public hearing „,and that the,xevised plans, if approved without a public hearing, ;; would-have to conform with all Ccde requirements. i..;: THE HEARING WAS CLOSEU, t`` (` I ',: Commissioner Seymour returned ta~.the Council Chamber at 8:10 P.M. + I' : Co~issioner Kaywood offered Resolutiun No. PC70-170 and move8 for its passage and adop- i,' tion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-10 ~' be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) f I: . • On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~IISSIONERS;, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Herbst. NOESt COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:` Allred,.Rowland. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. ~ i. `. ~ , ~: ~, j '. : ~-~'`~ ~ 3 dt+ $ f~ : .4 ~ ~. z i'~ ~ r~~,N'~ .. .. ~t. u ri~~ ~ ..+ ..~ J^~ L ': :r j ~ ~ . e,.. . 2 r ' ~ y .,~ a v, ,os~ y ~ , a ?~ r;~t..r . ~; . ; ` : ~, MINUTES C Y ye , ~ PLANNING COMMISSION, Septembe~3%i0, 1970 i5" 337 . ,= RECLASSIFIbATION PUBLIC HEARZNG. BERNARDO YORBA; ET AL, 5440:Santa Ana Canyon Road, NO .70 71 13. ' Anaheim, Celif r a " n s . , o ni , Oia ers;~,CALPROP CORP., 1900 Avenue of'the SEars , s :- ` Suite 1400,;Los.'Angeles,?Oalifornia, Agent; property described as: ~ ' CONDITIONAL USE ; Portion A= An irre ularl sha ed a 8 c l l ' 3 ' - . y p p r e of and consisting of PERMIT NO 1202 ~ approximately 59 acres located:south of Santa:Ana Canyon Road having ~ ' ~ , :• an,approximete frontage.of 1;250 feet,on the'west:side of`the southEr- TENTATIVE MAP OF ly extension of~Imperial~; Hi hway a d ex . y ` ' ~ . g n : tending,westerly;therefrom. i TRACT~NO Z288 approximately 1~;600 feet.; and'Portion'B - An:irregularly sfia ed parcel ' 4 p of :land~.corisistin >,of a $, pproximately 5,1:acres, having'a'frontage of .. ~ % approximately 445'~feet on..the,south side of Santa Ana Canyon'Roed, ~ haying a maximum depth;of'approximately 1,963 feet extending approxi- ~' mately,1,700 feet>easterl'y from Royal"Oak Rosd. .Property presently . ! `classified R-A,.ACRICULTURAL;'20NE. , ~° 's ~ . - . . . . . . ~ . ' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION:'. PORTION A- R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,. ZONE; ` .. 5~ +a _ ~ ~ PORTION B -:R-1,.';ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ :s REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A'PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITfl WAIVER OF MA'dIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150`FEET OF.R-A'ON ' ; PORTION'A ONLY. ' TENTATIVE TRACT.REQUESTi .PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A SEGMENT OF PORTION A INTO ~ 103 CONDOMINIUM PARCELS. Zoning~Superyisor Charles Roberts.reviewed the'location of subject.property, uaes esCab- lished in.close proximit noti g th b I y,. n a .subject,;property had a resolution of intent to R H-10,000'zoning established on a major portion in'November 1967 de R cT ~~ , ,un r. e assification No. 6Z-68-Z;,~that'resolutions of:3ntenC to C-0 and C-l~zoning were established on th ~ e northeasterly•portion,of the property in~January, 19,65, and then.reviewed tne proposed development;' noti g th : s ~ ;, n e. plans ubmitted'with the application indicated a proposal to , develop a planned.residential_develo ment co si n p n sti g of both single-family homes and. • multiple family condominium units on the entire.110 acres; that the westerly 51 3 acres ` i; . was pioposed.`to be developed with a~single-family planned unit development;average 3.5 ;dwellin nit ' e * g u s p r,gross acre; that single-family detached.homes were propiised to be ~', grouped on large,building pads to mi imiz ra 'L~ ^ . , n e g ding, and each graded pad waild:contain a complete small neighboihood, aome;including recreation facilities; that the applicants hav indi d t e " `' e cate h housing styles 'for these"single-family homes,` tugether with prices, _:would;be compatible with the exiscing deyelopments in the a a r< ~ - rea; th t the easterly 58.5 acres were:proposed to be'developed"with!`courtyard,'homes that would be.sold on a condc i ~,= ~ ~= m ~~ um;basis;:that the courtyard homes would,be built in 4-unit clusters with each home i:avia~ a minirotim of- 400 s u - , `' . . q are feet of~ enclosed courtyard area, and the overall density of ti:e `condominium,or.townhouse areas would be 7.0 dwelli g units ss ~"~: n per gro acre; that the petitioners :ind3cated 55%'or 61 acres,,of the Eotal planned.site was proposed for develop- rit ~ w me , ; ith.the remaining 45% to be devoted'to recreation and open space; that two-fiftas `of the:site w uld b l ft i n . o e e n its atural state, with additional acreage devoted to land- scaping and•developed recreation areas; and that a major recreati t on center o serve all the residents'within the.110-acre site was proposed within the townhouse area of the ' ` ,'! projecE. Mr. Roberts noted that the applicsnts had further indicated that the courtnunity's appearance would be assured by a Homeowners Association, and the actual maintenance was to be per- formed by landscapers and groundkeepers under contract to the Association; that the applicanta had.further atated the total devefopment of the entire 110 acres would take approximately three to four years; and it was rheir expressed intent to begin with the multi-unit courtyard homes on the eastern portion of the site with subsequent development being phased in as market conditions permitted immediately.adjacent to Imperial Highwap to the south of the:proposed comaunity shopping center: Mr. Roberts, in eealuating the.proposal, noted the primary question before the Co~nission would be,whether the proposed densities fell within the development framework establishen , by the City Council:for the hill.and canyon,area; that the General Plan projected Planning Area.B as_being appropriate, basically, as a low=density residential area, and the selection of a relatively low-density residential concepE was made because it'appropriately represented current co~unity policies-toward future development in the Santa Ana Canyoz area; that the Anaheim Planning Cou~ission and City Council.had recognized.the unique planning opportunity that existed within this`area, and official actfon had been taken by both bodies:.that verified the intent that this area of Anaheim was to remain predominately,as a law-density:residential`area; that the General Plan further recognized that Ehe topo- graphy'dictated that.this area remain somewhat isolated from the continuous urban sprawl that had developed in the relatively flat areas of Anaheim and Orange County - thus, it was possible and desirable to plan the development of this area as if it were a planned residential.community; that the General Plan reflected a relatively low-density residentisl concept for:this,area, and it might prove feasible and desirable to develop portions of the hill areas'for garden apartments or even to develop higher densities on particular ~ I, i. i (::: ;, ;: :;i ~: (>~ ~_ I ~ :: . I 1: ; , .," . v~ rv~Y ~r: .^al.~~;e 1"s :,', fr4L"'" ~~''..~cT ~ ~ n's_' : .... ~~. +.'. ~-: . ••Y•h ~,~ } ~^ !~ ~ ~ MINUTES, ~~~[ pLp,NNING COrIliISSION, Septemb~0,-1970 ~338 ~~~~ n rk ~ RECLASSIFICATION e ~ ' sit s.to capitalize upon the spectacular views, and.these higher N0 70 71 13 r~ ~ . - density;uses might be appropriately integrate& into,designs for ; ' ~;T'; ~ - .:. golf-courses, regional parksites, and:larger shopping or;professional CONDITIONAL USE offi ent `~~ ; ce c ers; that an increase in density could be accommodated as s PERMIT N0..1202 long as a ti fac o 3'~'~ sa s t ry.balance was maintained between populaEion and ' - i ;.:'~ commun ty facilities, and as long as'the desired living environment TENTATIVE MAP'OF was achi ve a d ~ 4 e d n .maintained;.and that:.when development trends within ~. TRACT, N0. 7288 _ the:area liecame clear it mi ht r ~ , , . , , g be approgriate to amend the Plan to 4 (Continued) reflert higher density use at ce tain l t e , s r oca ion - as a:matter_of s ~ facE, the Co~ission was'alread considerin a Y g proposed General Plen • Amendment in this; area to d t r i whe ~,i~ `y~~ ~ " _ e e m ne ther higher density uses mignt ~ a ~ be. ppropriate, and since the. a;ea under consideration in this application was ve r h ` r,~ ry nea t e area.being considered in the General P1an Amendment, the Co~ission might wish to '`expand-the a ea of co id o ~'~ ~ , . r ns eration t cover both the north and south sides 'of Saata Ana.Canyon :Road and c nti s '~~ ~~ . o nue ubject petitions.pending results of ti:e General Plen~Amendment•"delib"erations. : ' ~ ' F Mr.,'Roberts noted.that based upon the slope analysis for this area and the actual densi:i es . common to different degrees of slope, and given the current low-density framework for the entire area,.the General Plan would a11ow approximatelq 300`dwelling units to be developed ' on the entire 110 acres. The density factor applicable in this parEicular instance would b a p e• p roximately 2.7 dwelling units per gross acre; whereas the applicants were proposiug 592 dwelling units on 110'a fo a cres, r. n overali density of 5.4 units. per gross acre, . precisely twice the density that.was currently planned that o r i l ,i `" . ; omme c a zoning had been approved for a co~iunity shopping facility at.the southwest corner of Santa Ana Can on ' _ Road and Imperial Highway, and the fact that the proposed townhouse area would be edjace:.t t a }? o _shopping center might lead §ome justification to permitting densities:in'Faccess of u en :;~;~ c rr t pro~eetiions r'also, the £act that the pro~ect was to be a total p2ahned cemmunit y ~ , might lend,further°justification for additional density, but it would appear thaL there ~ was no ~ustification for allowing twice the,denaity. Therefore, it would appear that if F~ the Planning:Cou¢nission determined that'a bonus in terms. of higher.density could be al.lcwea f r th a n Y;7~ o e pl n ed residential:development concept, chc.Commission might also wisti t•u cur.sidc.r permittin a total f`400 l , ~" g ; o dwel ing units on the entire 110 acres - this would el?ow the developers a 33% incre i e ~`}~ ase n th densitq presently;_anticipated on the Getteral Pla*±. However it wo ld a p f , u p ear. rom:the concept plan presented Chat..too great a po~tion of the planned u i comm n ty was proposed to be devoted to multiple-famil}• densities, ar.d if thE ' tawnhouse e ~ ~ s gment were.r,educed to include only those pada..adjacent to the shoppir.g cenC~r and'to I r ~ ~~ mpe ial Highway and the remainder of the area devotpd to single-family devel.apmcnt i ou , t w ld,appear the density would be reduced to a more reasoneble figure attd would more closel io i t h d ~ y p x ma e t e ensity projected on the General Plan. ` , ~ ' _ ~j Mr. Roberts,':in conclusion, noted that on`the face of it the overall ~ pianned,communiiy c C con e t a p ppeared quite acceptable and_might fit into the area - consequently, the Planc,iitg Commission mi ht wish to r end g ecomm a slightly higher density for the.good design bue =e , ext me caution should be exeraised to avoid allowing too great a densiCy and in the ~; , event the P1ann~ag Commission recommends approval af th:s concept or some variation Cherer•t, some thou h should be i g g ven to the proposed phased development in ordex to preciude devel•- o m p ent of only the multiple-family portion with no single-family ever being developed, a d n a possible solution to this would be to require a certain portion of the single-family area to be developed concurrently with each phase of multiple-family development; :;nd ti,a: anoth p t er oint hat the Commission might wiah to closely scrutinize was the proposed size of each single-family lot - while the densit of the i l ' ~ . y s ng e-family area was 3.5 units per gross acre, each bu;.lding lot was proposed on SOOO square feet - and it would a ear th ~ pp . ac given the nature of,this high-quality area, the lot.areas should be larger than what was ~ proposed, and if increased to 7200 square feet, would improye the overaZl density situatioi~. ' Comanissioner Farano inquired, referring to paragraph 17 of the evaluation the first i s ~ , sentence - did this mean that giadii-g and r~aulting slopes from this development would r e p ov to be dangerous; or would not be safe3by reason of excess loss or sloughing by the slo e :th t h d d n p ; a e i ot quite understand whaC was meant by this, and was there any question involved given'the density the petitioner proposed that this densit could b f y e sa ely constructed and developed? Mr. Roberts noted that.the'subdiviaion regult+tions established a maximum slope ratio of l~:l a d ba o , n sed up n that as a safety factor and based upon the terrain throughout•the entir e e are ; ceftain denai.ty factors were applied to various communities throughuut the hill`and c anyon area, and within this particular area and given the slope on this parti- cular` 110 c ' . a rea, one could get about 300 uni.ts from said development. Commissioner rarano then noted that if the City allowed more than that estimated by stblf, then ther e e was a d nger of running a risk and in deciding this it would be assumed thar there em was some el ent of risk, and there would be some arpas where the slope would noi_ fall within th o ; e pr per ratio according to our Code. HqWever, he still could not under- stand just what was meant b that d h y , an e wished to have this further explained. ;` - ~. I :~. i . ; r.._ ., .~, ' . . ''i'.~+,~.tiit`,kR7.,E1.. 4;YT,'~:..~ ~; ._ S' ~ o . -; Ni•~w»~ , ~ :~ ,a -~. ~'2 ~ ~ : .( - ~ i t ` MINUTES, l~fY PT.ANNING Cdt~AiISSION, Sepfem~,10, 1970 5339 . t ~ . ~+ ~~ ~ ' R E C L A S SIFICATION ` Mr Robertsrynoted:'that perhaps.Office•rEn13ineer~Jay Titus couid=enawer ~ ` ' ' ti~'~ NO 70 71 13 that: ' ~,s "• , ` ~ ' CONDITIONAL:USE Mr Titus noted that the slope ratios and the grading requirements. " ~ PERMIT N0 ~'1202 ' would be held based on?those`requirements where cerEain pad areas ~ ~ ' would be constructed, an8 the density onrthaE pad area would vary. ` ~ "~ , - fENTATIVE MAP OF The .~gradisig requiiements would;be.held regardless of the`density` a-~ ~ . . TRACT=N0..t288 ~ on the buildable areas`constructed ' > . :< -._ .. (Continued) ,.: ~ . . . . ~, : Commissioner Farano then`~noted for clarification that.what'Mr. Titus ' ~ : , 4, = was. stating was that by reason of the giading'~requirement, the proposed developer may have to~reduce'and develop this"'to~a:total:of 300~units for the ` entir e ,property . - Mr.~Titus atated that this would:depend upon the density the Planning Commiasion and City ,' Council ~,granted. ~ ~ : .' , ., .: ` ~ ( ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ . . .. . , . .. .... . . . .. :_.. , , . . . . . . . . . Commtsaioner Gauer`noted that lot,sizes might;also be taken into consideration. ~'~,?.3 ~'v : ~~E . . . . . ~ . - ., '~..~~ , '., ..' ' , -: ~ . '.. . ' ' .'. ~ . " ~ Assistant Development~Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that he.felt~the;plan was ~.f: bA ~~-~Y. w"? ; a holdin ca acit t ' 8.. p y.' ype. plan and:(it,was based on.a..slope analysis of so many units per , ` ~:~ °~o-,; . acre on a.3:1 slope; so many,units per~.acre'on a:2:1 slope,,and 'so many anits `per acre ~;~ _ ~ on a,l•1 slope -~it;was this environment. ~ ~:: ' , . , • , . , ~ ~~~ Chairman Herbst noted tliat the density,requirements on.the General Plan at the preaent 'i time;:did not`include any other development then R-l or single-family dwellings. . ~~„~ Mr Roberts.replied that this was true with the exception of the'Nohl Ranch - the Plan ~ d r fl ct~ h ~ `~j0~ oes, e e some i h densit uses on that 8 Y particular portion of the hill and canyon srea= > tiowever, outside.of that:particular.Tand holding, no high-densiEy:land ases were anticipated. ~„~ Chairman Herbat noted that this particular plan indicated a:ahopping center which the ~ ~~~'~ Planning Commission recognized would encoura e hi her d~nsities 8 8 ,',and the petitioner was ~,~`~ ~'r' • proposing to:place these apartment units adjacent:to'the shopping cente;; and from his ' u s ' ~, ~,~ calc lation , the deasity, as he no~ed,,was approxiiaately 12 units per acre arouad the - ~'?~ shopping center ': '" _ , ~ ~ ~,~ `N ~„ Mr Roberta noted that on a gross figure C:aey averaged out .'to 7 units per grass acra, 'ocr ' .,,..,.~ whe~ one vas!,talking about derisity of the pads themaelvea, then this figure would go up . . ,. 2~~:~ to the viciiiit of -1 y ' 4~`units per•acre. : ~' ~ +'r; ~ . , : _ , ., . , . . . - , . . .: . • .. . . ~ ~ ~ . ~'h~ Chairatan Herbst further noted.tnat the R-1, 5000-square foot lots were down to a densit}- i~ of 3.5 units'per .acre, or,one unit per acre over the density recommended in the General ~ ,~'r Plan,;and~ that'he;wanted`this to:be brought to light because if the Co~tssion did ailow ~ _ multiple-family-residential development to occur in this general area or,up and down the n s "` ca yon, it"wa very importanC in the Commission's con§ideration as to this density since ;~ it could set the pattern`.for the entire Santa.Ana Canyon area, but it also did not y`~ necessaiily'reflect the denaity was too far out of line on an overall comparison of the ~; area,°and the Commiasion xecognized`the need for other multiple-family developments in ~~ the canyon; depending upon its location: Y,.j ~ Mr. Roberts noted'that the Plan did recognize that there might be certain areas where it ~ might be app=opriate for these high-density units.. ' ': f Chairman Herbst.noted that at the present time it did not reflect the density.as proposed ~, 3 under;this reclasaification; whereupon Mr.,Roberts replied in the negative. . ~+• Mr. Bernardo Yorba, one of the l~ndownera participating in this particular petition, appeared.before..the Cou~iesion and noted he was greteful for che opportunYty to preface the p=esentation.of this,proposal for the development of their lands;that they, 2ike many, had experienced a very_difficult transition'in the Santa Ana Canyon, having gone £or many decades of,agricultural to urbanlzation,.and Yt wss-a painful and sad decision to develop for sale lands that had such an ancient`heritage and holding - however, they could no . longer afford a land bank and,found citrus culture an anachronism; that they-bore a heavy responsibility to bring these lands to their best use and'one`that would reflect the spiriE of California and onQ iri which they and their children could take`pride because they,,would continue to live here with whatever they created; that foY generations their ! family had demc~natrated their good faith and confidence in the City of Anaheim, and 'ne i ' felt it was only fitting'that they progress together in this new concept and fresh approach ~'. to hillside living; that they who had this great love for their`land had'worked long and i" . hard_Eo bring it to its highest and best use,:and this was done, of course, with the assistance of City plannera and private plannera - many agencies had worked with them, ~ , but they had started actually:with a land use feasibility study.done by Economics Research ~ Associates in 1963,.and following this, they had initiated annexation which would guarer.tee _ . - ;:; ~, - , , .- _. ...._. ~-.... _..,w,~ :-. .,-.~:x:.>;chzy-.'n:vxG: Y .i...i5~: '~- - ~'ii~d . a.~~'+~ . ij;, -.. i ,. ~. . . ; . ~ ~.. .:.~ .~. '.:.: . . .. ~ . , f'Y4 ...r~..~Y__ ~.~t .,4.~...J : .i':~ ~~: ~ ". ~~'~~ .:. . ' :~ , '~ . . . . ~S~v .. ... ~. .. i MINUTES, GS:~L'1' PLADINING COMMISSION, Septembe~0, 1970 ~ 5340 _ ~ _ .. . ',. , s~~" RECLASSIEICATION - control of the.development of most'of the canyon to the City.of ~ NO.: 70 71-13 Anaheim; that,in-1964, they:had Pacific'Air.Industries fly the ranch ~• for them and developed'in cooperation with Boyle Engineering_ Company CONDITIONAL:USE a typograpfiic~and base:map forming the foundation for the development PERMIT N0. 12~2 ~ of,'the land,use concept -,so one'could see their interest in a '` "' ' soandly planned„iesidential community was tangibly demonstrated long ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF ~ before the creat;ton of the Hill_and.Canyon General Plan. ! TRACT N0. 7288 , ., ~ (Continued)• Mr..Yorba continued that their plan of development'was proudly ,~ presented by,Calprop.Corporation, Ken Mitchell & Associates, and ` Anacal Engineeririg, which he,felt clearly:demonstrated.the fact that`the principles which:they:were;applying in the development of large land holdings could'be applied on a'relatively small scale,"and.he thought this met the community needs which were;field foremost in their consideration; that"he was very happy and proud to be aseo'ciated-with this presentation and believed it repxesented e new and fresh concept in hill l"iving`-rather`than expending and.perpetuating the sape of their beautiful hill land, they,;were attempEing to preserve ita natural contours,and.this proposed development would set the trend`of conserving very much-in conforming with the plans'for a truly scenid corridor into Orange County and into Anaheim in parEicular; and that he iooked forward to a unanimous endorsement of the project. Mr. James Meyer, Vice President of Calprop Corporation, developer for the applicants, appeared before the Coa~ission and noted that they had spent a number of montha ~orking with.the various'staff inembers, Ken'Mitchell & Associates, and Anacal Engineering in attempting to develop what they felt`was a new concept in this area"of housing; that they had,known of the Yorba aite for quite some time and had,personally been involved in it.for the past seven to,eight.months; that,they had studied the canyon.area, the Hill and Canyon General Pian,:and the scenic; corridor proposal; that they felt this was an exciEing area, and_he would•try to develop an exciting proposal for the Commissionts consideration; that the staff had found most of.their proposaZs were equally exciting, although,they,were apart on such :things as density, but, obviously, this could be resolved ` as gentlemen; that the major area of concern was obviously ihat of density, so if he could atY••t'on thet porfion, he would°liice..to explain'the unusual featuzes of this project which they`felt raised some good pointa in their favor. First, they were proposing to baild a specialized;Eype of,housing-in:the townhouse`area where courtyard homes were proposed, this ,would be covered first. A multipie-family aiea - this housing was geared to three ;specialized segments; I) tre"'empty-nester" - the family whose children were no longer at home and,who no longer. wanted Che financial burden arid r~esp~nsibility of a large single-family home.- the condominium towuhouse concept provided a rather carefree type of.living for people and assured them that the exterior maiatena:sce would be taken care of whether or nut they were at home; 2) the single person aF whatever age who did aot wish:to continue apartment living - in man~. cases these people had never been married and had no other choice but aparCments sinca living in a home was too er,pensive, and others were divorced peraons who no longer desired to ur couid not afford to keep up a large.single-family home; and 3) the new family formatior., and to this last market segment the.condominium concept represented an interim housing at this point since this develop- ment was not proposed to provide ultimate housing for them, but only to have home owner- ship at a earlier date than they might if their only choice was purchase of a$30,000 home which was a typical price range today. Mr. Meyers noted that the queation of density had to be loaked at, not only in terms of unit density but also of.people density - people density, perhaps, was not a planning term, but it would be an interesting debate at staff level; that he felt this was a realistic'term - nevertheless, essentially people produced the need for city services - buf.lding larger units attracted larger family units, and statistics within the City of Anaheim published by the Development Services Department indicated that very clearly; that this proposed concept was not geared to family-type living - the townhouse area - the sizes were amaller and Ehe quality was higher, and the housing was costly in terma of price per square foot, the amenities were good, and the site development costs in this particular site were very extensive, particularly on the first pha~es where they were pioneering the downstream development; that some figures were compilad that might illustrate the.position they were taking, and many developers in the nor~aern part of the state had started to develop housing of this very size range and geared to these same markets just described; that the typical project of this type seceived an average occupancy.per dwelling unit of 1.8 persons as opposed to 3:9 per single-family dwelling unit within the City of Anaheim as a whole; that he had personally known of these devel- jopments to sall .to an average density of 1.6 persons per unit; that they were proposing larger units than he was more familiar with but were adding more amenities and yet trying to be on the conservatiye side as well, but after looking at these units which had been built in northern Califvxnia - not of this particular design but of the same type of concept - the size, general price range and directed toward the same marketsindicated approximately 1.8 persons per unit, which he felt would be a realistic figure - thus, the developer was requesting the ~~mmisaion to look at their proposal which had 410 townhouse units or courtyard units at 1.8 peraons per unit or a people density'of 738 _ ~. ,, , . - - - ., , . . , ,~ ~ . MINUTES, ~ PY PLANNING- CO1~Il~fISSION, Septem~ 10, 1970 5341 REdLASSIFICATION peraons and 182rsingle=fami~y units at 3.9 peraons, or 710 persons NO:--70-71=13' in these'182 unit's, or a^.total-people population of 1,448 persons, - which he felt were very xeasonable-figures, and after looking at CONDITIONAL USE ' 110 acres -;rather a lot of land despite the topography -, in comparing PERMIT.NO.:<1202 it with,300'single-family units;.i'f 300 single,family units were to be.allowed on this property at 3.9, there would be a people density TENTATIVE'.:MAP..OF of`1,170,;and.i£ 400 single=family units were allowed, the population TRACT N0:' 7288 w'ould'be`1,560 "=`therefore;'their proposal was approximatelq between '`'(Continued) , these two figures, about'at the point in terms of number of people that.could be,expected:or would be atEracted to this development would~be comparable to?350 aingle-famiZy homes:built if the land were urban, within~the.city.limits, and at the intersection of two major streets, namely, fhe Santa Ana',Canyon'Road and Imperial-Highway in the Santa Aaa Cariyon,area; that the shopping area=would be.developed in the fronf of the property at this irite=section which_would obviously create'-uses and traffic which raould be-far more compaEible with a little higher'density than with'large single-family homes and zoning. Mr: Meyers then noted that they would like to teuch on a few.of the pointa the staff's presentaEion, and he wouTd then be availeble to answer questions since all the people involved,in this proposed development were preaent and might be able to assist him if he'did riot know the answers. One of the condiEiona in the staff report called for a 50-foot.aetback along'Imperial Highway, and this came as quite a surprise to them when the staff,report was.received aince they had been working for months with the staff, `purposely avoiding.asking for any variances and trying to concentrate with as little controversy.as they could, but they were stiongly opposed to a 50-foot setback along Imperial,Highway for a number of reasons: l) that they had spent approximately $50,000 to date on planning and engineering on this property, and it appeared to be a little late to.have this kind of a"requirement imposed on the_property; 2): the parcel being proposed for the first development on which a tentaCive tract map was filed had the beat topography on the'whole property, and to lose an additional 30 by 1,225 feet would be very costly; 3)` the configuretion of the site.itself wss quite long and narrow, and the additional ' 30 feet would come off the~loag side sa that it would seriously affect the leyout, and i tliey.were considerably advanced in their planning for that site to have to dedicate this ~ extra 30 feet - therefore, they were reqeesting that the Plan:~ing Commisaion not impose this requirement-in the approval of th3s,project;.4) the condition of landscaping of the naEural,ereas or slopes - the crux of all tneir ef£orts`in the total plan was to preserve as mucti.of;.the,area as:possible in its natural state,:8nd to have to go in after that kind of effort and tear out tfie natural conditions and sepiant when the developmenE was completed', was cresting conditions which he did not consider good planning, especially since the developer ahould 'not be tryiag to preserve the natural slopes but should be looking aE greater densities for the property snd destroying the natural amenities which they were trying to preserve, working around attempting to save as,many of the ~ eucalyptus as they could, retaining the natural slope, aince they had been that wap for time in memorial; and they felt that was the beautq of the area and one of the reasons they were interested.in developing the property - therefore, from an economic and aesthetic point they did not want to remove ti:e natural areas but maintain them in their natural state - however, the cut and fill slopes that would be created because of the development-obviously they intended to landscape and sprinkler them - that would go with- out saying; 5) Che lot size in tae single=family area - he would like to explain thatthey had tr+_ed to disregard the queation of lot size because_they were attempting to work with the~cluster housing concept on this plan within a single-family or townhouse courtyard area; that the cluster concept, by ita nature, produced smaller lot sizes, that it produced a more close-type coimnunity of homes, that it left in its natural state far j more of the existing topograph - this is what.they had tried to do, but they could build ' a larger lot size without much problem, but it would mean extensive grading in addition ~ to what had been_proposed, asid this would be contrary not only to their own effort in ` this plan but also in the scenic corridor proposal which they were essentially in agree- ment with - the only conflict they had with the scenic corridor proposal, which the Commission was fully aware of-aware of the fact that the ordinance was not yet into effect, but they would be the first to support it.as an ordinance except for the 50-foot setback along Imperial Highwsy af Ehis late date since they felt financially it would be difficult to adhere to. Chairman Herbst inquired of staff and the Engineering Diviaion regarding the 50-foot setback - the reason why this was imposc-.i. (. Mr;.Roberts stated he would like to prefacE his answer to that question, Snd the statement ~ wHich Mr.,Meyera had made was absolutely true regarding the information given to him and ; to the architectural firm concerning the setback, and in all the staff's discussions with ~ them the staff had indicated ziglit.'•down the line that the site development standards j of the R-3 2one would apply, and in this particular.instance would require a 20-foot ! setback from Imperial Highway. However, in evaluating the proposal during the latter part of last week for final reporf to the Commission, additional consideration was given to the pending report for the scenic corridor overlay zone in the Santa Ana Canyon area, ~•.- • 1 .. ;_..::z... j ,•~?:. ; --- _ _ . _ ~ _...--. ._.--- _.. - - ... _ . _ _ .r"ffi'~. 'ti; . n Ir -; ,7 ~~' : :' :. ~. . w '.3 7 . ~ .. :.- ... . ~. .~ .: ~ .' # ~ .. .: . ~ ~ . ' ; MINIITES, ~Y PLANNING COI~IISSION, Septemb ~' 10, 1970 , '~ 5342 , ' - _.,+ , : s- .. , ,: : n ~ .:._'.'.~..~.. . -- ~ ~ .. ,,..:, . _...~.,.. .. , . . ' ,. , , ~~..-.; ~~~ _~ :; .. , '.~. ,. ~. : .. . . :... . . , . . . ., . ~. ~ . ' ... . . . . . . ~ RECI:ASSIFICATION `°~ and-,oae of.the~.suggestions made:.by staff to,the Commission in that ~ ::'. N0.'~'70=71=13~ reporE.where construction was;proposed along.all arterial highways ~, `within the acesiic'corridor, a.50 foot building setback be provided, , , ^. CONDITIONAL~:USE ,: and~`along:.the"_eacpresaways and':freeway8 a greater.setback'had been PERMIT NO 1202 ~ suggested. This;was°to capitalize oa the visual qualities:in the `: ~ ; area.r~nd to improve upon;'them in certain other aieas: : -. - . . ,. _ .. _ '-' TENTATIVE;MAP OF_:; TRACT N0.>7288- Mr..Thompson inteijected=;he would like.expand a little more on the ~ •_(Continued) -•,',.pxplanation`made by Mr. Roberts, and:one"of the reasons.for the": 50=foot setback and one ofithe-basic differences between the:applicant - arid the staff was:`density, -~,Eherefore,, if-the Co~ission bought the concept as•piesented,,then the'Co~ission mfghE want,to consider the-20-foot<setback a$ being.appropriate.;-; howeqer, if the Coimnission felt as~the staff;did that less density would=be'more,desirable-'in the area, ;then.the seEback along Imperial Highway would be ~ , SO feet, wiiich would iequire tlie developer to redesign.and incorporate this`additional setback into'.his plans„and this°was,'really,,the intent of the:`staff. Co~-i'ssiorier Gauer noted Ehat the Commission had viewed a number of applications'in this ' general area, and:he noted from the Report to the Commission that subject property was aanexed into the City of Anaheim:in August,`1964,.and_a resolution of intent for R-H- 10,000;zoning was:`established-in 1967, which would:be in line with the thinking of the I Planning Commissicn and`City Council and which wouid be what these bodies had held this i - area for, and inquired when in the course of:study in this`particular situation did the I thinking'change from R-H-10,O00 to 5000-square foot lots. Furtl:ermore, didn't the site development standaids of the R-3 Zone require 1200 square feet per-dwelling unit, and none`of these units:indicated-such. The Cuamiission had ~ust turned down someone a short while:ago?for.a.900-square foot land area per dwelling unit, and on what basis did the : petitioner feel he could dev~iop as he proposed and more or less abort the R-3 Ordinance. - Mr.•Thompson indicated that perhaps staff should be answering most of these questions rather than.the:petitioner, and in a11 fairness to Mr. Yorba and the other property owners in the area: at the time:the R-H-10,000 2one was.enacted as a resolution of I intent, iE;was the~~staff's feeling that much of that lend within about 450 acres, which not only covered`Mr. Yorba's;property but also covered much of the other property on ~ the Nohl Ranch, would develop.for that type of zoning and thst type of density - there- fore,;.the R-H-10,000 Zone was placed with a xesolution of iute:ei: on these properties; ~ that:orie of'~the reasons;afaff:felt:that if.e resolution of intent were established on the entire.'area, a developer could come 3a and process a subdivision map in 17 da}s, whereas he would spend three. to four.montas going through public hearings every time he wanted;Eo develop a tract; and tt,at the staff felt other zoning migtit be appropriate ' auch as was indicated for.higher.densitiea around a shopping center - however, the unit i size of this.project did meet the City.of Anaheim standards 2ind might exceed these ~ standards., i Mr. Roberte noted that moat of these units were two-bedroom ur.its, and the size of the ~ liding unit equalled or exceeded the miaimtan set forth by Code. ~ ~ Commissioner.Gauer noted that in view of the hillside development taking place and refer- ring tctthe Hollywood Hills,one did aot see the pads betng developed in the immediate area proposed on subject propertg since the Hollywood Hills maintained the natural besuty of the land with housea interspersed on the hills - this was even true in Laguna Beach where one did not see many pads being developed on the hillside, but the proposed development would be crowding up the hillside with pads, ar.d although this might be acceptable, it was noE exactly desirable; that the concept of increased density near the sfiopping center-was also acceptable,,but the quee':ion brought up here - would they be building the single-family homes along with the condominiums, or would the developet• wait and find out that xhey covlda't sell the single-family homes because the cost was too high,and then come in and want some more apartment development. Mr.,Meyer noted Chat they had spent considerable time thinking about this question since they knew it would be coming up, and'in answering Mr: Robert's series of questions, if he might point out two'existing developments in the canyon and hill area to the west where there was an'extremely fine, aingle-family residentiaT area - he felt anyone would lie hard-put ta.find any natural conditions remaining in that area which had been carved up and repl~nted - however, they were attempting.to svoid that since that was the most typical tS~e of,hillside development concept;,that the concept of cluster homes was one Ehat at first was a little difficult to understand, but basically it was that of pulling : the living units themselve¢ more closely together so that within the buildable area one -.would have a much ha.gher density than could have been built in a single-family area,but 'within the total lend area involved the density was not nearly as grest as it appea;ed on the building pad, and the whole purpose on an overall basis was to disrupt. as little land as possible, although one could not build housing without disrupting,land - there was no way to avoid it even though Chey were trying very hard. The developer felt that this type of planning - if the Commission were current with what was happening in housing ~ i ~ ~ .i' ~ i P I I I j. i__.. ,.. ~ ! ...., i ;: - ~ ; _ _ ;'x~ ^t x~. ( ~~ ', ,., ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, C1Ty pLANNING COI~SISSION, Septemb~l0; 1970 5343 . < a RECLA$SIFICATION - throughout the country; housing;trends~, planning trends, and develop- ~ N0..:70 71=13. ment`trends=- they.thought,-this.represented whatiwas Eaking,place in y <:;; `,. a number of:`:hillside.areas, sitd'orie;would. find this xype of prop.osal . _ . . _., ~CONDITIONAL.USE going hand-in-hand with the'hillside,;grading ordinancea being.pro-: PERMIT.NO. 1202 posed in'many areas, including•:Southern..California,.,which 1ed.the " way~in hillside grading ordinaaces.. { TENTATIVE:.MAP OF.. ~ TRACT.N0..7288 Mr .Meyers noted that the`.City of Thousand 0aks, for example, had a (Continued) .,similar.type proposal - not by his firm - wHich had'been.submitted ' and was similar"~in terms>of grading.pads,.Teaving as much'natural area;as possible,..and that particular project was being.used as a . pilot.program•and was being.procesaed.by the:city,cancurrently.with the::hiilside grading ordinance: Therefore,~ this concept did repr.esent current;planning..and was not just a gimmick to get more.;density. Iri'addition,-he wished.to again em»hasize:for Ehe Conaaission thatctHe'density question should not be looked':at in ~ust terms of the number of living units':liue.,number of people.that will be;brought into:.th'e area.- tnis might be,:an appropri- ate time for Mr. Ken MiEchell of`Ken Mitchell & Aasociates to explain what was,proposed, and he would:get back to Mr. Gauer's further questiona afterwards,:as tHey pertained to 'building sin le=.famil tiomes. 5.,,, Y - . ,_ Mr. Meyers notedithat Mr. Mitchell had given"them a great deal of guidance over the past few months;,Ehat he felt fie had done an excellent job since he had been in the business for about four yeer"s and was in on the original master planning of the Noh1 Ranch, so he was riot new to the_area and would speak.on claster development. Mr. Mitchell eppeared,before the'Commission and noted that after having walked over the aite and being familiar with the generel terrain, having worked with I.ouiR Nohl ten years - ago, there were two- ways.to approach`the.planning for"the,use of this land,'and after one had designed_about.'165;000'acres of land during-the past #ew years, it became pretty much `"old;hat" so that things that were inherent_and stood out, one tried to retain - therefore, environmenEal quality evident cn these hills; that was very important to them to keep, and they wanted to keep the undulation of the hills and they also wanted to keep the gzoves of eucalyptus and the feeling'.of'character of one changing elevation to another - that was.their aim on:this particular,:design: The other way:o£ approaching this.would be ttie typical subdiyision method that'had been used for centuries -:that-was to stair- °case up,and,down the hills: Since they'.had been working in this particular area of terrain (indicating on the map),`he Felt: the most imperative-thing to do`was to retain the environmental quality - to leave,things along if he could - since their objective `was to.retain much`of this environmentaL quality, he felt'the way.to do this was where they.hed a slope•covered;witk eucalyptus, i£ they could work aroundrand retain them in their naturel state;they would do tHis. For instance, in this particular case, they had -tried eve=ywhere in,their`planning endeavors to keep green open spaces, and here they were able to do that by retaining the existing cover wherever possible and.by creating these pads, they were able to retain the whole rows of eucalyptus Erees, and those that they had saved created a wide green area and also involved reteining some of the native growth - however,.some of the.slopes were left alone and where slopes were created, these eventually would be landscaped, but they were not concerned with the 1~:1 grade difference- as a matter of fact, they did not think they even had less than a 2:1, and most of them were 2'~:1, so in the design,of this, from the transition of one pad to another, they were still able to keep the general characteristics of the original terrain, which they thought . was paramount. Furthermore, the reason for projecting higher density in one area was because of the large commercial proposal at the intersection of Imperial Highway and SanEa Ana:Canyon Road, as well as the high school on the east side of Imperial Highway extended as depicted on the General Plan and which was a new major highway (Imperial `.Highway extended); a1L major fectors tending to create a logicaT use of the land for higher denaity, and he was sure that many of the school teachers in that high school would live in this type of development, and he thought they were successful in keeping much in ttiis type of planning and environmental quality than was found in a lot of typical hillside type of residential developments. Mr: Mitchell, 3n reviewing the 10,000-square foot_lot developments, stated he would much rather have a'S000-square foot lot with 60% of it as usable outdoor apace than to have a 10,000-square foot lot and the same amount of outdoor usable space - perhaps even smaller - invested in slope"which.he would have to maintain, and in this instance where th'ey had concentrated their thoughts in these clusters; they were retaining the natural characteristics of the slope which would be maintained by the Homeowners Association or some'other governing agency that would assure them of the environmental quality that was tha thinking that went into this planning. Mr. Meyers again appeared before the Commission and noted that in response to Commissioner Gauer's question regarding assurance to tha City that the developer would not build the higher density areae and leave town without completing the balance or retaining the area in the manner propoaed - perhaps Mr. Mitchell could also answer this - this was expressed Co him earlier by a memher uf Mr. Mitchell's staff as well as the City planning staff - i ---- I ,...i ~:. .:, f ~ ~1~~~ ~,,:;. _,. --: . . ..- . ~..-,.an,RA~ .._ .:.~, r.~~.~ ,;!,t~^:'?~.n.u.,-. " ..•~'~:~: . ~.'.. .:~~ ~ ,.'.,..,. .. ~~~..:... . .. ~ -."'.'. .. .~~.:.: ~..., : .... -:~~,~ , ~; MINUTES, '~4TY PLANNING COI~ASISSION, ~Septemb~,,10, 1970 ~ 5344 s -; ~ ;s : . ~ REdLASSIFICATION~' since they:had spent a~great many hours trying to`think'~up answers . N0.`70=71-13 they did not haye"a pat,'.gullible answer-except to.point-to wh8t: ~4 ' ': was'proposed and-,the project:itself,• to their intent and to the. ~~ ,. CONDITIONAL USE company's;.tract;record'as.a builder-developer who.was:nbt 3n the , , r 'PERMIT'N0. 1202r: larid,speculation:business to start;with -;ttiey"were only_>builder= c `' developers, that~they had not built a project yet where,they.had ~ -TENTATIVE MAP.OF not retaiiied aome interest in them,;and,in the particulsr..case of ''I; -TRACT N0.`•7288~ apartments', owaership intereat as well as management interest,was ~~ '` (Continued)~ retained;' ttiat in'tHis `par~icular PRD they intended to reEain a ?° managemeriE interest.- they;wanted.to`live with what tt-ey=built.sinc~ thia was~.a'pilot;projecE for them in this.type of housing;- tnerefore, ~ it had to be good since;it would be the~first in the aree;.that,there was no.good.planning . logic for:higher densitq~than,proposed to the•eae~ of the`developed R-H-10,0.00, and they : would staEe this publicly that the specificsr'of each site,plan;would.have to be presented for approval at:public"meetings,'and the~+ welcomed that.--therefore, they,had no concern about tliat;aspecE: Furthermore, the City of:Anaheim hed very effecEive.controls over ell , of,the:development in the canyon area, even though.they were requeating waiver af the staff's reco~endation's,:and'since the staff`had recommended that a conditional.use permit be.filed for the'Eotal property, they did want to know densities and,general'concept ' at':•:this:`time:'~in 'order to,familiarize themselves,with what was involved so that the. details of~~each specific site would be worked out.with the Qommission, staff, and City Council." . Mr: Meyere also noted that the best way to illustrate the manner.in which they had tried to'work'with the,bity in'development`:of the:patio areas there, they were im excess.of that`.iequired by:'the City code; that E,heir.parking was su'i~stantially in excesa'of City requirements-since they._did not want to have`on-street pazking, they were.building covered parking spaces to'avoid that; that`another;importanE point was the development difficul- tiesiin Ehe Santa:Ana Canyon which were very, very aubstantial - the development of the dreinage facilities was far greater than in any other arees,of the city; that they were now'in a position;on thfs property;of'bei,ng a downstream developer,'-meaning.that the deyelopment,of this p=op'erty firat would entsil the inatallation.of the various facili- tiea, auch'as extending.Tmperial Highwa~~, the uciderground drainage facilities which muat run parallel to Imperial', the.extension of utilitiea, and they had;one aector along Imperial Highway where the drainage and utilities alone were in excess of $200,000, development;.coeta,,which mightrnot aeeai much since there were no co:nparative figurea - however,.'it'was extremely high for that number of dwelling uiiita; and that they felt this-development:certainly,woµld encourage,upstream development of the hillier landa ,behind eubject property. Mr. Meyers then.pasaed around photographic aerials showing the various anglea of the property under consideration and showing.its perspective with the hills behind it, and to'illuetrate one;point, thia property, even though it had topography problema which everything in the canyon had, wae eubstantially more level and easier to develop than the property behind them - thus,`an additional reasonable justification for a bit higher deneity than the City orould expect to grant over the total canyon area. Coanniasioner Kaywood inquired on the eita development plan the area lndicated as being the recreation ar~a - could someone give hei the different elevatione and would thia area be r.eadily accu~ibl• to all the raeidente, etc. Mr. Mitahsll raplied that the icanadiate recraational area amenitiea for thia particular type r;;: ri.ewingw~r~loctt~d h~ra (indicatad area on the map), The co~nunity facllitiea were _~~ ti.~ a knoll, and during th• planning staga they andeavored in every lnatance where they cc id Co chann~lia• p~de~trian inovdmen~ toward that area and then had a gradient not ~ to exceed 6~ • therefore, Che configuration to thaC central recreationai amenity appeared to have a "snakey" approach. Co~nisaioner Gauer inquired as to the distance to this recreational area for walkfng ; purposes. Mr. Mitchell replied shat the map indicated the measurement was 1/8 inch per 20'feet - ~i however, he did not have the exact footage involved, but it was not a difficult walk, , about the distance most children would walk every day to a city park, and, furthermore, ~ they were concerned about the gradient that any of the cardiacs could do since there would be a mixture of ages in this particular type of project. ~ Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the structure at the top of the kno12 would ~ be a corporately owned one; ~~ ;,- Mr. Meyers replied.that this would be wholely owned.by a Homeowners Association. HowevQ~, he could not give any details because they were not that far along with their work with the lawyers on that project, but he wished to assure the Commiss~on and would go on,~ecord that they would, in some manner, build this recreational facility; that it was not juat a p , _ , , - ~ ,. . MINUTES,~y py~NING COMrIISSION, Septem ~`.10; 1970 ~ ; ..; 5345 ~ ~ ' ~` - . ' ' . .. ~ RECLASSIFICATION "~.pretty:picture on the wall, arid that it would not,:be built until - NO 7Q 71 13 the'development was probably~two thirda~.to,tHree-fourths aomplete ~ `~ ' ~ because it-!would",take th`at number of.people:,to:support.the major ` ~ CONDITIONAL USE fanility. • , ~ ' .:PERMIT N0.'::1202 :: ~ '; Chairman Herbst inquired whetlier or rot the coat: o£ this;project ~ TENTATIVE MAp OF ' would be amortized over the total project. TRACT NO 7288 : < ~ ~ (Continued) Mr':Meyers',replied that since meny of.the.sma~,.ler neighborhoods, such,as'the firs't;one, would•have their own amaller.recreational : ~ ' . ' cenfers:~and as°.they prog=essed:in dedeloping!to the pads, some of ~ ` the<pads"were too;small;to,justify their owii-recreaE3onal=facility,,and in those cases there would be a small recreational center.for two to thre`e pads,.,depending upon the number of people and number of dwelliug units, and.fhat the msjor center:would be built as :the development'~progressed: .. . Chaitman Heibst asked"that furtlier clarification.be msde regarding this since this was an interesting_'concept, arid the'developer was suggeating recreational,facilities here ; at.tHe proposed locafion.`but did riot:indicate~'how it.was;pzoposed torbe'developed; that ' he.felt•development of this major recreational facil;ity.should be;tied into the entire project in ;the sale of each unit-condominium-"since at some point'.in time they might ~.staEe`to,those purchasing_these units that they.would be able to build this recreational facility - however, the cost would be,charged,to.eac6 individdal'unit or home as part of the recreationaL.program or it would never be`built: ~ Mr ;Meqeis:;replied,that,perHaps he had not made his point clear - however, they were equally'concemed,Ehat:this;recreatio,nal facility would;be built and that it would be `" built in.the course of the project =•all he was~attempting to_.say from a'Tegal and tecfinical,standpo.irit,`they would'haye to work that out with the City,.F.H.A., and the Diviaion~of;Rea1 Estate>to assure_them~that"the recreational facility would be built, and his guess, and::he emphasized this, would be they;would have to have a cost estimate made:as to the facility;'and Ehis would be allocated'oa a cHarge per dwellingunit,perhaps e greaEer.amount charged:to the:siagle-family homes`.than'the townhouse area; that this cost-would be b'uilf:.into the-sales price and those'funds would be'put into trust and ` held .there =:however, the'se funds would'.not be under, their.control: Commissioner;Gauer'noted that this could possibly be similar to the CC&Rs which the City.of Anaheim;had,estabTished; Mr• Thompson~'noted.tHat this would be the intent - to take care of this type of facility through.the CC&Rs.-` - Co~issioner Gauer xhen stated he felt there should be some'type of plan for this struc- ture and what the.charges would cover other than the large recreational area since he could not see any small recreational areas.. Were there any swimming pools in the first phase: _ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that,plus the fact that the Real Estate Coa~issioner would have more than something to say about this from the standpoint of a condomiaium. Mr. Meyers replied that there was a 20 by 40-foot swimming pool, a recreation area to serve 103-dwelling unita, approximately one-half the number of dwelling units served by this type of facility (indicating the area on the plan); that all of the pads did not - have the apecific plans developed_for.them - some did, but the landscaping was not shown because they had aubmitted only for one specific area a plan for approval of the first tract of many tracts that the Commission would have.to consider, and that was Tract No. 7288, a aegment of Portion A, and the`=eason'for starting at this locatioii was very simply.that Imperial Highway had to be extended to st.arE the project, drainage and utilities had to be brought.along this streek, and they would.maintain in the townhouse area the ;same type of.ratio of a small-nei~~borhood recreation center with a swimming pool for approximately'iOQ,units, and'hhis was the reasoa fQr not building the larger one at'the beginning becau~e of;tt~e qo$t which.would be charged against the first 103 units, and'this.did noe ~pake sen.se because the later buyers would not be carrying their part of the 1oad, and as the projg~t"deveioped, they would'build on these trust lots - the details might be worked ou~ laCer, Mr: ; Thompson noted that he would lilce to take the opportunity t'o point. out that on the land- scaping for the-natural areas versus the landscaping for the pada and filled areas, it was rhe intent of.staff in putting this condition in certain.areas, the eucalypeus windbreaka being.retained, for instance along the westerly boundary of the property, because that was such a steep terrain and also because of the possible potential fire problem, ataff felt some additional fire breaks or additional fire retardant landscaping or even additional trees might be warranted - however, it was not the intent of the staff to require the same intensity and degree of landscaping that staff would normally require `7,' :{u ~~.~. "n':s~ MIN TES ~ ~ ~'~-' . , U pLANNING CdNAfISSIOPI, Septemb l0, 1970 ~~ ~,5346 ' RECI:ASSIFICATION : on a cut and fi2T slope;; ` `~ NO 70 71 13 ~ ~~ {;~ Mr:.'Mitctiell noted that_he had?spent;twelve.;years,with the National CON ITI D ONAL USE Paik Service and saw mady forest fires that;:endangered many lives ER ' , , , P MIT N0 '1202 and:'in th e planniag of'fhe laridscapiag of-~.this development this'was~ ' , - takPn into~account The Commission would note on,'the plans areas . TENTATIVE MAP OF : e i ca we; ndi tedrwliere fire truck approeches,could be plac'ed witnin C ; TRA T NO.::<7288 the-access~of onerof tlie eucalyptus.g=oves.running through'and stopping (Continued) , at;onekarea however, where man made':slopes-were:proposed.and wfier- ~~ , evei he ttiought Ehere was an opportunity to+get-nea=er the slope, not ' ` " only for;~iirigatiion contiol.but for:fire control,:this was provided ~ since he was fully congiiizant of what- ,. . fires 'and floods could do : ' ;' % • ; , ~ Mr Meyers noted thaf~they would agree..with.Mr Thompson's;statement which clarified - . . . .. staff's position,;and,where tlie;e will;be selectivei;areas!>among:the.'natural s'lopes that '{ woul:d warrant additional?landscaping,~:they would be ~moat .ameisable; to that~•~since this ' would be in the interest;.of'the project, liut to totally relandscape the:entire:area~was , som thi th r ' ' ~ %;y e ng ey we ; e opposed to.' . ~ ;, „ _ Mr Meyers,.in conclusion, noted that~as'a last assurance of•their intent not bnly to :~~ Y°~ . continue with the;development of the single-family, areas but.to live up to eve iything: ;~ ~~ _ that;,had been presented~to the;Co~ission at'this public hearing, since they felt this a i'~ ~F , was very^important project to`the-City and an important'one Co them and the canyon area ~' ' , ~ : since they had wor.ked very closely'from the;inception o£;~this;program with the.Yorba . famil • _ _ y the ttiou ht i ' w ' ~ , y g t . as sigaificant that ;the Yorba family. wonld .stay in. this aree, also, they would have to :liv mo s ' a ~ ~ ~ ,, e; re clo ely .;with what w s p=oposed•to be.built-there, not like;;most of tho§e;present, unless some became buyers in;tfie a a d t `f c `- a` ~ re ; an r hat a t itself _ exercised an additional moral and.practical.`type.of,,;controlT alttiough it was ,;pot a'legal Ei ~ z , con ol and:with that,„he would like:to assure the Commission.that they would,do.'their best:if tfiis •jec o , J'.:.~ pro t were appr ved that they,wanted to lie proud of it and to`be an'award- winnin ro ect i ` h ' ,~ g p j . f t e project-:were~ approved: ;.,, ~:.~ , " '~ ~ ;: "~ ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ ~ . ~: . ~' ~ N ,° ~9vr,r . . . . .. .. ., .. . . . . . ' `' .. . . .,_.. , ~. ~ . Commissioner Farano noted that out of fairness to everyone, no one on.the Co~ission meant: ` ~ 7~, ~ ~~~ : : to infer tfiat the':Yorba;family would run out'on this.pioject, but`directing everyone!s, ~.-' attention to the economics proc~sa and,sltuetions arid.the climatic conditions of economics ' ~ ~' whi ch would;;change;unforeseealiYy over the~next four,;years,:no one:would.know what would , ~ , ; happen for,sure because if one'did, he would do things a lot differently:`.than:lieing done; that what tfi C mmi n t ` ~ ~ ~ ;, e o ssio ;was a tem tin to do was t P 8 ry to get somejassurance,;and he did ` `k o ' }. -r.;~ not now.h w this 'could be given, alttiough somehowalong the line.Ctiedevelaperwouldnotsay th e mi f~5 e cono cs or the situation was such that_single-family,homes could.not be built in the~westerly rti ;~; po on,of the property; that he did not know.how the developer could give the Cit 'th ` ,~fki y is assurance - however, the'Commission did not;want to infer.that anyone would ' b ` ~'~ e running out on; the pro ject. ... . ~ .~ ~: , . ,.. .~ ~ .. . ~~. . ~ . ~ ~. . . .' . . ~ >F Y Mr. Meyers noted that there was one additional control that could be exercised on this ~~ , and it was a preventative measure frqp~~-is staudpoint - a hedging measure - while the det ils of th i la u ` a e r nd p rchase,and option agreements were not involved in this meeting, the developer did have th t ys e property op ion on the west portion on a fixed price - so the developer could no m i e a ~' . t co e. n,thr e,ye rs from now and state that the`land cost had gone o u a~ up s m ch that they no.longer could afford to build for what was proposed originally be a c use the price they would be.paying for it would remain at that price agreed upon at this date. ' , , _ Nir. Meyers further noted that they would, of courae, have substantial carrying.coats.on th t-e f ~ ~ a ntire project which>they were anticipating',since they were clearly defined in constructi n a d d ~ } ~ o n evelopment costs, and although they knew prices could be higher three ` ~~ to four years from now, they would also be equally'higher.for any developer Ehat might lan rt build s ! p o acro s the street or dowq the row, so that their.conaideration would not be e ~ any mor uaique than others to warrant presenting to the Commission any other type of e ` ' requ staclaiming they would be a g.eat.hardship on them through anything other than'what they wer r o ing h '•t~ . e p op s at t e present;date. Commissioner Farano noted that he qould no~ rgqall how maay:tiiaes as a Commissioner the Commission had been asked to approve a`plan that was as far advanced as fhis proposal, and.frankl , he had m r ~' y so e eservationa about this -'the;e>were too many things above and beyond everyo ' co s `~+ ne s. ntrol•such a 3n the last six montha Co a.year`with what the land market had don to'e o ~ e very ne; that there had been some rather ata=tlin develo ments 8 p presented to the Planning Commission and it was ot' m t o , n a a ter f anyone'"keeping the faith° but how the Commission can keep the faith with existing developments; that the Commission a I w s not just.going to "pitch the General'Plan"'and sacriEice the welfare and needa of the entire j , . City of Anaheim just because of the so-called econoiaics of the situation which would not ~ permit them to continue to go along a certain path; that the.Commisaion would have to do ' some rather deep thinking.on this project before a de~ision or conclusion could be seached; th t h so ' a e al felt the same way the'other Commissioners`did about the recreaCion area, and . ~" f ! l ;: { ~ MINUTES,, t { ` RECLASSI: ~ NO •ZO-7 ~ CONDITIO] ;PERMIT NI ~ , - ° ~~~C w:come, oy then again', the~Commission`had:;seen many ! ~ ;: ` well'-meanirig promises by<the people of~the greste t:i t riti me +~d s n e on co 6 TENTATIVE MAP OF aad go, and;that there was a recreational arTschool~site"on the Nohl ` ~ TRACT NO 2 ~ . : 7 88 Ranch that:~had been seEting there with a si gn on.it'since the' ranch (Continued) ` ~ ~~ , k was:planned the~`site-is still:there; but He thought" it was.forgotten ti : : a loag time.;a o th t if e ` ~ ,, g ; a :;it w re at all .possible.to.consider this'- not, G . again; that you won't do~it but to `ive c ed a g r ence pd support.to:your project itself,; de~eTopmeat-~of the;iecreation area would be im orz:ant d• t ' p , an r:tha ,:in conclusion;..he would '' l.tke to icnow~ precisely who the de~• aloper w:~uld be - would it b the e , Yorba family or someone elae and was'the Yorba family s~lling the property._ ~ ~ Mr Meye`rs replied;that the Yorba family was aelling tHe property to Caiprop Corporatiori whom he r re ~ , ep sented,as a developer,, which was.a substaritial developing_firm; that,they ~ had,ii~ excess of ,800 housing st rts in 197 n .~ a . 0 a d were.projecting and progrsmming'around ! 1,200,;:for 1971,,that the:f irm had beeri in'b'usinesa as r o ~u , , a co po;ati n for:approximately.ten , years; andithe principal_owner of the`firm,was Mr.'Victor~Zackman,.who had been:buildin a d de ,,;~ '* g n veloping in Southern California in eiccess of`.twenty years end had'done some single- ; family building in;Aran esCo t = x ~;~ g un y appro imateZy.twenty qears`ago - therefore, the developer- ' owner%ha been around in business a lon time: ' '~i ' g ; ~~ Commissioner;.Farano;inquired whether Ehis was.an arm's length transaction between the r ent ' kr ; p es owners of the property and the developer, or.would.the Yorba"family have nothing to. do with. tiie .project. ' °`~k f~ Mr 'Meyers'.noted this was correct, that• Calprop wr.re purcleasing the property from the Yorba-;family`to develop '- however there was a c ~~ ;, ~ , n ur s ual level of cooperation between the sellers.of the land;.and the buyer simply because of tne location, the a he ' ~~ ~'~' est tic aspects of the•land,.and the fact..Chat the seliing family was planning to remain on a pcrtion of this othe r ;r~• ^ r;~ - r o iginal:,_propei~y,which was highly unusual. `-~ ' ;. Commissioner F~ ~;noted that the Commission should:not let the pangs of naivete steer ~hem;down the . o thi e , ,~ 7r ~ ;. . n s conc pt bEyond the.point of reason oecause the Co~ission a11 -knew.the economL~-necessity would play'a`very;`Iarge role in the man ;~ ,`, ' ... ner in which this property,would be developed over the n~;t four:to,fi've years, and'unless one was willing and able right now t i s~ ' ~ y; . o ~ re F;at a set ~f plans for this.entire property in3icating'what their,intent was to do ~t~,cn in his mind th ^~ , e;way the Coamiission should consider. this wuuld be_a;piece at a time, but the Commission wauld>have' to do a reat d al . , ., g e of thinking along the basis chat the Yorba family, the present owners, were not responsible as.to futurE. i developmerit;;:a d an b d ' n y o ~ ,who attempted to intimate that they'were going to continue any type of responsibility ir~.being naive ab t it a ou , nd they all knew they~would like to suggest- that they do some more thinking about as to just wh t il n f ` a w l conci ue.to happen here. „',;:; M~. Yorba noked that,he would assume Commissioner Farano was an attorney, and *_hey had , bean faced with several t s ` Y' a torney regarding this also; that the developers would do what they said they were going to do - he would s . as ure the Commissioa.of that fact since they had a bit of leverage; that this was not off the~top of their heads as h h d d , e a state before, they had great respect for their land~and they wanted this thing to be done e prop rly; that Couanissioner Farano had stated from experience s long-range project and plans 1Yke three to fo r , u years, might change - yet.the Commission showed no hesitation to refer back to the Geaeral Plan which was fi r ve yea s old. i - Co~issioner Farano interjected that the General Plan ~ras not five years old, and that it had recently,been revised and amended: Mr. Y~rba coatinued that they were still residential-agriculture, but he just wanted to assure,tt~e Oommission that they.were not being "bamboozled" - this was a very carefully considered project and took seven•yeara::of effort on their part; that he had looked long "and hard for a set of developers who could come up with a plan that would meet their high standards to create an evironment because economics did not play the parE that Coamiissioner Farano was implying; thaE hQ lived i.n this area and participeted in these values, and they would be enormously affected by what transpired here (indicating on the plan).; that tfiey were not selling and running - this was very vital to them, not only to him and his wife but to their children, and he got very emotional only because he nad such great feeling for this land. Furthermore, to address one additional comment to Mr. Gauer, perhaps his wtfe could express the matter of environment and the desirability of the naturalness •• he thought from theae people aitEing here, neighbors, will vouch for the desirability of naturalness and ground cover rather than a contrived thing such as wild life. ~ - - - ~~:~ .~ ~ '~'n :.'~ , ~.~ ~ ...~ ~ ,. ~ . ~ ~l4 ~- ~ . ;.'. ~~~ ~~' ~ ~.~.' ,- ~~ ~, ".' ~ ;: . MINUTES, CITY Pr:AADTNING COMMISSION, Sept'embei 10, 1970 ~ ~ 5gl~g .RECLASSIFICATION ~`- Mrs. Bernardo Yorbe appeared before the Comr~ission and staEed she did . , ,., , NG 70 71 13" not;plan to,?say, a'word;tonight:because her husband<did not belieye in .: ;_ the:"women's lib";.-tliat.she was•just,a;iueek.housewife who sat-in'her. • . ;;CONDITIONAI.'.USE home:.with Her tien;ohildren and:five-.and;a half grandchildrea and;did ` ; PERMIT NO•'.1202 = he=;social;:Ehing,8nd didn't speek up.as:it pertained.to this type.of ~ public hearing -...howevat,'_wheri the geriEleman:was`talking about the TENTATIVE MAP OF " landscaping; she juat about•blew:her top beca'uae they hava ten children ' TRACT'_N0: 7288 °;, who',-roam in the hills, hurit~.in:the hil•ls, tkiey go.out and watch`the. (Continued), deer;.the dog gets,;sprayed every,night by a skunk; aiid when develop-` ment :of the:land'.aiscussion came;.up, she just,::about`died and turned ' '' to her husb~and and';said,,-,!'You:told me,we would never:;develop this::land ~'- as long ,as ttie children,were at liome - we would li've`here with' our orange; groves'and'sit. ;` and look 'out `at, the, eucalyptus trees" `::that~, is the,way it; was' supposed . to be, but little >did',we know":ten yeais ago Ehat'taSces would-b:e'the,wayrtaxes>are Eoday and that oranges • would::not be ;paying; the; same' as they, had -for ,the paat: thirty'.years; and:while Mr,. Yorba , .. , "was;trying'fo calm';her down,:telling her about the developer's plans'and ;the`naturalness of the land,,tfiat ttie~hills would not be cut off and,slopee~.:dcs.., where:the rabbita, quail and-deer.ran;_that was the:wap she wanted it;,and when;he's:.owed her theae plana of the proposed"development,'she felt if'it had to.be, she'as.a moEher, as a lady sitting in her ~< homestead,;it would be deyeloped as she wanted'it to.be~develope3. ' Co~issioner:;Gauer'noted that he had tiaveled~:over fhe United States conaiderably, and an ' area or the George Washington:Highway'leading inta Mt. Vernon where the landscaping,was <really.green'and the development,wae behind..-a11•of it - the areas through the B1ue Ridge , _.. 13ountains;in rhe east,, they were deyeloped with a.certain amount of landscaping around the:major;highways`<-:the,idea of 50,feet in the acenic corridor.over.lay zone was'a good : idea = could screen that:whole area.aad,people traveling on the highways wculd think that was a:`~beauEi€ul~raad to travel and,you,wou2d.not have some of the business qou usually see wnich;;grow up around some of these areas witH l•"r~e undesirable sigaing for each businass; when•one traveled in the east tfe signe were'controlled, and one'had to drive off th_ : higkiways since everyone knew where the merkets were arid where:Che developmerita were - however; he had to drive t'r.rouga a r.ertai~ amou:~t of vegetation to get.back into those areasc , M.s. Yorba noted that her point of discussing retaiaing the ;taturalness>did not'pertain to"tHe 50=foot setback since she'had no interest in:that road; ir.stiead, stie was ia~exer;ted • in noE.having the hills cut off to piace lots oa.them; that;sl:e wanled.it to remain with `a11 Efie gu,llies and the hil~s ir. ~he riatcralness tae_way they lovsd to see it retairied, and wtien one .was over at` the Yorba Linda side of thE' canyon and 'Looked over toward- L•'tceir ' side, it~ was so beautiful;' Che.nAtural.aess ef fnemwiththeir fc~ais ae~tiag 3a the middie of all this beautiful scener~, it made her so proud of it, and her man~ friends who played golf at the Yorba`Linda Golf Course looked over to the west side snd remarked how besutifnl the wHole area looked, aad'it was their desire to retsin ttsis beautiful appearance if.i~ were-at all economically feasibZe. Mr. Meyers noted that he was completed with their presenl•ation and they were open far any questions from the Commission since the planning engineers, architects, etc: were all • available to enswer technical questions. Coffinissioner Gauer noted thet he gone over this report ver~ carefully; Chat the Commission had never had a proposition presented to them that was so well prepared, but the Commission still would have to ask questions, and just because a beautiful brochure was preaented did not mean there were nm questions. ; Con¢nisaim er Kaywood inquired when the sUopping center was contemplated to be developed. Mr. Yar.ba replied that this depended upon che Commission; however, they contemplated to star.t`this after the first of the year, and when thia shopping center proposal was pr~sented to the Commission, he felt at that:time this wae one of thi~ finest presentations experienced, and Mr. Gauer,-at that time, had also stated tiiis was a fine one - however, he felt the proposed'development for residential uses was as fine aa the shopping center, which would oL.~,of the finest and most beautiful in Southern California. Cos~iissione,. °;eymour noted that he was a realtor and had looked at many fine pieces of land, but the Yorba property was a jewel of a piece, and looking at the se;ial photographs, : he knew how.the Yorba family must feel since it sort of tore him up to think that this property was;:proposed to be developed, but he underatood the economics of the situation as well as from hia own peraonal experience, and he spoke for the department as a whole that there was a great amounC of compatibility - a terrific:cancept of an entire planned community - in the planned community, as Mr. Mitchell brought out, one also had the opportunity to use creativene~s and Ymagination, and he welcomed the opportunity of personally working with them in aeeing this deveioped over the yeara. However, as Commissioner Gauer pointed out, there were areas in which there would have to be dielogue and communication of underatanding - to be more specific, he wauld like to pursue,the x .' ' .,. . ~ nx.. T+c rv~ .^~ i AM.ry'.{ s Iw :..r ~ a4r'' ~ ~ ~-~ ~ '' k~ s ~ '. ~ ~'. ~ .1~ ~ ~ ~ (~ . ~~ ~y~, A I ~ j~ MINUTES, G~Y PLAI3NiNG COr4I SSION; ,Sept,emb 0, T970' ~ 5349 . ~ ., „ , :; . . . _ ; . . .. . . . ., . . . .. wt ~ _.RECLASSIFICATION - concept of people density.versus unit density wfiich Mr. Meyers spoke ` ~ y ~`~ NO 70 71 13:= of,, and inquired ~:whether',.or not Mr. Meyera could"tell him-specificallg ' ' ~ - the number of bedrooma units.proposed`for this townhouse ~concept. ' ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE : : , <, , ~. PERMIT NO 1202 Mr Meyers.stated that'.the pro3ect would be 100% two-bedroom units, and` ~ < if the market were to dictate to`them in,the development that they : ;~~ , . TENTAT.IVE MAP OF ~ should provide thiee bedroom townhouses; they would'volunfarily reduce ~ i •` TRACT: NO ."7288 ~ the •number• of dwelling; units ~~ t r: ~ ~ , (Continued) ,.:. , ;~ , ' Commissionez,Seymour conti ued -in th,is.type of development proposed ~ ~ a dcb d whi h ' ~ e z~ ' ~ n c ha een done in th northern part of the'state whereby one `developed,statistics of 1:8 persons per'dweliing unit; were these;developments of~which", ` ;~ , 'Mr Meyers apoke,also two bedroom'units,and could he make these statistics available to' ~ ; the Co~ission ~ ..: , : ~ , , , . ~ ~ ~ 'Mr ~Meyera replied the developments of which he spoke were two bedroom units, that the , , a ~ °stati'stics could be,;;made,available to the Commission - however,,not at tHis meeting, but " they,would be submitted to'the staff and some figures that were typical of pro3ects in ` ~ "~ California, Ehe~source'of'which he-was'not aware of but he had sludied them andihe.was sure F:H A. would be helpful to them.in this respect; those he was'personally familiar f; with were in'.Sacramento,.financed by the Bank of America, and contained 598 two-bedroom unita:= these units:were app~oximately. the same size;;.alttiough SacramenCo:'was not Anaheim, ~; they w,ere not tfie,same, but they were'not too far off; that he was=no longer with this ` ` ` `firm'and, therefore; could~not:offer::this tyP2`of information, but he could say that the average number of dwelling units, and,this was an impartial study~made of actuel buyers, ~{ the,sverage.number,of occupants.per dweliing unit was 1.6 persons.overall in the 598 units; ~,;~ " that the aveiage.age was`about 44 years; that:the average,aousehold income, was approximately $10 500 rarigi fro l ' ~~ , ; ng m-a_ ow of $5,000 to-a high of,$48,000; .and th at the average aumber of ^~s3 children per unit,was .16 or one=si::~h child per unit. ' ~ - Co~nissioner Seymour requested that these figures be submitted in black and wfiite since '~'~ he could not::;absorb:`the fi'gures at this hea=ing. A1so, Mr. Meyers.mentioned F.H.A. as ,f~ :providing financingiand inquired.as td Che number of the section this fir.ar.cing would 'oe ~?'`"'~ provided for`and what was. the uniE.price. proposed. ~ . ^~ , , ~ Mr, Meyers replied`that,he would submit these figurea`quoted to the.Co~ission for tneir ~ 3'~""~; Y ,-perusal;:that Che F.H:A. seciion covered was:Section 2038 dealing with homeowners; ~~d. . z" that:.$20,000 was the Iow`for each tawnhouse,,-w'ith appr~ximately $35,000 and up for i:tie ' ~" ~ single,=family homes: ; , ".Co~issioner,Kaywood inquired whe~her it was posaibie to oegin Che single=£amily develop- _ ' ment at.the same time as the townhouses were begun. Mr. Meyers replied fhat they would like tl:at just from the staadpoint of being aoie to k` bf£er more than one product - unfortunatei;~, this was aet the time to be in tae high-price, ` single-family:business as he was sure the Commission was fully aware of; that L•I ~y would I; build or start building those units as soon as the market indicated that it was ready for it;,but it certai.rly was not indicated as being ready today; that they expected this to ' ~ happen within the next one or two years - because of that the purchase and option agree- ~ ments,they had for the property anticipated this kind of phase, and khey were free to ~' start under those agreements any earlier than that or any time they chose to starC, aad ~: again, that would be dependent upon the market. Another consideratioa, and a very j: important one, was the unusual amount of front development cost to get this project ~.: started, and they,really needed to get on with something that would sell quickly in order i., to recover some of this inveatment and then work their.way into the rest of the project j; rather-than'~ioneering"on both sides at oue time. j ' Mr. Yorba noEed thrt one thing that had not been stressed - iC would heve been very simple } , to come in with A p:oject just on the first phase of the property and leave the balance f . out since it was under different ownership, and certainly there wasn't any juseification ! of this agency to question what was going to be trans,piring on someone else's property 4 u:-ti1 a proposal was submitted, but qhey ~ere;insisteqt tha~ ehis`be dene, and they voluntarily ~ committed themselves to single-family development over a given area and of a particvlas ~ density, and this was some of the best insurance that this would be done to meet their ' standards because.each pad would have to come in £or approvel of plans - thia was also an ~ assurance.they-had plus the integrity of the company. Mr. Meyers noted that he would like to make ona additional comment - when they submitted the master plan to the staff many months ago,'it was the staff's recommendation that they 1 submit for a conditianal use.permit on the entire property as opposed to doing it in sec- ! tions, and he would like to hear this as confirmed - thus it was evident that his company ~ cooperated and listened to the advice of the planning staff. Furthermore, in response to ~ Chairman Herbst's quesCions, sfated thes did have options on all of the property. ~ A showing of hands indicated 35 persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to subject petitions. ~ ~~ ~ ' '. _ :- .~i~c. ~ t F :': S y~~ ~ ~: ': ~ : ;J • ~ 1': ' ry ~ ~ . ~ .. ~ '.~ J. ." ~ . `+ ' a)~;~ _:. ~K~ ~ . . ,. . MINUTES, ~ PLANTIING COMMISSION, SepEemb "~' 0, 1970. ~ 5350 ~ ~ . ~. ~~'. :,. :.. . ~ ~ .. .. ~; , ' . . ~ . : ~ RECLASSIFICATION ~ Mr Henry Gi Fallek, 140 Arange,.Hi11 Lane, representing the homeowners NO 70 71 13 F ~~ g on;Orange Hill Lane, that portion..of the Nohl Ranch;immedietely :' ?' ' ad acent to; the ` : _ ,. ~ proposed P 1 o i'th o ' ~; 6 ; n, e pr ~ect and also representing the CONDITIONAL.USE Noh1~;Ranch.Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commi i - d 1 -,~ ~ 7~ ~ i ss on an PERMIT NO 202 stafed he would like to.start.off by.saying that the Nohl Ranch Home- ~ ~~~ s , ' ' owners Aasociation;;and fhe residents of Orange Hill'Lane had reviewed ~ENTATIVE MAP OF the General`^Plan published i 196 ' ~~ ~ ~ n 5 for :the Hill and Canyon Area and ; TRACT~N0.,7288 Bernardo Yo.rba was:nice enoughito com~;and'give their 61 ck t ~" ~ 3~ o sor of (Continued) ' ep talk!! on whet they intended to do,~and from what'they could .~ + ~ ~ dete imine,.he had";brougfiE; out some very fine points in this plan`as ` ~, ti` ; ,, far as preserving ;the land with;green,belts,~etc:, end as a.whole they .~as homeowners wa ted en h ' , , n to dorse.:the proposal,wholeheartedly, cut they had,a:conflict - of interest:in about'7 5%`of the- a ~ ~ . propos l , and.this;:did-not affect-what.the deve'c~ers ; interided to;do i~ediately since`the.condomiaium ar a was the fi ' -'~? " ' e . . rst area to be ,eloped, they •did sdpport ~this ~as .Ehey did support the:proposel to Heve green belt eas " s~ ~ t ar : . ~g,~ ` -. Mr Fallek then read a line from'the General tlan; "The imaginative area of homes.and m o 4 apart ~ents c uld be accomplished:,ia the hillside while still protecting the integrity'of . the adjacerit:development !' d-th ~ s ., an en noted that since they were'the adjacent deSelopment, they really did iiot feel that Eheir 3ntegrit wes b in ' S y, e g protected in one area -'the area they were.primarily concerned,about was:t~ie parcel:immediately at:the:aorttiwest of the ~ ' pro~ect adjacerit to the single-family homes developed'ia.the Noh1 Ranch area (indicated :ti ar o ' ' ~ ; ~ . ie ea; n the map) coasisting o# approximately 7.'.l acres; in.this gene,r31 area what ; the j were ob in a ` y. , ect g to w s-the fact that the average: dwelling unit per„gross pad area > was 6 units,'arid the develo er ro o ed- 48 hom ``' p ,p p s . es on:this pad.with an overall 182 dwelling units for tfie entiie R-l,development. -.This.was in their back yard and Ehei g o s d ; ~`";?' , , r r s ,pa area,was 3.3,.homes per.gross acre - this was guite a differential between the two: that the;propert owners ti e te '~t~k y., e repres n d felt::his d3srupted the harmonious pattern since their homes~were set there i ~ ~ ~ n an;•ever.ly spaced msnner, whereas on the.proposai there would be : quite:a number of clusters, and to et a + x ' ~ . S ppro _mate3y 4i3 homes on 8 acres was impossibie to do'without considerable cra~ing, e;dizg up witk~ a 5000-§quaze foot lot i h , ~x ~ ~ s ze, w ereas ,the, average.,:lot size immediateiy.ra ,the west on tne Noh2:R.ar.ch wes 9000 to lt? 000 square ' f t ~ y~ , ee . .. ;3 _ ~:f Mr Fallek also noted tnat Chey.were cor.cerned witk tne number of`peop3.e From this or.e a rea ~'which would be ox ` ~`~; - . , appr ima2eiy 188 ;persons, whereaa their area of tI~e same size.had oniy 58 rsons; and h f ~~ ,pe t is.would,put qu3te a burden on Spring Hiil-Drive witli the schoois being.located.off~Roya1 0ak Rosd.and the or h !. ~ .maj ,s opping center locsted on Tustin ~.veaue - `all of these people would:;be exitin~ down Spring'Hiii Drive,aad t~:us tue were c d ' ~~i ~' y oacerZe about the ability.of Spring Hi1i Drive.handling the traffic proposed: ~ f Mr. Fallek, in conclusion, stated they were primaril~`concarned about the harmonicus patte;n.since they propoaed someth•]ng tocally different than preserttlp existed,_and even though a small reen b ~; g elt was ~ndir.ated, this sppeared to be oniy 5 to 10 feet wide, which"they did not feel a e w s su~fici nt to s~parate the two diffe;ent types of ases i. building patterns,'such as eve ily spa ced area i c . . s ags nst a lustered area; and that what they would like,to see would be a natural o pen space as proposed (indiciated on the map) and re£lect the zoning for R-l where a lemon grode exist~d but had man de d - y a trees the topography of that land was such that it was already ~lat and did nat have high hills on the side which would<hinder`normal development; and that the propert_~ owners would like to see the develo i hi per coQ¢n t mself now to telling the adjoining property owners that-the density factor would b ~ e no greater than 3.5 dwelling uniCs per gross acre or resubmit the area for R-H-l0,Ob0, which it was originally zoned for. ~. . Mrs.Charles (Julie) Cessop, 4809 jlasatch Drive, appeared beFore the Commission and noted ~ that she also resided in the Santa Ana Canyon ~rea; that Mr. Yorba's planned development ~ +' was an extremely beautiful one and he had put a lot of thought into it - however, itt ~ serving the tract that she represented, Yorba Wo~ds, these property owners were concerned I with a"different:problem, that was of zonfng, because they felt that i£ the zaning were + changed to allaw`ti~e condominiums, and from what ~hey hed understood if zoning were I changed this would be fine~if it ~just iavolved .the,~orba interests and Calprop Corporation, ` but in. studying;past cases of what occurre~l usually if it were approved, graduaily over ~ the years more developers would be coming in,and perhaps they would not be as interested ~ in the property and how it looked to the resider.t~ t this area as Mr. Yorba did because ; they would not be-living 3,;, the area, and thsy ao,. i not feel the love for the country- side that the sesidents of this area did - ~hereforE, there was no telling what sort of property development, tracts, etc., would occur there, and she had even heard it stated ~ that perhaps this was a long time in the future, but it was something thet must be con- sidered with the,proposal to have low-income housing in this area. Chairman Herbst noted ttiat he doubCed if one would find this would occur in this particular area, and that perhaps Mx~s. peasop waa covering some of the ground the Commission had already covered with Mr. Yorba since the Commission was also concerned about this and han expressed this concern. __.. ~; r,'. ~,; .,. '~aar« JR,T b~L~F2.~~~1~'~V~~~~'tet,~el.`,&ww,'~~'Xay~ t,~a fg ca ~t~.?1-'c y,.•,#~''r ., . ~. ? ~',. ~~ ~ , : ~ :~ .' ., ~h,_ F •: ~ ~. ,~ -~ .~ ~~. ~ " MINUTES, ~it`ry pLANNING COI~AfISSION, Septemb~',10, 1970 ` " . ..r:; . ~ r 5351 ~ RECLASSIFICATION '` Mrs: Cessop noted+tiiat in the-feelin of the residents they were ~ NO °70 71 I3 concerned with,the zoning, and'she .believed Mr. Faiano had made a ~ ~ '' siu(ilar~statement:in the aftemoon~•session which she had'ettended; ~ CONDITIONAI: USE from comments' made wher.e zoning already, eaiisted and R-,3:.was 'on` Elie ~ PERMIT NO 1202 ~ property,''this was the`property in°the area west~of Harbor Boulevard,. '' ' the:question came;up that the°=`person wanted Eo;'`develop,and realized ' TENTATTVE.MAP OF : it,was R 3~ howeVer, the;.petitioner was also::still wishing to exercise ' TRACT NO.; ':7288 `, : `. ~ the;,existing use under a:variance - therefore,,tfie Comniissiori'?had (Continued) "~ ~approved. flie variance fo, r t~ie dual use of tHe property `.because:'tlie property already had.zoning es.tablislied~on iE many, years.:<ago. Th,ere- ` % ` ~ fore, the~concern expressed by these'properEy owner§ was i£ the zoning ~ were `approved as requesCed , perhaps ~in laCer:' yeara;one would not! know;vrhat. was' liappening ~ ~ or what would happen;~ but'she aTso wanted to express;her.~love for.the Santa'Ana Canyon ' area•,since;;her ~husband:g'rew up;in thi"s `area but she could''also- undersEand Mr: Yorba's ~ ~. claim because her~,husband was also a,developer so'she could see:both sides - but since ,~ she was speaking only as~a resident and,for~.Ehe residents'of the'.:area, their.prime concern ,, was whether or not.`zoning as requested would"'actually~be,developed,as'plans were presented. : Mr ~.A1 Hyatt, 251 Orange Acres Drive,;representing the Peralta Hills Homeawners Association, appeared before the Commission.and noted that:altHough their property wa§:not immediately ad~acent'to;the Yorba property,;having"the Noh1 Ranch developmenE between it, and since they::;were surrounded by smaller'_lots,:they would like to.go;:on record'.thet the Commissioa - ` since.he frankly~did•not see how~ the~Co~oission could reach a,decision:at'this hearing -~,~ fhought the',:Commi§sion,would:liave to take tliis under conaideration because of:tfie possi6le. case,of "spot zoning",:and that he was sure.the people who had.'put this project together " had~good intentions, and.he was.all for it,~but He thoughC tUe density was much too.high per.acre and some considerahle Choiight should be..giver, to`this as Mrs. Cessop tried to convey•to the Commission ia that a precedent could be set - tnaC someday somebody eise without the.integrity.for this ai•eE, as Mr..Yorba and Mr. Meyers had Facpressed, wou2d try ,{ to develop and capitalize on it. ` Mr.,P1iilZip Joujon=Roche~ .2152~'Mohler Urive; representiag.tae Santa Ana Canyoa :io:aeowners Association,•:those;priiriarily residing or Mohler ?irive and Eu.^81yp~us Urive, appeared Uefcre the Commission nobing they were farther out in l•he cenyoa than this area in questior_ - however, his,~sen.imeats were pretty,wel:I summed up by;the statemenl•s made by Tlr. Hyatt to the.extent that the:Ylanriing Co~issien must`get together anZ'decide where the higher' derisity area:should be lucar.ed;',that.his AssociaCion'.had ~een following-with some gre2ker •interest the':proposed developmetit of e::40-unit mobile hume park at C?~~eir back y~rd, located on the north side,o£ Santa.e~t~a Car.yon Road wnere Motsler Drive intersects, ar.d his `presence at the hearing on tuis pe.itien was to see new Ehis p~cblic hearing might set a precedent for the entire SanCa :~r.a Caaqan area,.for high-deasity uses. ' Chairman Herbst noted that the i;omnissioa has gone on record witti tiie Ozange Courty ~'.,•; `':Planning.Coimnission as being opposed to t:~e mobiZe home park, xnd this was recnmmended to them - however, Mr. Joujor.-Koche m~est reaZize L•hat this partic~xiar project was airaady j located at Che corner ef Tmperia~ Highwap and Santa Ana'Canyon Road whic.i was zo^ed for coamiercial uses at this poin~ in time - that was one rearon why this particular cluster ~ was ar~und the shapping area. ,'. ~. Mr.. Joujon-Roche replied that he would not deny there were places to establish a higher density, and this would be a logical p2ace that one could think of in the entire Santa ~ Ana Canyon area, hut he would like to emphasize the facC that any decisiott made could set a ~ precedent for development o:~ the entire Santa Ana Canyon area in areas that were less !. auitabie for high-density uses. Mr. Meyers, in rebuttal, stated the concern of the Lusk tract representative he could ~ ~' understand, and he thought they were faced with the topography.- however, the particular area.adjoining the Lusk tract was one of the more level areas of this property, and they ( would be,very emanable to landscaped screenin on thet begin with Eo-landscape each pad -.however, the major charactercof thetarea now wastwith eucalyptus windbreaks, and whether the eucalyptus or other type of planting Was pro osed !~~ they could bisualize the same type of effect around the various pads which could serve a~ j": reasonable period of time Eo screen this, plus the fact the majority of the plant area ~' was above the level of the elevation. ~ Crairman Herbst ino't.red of Mr: Meyers whether the fi ures ~ in the `" 8. presented by Mr. Fallek regard- ~ 8 particular pad adjacent to the Lusk property were correct as to density. If this ~ were true, he would have.to agree with the property owners that this pad could be over- developed in this particular location, and he would like to have these figures checked to find out just ~-hat [he density for that parti,G.ular pad would be. ~ Mr. Meyers wondered y~hether the sa~czfic densiCy on each ~ndiv~sS~sal pad was suFposE. ;- under consideratioa since it was 3ais understanding that c~aey di3 not have to be cons: at the presentation before the Commission at this hearing. " ; :. - i ,~, , t +~+ 'cnM.ri4N~ "k^Prl#rF~.k3".,RGS a.s•" 3`7 T ~ . ~. ~ ; j ' t :' .; .'. 4 ~ .1yw , ~ ~: MINUTES C~i'~ty pLANNING COMtiISSION Septemb~~10 1970 '~ , , , 5352 ~ - RECLASSIFICATION . Chairman,Herbst noted this mighE,be true, but it~had been`the policy ' NO 70 71 13 ; ~f the Coartnisaion;in the'past,when property:: abutting a:lesser `. r ~ denaity was:: proposed_fo= higher densitq,.the`,property~propoaed for CON • ' ' ~ DITIONAL USE higtier ~density sh ould provide Ehe gradual increasing density - for '. PERMIT NO 1202 instance, where property,•,abutted an R",'1 7200;!.:mt;least one.tier of ~i i R 1 7200 sshould be provided fmmediately adjacent to;the existing ` ` ~ ; TENTATIVE MAP OF ; R 1 and then the density increased to.perhaps.,:an R=2=5000,:-.thus,,the : l '4 , . ,. TRACT`N0.:~7288 responsib il'ity for`,providing th,e~increased density:should;be within (Continued) the:confinesaof th;e proposedTnew~development ,`~and in this-instance ~ .r . - where the'property abutted R H:10,000,,;the,property immediately ` ' -~ . adjacent to:it should be developed witti R H-10,000•liefore.any `. / ,~ consideration to a higher:.density Therefore,` i.f ttie"density quoCed by:,Mr.. Fallek was` ~ correct, then the Co~ission would have:to~require aii increase in Ehe squa=e footage per ~` . ° lot. i~ediakely adjacent'>to the'~R-H-;10;000 ~: ~ ; Mr Mitcheil;advis.ed the`Co~nission that they;would have to:process all development on . this,:property through F.H:A ,::and thPre;would;:be many-conferences>with:sEaff and'many ' things preaented to;.the Commission for=further~review as they got~into tfie area'under ~ , ' discussion indicated.on me situation did-change and house ' ~_ p), and surely,if the economic . ~ ;.pricing got;;down,to'a different.'situation as-ttie.tentative iaaps were §ubmitted:for these . : , diffezent areas it'would~'seem to him fhat the: C missi n w a ' ; , , , . : om o ould h ve absolute :control_ `. about?`the-ultimate_:development;that could be placee;into that siea;,and that if the ecoriomic'situation,were right.aiid it indicated it was possible.to:build.a'$45,000 to $50,000 home;there;;they~would'do so and would•so indicate on the tentative map. However, ''the:tentetive map.before•Ehe Cou~issioa:did not concern tliis_area`but was.adjacent to . ' Impeiial Highway extended;.and~any.~consideration of that property was.premature at-this ; _ _ . ' , , time. `. ; '; : ; ' ' ;i , ;. .. : 'Chairman Herbst noted thaE it was not his in~ent to ask for a tentative map for that , property -. ~; `•'Mr."MitchelT>noted'that the Co~ission`would have fuither:control by having to rule on a - tentafive, map. ; Chairman Herbst notad he would rather know more about what the projected plans were for <that~,?specific site,because the opposition had-made a very specific statement, and he '`, , wished to:.have it ei.ther:substantiaEed,or~denied. Mr Mitchell:then noted that the`figures Fresented by Mx+. Fallek were true. ~` ~ Mr Roberts advised the Commission that.staff had run calculations on this particular ~ i ~ ite~; and based upon the areas contained on each of.the building pads.~for single-family ' use, there would be an effective density of 6'dwelling units per acre - this would onl y ` ~::: be on t he pad itself and did not`take into account the open slope area - when this was ~ included 'the densit would , y go down conaiderably. !'' Chairman Herbst noted that on.that particular pad indicated by Mr. Fallek, the density ' ` was ;greater because there wa~~'a lesser_slope area. ~: Mr. Yorba again appeared and stated that on viewing the Lusk homes developed immediately sdjacent to the Peralta Hi11s Estetes, which had a density of one home per acre or more, !' there alreaay exiated a step-down situation from one-acre lots to smaller lots, and from ;,. those to the.smeller lots on their property. In fact, a greater discrepancy between the ~ Lusk homes and the Peralta Hills homes occurred than between the Lusk property aad the I- _ proposed development. _ ; ~ _ ~ ` CoaQaissioner Seysnour noted thaE the Commission should keep in mind ae thEy *,ient through ~ this request step-by-step and down-the-road so'that the foremost cons'?~:x,~tion was the ~` fact that the developer was_talking about a planned community dev~lopmerw,t ~n which the ` Commission would have an opporturiity to "trade" some density for other dens;,ty, and they ! could work around the Code, and h.~ wag~ sur~ that both Mr. Meyers snd Mr. Mitchell were ~ well aware of what he was Calking.about:; thaX in reference to that specific pad, he ~ concurred with the'opposition and the Chai;man i,n teference to the fact that this was a ~ flat piece of land, and iP so, khe Commission ahould take the opportunity and:try to ;: create a lower denstty ~ in othe; words, trade gi,ving.a higher density in one area for ' a lower density in this apeciPic arQa; that Mr.'Meyers right at the outset had made the ~ statament that there would be a density problem, and, yes., there was a density problem, ; but he liked the proposal and was very fond of the land, and he would like to work as much as possible with the.petitioner, but, again, there would be the problem of density, and if a trade could be accomplished, then that would be fine and progress would result, but to stand firm or use some type of logic that mi+~ht per.tain to something other than a planned community developaient, this then would be "not the same ballgame", and ~t12ey ' were trying to play a different type of ballgame. ~ .. I~ P .. I, . ~+~x~+~..a. ~wiwz.+-.~+°s~~r~.:..c~w»..~"r~?..r~'~T~'f'~ .=+~N'~"''*~`.~.L'~-f1~k'~B°'a~i.~'+".~'.~F~~~Skak~ '.~'k'v~.~:l~.v"{4~^'.~h _ ;y y. -.r..r'`v. ,MINUTES, Cl'TY PLANIQING COI~'IBiISSION, Septemb~~10, 1970;. `d/ 5353 ~` R~C~P,SSIFICATION ,- Co~issioner'Farano noted:anothe=-consideration was.that he did not ! NO =70-71-13', r`eal'ly know~:what was proposed,;_and he cert•ainly would like to know r ` , - what";was :Proposed: ; ., , . '' COtJDITIONAL.USE , . , : ~. , , . .:. ,: ', PERMIT.NO. 1202~• : Commisaioner,Kaywood inquired,when General P1an.Amendment No. 122 , . _. r was lieing considered again by the Commission. ' < _ .,: , :: TENTATIVE'~MAP.; pF ,: . . ?;TRACT'`N0:~7288 ~, Mr.,Roberts•:~advised Co~niseiuner.Kaywood that this General Plan, (Continued); :; ameridment would-be':considered on September.'21,:,1970,.and it.inclU~ied those;prope=ties north of Santa:;Ana Csnyon Road,.easE of Imperial-. ' ` '< ~Highway, whereas aubject properfy was~`south of Sadte Ana Canyon Road "-and west'of`;Imperial-Highway. `"Mr Roberts ,furthe%`~,noted~that i:n.regard:.to Commissioner.Seymour's comment - the.reason staff.!initially.recommended to the applicants;that they file a conditional use permit.on the eritire property`.was.inlorder to give the City the'greatest fleacibility in e~Eabliahing ~the:appropriate deasity;;for the'area:'and mainfaining,.the.appropriate'density, but in dis- - cussions,with these!.peopYe..the staff had indicated,[.`as.far'as they were concerned, there would=:,be no need to:submit precise plans for'all of the pads at this time, but the staff's ''recommendation.td the.;Co~ission:would be that;=the ¢ommission would have the opportunity to review plans for every;pad as'they were ready to:be.d"eveloped, and by having the planned co~uriity..concept',for the;;entire area..considered under a conditional use:permit, the Co~ission.would have that:maximum flexibility and control. Chairman HerBst noted that one of the concerns the Commisaion had,was that they were trying to uiake every effort;posaible to protect'.any.property;owners adjoining any piece of property in Eown, and~:if there were a question here,;the people and`'the developers were entitled to . know the Commiasion!s feelinga;,aad he,,for one, was.opposed.Co the ty-pe of density propo§ed immediately.adjacent to.the R-H-I0,000.'since;he thought:it should be a lesser ~densi~ty, and:,:there-might be a possibility of trading off a higher density in another locaEion.since the Ca•maissiori could be very flexible on this - however, if the development came_.to the point that.this parcel was the last.piece,of land to be developed, then'the , Co~ission would not have'anything to trade for - therefore, if the develflpers knew the Cou~ission's feelings now,'then everyone;would,be better'off: 'Co~issioner Farano.stated thet he did not fee2 he"was very flexib7.e about this.becauae the,Commission and;:City Council hsd made a;policy statemr;nt coacerniag the density in the~Hill"and Canyori`Area,:and he thought unless there was a very-good reason for it, this policq staEement should be maintained; that the Coimaiesion should be sensible about this, `and ti'e, for one, would be.flexibie from the stsndpoint'of wantiag to develop this area in a most`adventageous manner, but as far as being very flexible, he was not until he was `'able to get a look at the`area in general so'that he would have some idea of how the entire project would look to detezmine what the Commission was realiy seeking as to the general appearance of,Che Hill and Canyon Area and what it would be like when it was developed to its ultimate. Chairman Herbst expreased the thought that he felt what Commissioner Farano was asking for was something that the Commission would be unable to arrive at by asking them to give the Co~ission a.general concept of something that they were going Co plan for the next three or four years - that one could speak of densities in the matter of certain parcels now, but the developers might want to change their concept somewhat - and the Commission had a proposal before them as to the density around the shopping center,.and in that particular area.of the plan, they have given u's.a ,layout of :the plans proposed - therefore, he felt the Cos~ission might have to look at development on a piecemeal basis and a certain amount qf vision had to go into planning of such a large pexcel oi land, having to look at it on a long-range basis since it could be laid out but that did aot mean that would be the exact way the development would occur five years from now. Co~issioner Farano stated he would ag;ee that when the Commission was going to go into something with complete blindness a§ to what was going to happen in the weFCern portion, : the Coam~ission, in a sense, would be "blowing the deal" since they wou13 be losing their trading'stock, but he knew that precise plans could-not be made possible and he did not wanE to.be in a position of placing the burden upon.the developers, but_ he felt the Commisaion should be able to reach some understanding and some commitments with the developers so that the Commission would know where they were going and whether or not they..:rere trading high density for something else somewhere else - therefore, he.fel: there was a need to have some general understanding since in this particular instance one ~parcel• indicated that thedensity was substantially higher than the R-Y Zone ' permitted; that there was no indication that anything but single-family lots or 5000-square ~ foot lots was being proposed, and no amendments to their requests or plans before the ' Commission should be anticipated - therefore, the Commission was starting off on a very difficult basis from the beginning, and he did not want to start that way because he wanted to reach some general understanding. ~ ir.ti+..'~i2.+ ar7,~::c~r'.,~1'i?.~".r~'C.3t"SSSI~[»:tLrs~""~'!~':. ~k3`r,~'•~a..J1:x~9~tF~~'.~~~.%~~ t~ ~~y~j " y , . . ... .. , MINUTES, CITY pLANiQING COMMISSION, September 10, 1970. ~ 5354 RECLASSIFICATION Chairman Heibst inquir,.d.whethei Commissioner Farano did not feel' `- NO 70 71 1'3 there was.a`g~n~ral unde=stariding since one parcel w~is proposed for ,.;< ,. ' R-1`and another p=oposed-,for R-3. ' CONDITIONAL USE. " ,' ~ PERMIT NO '1202 ' Commissioner Farano indicated that:althougli.they, were proposing R-1, ) : the.R l,propoaedrldid~not produce the kind of'densiEy proposed in' '~' TENTATIVE MP,P OF ~.: this.onepadbefore,theCommission'since` this.'density''seemed to.be ' TRACT.NO. 7288" aub§tantially higher then the'R=1 deiisity in'the Nohl Ranch tract, ~::^ (Continued) ';; and that he;,did:not=thidk.he.would want to aee a density;any:greater .'~. ~~` ' .: tkian'-'the;Nohl'Rarich area;'espe.cially in the:newer'aieaiwhere newer '. ,:. ' ~' ' ' densities;and.smaller lots were,•proposed - therefore, he felt there ' was a need-for some understanding regarding.ttiese lot sizes: Mr Yorba steted that_in reference to:Commissioner Farano's trading-, when they submitted the.proposal=for th'e shopping ceriter on~Eichibit.2 „_it clearly demonstrated the proposed . use of the property in the'vicinity of the shopping center and what density development ' was propo`"sed; and surprisingly enough these densities were exact - in 'fact, the trading I came where:there were two`apartment developments.proposed - these have.been eliminated ~ which`were high.density, but the lesser density proposed on,the condominium, so actually ~ ' they had-already traded with che City.out of:a::coris3.3erable number of.units. Commissione; Farano atated that if the-City were attempting to trade him for moYe of : someEhing.else, :then perfiaps the'Coimnission'should take;another look at this. ,. . 1 ' Mr ~Yorba then stated that he was only.making reference to the fact that it was the ' considered judgment of this body'at thaE time.when the plens were aubmitted for the sfiopping center that high mu3tiple-density w+ould be-most appropriate aro~;n3 the shopping .center. ._ : Commissioner,rGauer indicated that since there was noC.a full Commi~sion he was r.o~ deair- ous.of"makirig any,'decisior. at this'heari.ng toaight since additional infoz.mation, auch as the.CC&R examples-should:be brougNt in and other evidence to go along with tae cendominiam evidence, auch as Furmaa Roberts used t•o ~resent when CC&Ra were required of,ccndominiums. Coa~i"asioner.Seymour again noted,that,.in referring ~o the dens'cty figures quoted by ~' 'Mr. Meyers'for the:Sacramento areay he wi~uld~appreciate it if these•staEistics were ;~' brought~3n, perhag~'not only for the.Sacramento area but if this were to be a new trend i' for this type of deyelopment, then statistics £or oti:er de~elopmenLa as well. ;`~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that the Cov¢nission was rather far apart on the density require- ments, and she a?so felt that whatever the Co~ission was going to do it would definitely set a precedent ~or development ia the entire area which, as someone mentioned ma.,~ other people did not have the 2uve of the 2and that the Yorba family did, and she persona3l~ ~ felt ahe,would not want Co make a decision on this without having .n full Cou~ission present, and then moved that subject peEiCions be continued until a full Co~ission was present. . i Co~isstoner Seymour seconded the motion. i Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that this would have to be a date certain. Chairman Herbat inquired as to the applicant's feeling regarding this continuance. Mr.. Meyers indicated that he would not like to have these petitions conCinued for another month, and he would rather have it continued until the next meeting on September 21, 1970, since he could have most of this information to ~he staff by Friday sfternoon of this week. Commisaioner Farano ~;irected that the staff prepare a chronologicai history of the variances, conditional use pP:mits, and reclassifications that had taken place in this general area to determine if the City had made some policy statements and co~ents as to densitiea and it might very well be that this had already been done, and if the City had already dealt with`Mr. Yorba and he had conducted himself on.`that basis of steps thai had been,taken in this policy - however, he wanted to make sure that fihe Coaunisaion was not violating any of these coimnitments, and, ~n essence, fihe Conunissiqn might be reaffirming their prior,cormaitments and precedents by setting more precedents and new policies; that maybe other members of the Commission were more thoroughly acquainzed with about what had happened historically, but he was not, and he thought at this point it was important that he be informed since this would not only be for his beaefit but for the benefit of other Co~nissioners, and this chronological history should also include photoStatic copies of the minutes so that he could become knowledgeable of whaC hsd transpired in the past. Co~issioner Gauer expressed the opinion that the action that had taken place could be ~ done in summary form, particularly as it pertained to the shopping center, and all the ydocumentary evidence would be unnecessary. '~ {~' . i _ r., .,.-,.sw-.we,~',W4„ 9's,.+i.w3.,i?hSw^k~,ir."s~v..t~.~.;a;4, txt !''r. ~.:r.::/;: MINUTES, '~ pl;p,NNING. COMMISSION, Septemb~l0, 1970 -. ~;;/ 5355 REbLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano stated that he would be happy if,this would be N0: 70-7-1=13 da`ne in`summary.form,,.,but h'e would-Teave'that up to the staff and ; , ,. his reason for,~asking,for the minutes wae~ibecause this would give QONDITIONAL USE ' the history of::actual-happenings rather than any coloration of'the PERMIT N0: 1202:. action_since he was desirous'of making tiis.`own deciaion: • TENTATIVEiMAP OF Mr Roberts,then atated that.it would be,..quicker-and;easier for the TRACT N0.:7288, `. staff.to_.pres'enE the-minutes.since xhey,were in.a complete form as (Continuedj to actton which had Eaken pl_ace.rather than a su~narization. Assistant,;Development Services Director Ronald THompson inquired of Mr: Yorba whether he would be'.'able to:supply the'E:R.A. reports'Ehat went back as:far as the public hearings on`the shopping`center:, Mrs Yorba.,replied that,he had;`-this material<referred to; however, he had one more comment. and that w.is that a corisiderable.amount of action had:taken ,place in the area to the east, R=3 had 6-~en reqyested.to the;north, R-2 zoning had been requested there; and there had been all sorts of precedents set. One,thing that might be interesting in following this theory of'.densities - logically, one would.agree that near the shopping.center one has . higher densiCies;:and 3t had,been.,said that`3.5 units were pezmitted in the slope analysis, but what:would happen if they achieved the R-3 zoning on a ginen piece of property (iiidicated the,area om the map) adjoining the.high school.anc the highly traveled road which would permit 30 units per acre,on 12 acres-- then they could possibly use up their enGire allotment on that piece of propertq, but he did not.put a:great deal of faith in this density"-;it was a.bit ludicrous in the method of determing.the number of units tnat ahould be allocated to this piece of property. Furthermore, he was disappointed that Ehe Commission was not more familiar with the topographp.of the land -.this was apparent, although he knew'a.number of them`had viewed the propertq (Commissioner Farano indicated he resided in,close proximity to this propert,) since the proposed type of developme::t: was not only aesthetically accepEable'buc logical, and He would agree with the st2te~ents made regarding the one.parcel adjacent to the Lusk propert~ oa the west, and he had dis- , cussed the feasibility and.desiraeility of screening`thaC area with the developer - therefa re, he felt some 8djustments could be made. Furtnermore, he could not underst~nd why the Co~ission did not feel they wou2d have adequate-control since every one of these pads would`have a tract map presented.far the Commission's consideratioa and approvsl J before any development could occur, and inquired if this was not che proposal as che staff had:reco~nended. i Mr. Roberts stated that this was the sug~.stion made to the Commission. I Mr. Yorba no[ed that he respected the co~cern of ti~e Co~ission in noC letting this get out of hand. Mr. Thompson noted that the way this migrit be controlled as to concept plan would be to tie the reclassification into the conditional use permit, and unless this was developed, the particular concept presented, the property would nat be reclassified, but if he proposed to build the type of concept that was presented to the Commission, the planned community concept in which a total number of 532 dwelling uaits was proposed for 110 acres with 182 of those units for the i:-1 portion, that was quite well defined, but if they came in and the Commission did not try to cut them down in the future, then they had a little reason for being a bit angry. Mr. Yorba noted that by the same token, the density could not be increased. Chairman Herbst noted that was the reason he felt now if the developer and the Commission were talking about a nig;~er density, then the two parties should also be able to discuss this density on another portion since now was the time to do son;e trading. Mr. Yorba noted that the tentative tracc map presented to the Commission covered only a small portion of the property and no Eime st this public hearing was spent talking about this map, and:he was somewhat surprised about i~,[hat this particular unit of development should be under consideration tonigF~ although he appreciated the concern for Ehe balance of the property and since the de'v~loper seemed to have made a commitment and staff had indicated the Commission did have control. Chairman Herbst recognized the fact that YC ~tad Eaken Mr. Yorba seven years to present his plan at a public hearing before the Commiesion, and the Commission had had his plan before them only for the past three days, and then inquired whether or not this should be continued to September 21 or a later date. The Cormnission Secretary adqised the Commission that a very heavy agenda was scheduled for September 21, at which time the General Plan 9mendment .for the north side of Santa Ana Capyon Road was to be considered - therefore, u~Iess the Commission wanted to spend ~.. _~ f' ~ ~'.11.;. ~"e' ; , -. i '; ~ ; r: , - ~ ~, r ~ ~--.• "° :. r , > , , ,, ;( ' c ' ,. . _ . , 1z_ . . . _~ . - , afi~ertit`cL_ H "'.~ `~ ~ .(y-'. ~-1 ~ L .,; ' ti' . .,r^. . 1~ _" N~i.; i'~e~i,n.:7't' .F, ~ ~ yL`t ~'MINUTES., ~Y PLANNING COMiIISSION; SepCem~ 10, 1970 , . , , ~ ,, ~ 5356 RECLASSIFICATION' - another meeting until ?dnight, stie would recommend that subject et tions be.conti _ NO 70=71 13 :.. p nued.until Actober,5, 1970,... bONDITIONAL USE Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue Reclassification PERMIT NO 1202 No 70-71-13., Conditional_Use Permit No. 1202, and Tentative Map of - TracE-No. 7288:to tfie:meei.iag of October 5, 1970,:for.submission of TENTATIVE MAP OF addit.ional data Commissioner Seymour_seconded.the motion. MOTION TRP,CT-'NO:.-7288 ' CARRIED: (Continued) . ~ REPORTS'AND ' - ITEM .NO,' 1 ~',1z RECONIMENDATIONS CONDITZOATAL USE PERMIT N0. 1138 (Spehar property.- f- American:Mobilehome -0ompany) - Request for.approvsl of revised plans'ori a,347-space mobile home park,located ~ east'of Imperial Highway and.south of Esperanza Road. { Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts preaented reviaed plans submitted by Mr. Phill•Ip Walsh, i 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fulle;ton,'for approval'of a 347-.space mobile home park approved under Conditional Use,Permit No.:1138, noEing the;locatibn of the property, previous development.plans submitted origina:ly,and approved"by the Planning Commission and City Council;~the fact that,the lateat revision was reviewed by the:Commission on August 24, +1970, and:the new plane before the Commission which now propose a curviliriear design rather than the traditional grid.pattern;but still utilizing a conventional lot design as opposed to the previously approved cluster deyelopment. Mr. Roberts, in evaluating the latest revised plans, indicated that there was no change in the number of units or density; that the primary difference was the.curvilinear design with each lot fronting on.a.private interior street; that at the last meeting the staff wss strongly critical 'of the`revision as it-•compared to the proposed Mobile Home Park and Travel Trailer`.Park Ordinance pertaining to landscaping, parking, and recreation area requirements; that the petitioner had-modified:tliis by,complying in part with those criti- cisms,and.the.latesf revision now contained 124,-730 square:feet of recreation ares by converting a pr.aposed storage area into a second recreation area and utilizing part of the landscaped area.for recreaEion purposes - the new ordinance would sequire 104,OQ0 s.quare feet; that there.was still adequate storege area which met'tHe proposed ordinance requirementa, since 45:spacea`had been proposed for this uae; that guest parking on the iaEes,t`revision':was dispersed throughout the park with 102 guest parking spaces pioposed - n~w ordinanae would require 85 spaces - however, 24 of these lots would be outside of the requir~ed 300-foot radius,:and one lot would be approximately 400 feet away; that the new ordinance,would also require one tree,for each mobile home space, whereas the applicant proposed one for eyery two spaces; and that in evaluating this request, the Planning Commission might wish to consider the implications of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' recammendat£on that no residential uses be allawed in the area north of the Santa Ana River and east of Imperial Highway. Upon reviewing the revised plans, considerable discussion was held by the Coa¢nission, the eppt;cant and staff regarding the location and type of recreation area proposed, length of walking di~tance fr.om a guest parking area to the various pads, advantages and disadvantages of the new plan over that of the "cluster" development previously approved, and need for each pad to have a Cree rather than every other pad. Upon conclusion of this discuasion, the Commission was of the opinion that although the recreation erea square footage met the proposed new ordinance, spaces used in the landscaped area were minimal in size and could be used for very little in the way of recreation; that no precise plans £or the second larger recreation aree were indicated, and its location was too close to the main recrea- tion area; Ehat better distribution of the guest parking could be accomplished by a better redesign; and that the applicant had agreed to providing one tree for each pad. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Com~f.ssioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED to deny app•roval of plans, Revision No. 3, for Condihional Use Permit No. 1138 for a mobile home park cn the basis that although the petitioner-applicant met the aquare footage in recreation area as aet forth in the,new kiobile Home Park and Travel Trailer Park Ord:Cnance, the two ma~n areas were Coo far removed from msny of the pada for convenience of walking to the areea; that the guest parking was not located convPn£ently to or dispersed throcgfi- out this very large mobile home complex; and that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that said revised plans be disapprcaed on the basis of the foregoing findings. i :~~ I ~3 i ~ i i~ 'A .:.: ...:: , ..,'._ ~ "~' ~~1~„nt 1+,.:. 9 " /~ ~ tiw ~ l~-F'~~~s. _ , . . °,... . , ' .' . oniFtoadirect~tiyPrstaff to set~ror~~public~;tieaiting ° tle`;,18, Section~sl8 68* ` Varian~ e' oi ~Eh~e Anab"eimz"`5 ~~ the~October 19~f 1970 meetir `'"" ' M"~ x p Y= t~ y r'~,. i{ J w, 8~( ~Commisaione~aI;Seymour ~ s~- ~ a ~r ~ ~ ~ l`~s ' ~ ~ ` F ~ ~* r ~ . 1'~ 5 ~ / . / - z ~ tS t j'~l y+ ~ r ~ y a ~~~ a ~ ~. t~? ,, : ~ q ~,, . -`- ° i f~ ~~,~ ~u 1~ ~~ ~; ~' ~. yi ;. further basineas ;to~adiBC tgg,_„COmaiBSienar.,Fn.-a' a ~. . o ioaavuesr/~ bauer ~'r , ;k ; ~ _ , seconded,~the m~ion MOTION CQRRIED ` ` ~' : + f ' ~ f ~ ry , : ti , ~ ti j 'r v ^° ~ , rs ' I< r '` } ` ~ The meeting adjourne`d atYll 05 ' o ~ ' . ~ 1N . r y l ,, t , . ,, y ,~ P M ~ ~ . += R+` ~ t r s ~ ~ J ~ F; .1 ~ ...- ~. . ~ 4 < ~ 7, Respectfully eubmitt d s • v r , ~ r i t ` ~ ) 1 '. /"-4 r 'r n . Y _• ° ~ .,i ~ ~-Y h ~ / 1 ~ ~ 1 4 ~ ` . ~~ . ' 5 ,` ` 1 ~ ~ :'• ( . I ;.' ,„ . r S~ .,. ., iwl ~Gi~ /, 't r ~ ;, ~ a~ , - ~ ,~ANN;:KREBS,; Secretary> ~ ~- ~~ ~ ' " ~ , ~ ~ ! ~ t ~ j ^ Y~ F . hJjt ~tl F - 1 f . r Anaheim City Plrinnin ~ oj i ro E 4 . ~ y ~ ` ~ rt J , t g{ ~ p~p ss n r . C ~' ~ ~ ~ ` x' YTy ; - r ~ ~ ~~ < ~ ! ~ '. I ~~ ~t~ S ~~ .. ~ '' F ~ .. ` , f , ~ . ~ fiA J S ; ~ '~~ _ ~ y ~ 4r.. ' - -r 'r 1 at ~' ~ - , ` ~ry,~. ^ y ' 2 J ~ .. ~ r ' ~.Fl.. J ~ ) l' r " 1 S ~ 1 ~ r - ~ ~. ~ _ ~i , t ~ 1\: ~' _'j'~y.' i ~ r ~ ' i y ~`~ : ~ _ - ~P. "~ "• ~1 J . ` i ~ i: ~: .. a ~, ~ J ~ ti ~ . ~ - .', ~~ .,i ' ~' ': ~ ! x~~ (' ~ 4 ~ t ,i ~. " ` ^ ?. i. ~ ~~ ~3 - w , ~~a ~ ~r r~ p ~, t!r~ C; at `~'~: : _ ~ , JFt~ 1~ k J c `= s . _ . . . .;, ., .~~ ~ ..~.. ... ..... .' ~.. '. . .: .~ . ~ ... , '~ . . .,. .. ~~~. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ . _ ~ i~;i ~ , . , ., . . . . . .. . , . ~ .. ~., . . . . '.: .. . ; ~ ~ : .. ~. . . .... ~ : .' . . , : .'. .. . .~..i . i ~ . ~: i . . . '.i'~ ., . ~ ' . ...., . . .~ ... . ..: . .~ ~'~- , a* r.., . : i: ~ ~ r : ' •' ' ` ~ ' . . ~ ~ . ,! ~ ~~ , .^ 4 . ~~ ~ . . . . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y; -. , .. .;:- , ' . . ., ,; . . . , .. ., ., . ,1 . _ . . . . ~ . . . . ~ _ _ . ~ . - . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . . : ' . .. . . , t ~~:.~ ~: ...