Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/02/08~ f , i I ~ ~~ _. "\ i t_ , City Hall Anaheim, California February 8, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _ ...., a REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Aaaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. - COMMISSZONERS: Gauer, Rowland, Raywood, Seymour, Allred, ' Farano. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None, j i °RESENT - Assiatant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson ~ Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson ~ Office Engineer: Jay Titus ~ Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Aasistant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter Associate Plannez: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary; Ana Krebs PLEDGE OF ~ Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 1971, were approved THE MINUTES on motion by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED, with the following corrections: Page 71-1, paragraph 3, "Commissioners: Gauer, Rowland, Kaywood . " Page 71-9, paragraph 2,•". ... windbreaks was recently cropped on the . . ." paragraph 5 should read: "Mr. Thompson .... ~ had A--1 zoning - however, upon aubdivision, they ' would have four lots fewer or 114 lots, by plaaning as was indicated in the proposed zone, than the 118 lots they presently had." Minutes of the meeting of January 25, 1971, were approved as submitted on motion by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED. AMENAMEN_T TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING ANAHEIPI MUNICIPAL CODE COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californ,ia, to consider amendments to Chapter 18.59, Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone, Title 18, Zoning, of ~he Anaheim Municipal Code, covering property located in the general vicinity of the Santa Ana Canycn area in east .Anaheim. Associate Planner pon McAaniel noted for the Gommission that at the January 11 public hearing the Commission approved, in concept, a zone for the Santa Ana Canyon known as the Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone; however, since there were some changes that should be incorporated into the zone prior to consideration by the City Council, these changes were to be considered at an advertised ~ublic hearing - therefore, said revisions were before the Commission this date for cons3deration by both the Commission and the property owners of the area under consideration. *ir. PScDaniel then reviewed all the suggest~d changes regarding setbacks, landscaping, screening, walls, the 25-foot height limitation which included flagpoles, elimination of the 1Q-foot landscape setback between the freeway or expressway and the wall required for the pzoperties fronting on said thoroughfares, amendments to windbreak requirements, replacement of the viadbreaks with a one for three ratio of trees or where na eucalyptus wind- ~reaks existed, a minimum of ten t,rees per acre planted in cvindbreak fashion 71-45 wG~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ . . . .. . ~ ~. ~. ~ i ~ ~~'~.~~: ~' 1 ' . . . ~ a ~ 1 . . . . . ~ ~ " . ~ I '/ ~, . • ~ . . . . . . .. .. . . . `~ .~i . , . ~ ~ i I ~ i - . _.~ . i ~ ~ .,~e MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Fe~uary 8, 1971 i`"71-46 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued) £ee for landscaping in would be assessed prop - and additional changes to recommendations on Title 17; establishing a street tree program; changing the street cross section standards to include a median strip on arterial highways so that the street tree program could be accommodated; and, establishing a lieu of fees for curbs, gut•ters and sidewalks which arty developers along Ssnta Ana Canyon Road. Mr. McDaniel further noted that one of the most misinterpreted sections of the proposed code was the windbreaks on Page 4-(e)(3), and then read this section of the code and indicated that formerly the code proposed reqniring renlacement of windbreaks on a one-for-one ratio - however, this had been changec; to make the replaceaent one fer three, and where no change or trees existed to require planting of ten trees per acre in windbreak fashion. Mr. McDaniel, in response to Commission questioning regarding the most recent requirement of windbreak replacement, stated that the revised section of the proposed ordinance was about se flexible as c,ould be obtained since there were several alternatives - thinning out the windbrea&s to ten trees per acre, topping and trimming the existing windbreaks, or the one-for~--three ratio. Furthermore, he had heard comments that the requiremeat of retaining the eucalyptus trees was less than desirable and he could n~ot agree more, that these were dirty trees next to pools - however, many deyelop~xs were desirous of rw_taining these existing windbreaks. In additian, th~e }sroposed zone was specifically for the Santa Ana Canyon since there were ~maay unique features in the canyon which could not be found in the rest o.f the city, such as topography, geography, trees, rocks, a river, ete., and it w,as not considered inappropriate to have these developmerst standards for an area with such uniqne besuty and have an area not found in Ca3ifornia or in other states - thus, it was felt necessary to provide some protectian in hillside development standards which could not be used in flatlands or vice versa. Mr. McDaniel also noted that comments had been made that the proposed zone would prevent development occurring in the canyon - hnwe~ver, hka cou16 point out an analogy, for instance, in the city's industxial area when the zone was drafted five or eix years ago incorporating site developuient standartds, the property owners felt these site development standards would prevent development of the industrial area, and the potential industries would go elsewhere because the standards were too tough - however, the reve:rse had happened because the integrity of the area was established, and ttie fine reputation which the area en~oyed because of these standards resulted in one of the finest industrial areas in the State of California. Therefore, it was possible that this same situation will occur in the canyon, and there ahould not be any detrimental factors which should prevent development of the canyon. Commissioner Gauer inquired what comments had been received from the County of Orange regarding this area and the proposals being considered by the City of Anaheim for the areas both within the City's ~urisdiction and within the City's sphere of influence because with the new Board of Supe~~r,v,~sors it was possible they could fire all the County planning commissions°; which could mean the City of Anaheim Plannin~ommission would have to begin again with discussions with new commissions to reach agreement on development for the canyon. Mr. McDaniel advised the Commission that staff had a rasolution from the former Board of Supervisors, reaffirming their stand on cooperation in the canyon, and in the past most boards had honored recommendations of the previous boards - and then reviewed the boundaries of the (SC) Zone on the map, noting that in an agreement with the City of Orange, ~the ridgeline of the Santa Ana Mountains was the southerly boundary for the City of Anaheim; that this boundary was not an arbitrary one since water flowed downhill, and the ridge flow would go in a southerly direction - therefore, this would be a logical boundary. However, to the north the only indication from LAFCO as to the City's sphere of influence would be Esperanza Road. Mr. *icDaniel then explained the area encompassed by the Anaheim General Plan, both within the County and the Ci.ty, and then noted that the Overlay Zone included more area than the General Plan included. ~ is. '. _ ~'~"~,~.ip~._~_,....,, ~ ~ ' i ~ , . ,--.._...._.... ~, . , ~ _..._.__------~-.' + ' ~ - - ~ . ._.._- ----- - . ~ ~.>> ~ _____ _ - -_ _ ___ _ i MINUTES, CITY pI,ANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 ,> ! 71-47 , ! AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 I ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE _ Mrs. Leo Detarding, 21102 Santa Ana Canyon Road, .. (Continued) 8PPe8Led before the Commiasian and noted that she , owned 5'~ acres along Santa Ana Canyon Road and was i opposed to any annexation to the City of Anaheim , i being made for the canyon~rthat thetproposallwas ratheraadhind~sight8toons . , atrempt to preserve the Santa Ana Canyon since it was already destroyed -a wb.en the freeway went in and now Featherly Park could be considered a ; 1!~galized tenement with the undeairable characters fre,quenting the park . ~ and presenting a horrible sight to anyone driving by; that none of the residents o£ the canyon had any notification or ~ustification in these _ developments - therefore, the proposa•1 by the City of Anaheim regarding `~ ="f- the 75-foot building setback along Santa Ana Canyan Road was very arbitrary '~~~ -,..~•r since they would be required to keep down the weeda in the area, and tr ~ ~ could not grow because of exhaust f in ees ~ affected by the exhaust fumes, the~r ~ th t b us ~he oran.ge trees were .~ if her property were annexed - I trees die and remove the windbreaks;Cthat~whenaaefire8occurred inathetSanta " ' ' Ana Cauyon, the only onea who protected the property were the owners them- ~ i selves; that eucal yptus trees were very dirty and expensive to maintain, ~ ~ and people having these eucalyptus windbreaks could not afford to take care ti of them in the manner proposed; that if trees at 8-foot heights were required to be planted, at the first sign of a Santa Ana wind all of these trees would ~I be blown down since trees could only be stazted from a very small aize, and ~ she wondered if an one ~ trees in this t Y Q1OPosing or drafting the o dina ce had ever planted ype of environment; that she had P'~~ now her sequoia trees were dying from some t 500 pine trees and "tender-loving care"; that the only trees thatecould withstandvtheaelements of the canyon were the eucalyptus trees which did not dro - a windy day but during a lull in the winds; that the State ForestryIDDivi.sion ~ •; was now requiring eucalyptus trees to be _rimmed of limbs and bark removed ~ for the first 20 feet of the tree - however, what good would a eucal ' windbreak be if it were bare for the first 20 feet of its height; that ~ consideration should be given to fire YPtus '"~ withstand or be somewhat fire-retardant~andtcouldfalsoewithstand theySaould ~ ' Ana winds - however nta ~ =~ threw all t ~ People visiting the canyon to view the "scenic drive" /t ypes of debris out of their cars, even lighted materials - this ~ ~ she could vouch for because her family had to clean up their _;:-~ the only ones who cleaned up were the owners of the Property and ! she would suggeat that the City inquire of the owaersrofethe property~atong ,'~ the ma~or thoroughfares if they could affozd the proposed development standards for the canyon; and that when their forefathers came into this area, they set up minimal regulations - however, progress had destroyed the entire area. Chairman Herbst advised Mrs. Detarding that the City was not planninr. to ~ take 75 feet away from the ~ the .right-of-wa Property o~oners along Santa Ana Canyon 8oa~ since ~ proposed was the setbacksyofXbuildingsuof 75,t50,SOre40tfeettfromnthe* property line; that the homes in the flatland areas of Anaheim were requiredytohset back only 25 feet because they were not ma3or arterials, and building set- backs were only to protect the residents fi•om sounds from the traffic on these major arterials, . Mr. Frank Minissale, 20932 Mohler Drive, owner af property at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Piohler Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted that { changes made to the proposed zone were good suggestions si.nce this meant that structures could be built up to 50 feet from the prouerty line; that ~ he had spoken to several of the pronerty owners who did not live on Santa Ana Canyon Road or their properties did not abut said road, but they were _- of the opinion that those property owners who were ad~acent to said road ; had been assigned a position of being in the minarit attempting to impose restrictions that were not in~osedaon otheritY was that staff had stated these restrictions were ba' properties; besuty of the area - however, it was the Yozba, Danker~Panddotherefamilies who were property owners in the area and who had made these properties beautiful - however, n~w that they had made the area attractive, tliese t restrictions were reducing their land potential; that he had talked with i•Iessrs. Stark, Yorba and Liberio who h d advised him af the potential loss . in the development of their p:operties; that Mr. Danker hsi lost almost all : • .~c . ,i ~ :~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMT~SION, February 8, 1971 ~._~ ~~ 1 71-48 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, -- of his land - at one time he had three times the ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE amount of land of the mobilehome site - this after (Continued) taorking maay hours a weelc for many years; that the County approved a use permit for the mobilehome park; that what should be considered was the fact thaC the City was dealing with human beings who would have to give up their land just because they had land and did not live in the $80,OOQ homes; that ' the property owners along Ssnta Ana Canyon Road felt that a 50-foot setback ~ was more than adequate since others did not have to provide this type of a setback, and if these homeowners had not appeared at the public hearings, ~ the originally-rec.ommended setback would have been 100 or 75 feet; that if ~ they had resided in the $80,000 homes and the people now living in these ! homes had their positions zeversed, there would have been con~iderably more I opposition; and that although the changes presented to the Commission appeared somewhat better, they still would prefer to have the building setback less than 50 feet, and knowing from experience siace his hame set back less than 50 feet from the Santa Ana Canyon Rcad, this could be accomplished. Furthermore, he had been advised recently that the DlcCarthy Company proposed to construct a road at the rear of his property - this, then, would leave very little land to be developed on his property with all of the setbacks required. Chairman Herbst noted thzt other cities had many areas where the setback was considerably more thaa was fi eing required by the City of Anaheim, and that the City realized the need for requiring a greater setback along I_.. arterials than along local streets - this accounted for the proposed setbacks ~ and the setback of 50 feet required by industrial development along arterials. i Mrs. Judy Cessop, 4819 Wasatch Drive, appeared before the Commission in favor ~ of the proposed zone, noting that ahe did not reside in an $80,000 home, nor did many af the residents in the area who favore.d the (SC) Zone; that perhaps the City was fifteen years too late in the propasal - howe~•er, she was not here fifteen yeara ago nor were many of the residents presently a residing in thE area, but it was her opinion that it was better late rather ' than never trqing to save the beauty of Santa Ana Canyon which she and many ~• of the small homeowners in Lhe area whom she xPnresented wanted by being in favor of the proposed zone and as was found by the sheaf of petitions which she was holding which represented people in the Anaheim area and concerned citizens who might be passing through this area from Newport Beach and Balboa, among some of the other cities; and that since she had appeared a number of times before the Commission and City Council, she was fully aware of the fact that the canyon would be developed with upwards of 100,000 residents - however, this could be done in good taste through proper nlanning to make this one of the best areas in Southern California to reside. Mr. Robert Richards, 21611 Esperanza Road, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had been in the area for twer.ty-five years and he was one of those property owners who had to pay for the boat ~lips in the harbor area - therefore, he wondered if these property owners in the harbor area wauld also help foot the bill for retention;;of the scenic beauty of the Santa Ana Canyon. Furthermore, the property ebzners in this area had land taken from them by the Orange County Flood Control District for flood control purposes along the river, and to require adherence to these proposed standards would be establishing double standards for the property owners in this area. Mr. James Liberio, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that he owned a number of acres along Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the Chairman indicated L:~ proposal would not be taking land from the nroperty owners, but, in efiect, they could not develop structures in this ~ setback area,, and when one had Q 1000-foot frontage along said road and was requ{.red to set back even SO feet, this would reduce the lot yield consider- ably - thus, he could not see why a flat piece of land could not set back the normal 25 feet which was the requirement in the city instead of the uroposed setback. Mr. McDan~.el replied that where property was adjacent to the freeway or Santa Ana ~anyon Road, an expressway, a developer could reduce the required setback from 75 to 50 feet if the elevation of the property line was 6 feet above or 6 feet below the elevation of the roadway, and the idea behind this was that residents residing 6 feet or more above the roadway would not be ~'k > ~ ~ ^ ~ ~` _ j ~ -- .~_ ( ~-~ ~ (~ i v , I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-49 • AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - requir.ed to have a wall or landscaping because .. ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE they r_ould not see the freeway or expressway; and that those below the freeway or expressway might be required to have additional landscaping in order that the traffic and road would not be visible or • the noise reduced somewhat. ~ ~r. Liberio then noted that regardless of the flatness of the land, this 25-foot setback could not be allowed. Was ~;~at correct? _ Mr. McDaniel replied in the affirmative. - ., , ,,;,.. -r• ~ ~~ •,,; ~ Commissioner Rowland stated he took exception to that since the proposed ordinance indicated that if a berm were developed, then the setback could '~ j ~~ be reduced, and this could save the nroperty developzr 25 feet. Mr. Liberio then noted that the developer would still be required to have -i a fence; whereupon Commissioner Rowland stated this would be un to the developer, but tvith a berm it would not be necessary. 1, Kr. Liberio than noted that if this building setback were required of • development in the canyon, then it should be required where properties abutted all freeways since he did not feel it was fair to expect him or his fellow property owners to have a 75-foot setback while others were cnjoying ~ lesser setback. - , ~~; Commissioner Allred informed Mr. Liberio that he was in a unique position since he had acquired property ad~acent to the scenic highway or in the scenic corridor, and since the growth of Anaheim now appeared tu extend ; to the east, those property owners of land adjacent to the arterials would ``_;i have to meet different site development standards; that the property owners ,-~ would not be losing anything because they had not developed their properties, ,;~ and if this land were not developed, the people still could grow oranges. :1 .~ Mr. Liberio noted that he did not have any orange groves; that the Commission stated there would be no loss of land - however, the zone was restricting .i the property owner and developer by taking away development of a whole tier ; of lots; that a certain type of tree might survive along the freeway, and ~ requirement of ten trees per acre was not a point of contention - however, the two main considerations were the loss of salable land by the required setbacks and the requirement of a development review committee since thia ,;~ would be another barrier in an attempt to develop the property if each proposal would have to meet a development review committee's cri.teria o£ proper development. ' Commissioner Gauer commented as to the setbacks which Mr. Liberio complained about, noting that many communitits had different setbacks: for instance, ~ the City of San Marino required a 150-foot building setback, and people who ~ wanted to develop in this area and who wanted an estate-type home woulc~ want ~ this type of a setback; and that the only reason he was so concerned with > the scenic corridor was to keep from having the area further deteriorating ~' with less than desirable development and strip commercial uses along Santa Ana Canyon Road - therefore, if these rules were not imposed, development in the canyon would be in an undesirable manner. Chairman Herbst noted that iahen the .freecvay was established, the City had `i no control over its development - however, the City had learned from bitter ~ experience that a 25-foot building sezback was not sufficient for people who ~:; would be purchasing homes which had been built in the area, and their sales _ '~_ would be considerably enhanced if a greater setback were provided. ~ir. Liberio commented that if the Commission were primarily concerned with more expensive homes, then he would agree with thc ~roposed setback. Chairman Herbst noted that development in the area sub3ect to the proposed zone site development standards would affect all develoument from ridgeline ,` to ringeline, and that the restrictions imposed ~vere not as "tight" as similar developments in canyon areas elsewhere. ~. rke f:. ~ ...1.,. . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ '__ . . . 1. . . ' .. _ ~ _ . . . - ~ . .. _ . .~ _ ~ ' h ~ / i / I ~ '.. -.~ ~'~. ,,. I. . 1 ; ~ ~ r.. f ~:` .+t~e :: C~ (,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMPSISSIOH, February 8. 1971 71-50 A.'+lENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - Mr. Liberio noted that when more restrictions were ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE placed on properties there was less likelihood that (Continued) the area would develop, but if development did occur, there should be a variety of residential uses from R-2-5000 to larger lots which would be most appropriate for a given area - however, those property owners on the north side of the river had a flood hazard problem when many channels which had to be constructed by the Orange County Flood Control District took portions of their land - therefore, the property already had more than its share of restrictions not to have to be plagued with still more restrictions. Commissioner Allred indicated he had been a member of the Plan~ing Commission for more than eleven years, during which time there were many things he had voted on wrongly, both for and against, but in that length of t3me he had found that in most instances the Commission had rescted to developers to hold them in line somewhat in order to obtain a half-way decent development. Now, however, the Commission had a chance to act and plan in an area relatively vacant where the Commission could do sc:•:~e good planning rather than reacting; that this mas one of the best areas in the County for nice homes, apartments, condominiums, etc., but the City must plan the area with streets, windbreaks, etc., rather than what someone ~oanted to do with the land. Therefore, it was his hone this could be accomplished through diligent efforts on the part of both the Commission and staff. Mr. Liberio noted that perhans the Ci*y could have an assessment district established where all these properties could be purchased and developed in accordance with plans as set forth by the City. Assistant Zoning Sunervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted statements made regard- ing a 25-foot setback appearing to be adequate - however, this would not be the cace for R-2-5000 ad~acent to the river on the north where as little as 5-foot rear yard setbacks would be permitted. Therefore, these setback restrictions became more important in these particular areas where homes were ad~acent to arterials. *irs. Mabel Travis, 155 North Maude Lane, appeared before the Commission in favor of the proposed zone, noting that when she and her husband purchased their property three years ago they were told the freeway would be located on the north side of the river, and now they had so much noise one could not believe it unless they were in these homes - they could r.ot even hear their phone ringing if they were not in the same room, and they could not talk with anyone outdoors unless they were about three feet away. Therefore, she felt it was very essential and vital for the entire community that some noise barrier be established by setback reouirements, walls, landscaping, etc., for future residents of the canyon, even though they were stuck with their predicament, the City should try to protect these future residents in the canyon. Mrs. Donald Filadelfia, 4225 East Bainbridge Avenue, appeare~ before the Commission and noted that she owned one of *_he smaller 5000-square foot lots; that she did not live far from the freeway but had friends who lived directly behind the freeway; that she had only a small invescment in her home, and if this were sold, she could stand to lose or gain, denending upon property values; that she could anderstand and appreciatP the ~roblems of the people who had purchased a great deal of property and who could stand to lose some money -'~owever, there was the human factor to consider - what about the people who would have to breathe these fumes wher the trees were dying along the freeway - think ~ahat the peoule must suffer from the fumes; that if she lived adjacent to a freeway she would think twice before aending her children outdoors to olay because of the fumes, and these exhaust fumes would remain for some years to come - therefore, she requested consideration of the human factor in approval of the proposal to provide setbacks and landscaping where homes ~aere proposed adjacent to the freeway or an expressway since this was more imnortant than a few dollars. _M_r~,Violet Grivey, 20441 Santa Ana Canyon Road. appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating her home caas set back less than 50 feet from Santa Ana Canyon Road; that she and her husband had owned Che 5-3/4 acres in the area since 1953; that the praposed (SC) Zone would impose conditions on the property owners in the area whicii ~oould devaluate their property, and if +~ . , ~ \ ~l 's f f - _ : ~; ~ ~•~ • ": i , - r. . " . .. ' ~ , .. o. . ^y _ r ,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO_.:fISSION, February 8, 1971 71-51 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - they attempted to sell their property for develop- ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CQDE ment, they would not realize as much for their (Continued) nroperty as other property owners in the city ~ because of the location of their property; that the property owners were requesting that the City ' not impose these conditioas on just the property owners in the area but on '' every property which developed in the city; that the Santa Ana Canyon property owners would be discriminated against if the proposed zone were adopted; that the 75-foot building setback was out of reason; and that the long-time area prouerty owners and residents would be the ones who cvould -~~ „ suffer snd would have to pay. f~`T°:.i`" Mrs. Grivey inquired why the strip of land in the median could not be used for landscaping as well as the shouluars of the road - this ~aould afford approximately 95 feet of plantable area - why couldn't planting be dane _~~ along the freeway as was done in Fullerton and Anaheim• that , the existing Y~ eucalyptus trees had served their gnrpose and did not belong in a developed residential area since aany of the trees ~vere dying from smog and odors, and after the Santa Ans winds, this area never escaped a fallen tree - this could be verified through the State Division of Highways, the Southern ~ California Edisoa Company, and ~?nsurance companies; and that the owners of . these subdivisions should be allowed to plant trees of their own choice as they had always done in the past. Mrs. Hazel Maag, 5865 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission and stated she was still opnosed to requiring the retention of the eucalyptus trees and wished the Commission could see her yard this date, and it had - been raked up just two weeks ago; that some of those trees had been planted in the 1920s; that she did nc+t have a swimming pool near any eucalyptus, and neighbors with pools could fight continuously if these eucalyptus trees ;;i remained because they were so messy; that she did not mind having the ;i eucalyptus trees where they were not near homes, but they were planted in :,,;j the canyon to protect the orange and other groves; and that she, too, wanted .;~ the canyon to remain besutiful but did not want the eucalyptus trees kept. -~l Mr. Royce Coln, area manager of the Orange County Chapter of the Building ~^~ Industries Association, 800 North Main Street, Santa Ana, appeared before ~ the Commission and reviewed a letter submitted to the Planning Commission ;,-~ regarding the proposed (SC) Zone pertaining to the rigid requirement of the ,.z~ 75-foot setback along freeways and a scenic route which might be acceptable ~ in the canyon areas which would be depressed from view of the freeway - ~`:;? however, in the elevated areas ad~acent to the freeways, the 75-foot setback ,,~ would be excessive and unnecessary. Secondly, in height limitations where a maximum height limitation could be varied up or down to insure that the `~-~ view fram adjacent lots was not impaired would be inconceivable and impoasible to enforce unless the entire area were developed simultaneously. Further- more, slope and grade limitations would make this impossible to achieve in every situation. Third, regarding landscaping and screening, the require- m.ent for planting of lawns, trees, shrubs, and setback Freas would most probably violate the principle which was desired to be obtained - namely, _ not to impair the view from adjacent lots of some of the scenic highway. In addition, if a wall or berm were sis feet high on a lot or lots which . were elevated above the freeway, again Lhe view would be impaired, and the wall would be no closer than ten feet from the right-of-way line, which ~ would be an open invitation to non-maintenance, as well as not being kept up. ~ As to being enforced, he questioned the wisdom of the requirement that the ~~' natural terrain be left in its undisturbed state, which should be planted with adequate native planted materials - this was the situation when the Paseo Grande fire a few 3ears ago burned approximately eighty homer. in the brush-covered areas in Orange County since the County and many cities which had brush-covered areas were replete with brush-clearing ordinances, fire- break agreements, etc., and that he would further suggest that the natural planting be reviewed c~ith the lot, o•r eliminate those which were of high fire hazard, and this also included eucalyptus trees. Mr. McDaniel explained the changes ~ahich had taken place since the Commission ' first took action in approving in cuncept the proposed (SC) 2one, stating that the 75-foot setback could be reduced to 50 feet where properties were either 6 feet above or 6 feet below the adjacent freeways and/or expressways, and on primaries it was also reduced where a wall and landecaping werP •: 3.-_ --~_ • - . n , _ . ~ _,. ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNINS COMuESSiON, Februar~ 8, 1971 M~ 71-JZ EMENDMEidT TO TITLE ~8, - prov=ded; secondly, the height limitation statemenT ANAFFIM ?•SUNICIPAL CODE had been amended to reou=re a 25-foot height (Coatinued) limitation; th±rdly, the 10-foot wall setback from the freeways or expressways had also be2n eliminated because the Commissior. questioned the possibility of maiatenance of the setback aot w=thin the wall conf~nes of the private properties. In addition, he had no comments regarding fire•hazards since this a~ea eventually c,ould be recognized as being heavily urbanized, more so thar. Bel Air a~here the f.ires occurred because of the open areas, and t.here thera c.as more density, there would be more structures and less brush. ;~-- '~' Mr. Coln then inquired about :'.e landscaping and screening; whereupon Ar...... '~r. ?~cDaniel revie~ved ~rhat ~r+-.~ previously proposed and revisions made. ~ Mr. Cola then noted that ~:hen a ~erson purchased a view lot for a panoranic ~1 `~ view, f_° a wall or oerm s.+ere reauired, _his view ;aould be eliminated. ; _ *1r. McDaniel explaiaed that the coall andJor ber~m or landscaping would not be re~uired i£ a situatioa ex=sted c~~h~ch indicated this ~aas not necessary. .~ Mr. Albert Yorba, 20111 Esperanza Road, anpeared before the Commission and noted that years ago progerty oaners could do wha: they wanted with their properties; that there ::as talk about motorcycle trails, horseback riding trails, etc. - wouldn't this require easements through these properties since his aronerty in Corona had a similar situation, and he had four different easeaents on the property s*ith overhead pole lines, gas lines, etc.; that the Deoartment of Highways had condemned nroperty for the freeway, and with all these easements and pronerty already dedicated, it would appear that the County still canted 2ard ded=cated for parks, motorcycle and horse- back riding trails, etc.; that h•:s property was 1300 feet long; and that if additional land c,ere requ_red, ther. the County, City, or State could take all of his property. i `'a Commissio:.er Rowland left the Courc_1 Chaaber at 3:15 ?.M. ~'"i •~;i A letter was read from R. Joseph ?.aag, owner of prouerty on the south side s:I of Santa Ana Canyon Road, regard'_ng setbacks, w=ndbreaks, ratio of tree •-~ re?lacement, etc., with suggest?ons as to nlanting and spacing oi ne~a trees to allota for proper spread of the trees and maturity; that it was reasonable i~ to require retention of the Gooded aopearance; that the idea of topoing the eucalyptus trees should be droaoed since any resident in the State of ;:,'~ California area kneu th;s ~*as not the way eucalyptus windbreaks grew, and ~ it made them unnatural and ugly; and that the required 75-foot setback was I also reviewed with the suggestian that rather than having homes set back 75 '~-:,~ feet, a frontage road be provided uarallel t.ith the freeway and/or expressway cahich would give homes access to the road and require the normal setback of '- ~ homes wh±le still accomulish;ng the same purpose of a setback from the `~ heavily-traveled thoroughfare (letter on file). A letter from Mrs. Mabel Yorba, 5521 Santa Ana Canyon Road, regarding set- bac~cs, uas also read to the Commission (letter on file). ~` THE HEARIN^ WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Planuing Commission taas faced ~vith a difficult situation - on one hand the property owners ~~ho owned the land for some time and had their vary l;ves invested in it stood to lose economi- cally with the restrictions wh_ch the prooosed zone would impose, but on - the other hand, there wa`~'s a number of people already living in the area ~.+ith even a greater problem of the prospect of larger numbers of people ,~ coming into the area. Therefore, whatever way the Commission decided upon, someone uould be shorted in ane c.ay or another, and weighing this situation "'- _n his r~ind, hoto many people would be shorted and to nhat degree could not ~:~ be determiaed. It z.•as easy for the residents in the area to state they v:an*_ed the area to be reta=ned in its natural state or even to a greater degree, cahil.e those t.ho o-aned large nieces of land and ceho were onposPd to ;~~ the (SC) Zone had everything investeci and tied up in their propertp - they ~aanted to develoo their property ver~ badly ard to the highest and best use. f:: ~.`~::~t ~' :~ ~ . , ~ ~ i ; , ~ ----__- - (~ ~ t._, -, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy February 8, 1971 71-53 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - There appeared to be three-fold arguments: ANAHEIM MiINICIPAL CODE (1) the area was being discrim?nated against aad (Continued) treated unfairly compared w;th other properties in -•-» the city; (2) a loss in value would result because the land o~ners coould not be able to get the same dollars economically if the prooosed setbacks were reauired; and (3) iC toas •~ too late for any act?on at all. ~ommissioner Sevmour stated that Ite ~oould like to comment further as to the idea that it.was too late for any action - if he were so cynical as to feel that it Gas too late to save the canyon in any way, he would not be interested ~~ ~`` in spending his time on this Co~mission - as it stood, this would tend to ~~,,.;... ' lead oze to believe there taas ao need for a Planning Commission, or zoning, : or plans, or restrictions, or other criteria for develonment whatsoever -~' ; since the thing that reauired zoning, plans, restrictions, and other criteria ..: ~ was the fact that there ~aere people in the area, and if there were no geople to consider who would be 1=ving in the area, there would be no problem; and - then cited ?~ir. Yorba's statement that for years he could do ~aith his pronerty what, how, and when he wanted. ~: ~. Commiss*_oner Seyaour further recalled reading about a situation that appeared - to be one of the first zoning or restrictions the City af 4naheim was faced uith when one ne=ghbor ras against another because one wanted to place an outhouse on his nronerty. ~urthermore, with the number of people in the area now and the ~r : number com___g _nto the area, it would appear very clear to him there would have to be restrictions. This particular area and its relationship as to discrimination and its relationsh=p to other portions of t:~e area could not be comnared because this area was very unique because of its topography and trees ~.hich ;uere nlanted by the property owners. This i unigue character reeuired unique restrictions, zoning, creative thinking, ;'4 and creative imaginatfon. The (SC) Zone offered that aad offered the .;a Commiss~on that opuortun_ty to make something better which could not be counted on caithout such restrictions. The (SC) Zone was a bold step - cahen '+ one eouated the acreage dollars in the scenic corridor ~oith what the market ,/;~ presented today, there would be an economic loss, but on the other hand, the value of the acreage and the value of that area as it developed with these restrictions, it was very clear to him that there would be no loss in ,,'~ value in the future, but an increase because of the desirability to live ;~ there - this well could be the executive haven of P_naheim, i° the city were `i ever going to have one, and this area would orovide an atmosphere that could "; not be found in any other place in the city or Southern California - there- "i~'j fore, he completely, totally, and wholeheartedly supported the (SC) Zone. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-13 and moved for its \~',~ passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Amendments to Title 18 of the Anaheim Munic±pal Code as denicted in Chapter 18.59, , Sc~n=c Corridor Overlay Zone which the ?lanning Commission recommended for ado?tion in concept ia Resolution No. PC71-1 with the amendnents as considered this date to Subsections I8.59.032(3)~b) and 18.59.042(4)(b) reflecting the elimination of the 10-foot landscape strip along the freeway or expressway '~ side of a 6-foot high wall (Exhibit A); Subsect?oas 18,59.032(3)(c) ar_d ~%°' 18.59.042(4)(c) providing for the reduction of the 75•-foot building setback ~',; to 50 feet on freeways aad expzess~aays cahere the average elevation adjacent ta the right-of-way line of a building sitc was at least 6 feet above or beloc, the elevat=ons of the travel J.anes wnich urovi.de~ for full screening `~ of the roadwa~ from view of the residents by the use of walls, earthen berms, and landscaping (Exhib?t ~); Subsections 18.59.032(3)(3) and 18.5°.042(4)(d) providing for reduction of the 50-foot se*_back alon~ ma~or, primary, secondary, h? llside nrimary and hillside secondary ?~igl~;aa~~s ~ahere variations _n ~,all design uere nrov;ded :ahicr included decorative mater_als, suc!~ as _~' turought iron, stone, or landscaping, provided that no *_nore than 10% of the reau=red ~aall length coast'_tuted certain variations, ar.d said variatioas could have a ~~idth no greater than 5 feet; that changes ~oere -~ade to Sub- sect±on 18.59.'052(1)(a) allo~aing a reduction in the 100-foot ~tback to _ 75 feet under certain conditions; that changes taere made in Subsection - 18.59.052(1)(b) allowing a reduction of the 50-foot setback to 30 feet under ~ certain conditions; that changes were made in tne windbreak reauiremznts of the zone which no~o allotoed reolacement of one tree per every three trees, or nrovide trees =n trindbreak fashion at the rate of ten trees per gross acre; t`±at a 25-foot height limitation was no:a established and would include ~! flagpoles as •:aell (Exhibit 4); that cnang2s were also suggested in the :..~ ~:. : i:~.,~'~: _._ ;. L '. _ ..~1 ~ : . _ ~ ----- (`_ ~ - -- ---- t~ ~ t~ ~~ 1.,~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNILI3 CODSPIISSION, F_bruary 8, 1971 71-54 . I AM~NDMENT TO TITLE i8, - suod-vision ordinance, Tztle 17, which would redu~e ANAHEIM MUNICIPSL CODE the amount of cut and fill and to establish land- (Continued) scao_ng critezia after the cut and fill took place - ` (Exhio?t B); taat alterations were proposed to the street cross section .~:tandards wllich would allow the inclusion of a median strip on arterial highways in or3er to accommodate a street tree orogram (Exhib±t C); that a significant street tree pragram be , esta8lished to reinforce the "green" apnearance of the canyon (Exhibit D); and t~!at a fee be established for landscaping in lieu of fees for curbs, gutters, , and sidewalks ~ahich <<~ould be assessed to pro~erty oaners along Santa Ana ,-, ~ Canyon Road and arterial highaays (Evhibit E). (See Resolution Book) , +''~ ' Commiss_oner Gauer noced he would like to concur ~vith statements made by Comn=ss~?oner Seymour; that he had been a member o~ the Planning Commission ~: •{ a long time, and he ;sould concur that where the Commission had nlanned uell ! i*- the c=ty, the values of the land had been upheld - in fact, increased - - but c,here nroper ?laaning was not maintained because the developer wanted to develop as many homes as nossible, this value had not occurred, and the area was not a dasirable olace to live because many of the homes caere not valuable and had deteriorated =n value - even a suudivision where one developer had _~ received national recogn=t_o~ for h=s hones, these homes today were not valuable. How~ver, i~ other areas *.chere standards were established, not onl~ the size of the lot but develo~ment as it occurred as to square footage of the home and its location - in other ~;ords, there had been an appreciation, r.oasidexably more; that '_:e did not feel any area could be develooed without restrictions, particularly th_s area. I_` no restrictions were planned or established, one could expect certain iadividuals w~ould sell to devel.op certa3n areas c.here ao star.dards -sere established and deter3oration coeuld occur both in value aad desirab'1'_ty of select types of oeople wanting ta 1=ve in th~s area, Therefore, the proposed (SC) Zone, together coith the changes cvh_ch Lhe Commission co~s3dered and now recommended to the City Couacil, =n his estinat_on, -:ere desirable, and the City Council could eva?uate the Commiss_on's recommendations :ogether with arguments and data `' from both prononents and o?ponents when they considered this at a publ3c ..~ '~earing. ~V~ Ca roll call the foregoing resolution :aas passed by the following vote: "j AYES: CO*i*2=SS _ONC??S: Fl:~~d, ?arar.o, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. \OES: CQ31~T_SSI~~E~S: None. P_3SEi7i : COtf_~:=SSZOiJEPS : Roc~la~d. ';i '~ RECESS - Commiss;one* Seymour moved for a ten-~inute recess. The meetiag recessed at 3:30 P.M. ~ RECONVE:IE - Cha{rman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 3:40 ?.:2., " Comm;ss_oners F.ot:•land and Seymour being absent. VARIANCE N0. 2142 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HFARING. GERALDINE E. ROTH, ET AL, P. 0. Box P., Placentia, California, Owners; JEFFREY H. TcNTATIVE .fAP OF MILLET, 1303 West Valencia, Fullerton, California, TRACT N0. 7137, Agent; reeuesting WAIVER OF MINIMU~i REQUIRED LOT [dIDTH ~ETJISION N0. 1 TO ESTABLISH ?. 451-LOT, SIN!;LE-FAMILY SUBDIJISION on property described as: pn irregularly-shaped narcel of land cons:sting of approximately 90 acres having a frontage of anproxinately 3,780 feet on the south side of Esperanza Road, haviag a maximum depth of approxi~ately 2,200 feet, and being located approx=mately 2,800 feet east of the centerline of Imnerial High~.ay. Prouerty presently classified COUNTY A1, GENEP.AL AGRICULTURAL DISTRZCT. TENTpTI'IE TRACT REOUEST: DEVELOPER: SCAMID DEVELO?MENT, INC., 2949 Randolph, Costa *iesa, California. EN~INEER: ?~illet, King & Associates, 1303 West ~lalencia, Fullerton, Cal=fornia. 451 R-2--5000 proposed zoned lots. Su~~ect ?e`.itions a-ere continued from the meetings of December 14, 1970, and Januarg 11, 1971. Zoniag Su,*,ervisor Charles Roberts advised the Co~miss=on that sub~ect ~etitions c:•ere erroneously sch_dulad for the ?ebruarv 8 meetiag and should be considered at the February 22 meet=ng. f: - ~ i. ,r_., . . . . . . . - . ~~ ... . _ _ p ~ -~yt, , _ . . § . .: ": . •- °~~~.~~ ~~..~~...- . ^ Q . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-55 VARIANCE N0. 2233 - PUBLIC HEARING. EURLINE CAMPBELL, 150 Evelyn Drive, Anaheim, California, Owner; L. B. MACE, 1918 West Centzal Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Agent; request- _- ing WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDI:VG.SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (2) MARIMUM HEIGHT OF.ANY BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, TO PERMIT AN •' ADDITIONAL UNIT on property described as: A rectangularlq-shaped parcel of land having.a frontage of anproximately 50 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet, and being located approximately 310 feet south of the centerline of La Palma ~ Avenue, and further described as 932-934 North Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ,,, : Y.,,. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of -~ ~ sub~ect property, uses established in close proximity, and the existing f zoning on the property together with the proposal to add a third unit to 'E the property which was presently developed with a duplex, said unit would be provided as a second story was proposed above the garages along the alley to the east, thus making two-story construction within 22 feet of R-1 i zoned property acroas said alley, whereas Code would require a minimum of ~~ 150 feet between the two land uses; that the petitioner was proposing four garages for the three units, whereas Code would require £ive spaces; that the provisions of the R-2 Zone required 2400 square feet of land for each unit, thus permitting ouly two unita to be built on the property, and with the proposal for three units, there would be only 1815 square feet per dwelling unit.- therefore, the Planning Commission would have to determine whether these requested waivers would be appropriate, and given the similar orientation of the other lots in this same block, it was likely that approval of this request could lead to numerous similar applications. ..~ , ; ~ i ~ Mr. Lester Mace, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the petitioner proposed to construct an additional unit as a ;i~ secoad story over the existing garagea; that there was an additional 9-foot s covered area which would give the required number of parking spaces; that ~ three of the garages were presently completed and had inspection on them; and in response to Chairman Herbst's questioning, stated that the open stall ~ would be on the south property line. ' ' 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that he was not .~j sure this additional parking would be within the realm of poasibility for use since the petitioner would be required to have a trash collection area ~.~ on the property line - therefore, he might not be able to accomplish this 'a additional parking. ~~ Chairman Herbst then inquired how the petieioner proposed to handle the trash collection and how did the petitioner plan to take care of as many . as five cars, some which would have to park elsewhere since this was one of the reasons why the Commission had to consider a variance request, and by granting the proposed variance, this could cause a hard:;hip on the ad~oining property owners. Mr. Mace replied that prior to building the garages there was only an,open space siace the old building had burned down a year ago, and that the petitioner had built the garages with the intent of building the apartment " above the garages; that the proposed plan was a good layout, and he felt ~ the additional 9 feet would provide for the additional half-car parking space. Chairman Herbat noted that an area would have to be provided for at least two large bins for trash collection. Mr. Mace replied that the exiating garages already set back 10 feet from the alley, and there would be adequate room fox trash in this area. " Commissioner Allred noted that after reviewing the nlot plan, there did not appear to be sufficient parking which the petitioner would need -- since ~ Harbar Boulevard had no parking on it, all narking would have to be provided on the premises or use of other areas that were adjacent to Harbor Boulevard. Mr. ~iace replied that the designer was present to answer any questions that * the Commission might have as to design. _ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLAN•`.9tNG COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 t~ 71-56 VARIANCE N0. 2233 - Mr. Charles Thompson, 2912 Collyer Lane, appeared before (Continued) the Commission and noted that they were aware there was no parking on Harbor Boulevard and everybody had to came ~n off the alley; that if fice garages were provided on the all.a:~. 't~~w:r~ =~;,rtxid be no area for the trash collection area, aad they were at:.a~u~;, ~,:~;, ~• ~±nµet all Code requirements that were possible to meet. Chairmaa. ~.- ~=,:i;: y:~~~x~.~ted he felt the petitioner was attempting to overbuild the prop~ ~~., . -; ~,_.,; Mr. Thompson replied that the lot was reduced in depth in order to allow for "~ ~:}:, widening of Harbor Boulevard, but additional dedication would be required f.' for alley widening purposes, and that the additional parking could be placed ia the yard - however, they were desirous of having more landscaping. ~ Chairman Herbst then inquired since eo 1 Bou?~vard, and the residents of theaepapartmentsdcouldphave~twoacars per unit, who would bear the hardship bur3en which this would create on subject property. ~ Mr. Thompson replied that he was aware of the problem, but what they were attempting to do was replace non-existing parking, and this was much better thaa had existed for the past ten or fifteen years - 6hat the lot did not lend itself to the existing zoning ordinance since these were all older houses and should be taken out because the area ahould be developed for commercial usea. " Chairman Herbst noted thafi the city did not need any more st=~p commercial aince the downtown Anaheim area was dying for lack of commercial support. ; Mr. Thompson noted that when the City designated this area for R-2 zoning, j then problems in building were built into the zone, and the proposed parking .::j was the best solution he could find for a difficult situation; thaC aome :.7 acceas was needed, and if an additional garage were placed on the groperty, :,+ there would be no space for this access. i Continued discuasion was held between the Commission and the designer of -~ the pro~ect regarding parking, access, minimum square ft~otage per dwel],ing -~ unit, and possible overbuilding of the project. i ~ Mr. William J. Smith, 943 North Helena Street, appeared in opposition to '! the waiver of the required parking, noting that if inadequate parking were provided, the reaidente of these units would have to look to other areas £or ;, parking, and parking was at a nremium in this >ntire area, particularly when ti there ~rere activitiea going on at La Palma Par:;.; that the petitioner was . only replacing three old shacka ~which had burned down and were used as garages previously; that at the time they constructed these garages they were fully aware that they intended to develop an apartment above the garage; that there w•ere no two-story homes in this area and most lots were built en an angle because of the La Palma Avenue angle which made the lots wider in the back than in the front; that prior to coming to the public hearing he ;; had noticed two cars were parked in the alley, and he had counted ten to `:~ twelve cars which parked in the slley many times; that last summer a young _ boy was killed in one of those shacks, and when the father attempted to get people parking in the alley to move tlieir cars, it was totally impossible to reasoa with them; that they had some of the most undesirable neighbors move I in :.nd out of this area; and that he lived almost directly to the rear of the, proposed development which was only 15 feet from the edge of sub~ect pr.operty. A showing of hands indicated six persons present in opposition to subject ,'~ petition. Mrs. Carrie Minnis, 910 North Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated treze was never a time there were no cars parked in the alley, since the garages were installed there was ~ adequate parking for the existing un3ts; that she could aot see why the petitioner was proposing an additional apartment which coould be a second floor over the garage;'that per,ple who visited homes on Harbor Boulevard had to park on La Verne Street or La Palma Avenue; that she had one drive- ~ ~oay which could accommodate five cars, but there was never a time that ~ : ~ ,. ~'...;,. 5 ~k"~.~.....~t~,.~.._r,.,,- • ~ C 1 .' ~ ~~ ~ t ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-57 ~ VARIANCE N0. 2233.- someone did not have to move his car in the alley to I (Continued) allow someone else to back out, and there was never a ' time that the Fire De artment could . ~ P go down that alley; _-_ that cars must back out of the alley because of the : i care parked there; and that she did not feel any of the homes on Harbor Boulevard ahould be converted.for additional residential use because the • lots were too small. Mr. Bob Heydon, 874 South Sunkist Street, appeared before the Commission ~ and stated he represented the property owner at 918 North Harbor Boulevard; ~ that he had formerly resided there but had to leave because of the parking ~;"'''',,; problem; that alley parking *aas impoasible, and no one could have visitora .. ~ since there was no place available for them to park, many having to park ~J two and three blocks away and caalk to visit people; that he was a fire inspector and was aware of the difficulty in going through this alley - at r~ one time it took almost twenty minutes to et throu h th 8 g e alley, and this was due to the fact that they were unable to find the owner of the car - - therefore, he felt this was a very important consideration - even though the property owner had a right to develop, it was also important that the ad~oin- ing property owners be given some consideration, and there were undesirable ~ typea of people residing in these homea uaing language, when one asked them - to move their cars, which was unfit for anyone's ears; that Harbor Boulevard was a ma~or arterial extending from the Pacific Coast to the Los Angeles County line; and that he would.urge the Commissi•vn not to impose any more hardships on the property owners since they had no place to go. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-14 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2233 on the basis that this parcel was too small tc: accommodate an additional dwelling unit •, and atill meet the parking requirements of the R-2 Zone, thereby overbuilding '{ the property; that the petitioner was proposing a density comparable to R-3 ; zoning rather than the existing zoning; that the waiver of the required ~ pariciag would impose an undue hardship on the adjoining property owners since ~ no parking was permitted on Harbor Boulevard and alley parking might be j experienced; that approval of this request would be granting the petitioner '.i privileges not en~oyed by other property owners in this same zone and in thia ` ~ general area. (See Resolution Book) '=I On roll call the foregoins resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 4:05 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. VICKI NELSON, 2515 Oakmont Street, PERMIT N0. 1221 Santa Ana, California, Owner; PERLIN-BOGGIO ENGINEERS, 3670 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMATIC CARWASH WITH ACCESSORY GASOLINE SALES on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and ` East Street, having approximaCe frontages of 150 feet on Lincoln Avenue and .~ 125 feet on East Street. Pronerty presently classified C-1, GENERAL ; COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~ subject property, uses established in close proximity, the existing zoning, ~~+ and the proposal to establish an enclosed, automatic carwash building after ~ removal af the existing service station structure; that pump islands for 'M~ pumping gas would be located in the stacking area to the rear of the proposed structure, with access proposed to and from East Street primarily; that since additional dedication would be required for street widening purposes along both Lincoln Avenue and East Street, it would appear that the southernmost ~ driveway on East Street would have to be relocated northerly, ~ohich also necessitated relocation of the carwash building; and that the primary consideration before th~ Planning Commission was whether or not the proposed ' use would be appropriate in this area - although the petitioner was proposing * an enclosed building, noises could emanate from the use. .~ 'c_, ' -__ - ~~ . *. - - - ,::;~.~.~;:.~ _ ' ~i ~ i ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-58 CONDITIONAL USE. - Commissioner Farano returned to the Council Chamber at PERMIT N0. 1221 4:10 P.M. (Continued) Mr. George Boggio, ~gent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaiun and submitted photographs of a similar operation located in Garden Grove and noted that it was their plan to remove the existing service station structure; that all street dedication and improvements would be made; that the proposed use would be a four-lane, drive-through type carwash with only washing on the eutside and no interior cleaning or exterior detaiZing on the premises since the customer would remain seated in the vehicle during the carwash cycle; that there would be a minimum of two and a maximum of five employees; and then, in response to Commission questioning as to staching, stated that since this was a four- lane carwash operation, they could have up to twenty cars in the stacking area without considering the gas pumn area, and it was felt these cars could be stacked without having to back into East Street, and although this ~vould en3oy success, it saould not be as succesaful as a regular full-service type carwash operation. Also, it could not be compared with a service station, but it was unlikely that a maximum of twenty cars would be using or stacking on this facility at any one time. Furthermore, there would be no polishing, repairing, or steam cleaning, etc., done on the property, and they would be willing to stipulate to this as a condition of approval. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to sell gas to other than carwash customers; whereupon Mr. Boggio replied that it was their intent to sell only to carwash customers, and the location of the gas pumps was such that gas customers would not frequent the place. Commissioner Kaywood noted that this could be the same idea as gas stations had - providing a free carwash ~aith a fill-up of gas and inquired whether or not this was the petitioner's intent. Fir. Boggio replied that the operation would be similar to their operation at Redhill and Tustin Avenue before reaching the freeway. The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner was aware of the ingress-egress problem and what did he intend to do to solve this. Mr. Boggio replied that the,y had been working with staff and the City Engineer to resolve this, and then noted the cu•rb cut would be so close to the curb that if a curb return were increased, then they would have to move the driveway northerly in order to maintain the space between the driveways. Mr. Slaughter noted for the Commission that the improvements and the driveway would have to be relocated when the project was built in accordance with the ICPS&Gid recommendations. , Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the petitioner considered removal of one island and relocating the building further to the north to relieve the traffic pattern and stacking, Mr. Boggio replied that in the event this presented a problem, they, in all likelihood, tvould do as Commissioner Farano suggested - however, there were _, three driveways at their other location and no problems resulted. Mr. Murray Wiseberg, owner-oneraCOr of the Angel Carwash, 558 South Anaheim :; Boulevard, appeared before the Commissio.i in opposition and noted he did not feel the city needed another carwash; Chat the City of Anaheim had more carwashes per number of uo~ulation ttian any other city in tl~e United States; ; that a similar type of carwash ;oas in close proximity, and then reviewed the `;;< carwash industry and locations of same along Lincoln Avenue and throughout the City of Anaheim, noting that the proposed unit was being built by oil companies who wanted to encourage purchase of their gasoline and oil; that some were also be3.ng put into existing service stations which added to the deterioration of the legitimate carwash iuuustry in the city; that if subject petition were approved, this could estahlisli operations of these types of ~ facilities on a twenty-four hour a day basis throughout the city, whicli would be detrimental to tlie ne~a church now under constructian to the north; that all but one of the service stations at that intersection were now ~ closed, and even the one still open cuas not doing any business to make it ~, successful; that the city not only needed no more carwashes, but no more. .~e ~ ~ ~ C'w - ,. ', - ,~ -: . , ,r: ~ . . • ~e • . ~ _ - _- ~-----~p-~ - . , 5 - ! . ~ a :, ,. _____ ~- ~ _ ______ ____ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ , I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COhIMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-59 . ~ CONDITIONAL USE - service stations since statistics indicated a need for ' PERMIT N0. 1221 only one carwash ner 50,000 population, and Anaheim , . (Continued) alresdy had twenty carwash operations; that the carwash operation at Rnott and•Lincoln Avenue cost more than " .$350,OOO.while.these small,.sutomatic operations cost ,, in the vicinity of $40,000, and it was of prime importance that theae facilities sell gasoline and oil, giving a carwash as a bonus; and that because of the number of carwashes already in existence, there appeared to be a constanL change of ownership or lessees because they could not make a _. living. Furthermore, he could not aee how a use as proposed could be .~- - approved for auch a busy intersection. :rr;;;;.. • Cha3rman Herbst advised Mr. Wiseberg that the Ylanning Commission had the ~i duty to determine whether or not the use was an appropriate land use, and `f` the~ could not take into consideration economics of the business since the country still operated under a frE;e enterprise system. Mr. Wiseberg noted that it was hia feeling the City of Anaheim ahould consider existing businesses which were ha.ring a difficult enough time existing with- 1 out getting additional competition from additional or unnecessary operations . such as proposed, because if they were not successful, r.hey would become a blight causing deterioration which wo~tild set in where a change in management or ownership occurred so frequently and there appeared to be a loss in pride, and that he was desirous of doing something for the betterment of the City of Anaheia - therefore, it was his feeling that carwashes, aervice stations, and hamburger operations cvere ruining the city for highly desirable high-rise businesa, Mr. Boggio, in rebuttal, stated that the developer and owner already had -' three similar operations wh±ch they owned and operated and a considerable i amount of res~+rch was made before they decided on making a$135,000 invest- `.i ment, even `+..'~~re the existing building was io be demolished; that if it t were felt tk~e operation was not acceptable for late hours, they would j~ stipulate to hours of operation from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. or even more restricti•e, until 6:00 P.M., if the Comn{.seion so desired. However, the ;~ latter hours were not as desirable during the summer months. ~'~~ Chairman Herbst inquired as to the types of noises that might emanate from ~! this operation; whereupon Mr. Boggio replied that the building was enclosed `' except at both ends, and the noise level was 70 decibels at 1Q0 feet; that - the propoaed location was at a busy intersection whfch would reduce any problem as to possible noises. `~ ~~ Chairman Aerbst noted that he was opposed to a decibel noise at that level ~'~ since'there were apartment developmenta to the west. ~ Commissioner Farano noted that this would be a good spot for the proposed facility; however, he questioned the wisdom of two carwash operations that i were so similar next to each other. Mr. Slaughter advised the Commission that Section 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code estaUlished a maximum of 60 decibels at the ro ert - p p y line therefore the etitio . p ner should be a rised of th is . PP fact. i:hairman Herbst inquired what type of hydraulic drives were proposed; '~ whereupon Mr. Boggio replied that the drives would be the ~nly thing that ~ would create the decibel level of sound, and if the Commission wanted to make this a condition of approval, this sound level would have to be reduced. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that this ~aas not a zoning requirement but a require- ment over which the Commission had no ~urisdiction - therefoze, some means ~~,, : of muffling the noise would have to be employed. Mr. Boggio noted that they would have to reduce the size of their dryer unit which would have a lesser decibel level. Z Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that as a finding the Commission might indicate ia the resolution, if subject petition were approved, that the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 6.70, permitted a maximum `* of 60 decibels at the property line, and that the petitioner had been so ~ advised, and that perhaps a condition of approval could also indicate this ;~ ~ 3 . ~;: ~ t., .,.__. ' r~ _ .. ;_:~3.~ ` S . ~ - . ~ ~ . .~ - ~_ _ . , .~..----- _ ~ ~~-1 ~ ~. .., . . ,c 1' ~~ ~j =?.~ :~ -';J _i :i -1 ;~ ' i ~ s~ ~._~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZ:i^oIGN, February 8, 1971 71-60 CONDITIONAL IISE - in order that the proper measurea might be taken to PERMIT N0. 1221 provide equipment meeting this requirement. (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissianer Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-15 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1221, sub~ect to ICPS&GW recommendations eatabliahing hours of operation from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. during the monthe of.May through October and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. during the months of November through April. Furthermore, that a maximum noise level of 60 decibels at the property line be maintained at all times as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. VARIANCE N0. 2230 - PUBLI~ HEARING. ALICE ADELL BRADY AND BARBARA JEAN HIDLE, 12802 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owners; J. W. KLUG DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., P. 0. Box "P", Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOOR AREAS AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED TRACT OF HOMES on property described as; A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 14 acres, having a frontage of approximately 825 feet on the east side of Rio Vista Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 777 feet, and being located approximately 1,220 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenk~~~ Property presently classified R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the locatioa of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoniag on the property, and the proposal to develop all homes in the proposed tract with a 20-foot front yard setback and 60X, or 46 of the 77 homea, to be less than the minimum 1525 square foot floor area; and that the primary question before the Commiseion was whether the proposed waiver of the minimum dwelling unit square footage was appropriate in this area although the R-2-5000 propertiea to the south had 30X of the homes developed with approximately 1386 aquare feet, and since the proposal now before the Commiasion represented a substantial deviation from Code requirementa than the property to the south, the Commission would have to determine whether or not thet~e was any justi- fication for a variance of this magnitude. Mr. John Klug, repreaenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that they were also the developers of the tract to the south which had 112 units and were similar to the proposed homes; that the plans before the Commission were ahead of the times in planning; that one of the things they were attempting to do was sell good appearance and good planning; that although these homes had less square footage than the zone permitted, there was no correlation between the homes and their sales price; that there were many cheap homes now being built, but it was not their intent to build this type of home - these models would be their 1971 design and were an average 100 square feet less than what had been built during the past several yeara; that the exterior elevations were the best they had ever built in Qrange County, and the market they were trying for. was the family who was desirous of having a nice home but n~t necessarily a large home; that there were many people who wanted nice homes but who did not have a large family - therefore, did not need homes that had numerous bedrooms; and that the rencierings he was presenting would be those that were proposed to be built on this property, noting that considerable wood trim was being utilized to get more Toarmth, and this ~aas made possible because of the fact that the lumber market prices had gone down. Furthermore, the homes having 1225 souare feet were being sold for $26,500 and were not cheap homes since the normal improvements required before sale would bring the prica of these homes to range from $30,000 to $38,000; and that he wss requesting approval of the variance because he felt this development would be sn asset to the city since they also ~oere proud of the development to the south, which they had just completed. E'a, ' ( ~, : . , .... _ . ...114-::' ti t~ ~ t7~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 ~.J 71-61 VARIANCE N0. 2230 - Mr. Joe Cottie, 155 Beth Circle, appeared before the (Continued) Commission in opposition and noted his home was located in the Act IZ homes ad~acent to aubject property to the south; that if the Commission permitted the deviation from the guidelines established by the Cityy then the values of the homes would tend to be reduced; that the homes in the txact he was living in met the minimum reauirements of the City since many of the homes were above average; that he had lived in a 1225-square faot home which he felt was not adeeuate; that the petitioner was propoaing to use a considerable amount of wood for trim which could deteriorate conside:ably in five to six years if not maintained and would also tend to deteriorate the entire area; that the homes presently exiating in the area had been well maintained as were almost all of the homes in the east Anaheim area - therefore, he would request that the Commission not deviate from Code requirements as proposed by the developer because this could result in loss of pride of the residents in this area. Mr. George Payner, 131 Beth Circle, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his pronerty backed up to sub~ect property and inquired whether or not the R-2-5000 homes were to be located as opposed to the R-1 homes as he was opposed to smaller homes than were placed in his tract. Staff advised Mr. Payner that the R-1 lots would be along the easterly boundary of the tract while the balance would be R-2-5000 lots. Mr. Payner noted that he had not been notified by mail of the proposed variance and inquired why aot. The Commission Secretary explained to the Commission that the assessor's parcel listing available to staff was almost one year old, and the develop- er's name was recorded in said listing - however, since a number of calls had been received from the residents in the Act II tract that they had not been notified, this listing had beea amended and updated - therefore, if the petition were considered by the City Council, an updated mailing list including these present owners in the tract would be notified. Chairman Herbst noted that notification of ad~oining property owners was a courtesy of the City and the State law required only publication in the newspaper and posting of the property. Mr. Charles Thompson, 2192 Coliyer Street, appeared before the Commission and noted that he was outside of the 300-foot distance from sub3ect property; that he lived in the ao-called two-story "dingbats" built by George Buccola; that a 1225-square foot home looked small regardleas of the outside appear- ance; that Kingsley Drive was still the only street which 700 homes used to exit fram and inquired cahy there were no east-west streeta extending over these tracts as the}+ were being built. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted that the park site on the east had Dutch Avenue which would be extended over sub~ect property as it developed and would extend to Rio Vista Street. Also, the tract to the south of sub3ect property had Hempstead Road extending from the Buccola - tracts to Rio Vista Street, which would proyide additional circulation for the large R-1 tracts to the east, although this street did not have a direct way since it jogged aomewhat, which reduced the possibility of creating a , raceway through this tract. Mr. Ogden Vincent, 147 South Kingsley Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he concurred with atatements made by Mr. Thompson ~; in that their tracts had only one acceas road from the 700 homes, cahich was ';' Kingsley Drive; that the street mentioned by t4r, Slaughter did exist to the ^1.. west, but it was a very indirect way, and he was opposed to the street , design since this could create a traffic problem which could alsn be a' ;;~ hazard for children playing in the area. Furthermore, there was a drainage problem which would have to be resolved so that there would be no flooding with water which should be directed to Rio Vista Street, and it was his feeling that the City had created a"monster" since this water was being '= directed through these local etreeta rather than to Rio Vista Street. Furthermore, there toould be further drainage coming from the property to the north, the school, and the park and would drain in this same manner; that there ~oas only one street at the present time exiting to P.io Vista ~ Street, whereas it was his opinion there ahould be at least two or three , .~ . ~ C:i: :'. r . z- . ,, . . : : ~ _ ' `~~,~' '~-~.,,,,, ~ . :_ ~ y . 11 r , ,~ ~, - --- _ ~ C~ cJ , ~ `' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-62 ~ , ~ VARIANCE N0. 2230 - streets- that he was also 0 i , pposed to the reduction in • i (Continued) the square footage of the homes aince most of the homes _ I in this area.had over 2000 aquare feet, whereas the __- smaller homes could reduce the property values of their ~ homes - first there was R-1 indicated on the General Plan, then the ~ petitioner received R-2-5000 zoning, and now the developer was requesting • j a reduction in the size of the homes which he atated would be sold for $30,000 - however, he doubted this since there were some large homes in j their area which had not been sold during the past two years. " I _ I Mrs. Diane Hardesty, 118 5auth Ki•ngsley Drive, appeared before the Commission '"`'"~~ in opposition and noted that the homes surrounding her pr.operty ranged in .`~` size from 2200 to 2600 square feet and to permit the aize homes propoaed ~ ~ would be bringing in a type of home that would depress the value of their ,~. ; homes, and that she had obtained the signatures of many of the people in ~ the surrounding tracts, all in opposition to the proposed reduction in house ~ aize. ,~; ~ z. :9 :,i' ~ :' ~. ~. ~ 1. :,,__~°tiR Mrs. A. La Rue, 145 Beth Circle, appeared in opposition and noted that a 1225-square foot home was only three times the size of a two-car garage. Mr. Walter Burke, 123 Beth Circle, appeared before the Commission in opposition and notad his property backed onto subject property; that they had been notified by mail of the proposed waivers, and his wife had requested consideration that this be continued until such time as all the property ownera in the area could evaluate the proposal since there was a possibility this size home would detract from the value of their homes, as well as the appearance of the entire area - however, if the Commission did not wish to honor this request for continuance, then they would recommend denial of the patition. However, he would prefer that the decision be delayed until the property owners could asseas all of the facts. Commissioner Farano inquired how Mr. Burke was advised and whether or not he had contacted the developer with a view to reviewing their plans, , Mr. Burke replied that the first notice was received in January by mail and the aecond in February. However, he did not contact the developers. Chairman Herbst noted that the petition before the Commission was a matter of land use, and the Commission would make their decision on that basis. Mr. Klug, in rebuttal, stated that the size of the home had aothing to do with the value being created - that it had very little to do with values in the area, and he felt this would be better for the city in this location with all 1225-square foot homes than in an area where all 2500-square foot homes were developed because there would be less children and less demand on city services; that these would be for small families only since there were only three and four-bedroom homes proposed; that in the past they had built five-bedroom homes, and many of the developets were continuing to build these large homes; and that wi.th the types of homes they proposed, this would be a high-quality development with fewer residents by comparison than the 2500-square foot homes which generally had large families. Commissioner Y.aywood inquired whether or not Mr. Klug had statistics on the number of children that might be anticipated in the four-bedroom homes; whereupon Mr. Klug replied that they had no statistics. Commissioner Farano was of the oninion t?~at even with three-bedroom homes the developer was not Pncourag~ng small. famil.ies. Commissioner Seymour returned to the Council Chamber at 5:00 P.M. Zfr. Klug, in response to Commissioner Farano's etatement, stated that a number of the homes in the tract to the south were not in accordance wir.h Code, and the lots in this tract were smaller - therefore, he could not see any reason for requiring the large homes. Commissioner Farano inquired of Mr. Kluga outside of economics, what made these smaller homes more salable. ~ ~~ T r,:_ _:.,~ ~ - . ~,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 '~. ) 71-63 VARIANCE N0. 2230 - 1Mr. Klug replied that they had an indication there (Continued) would be a strong market demand for the smaller homes since their experience on the homes to the south indicated a greater market for smaller homes. Commissioner Farano noted that according to the plans 200 to 300 feet were being cut of= the square footage - this wou13 make for smaller rooma aince the petitioner was still proposing threQ and four-bedroom homes. I ! Mr. Klug noted that he could design a 1525-square foot home 3ust as the - ~ design of the 1225-square foot home - however, they would be less attractive ~`xo:;~`~ ,... with siding and an asphalt roof provided rather than a shake roof - however, y.;,- "'~ they were not "shooting" for that market because there appeared to be more of a market for smaller, better-loc'tiing homes which could be built and sold far the same price as the larger homes, and any subdivider could develop ,~ .7 homes on those lots so long as the structure met the building code - an one Y with little imagination could build a large, chaap home. Commissioner Farano then stated perhaps the Com.mission should look at their zoning code - however, the petitioner might be appealing to a amall percent- ~ age of the market but was still proposiag almost 60% of the homes in this tract with the smaller aize, and he did not feel there was a market for such an increase in the number of smaller homes. Mr. Klug replied that homes that ranged in price over $33,000 had aold very slowly since most people could not afford to purchase a liome costing over $30,000 - therefore, the re4ueat was for the smaller home. Commisaioner Farano noted that it appeared the developer was "painting himself into the same kind of a corner" as he was in with all extremely large homes; that he was atill proposing these homes at the saae price. Therefore, he would prefer to hear some evidence other than financial to ~ustify approval of this variance. . ~ ~;. .~c ; I ~ Mr. Klug replied that if they could build homea to an optimum size, they would try to build in the $26,000 to $30,000 price range - however, in this particular instance they felt it more deairable to build the homes for the most popular market. Commissioner Saywood noted oontradiotory statements itt the petitioner's request for a variance for~a smaller, luxury home for affluent families. She stated that she considered sma.ller homes one or two bedrooms, not three and Pour tinq bedrooms. Mr. Klug replied that it would be imposaible to obtain financing for a one- bedroom home and almost as difficu].t to get the financing for two-bedroom homes. The Commisaion noted that they and ad~oining property owners had heard many promises, but theae promises never seemed to materialize regarding the smaller, better-looking homes. Commissioner Kaywood uot.ed that tl~ese taould bt: very small homes with very small rooms, and otlier than familles with small children, these rooms ~sould be inadequate. THE HEARING WAS CLUSEll. Mr. Slaughter cioLed Mr. hlug had raised a point of apparent contradi~tion regarding requiring L-he same size home for R-1 lots as was required Lor R-2-5000 lots - however, those homes approved to the south were less than 1525 aquare feet and were about 1436 square feet. Chairman Herbst noted thaC Clie Commission had approved smal.ler sized lots and smaller homes - however, a request for 60;~ of the lots was out of proportion. Commissioner Allred inquired wtiat could be done to improve the circulation of this entire area and could the existi.nK or proposed streets handle these numbers of vehicles. ~ i ~ 'Y :.a .l~' ~= ~ 1..~:~;J•_._ :,-.'--a~.~.,r ~ ~ ~ ~~ -~,aY~[~e .e ' - ~ ~ 1 • . .' / --`- f __ 1 _ ~ (_~ _----__ --- ~ ' ~~ i _) , : j MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 ~ 71-64 i VARIANCE N0. 223p - Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission this had ' (Continued ~ been discuased very thoro~ughly with the engineer of tlie tr8~t, and they made very specific recommendations - "'" i what they requested andeotherttimesWthe CityBdidenotheetity Engineer got i but specific street designs and B he best circulation, ~ ,~ alignment had been adopted on a atreetnorcanythinR officialrto require an eciae alignment, and that the Engineering staff had tried their beat to get what they felt was more deairable, but it was up to the Planning Commission and I~ City Council to suggest and make changes or approve changes. ~ _...,,~,._ Chairman Herbst inquirad whether ataEf could reme ! access across subject pro ert ~ber what was planned for 7,. .: P Y . , i Mr. Slaughter advised the Commission that the tract to the south was desi ~i. ~ to have an east-west street, and Dut ch Avenue would extend acrosa sub3ectgned j property - this would give two east-west streeta to Rio Vista Street. . _+ ; Mr. Titus, in referenCe to drainage mentioned by one of the o stated that when the tract was developed, drainage would go toPRiotVista ~ Street, but those properties to the north, including the ~ ~ aite, would drain northerly to Frontera Street, and the Engineering Department ~ was satiafied with the draina e PBrk and school to the north would g Proposed, but the alignment of Jackaon Street j~ was not 8 Prevent a direct alignment from Park Vista Street - this ~ Pproved and an off-set street resulted. ~ Commissioner Farano offered Resulution No, PC71-16 and moved for ita ~ a:~d adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2230 on the basia that although the Commission had granted a waiver of the minimum required floor areaafor$e ~ ; property to the south, the maximum :+ the petitioner was requesting a 60%Pwaiveredwhich3would beegrantingh8reas :~i privilege not enjoyed bN other developers of similarly zoned lots; that the ~ ,i difference ia unit size was substantially different since the uinimum aize i granted on the parcel to the south was 1386 square feet, and the petitioner :~~ was proposing 1225 to 1400 sauare feet; that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the t or to the in.tended use of the property involved t ~ did not generall a 1 Property, nor was a hardship demonstrated that ~ :_~ and zone; and that theyrequestedrvariancerwouldsbefmateriallyedetrimentalito ~ i the public welfare and in~urious to the property and improvements in the i vicinity and zone in which the nro ert was located. $ P Y (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ On roll .~all the ' ;; foregoing resolution was passed b ~ ~ ,: y the following vote: ~ ,_~ AYES: COMMISSIONF.KS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst. d ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. Kaywood. ~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, ~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONEkS: Seymour. ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. 3EN W. SANDKNOP, ET AL, c/o John D. N0, 70-71-24 Grayson~ 26292 Ridgemore Drive, Sun City, California, Owner; DEL BROWN, p, 0, Box 432, Santa Ana, California, VARIANCE N0. 2228 Agent; property described as; An irre~ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .7 acres side of Stinson Street,~ihavingranmaximum depthXOf$aely 180 feet on the east and being located approximately 470 feet south of thercenterlinelof Lincoln Avenue and further deacribed as 134-142 South Stinson Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: REQUESTEb VARiANCE: R-3, MULTiPLE-FAMLLY RF.SIDENTIAL, ZON~, WAIVER OF (1) MA3iIDiUM BUIT.DING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONF,, (2) MINIMUM LANDSCAPF.D SF.TBACK FROM A I,OCAL STREET, (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, (4) RBQUIREM~NT THAT EACH COVERED PARKING SPACE AE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE DWELLTNG UNIT IT SERVES, (5) REQUIRED 5-FOOT MASONRY WAT.L, pND (6) REQUIRF,MENT THAT ACCESS TO CARPORTS SHALL $F. FRf1M AN ALLRY ONLY, TQ PFRMIT AN 18-UNIT APARTMF.NT COMPLEX. i ~'< '.. ^ . ~~ '~ t _) MIN[JTES, CITY PLANNING C6MMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-65 RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed . N0. 70-71-24 the locatioa of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, _ , VARIANCE N0. 2228 and the proposal to establish an 18-unit apartment , (Continued) complex; that no two-story construction was proposed within 150 feet of R-1 to the south, and wae.ver oi the .~ one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-A property was determined unnecessary because of the type of development on the R--A property, namely, four dwelling units to the east and a motel to the north; that the petitioner cvas proposing the buildings only 5 feet from _ the property line, whereas Code would require an 8-foot setback - however, given the oblique alignment between the property line and the building, the ~; average yard setback would exceed Code requirements; that the petitioner ~' + was proposing carports to be 230 feet from the units they would serve, while t Code would permit only 200 feet; that the petitioner was aZso proposing ~`, ~ access from some of the parking area directly from Stinson Street, whereas Co3e required these to be from an alley; and that parking was also nroposed _ within the re~uired landscaped setback toward the south pr~per~,y lii:e; and that t~s~ Commission ~oould have to determine whether th~ propose3 3evelopment, given the number of waivers requested, would be appropriate on this site. 1 Mr. Del Brown, agent for the pet3tioner, appeared before the Commission and noted this was the third attempt to develop sub~ect property; that cons3.der- able money had been spent on studies, with appruval having been given for a convalesce:it home - however, money problems prevented this from being ;- developed; thgt one small area 10 feet wide would encroach into the required '~ landscaped setback; that in order to meet parking requirements, this waiver ': was necessary; that only one apartment was more than 200 feet from a carport - ~'t therefore, this waiver was of minimal importance; that they had proposed a 6-foot high chainlink fence in accordance wi.th the requirements of the ' Orange County Flood Control District adjacent to the north property line, ':; and for aesthetics it was intended to extend this chainlink fence both to ;j the east and south; and that because of the difficulty in designing an odd- '>:`f shaped parcel, it was necessary to h:ave some access to carports from the ~ street although the alley to the south was much more heavily traveled than the street since the tenants in the motel ta the east took access to the -~ alley in getting out due to diff•iculty in gaining access to Lincoln Avenue '~ and making a left-hand turn without going a distance east. ''~ Mr. Joseph Giamboi, 2760 West Lincoln Avenue, ownex' of the E1 Rancho Motel, appeared before the Commission in ooposition aad stated that the street j;~ was not wide enough to handle any additional traffic since the City had :^~ accepted dedication for street purposes on one side of the street only; that the alley on the south was not wide enough to handle turn-around traffic, ;: and the alley was being used by the tenants of the motel to the east, '~` turning Stinson Street into a"drag strip"; and that the addition of more - vehicles from the proposed 18-unit apartment would create a traffic hazard. Chairman Herbst adviaed the opposition that the petitioner had a right to develop his property and also a right to use Stinson Street, and anything developed on the property would,increase the traffic flow. `?~ Commissioner Gauer noted that there could be more vehicles if this were developed with single-family use since children would also have automobiles. Mr. Giamboi further noted that the street caas not fully developed and access across the flood contro~. cliannel was by way of a 25-foot bridge. ': Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the dedication for - ;: street widening had been made by the original owner of the motel - however, no bond was posted to insure completion of the improvements; that the City ~ had made an offer to construct the center 12 feet of the pavement if the owner of the motel would insta].1 the balance of the improvements - however, ~~^ the owner did not agree to this. Mr. Giamboi replied that it would be impractical since he also had three ,~ units on Stinson Street which had their parking ad~acent to Stinson Street, and the City would not allow a curb cut although he was aware this parking _ might be within the public right-of-way, ~~- ~ - C ~ ~. `` . . . . .. ~~ , ~ - ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ,J , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMt4ISSI0N, February 8, 1971 71-66 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Herbst noted that it would appear that the N0. 70-71-24 E1 Raacho Motel property was causing the traffic problems on Stinson Street - however, the petitioner would ba VARZANCE N0. 2228 reeuired to post a bond to insure development of Stinson (Continued) Street ad~acent to his property. Mr. Giamboi noted that he did not feel that they were parking in the public right-of-way area, and that the City would not allow more than a 20-foot curb cut. l~r. Titus advised the Commission that the City's maximum curb cut was 30 feet, and the motel had two parking stalls which were parallel to the stxeet, and that there was no curb there now. The Commission advised the opposition that any consideration before the ' Commission ~aas that of land use on subje~t property, and as to traffic problems, this ~oould have to be resolved with the Engineering Department as to flow of traffic and street improvements. Mr. Giamboi noted that there were six property owners along Stinson Street, one property owner being presenty and he was representing all of them in opposition to sub~ect petitions, being opposEd to any additional vehicular noises and overloading of the street with vehicles. Mr. Fobert Glad, 2651 Sereno Place, appeared before the Commission and noted he was not necessarily opposed to the proposed development, and he would welcome getting rid of the weeds on the property - however, he was opposed to maiver of the required mason•ry wall adjacent to his property since this was a City ordinance and other developments in the area were required to construct the masonry wall, and a chainlink fence did not add anything sesthetically to the area; that a safety factor was involved in requiring the masonry wall because the cars would have to back out into the alley, and a chainlink fence could not withstand being bumped into; that his property was directly to the s~~uth of the existing alley, and if cars broke through the chainlink fence, they would also break down his wooden fence - this was the reason for requesting a more substantial fence than a chainlink fence. Furthermore, this masonry wall would also act as a noise barrier as well as keeping exhaust fumes from entering his property and would act as a deterrent keeping intruders from entering his property; that there wF:~ a great deal of'draiaage coming down the alley from the apartment development in the area, and when it rained, the alley could not handle all the drainage and, therefore, it would drain onto his property if the chainlink fence were permitted, while a wall would direct the flow of the water to Stinson Street and then on to the flood control channel. In addition, since the petitioner would not have sufficient space on his property to erect the 6-foot masonry wall, he would offer permission for e_~tit o_ ~t~o,_de~e op th?~.~1 on his property line, provided, however,~tha foot wi~e gate ere con- structed in order that he could park and remove his recr ational vehicles, this gate being Yhere now; and, in conclusion, his main argument was the need to have a more substantial barrier for a safety factor as coell as eliminating noises and exhaust fumes. -- ~ *irs. Rose Giamboi, 2760 West Lincoln Avenue, co-ouner of the E1 Rancho Motel, apueared before the Commission in opposition and noted that the 127-unit motel, as caell as a 125-unit apartment complex, used the alle,y on the south of subject property to exit to Stinson Street which was supnosed to be a ~' secondary access; that in 1957, to her knowiedge, a bond had been posted , !.~ with the Engineering Department for street imnrovements - however, the City had refused to install these improvements, and the street was not even "' maintained by street sweepers. Furthermore, chil.dren nlaying in the area ' " were always endangered, and that in the late 1970s, the Beach Freeway would ?~~ take up sub~ect property, which ~oould mean an added burden on the taxpayers to pay for developed property. Chairman Herbst noted that according to the schedule of the State Division of Highways, this freeway would not be erected until 1985, or almost fifteen ~ years from now, and the property owner cou].d not leave his property idle all that time. ~c ~-~~_~~~~.~... _ - `+ - • , _ . . , ~ ~z. .~ ..i ~~~ ~. ~, . ~~~.__ , ~ _ ~ i ~ ; , ~ ,. ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ?ebruary 8, 1971 71-67 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Giamboi stated that the State (*axpayers) would N0. 70-71-24 have to purchase this property, and if apartments were approved and built, this would mean a considerable VARIANCE N0. 2228 increase in the value of the property since it appeared (Continued) subject property would be in the direct line of the freeway. In addition, she could not ~ee having children residing in these apartments since there caas so much traffic from the motel and apartments to the east already, and that the offer made by the City to pay $3,000 for street improvements was only if the5~ would pay $5,000 ta finish the street with curbsy gutters, and sidewalks. Mr. Titus advised the Commission that the City stated they would pave the center 12 feet only. ?irs. Giamboi indicated that it would not do her any good to spend the additional $5,000 to finish off this street. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not it were posstble to handle the traffic by having one-toay traffic in the alley which could reduce the number of vehicles go~ag to Stinsan Street. Mr. Titus repl~ed that tnis v~ould ha•~e to be handled by the City Council - however, when the motel s~*as before the City Council, the Engineering staff had recommended a street to serve these properties, but the City Council had aonroved 20-foot alleys for circulation. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether requiring one-way alley traffic would relieve the traffic situation or would it compound it. Mr. Titus replied that it would compound the traffic situation rather than solving or relieving the problem. Mr. Brown, in rebuttal, stated that as far as parking was concernea, they had adequate parking since thep had redesigned the site plan, and when Stinson 5treet was fully improved this would eliminate a considerable aaount of confusion because there were no existing curb lines or pavement, and improv- ing the street would result in more orderly handling of traffic, and that they had designed the chainlink fence adjacent to the flood control channel on the north. Commiss±oner Seymour inquired of the agent for the petitioner what reason he had for re4uesting waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall. Dir. Brown replied that the masonry wall was generally required where two incompatible uses were adjaceat to each othery such as commercial adjacent to residential - however, this was not the problem in thi~ instance; that they did not ob~ect to construction of a 6-foot masonry wall along the southerly boundary of sub~ect property - or the northerly boundary of the single-family property - to the ~outh. Discussion was held by the Commicsion rep,ardi.ng vehicles backing into the alley on the south, traffic probl.em~ which mipht result because of the heavy flow of vehicles from the motel to the east, and then inqvired ~.•hat the ultimate width of the br.iciQe acros~ the Or.ange County Flood Control channel caould be. Mr. Titus replied that tfie ulti.mate width of the bridge would be as it presently exi.sted, namely, 28 feet; that the bri.dge appeared to be narrow because of the fact that there were two travel lanes; that the width of a normal street would be 54 feet taith a travelway of 36 feet; and that the existing bridge did not provide for any foot traffic. THE HEARING WAS CLOSF.D. Comm?ssioner Farano indicated the proPosal by the pronerty owner on the south cvas no different than ouher apar.tment developments where a wall would be reauired or. the oron=rt~~ adjar.ent to an allep, pravided, of course, that the permission h~ t~e pr.onnrt~~ o•an?r vas ptven as c,~a~ tn thic narT.icular ~nstance. ~< '.. .._. .....-. . ~~ T ~` . _ ~ ' , _ ~ ~. .. ~ _ ; . ', ~ V ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO?iMI$SION, February 8, 1971 71-68 BECLASSIFICATION -- 2oniag Suoervisor Charles Roberts noted that in the N0. 70-71-24 past ~ahen multiple-family residential dzvelopment occurred along alleyways, the City required a 1-foot VARIANCE v0. 2228 holding strip for the construction of a wall; however, (Continued) this was not envisioned when the existing alley went through - thus, the wall would have to be within the existing alley right-of-way or on the adjacent property owner's property. Commissioner Farano noted that if the pronerty owner on the south did not - give his consent, then cars could back into the alley, and with so many -~-* " people using the alley, this could be dangerous. ~f ?•1r. Brown advised the Commission that he felt it was the property owner's responsibility to tear down the existing fence if they were required to ~ I construct a neca masonr wal'1 on his ro Y p perty. -, Mr. Slaughter advised the Commission that the g4'c.iti,oner could dedicate an additional foot along the nort`! side of the alley, xnd then the wall could be built along the south border of the existing alj~ey - however, this would ' ~ reduce his area of parking. M_r. Giamboi inquired of the Commission why the six property owners along Stinson Street did not have a right to be considered in their wishes of what should be developed on the property. Chairman Herbst noted that the General Plan indicated this area for muitiple- family residential development, and it was not fair to deny the petitioner ' -: the right to devalop his prope=ty. ~ :I Mr. Giamboi stated that if the waivers requested were granted, he would be ; .i opposed to R-3 zoning and suggested perhaps this property could be developed ;,~ for single-family homes. , , ~.:1 _j Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-17 and moved for its passage ?i and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ,~t fication No. 70-71-24 be approved, subject to conditions, on the basis that ;j the General Plan and lar.d uses in this area indicated multinle-family "-' residential development. (See Resolution Book) _~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: :''~ _, _'.?i AYES: CObL*SISSIONEP.S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~' ' ABSENT: COM*1ISSIONEP.S: Rowland. `;~~, '" Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-18 and moved for its passage and adontion to grant Petition far 7ariance No. 2228, in part, denying waiver of the 6-foot masonry wall requirement along the east and south property lines since no evidence ~aas submitted that this waiver was,:necessary; that a 6-foot masonry soall with a 12-foot gate be constructed on the property °y line of the property owner to the south of the existing alley upon permission being granted by the property ocaner and as stipulated to by the petitioner, , and sub3ect to conditions. (See Re~olution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: :~ ~ .~~ AYES: COt4MISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. . RECLASSIF?CATION - PUBLIC HEARZNG. PRESTON K. AND DOCIA W. ALLEN, 2704 N0. 70-71-29 West Ball F.oad, Anaheim, California, Owners; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land VARIANCE N0. 2229 consisting of approximately 3.8 acres, having a frontage ~ of approximately 270 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum denth of approximately 607 feet, and being located approximately 400 feet east of the centerline of MacDuff Street, and further described as 2704 West Ball Road. Property presently t~- classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. f ~z- :~.:~, .. • , . ~ ~ _ J.~ ,;~... , i_., ~~~ ~ ~'r ~ ~ ' . .. . ~ ~ ~ . . _i ~, ~s- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO:iMISSIQN, February 8, 1971 71-69 RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY N0. 70-I1-29 RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. VARIANCE N0. 2229 REQUBSTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE- FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCES BETWEEN BUILBINGS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 106- UNIT APART*fENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 106-unit, two-story apartment complex on sub~ect property, noting that no two-story construction was proposed within 150 feet of the R-2 homes to the north located within the City of Anaheim - however, two- story was proposed within 72 feet of the R-1 properties within the City of Stanton, and uraiver af the one-story height limitation ad~acent to R-A to the east and west c,ould apnear to be of little apparent significance since the General Plan pro~ects these properties for multiple-family residential ~ develooment - however, the nrimary consideration before the Commission was i whether the City of Anaheim should require the same 150-foot setback from i single-fa~ily homes located iri rhe City of Stanton, even though their code required only a 50-foot setback. Mr. William Phelns, designer representing the petitioners, anpeared before the Commission and noted that since the City of Stanton required only a 50-foot setback for two-story apartments adjacent to P.-1, he had contacted f the C±ty of Stanton's nlanniag deoartment regarding the setback requirement ~ of the City of Anaheim and had been informed that only if the setback were I less than 50 feet would they consider taking this under advise~ent, and that ~ the caaiver reouested for distance between buildings would appear to be warranted since no windotos were proposed between the center »anels of the i entry~aays . ~ ~ A letter and telegram from ners>ns in favor of the petitions were read to ~ the Commission (on file) as was a letter from the City of Stanton ref,.~sding ! the height limitation and requesting that consideration be given to proper drainage for both Sherrill and Lola Avenues. No one aopeared in opposition to sub~ect netitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Com:riss_oner Seymour inauired of the representative for the netitioners whether or not the netitioners were siaare of the fact that sub~ect property Taas in the right-of-way prooosed for the new Beach Freewav; cahereuoon Mr. Phelps replied that they were fully aware of that. Commissioner Farano offered P,esolution No. PC71-22 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council t'hat Petition for Reclassifi- cation No. 70-71-29 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEF.S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO?KMISSIONEP,S: Roi.*land. Commissioner Farano offered Resolut±on No. PC71-23 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2229, subject to conditions, on the basis that the height cuaiver requested from the R-1 in the City of Stanton met the code reauirements of that city since they required only a ~ 50-foot setback. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO*~MISSIONERS: Allred~ 3arano, Gauer, Herbst. Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kavwood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Roaland. *: Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 6:20 P,r:. , ~ ~~~ ~~_ ~ ' ,~z.a~n . . , 'S l . , ~ ! '.. ~-. . 1 ~.1~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February d, 1971 ~•~ 71-70 Commissioner Kaywood noted that termination action had not been taken on the reclasaification~ variance~ and conditional uae permit on the property considered under Item No. 6, and offered Resolution No. PC71-19 and moved for its nassage and adootion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 59-60-11 be terminated on the basis that the zone action was no longer valid and new plana for multiple-family development had been recommended for approval under Reclasai~~cation No. 70-71-24. (See Reaolution Book) Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was pasapd by the following vote; ~ 1 ~ I ~ AYES: COMMISStONEP.S: Allred, Farano, Herbst~ Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONE?tS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Gauer, Rowland. Commissioner Kayaood offered Resolution No. PC71-20 and moved for its paseage and adoption to terminate all proceedinge under Conditional Use Permit No, 936 on the basis that the petitioner now proposed R-3 zoning and had indicateu ~he convaZescent home would not be conatructed because of money problema, (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed b~ the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano~ Herbat, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: CUM*fISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rocoland. I Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-21 and moved for its passage ~ and adoption to terminate all proceedings under Variance No. 1305 on the I basls that the waivers no langer applied to the prouerty with new plans ~ approved under Variance No. 2228. (See Resolution Book) i 3 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ! NOES: COM*tISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT E. JONES~ 3349 Aida Lane, N0. 70-71-30 ?.nahe±my California (Portion B) and LEWIS M. WOLTER~ 3346 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California (Portion A) VARIANCE N0. 2231 Owners; property described as: An irregular3y-ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 216 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 660 feet. and being located appzoximately 800 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3346 and 3352 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: 3-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A OR SINGLE-FAMZLY 20NED PROPERTY AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO PERMIT A TWO-STORY, 67-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uaes established in close proximity, and the proposal to j,- establish a 67-unit apartment complex within 120 f~et of the R-1 properties * to the south; that no two-atory construction was proposed ~vithin 150 feet n of the R-1 properties to the north; that the petitionex was proposing only ~~" 12 feet between two buildings on the south end of the property, whereas Code caould require a minimum of 31 feet that the petitioner was proposing 29 feet between the dwelling units and the carports, whereas Code would > reauire a minimun of 32 feet; that the property located north of the Orange ~~ County Flood Control channel taas indicated on the General Plan for medium- density development - therefore, the proposed R-3 zoning would appear to be aporopriate; that the requested ~aaiver of tiao-story construction within ; 150 feet of the R-1 property to the south would appear to be of more ~' significance since in 1963 the Cit Council a ~~ , Y pproved a two-story apartment ~~'''~,~z, ~ ... , J ~. d ~ i i 1' : ~.; °`,;,-~:,,.~,. -: ~ . .. i` . . . ~ ~ . . .) . . ~ ~~ ~r MINUTBS, CITY PL?NNING CONLMISSIO~, 3ebruary 8, 1971 :J 71-71 ~ECL?SSIFICATION -- nroiect on a narcel approximately 250 feet to the n+est N0. 70-71-30 of sub~ect ~ro~erty which had two•-story buildings only 100 feet from the P.-1 property across the flood control VARIANCE N0. 2231 channel - therefore, the Commission might wish to deter- (Continued) mine cahether .tha.t.a~pronal established a precedent for additional deviations of apartment height limitations in this area, or whether there ~oere special circum- stances applicable to the property; and that although the flood control channel did abut the property to the south, this did not appear to mitigate the undesirable eftects of two-story auartments t,~ith;n 150 feet of single- family res=dential uses - the ordinance was seemingly directed at two undesirable eifects, namely, visual intrusion and bulk control. Nr. Hugh Sorensoa, 825 South Westchester Drive, appeared before the Commiss±on and noted he represented the petitioners and noted this also would be a joint venture; that single-story was oroposed nexe to the R-1 properties to the north while two-story aas prouosed southerly; that carports were ~roposed on either s~de to block the viecv of the street and ingress and egress; that serial photographs he ~aas presenting indicated the existing improvements in the area and the relationship of the proposed development; that they were attemnting to shoca the relationshi~ of the property to the flood control chanael and the o3lieve line of the building; and that they encroached only =n one corr.er of the 150-foot height limitation from the R-1 nroperty to the south. 5urthermore, the City Council in 1963 h8dpermitted tao-story construct=on less thaa 150 feet f:om the R-1 uroperty to the west, and because of the shape of the parcel it was difficult to de•~elop a parcel design meeting all Cade reeuiremeats. *ir. Ralph Clark, 10234 i.a:ce~,•ood Boulevard, Douney, apueared before the Commissioa and noted t'~at there anpeared to be a difference in interpreta- t'_on of t?~e Code, and the 12-foat separation bat;~een bu'ldiag ~uaiver appeared to be justified since this ~~as tne second time around for design of the nroaerty -:he first design having been reviewed by sta£f and changes made as suggested by staff except for tiiis 12-:~ot setbac?:; that a design of the building provided a 4-foot ~og in order to reduce the barracks-like appearance of the building; and tY:at t'~e 31-foot setback was derived by checking t4e total length of ~he oblique-lined building and this was because of the patios which added interest and appeal. Zon=ng Supervisor Charles P.oberts advised the Comm_ssion that he ~cished to raspond to statements mada br the ~rooonent regarding the setbac:c along the east side abutt?ng t~e caraorts; that this distance did'comply with Code - however, on the ~oest side, 3ue to the added length of the building t.all, the petitioner had provided only 29 feet, and the Commission taas aware of the 12-foct separation ~vhich occurred only at one point, but the balance ~aas substantially greater than Code would reauire. '_dr. H. John Mittlebach, 3359 SJest Orange Avenue, appeared be~ore the Commission and noted that Orange Avenue ~aas only a two-lane street and had a considerable amount of traffic; thus, together kith this proposed 67-unit apartment complex, the traffic problem toould be cons_derable. Cha-_rman Herbst noted that the petitioners :.~ere prooos_ng to provide parlcing in accordance W~CtiI Code requi=ement, :.h'ch s~as 1~ spacss per one and t~JO- bedroom a~artments and 2~ spaces for three-bedroorr a?artments; and that street wide.ing of Orazge Avenue would be a reeuirement along the•frontage of su~ject oronerty. ?urthermore, the parking rrould be in excess of that formerly required for the apartnents to the ~oest. ~:r. ~`=ttlebac~: further r.oted that che :aater pressure in this area was very lo:,-, and add'_tional units could aftect this pressure. ~~e Commiss=on advised the opposition that since this was a City service, t':e Commiss_on could oal~ ~e ~~~,-ir.h land use. Commiss_oner Kay*~ood er.~ressed concern that there was considerable coverage o~ ±he ~roposed develonmeat a^d =ncuired :rhy this could not be ravised so =~a*- =t :oould corform ia=th Code, and then the need for the 12-foot waiver would not be reouired, as ;aell as meeting the 150-ioot one-story height 1_m?tation. ;' ,-,i _ . ' r .. ~._.s~ •,.._,,.- ... . .. - . r .. :~~ i _c, . I . . _ _ ` '~ . ~ ~~ C~ '~~-) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO?4MISSION, February 8, 1971 71-72 RECLASSIFICATION -- Commissioner Farano noted 'that since it had been the N0. 70-71-30 Comm=ssion's pol=cy in the past not to waive the 150- foot, tao-story height limitation, the petitioner should VARIANCE N0. 2231 be able to revise his plans so that the 30-foot difEer- (Continuad) ence could be eliminated, although he was £ully aware tnat the C±ty Council had in the past granted two-story construction i~ 7ess than 150 feet from R-1 property, aad if th`_s precedent were to be extended, then the Commission might be faced ia ±he future with similar reauests for deviation from this height limitation. - '33~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. <.,,. ~'., Comm=ssioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71•-24 and moved for its passage ~, '<i azd adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- :<;.1 fication No. 70-71-30 be annroved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ' OT roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Earano, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COPLfISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71^25 and moved for its passage "~~' aad adopt=on to grant Petition for Variance No. 2231, the waiver of the height limitation having been granted by the City Council in the past for t?~e ~roperty to the west, and that the waiver of the setbacks was justified on the basis that the pronerty c.as ad~acent to the flood control channel ;, and a minor uortion of the development only would affect it. (See ;'j 8esolution Book) '::=1 ~~ On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote: ~{ AYES: COMN.ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. -:-1 NOES: CON!MISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Ro;aland. '''; ~ ~~1 '' l ~ECLASS?FICATION - PUBI.IC iiEAP•.irlG. LAT1?ENCE W. ALLEN, 525 South Gilbert N0. 70-71-31 Street, Anaheis~, Californ=a3 O~aner; MADISON REAL ESTATE, ~ INC., 600 South Harbor ~oulevard, Anaheim, California, ;i VARIANCE N0. 2232 Agent; property described as: Ar. irregularly-shaped ~± parcel of ?and located nortli and east of the northeast corner of Dale and Lincoln Avenues, having approximate ~'`~ frontages of 499 feet on the east side of Dale Avenue and 150 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL w CO!Y?MERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, _M_ULTIPLS-FAriILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (3) MIPIIMUN: DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO PERMIT A TtJO ~~~ AND THREE-STORY, 138-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~ssistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of sub3ect nrunerty, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action oa the property, and the prouosal to develop a two and three-story aDartment comnlex having open and covered narking spaces along the east and s nort4 property Iines; that s=ngle-story construction was being proposed ~.-=th=n 150 feet of the R-1 nraperties to the north - therefore, the height ;~~ ' r.aiver r.as applicable to the three-story height proposed; that the petitioner c,•as proposing 996 sauare feet of land area per dwelling unit, whereas Code would reauire 1200 sauare feet; that the petitioner was proposing only a 12-foot building separation bet~oeen some buildings, ~ahereas Code would ~j ' require a minimum of 19 feet; and that the primary consideration before the Commission saas one of land use since the General Plan projected the frontage of subject pronerty for commercial uses - however, the aultiple- fam'_ly residential use proposed for the balance would be appropriate. ~: ~ ..:. i . i_::. 3y"..~. - ~ ~ . ~ , . .. .. rf ._ _... ry. . . _ , . ~ .. -.o~..~....w ' . ~ . . . . ~ ` ' 'i 1 ~ 1 ~~ ~ ; /) MINUTES9 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-73 RECLASSIFICATZON - Furthermore, i£ the Commission determined the zoning N0. 70-71-31 coas aupropriate, consideration should then be given to the ir_tens;ty of land use since a minimal open space VARIANCE N0. 2232 area caas proposed, and although there toas a 52Y cover- (Continued) age, cJhica was tvithin Code maximumy the number of dtaelling units eecause of the three-story proposed, was more than had been anoroved in the past, and those rv:-~ch had been auproved in most instances provided the bachelor-type units. Mrs. Ann 24adison, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and noted that subject property had been on the market a number of years _ for commercial development - however, there did not aopear to be any interest £or commerc~?al 3evelonment of the property; that the proposed develonment would be better than a hodge-podge of commercial development on the property for the Lincoln Avenue frontage; that the petitioner proposed to utilize all the property for a multiple--family residential development which would not be in direct competition with other apartment comnlexes in the area because this would be a deluxe~type development having rentals ranging from $195 to $285 per month; that with the scarcity of good developable land, the cost of land taas zocming upward; that the variances were needed due to the type of construction nroposed; and then reviewed the various trree-story complexes develoned within the City of Anaheim having less than the Code-required square footage of land per apartment. M_rs. 24adisoa noted that the pronosed development would have one story caithin 150 feet of the R-1 and a setback of 35 feet coas proposed before any t?~cree-story develooment occurred; that the 35--foot setback required along Lincoln Avenue caas also being observed; that all the windows would be facing towa~d the court except for skylights on the third story, and these could be constructed of opaaue glasa if these skylights ~vere deemed to be undesirable; that her office had been working with the single-family homeowners to the northeast, and a letter toas then submitted signed by all but one property owner of those affected by the proposed development which indicated that the proposed developer had indicated to the property ownars the various requirements v~hicti these property owners requested be done to obtain their approval, such as trees, bumper guards, speed bumpers to slow down traffic, reimbursement to the R-1 property owners for one-half of the existing 6-foot masonry taall, and that they had also worked with staff regarding ? possible traffic problem presented by the designs proposed. Commis~ioner Seymour left the Cauncil Chamber at 6:k5 P.M. ~ir. George Pujdak, architect for the proposed development, aupeared before the Commission and noted that the proposed development caould give a luxuriou~ feeling of space and provide apartments for people who were desirous oY high-quality agartments; that a Mediterranean architecture tvas proposed with a Spanish tile roof giving a very interesting skyline; and then reviewed the proposed development plans for the Commission, together caith colored renderings, indicating that they were attempting to provide a living environment for older pe~ple who wanted to live comfortably and still give them an area iohere they could entertain; that a 9-hole putting course was planned behind the recreational area; and that he bad worked closely wlth ataff at several meetings in ordet to design someChing that ~aould satisfy almost all the requirements of the City. Mr. Marshall Baucom, 212 North Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commission in ovposition and stated that he would be the one who would be most directly affected by the proposed development since he would be immediately adjacent to the exit area of the parking lot; that a problem could be created for the entire neighborhood with an exit almost directly across from a street exiting to Dale Avenue, and if there were stop signs, perhaps there would be less traffic conflict; an'd that he was the only one who would have to back out from his property, and then requested that the petitioner relocate the ingress and egress along Dale Avenue k0 feet further souch so that he could have a means of exiting from his property. Furthermore, there were not even any crosswalks between Lincoln Avenue and Crescent; that there were no three- story apartments throughout this area, and these would be out of place and would affect his property values more than those single-family homes on Yale A_venue - however, if some means were provided so that he would be able to head out from his oroperty to Dale tnstead of backing out, he would not , ^~ -. ~ , ~ . .... . . / ... .. I , . / i . ;.. .._.~ ~ . '~ . . F ~ 1 . ~ ~ -' - I ___- ""___'_-'__'___ ~ ~j' ~ ~ 1~ _~ ~• MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 71-74 ,~ RECLASSIFICATION - be in such oppositian; that some form of noise buffer ' N0. 70-71-31 should be provided where cars would be parked immediately adjacent to the masonry wall along the north; that --° VARIANCE N0. 2232 traffic on Dale Avenue was very heavy because of the (Continued) number of people going to the Buena Park Shopping Center; .. and that by approval of sub3ect petition, the Commission ~ would be compounding a very serious traffic problem. Then, in response to Commission questioning, Mr. Baucom stated he was not opposed to the R-3 zoning but to the three-story construction and location of uarking and ingress and egress immediately ad3acent to his property. r`~ The Commission then noted there would be as much, if not more, traffic from ~',`,~~!-;`'•, a commercial development on the property as R-3 would generate; whereupon ~ ~ *Sr. Baucom replied that he was much more concerned with the ingress-egress C ;~~ 3eing located almost immediately opposite the street exiting to Dale Avenue. F, i 4 Mr. James Magrann, 2770 Yale Avenue, appeared before the Commission and. noted his home was the last one on the south side of the street before the four-plex apartments; that he had viewed the plans and had nn opposition to them even though three-story was proposed becattse they appeared to be very 1 nice; that there would be little change in the amount of traffic whether ~ t?wo or three stories were constructed, and the sgeed would be reduced on Dale Avenue if an apartment develoument were constructed on the site; an@ that the letter which the develouer had signed indicating those special amenities which he would provide, as requeated by the ad~oining property owners, had also been signed by him. ?~frs. Madison indicated that she had been ;~.ttempting to work out the problem presented by Mr. Baucom and regardless of whether there were two or three- _~ story apartments or commercial, Mr. Baucom would have trouble in backing :ut ? of his property, and that if the Commission approved subject petitions, they -~ would attempt to work out with Mr. Baucom his problem so that he could turn 'j around either on his or their property. , ,. -- Commissioner Allred felt that more bL~fering should be provided along the north property line adjacent to the single-family property in order that the noises from the automobiles being ataxted, exhaust fumes, etc., from the vehicles that would be parked along the narth progerty line could be ~-~ buffered, and that he felt a 20-foot landscape strip should be provide3 ~ along the north property line since this had been required by the Commission ;.~; in the nast where apartments were proposed immediately adjacent to R-1. Mr. Pu~dak advised the Commission that if a 20-foot strip were zequired, they would be short on their required parking. Chairman Herbst noted that in the past the Commission had made many mistakes in approving apartment developments immediately adjacent to R-1 properties, particularly allowing parking to be provfded immediately adjacent to these properties - therefore, they had asked that this 20-foot atrip of landscaping be provided where parking was proposed, ar.d the proposed development had concentrated more than half of the parking along the north property line; that these residents had been there for a long time, and the Commission or developers should not destroy their living environment - therefore, he would suggest that the petitioner review his plans and provide additional land- scaping ad3acent to the north oroperty line. Furthermore, the uetitioner should also prepare a line-o`-sight study regarding the sight distance from the three-story apartments to the R-1 properties to the nor.th. _M_r. Pu3dak replied that they would be glad to provide any additional protection for the R--1 properties if the Commission so desired. II~ Chairman Herbst noted that if subject property were developed for anything ~ else, it would appear to be spot zoning. D=scussion was held by the Commission, Mr. Baucom, and the staff regarding the w=dth of Dale Avenue adjacent to the Baucom property. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the additional 5 feet for street widening was dedicated at the time the storm drains were put in. ~... ':;< ;.;.,. . -' . , _ . _._ - ' ~ ~ . . - . • ,e, , , _ -. ~,. e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' 71-75 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 ~ ! RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Baucom adviaed the Commission that although this ( N0. 70-71-31 5 feet was dedicated, the sidewalk location had not been changed and it was the same as the property to _-•- ~ VARIANCE N0. 2232 the north. , ~ (Continued) I Mra. Madison noted that if subject property were developed for commercial uses, there would be no land- , scaping required and commercial would be allowed by right on subject ~ property - however, the propoeal before the Commission was better, and only ' four homes caere affected by the proposed development. Furthermore, they -.~ ! had stipulated to trying to help resolve the problem which Mr. Baucom had ` ~;;, oresented, but if a 20-foot landscape setback were reeuired, this would K~ ^' "kill" the pro~ect because of the cost of the land. The Commission asked whether or not a line-of-sight plan had been prepared. ~` ~ Mrs. Madison replied that this was not done, ~ the third sto.ry did not have ' windows which overlooked the nroperty to the nurL.. and only skylights were proposed which could be directed away from the R-1. Furthermore, in many areas where they had w~rked on development, landscaping was considezed ~ necessary - however, it was her feeling it was not necessary in this instance. Chairman Herbst noted it was the duty of the Commission to try to protect the R-1 properties which had been there for a number of years, and he could not see any difference between this project and that which the Commission ~ had considered on Romneya Drive and State College Boul~:vard - if a few apartments were lost, this would be nothing in comparison with the use that 1 was provosed on the property which was a heavier density than permitted ~ elsewhere and where three-atory was approved on Pearl Street, a line-of- ~ sight exhibit was also required. I '! Commissioner Allred offered a motian to continue consideration of Petitious ' for Reclassification No. 70-71-31 und 'Jariance No. 2232 to the meeting of 't February 22, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to prepare a line-of-• ~:~ sight exhibit and to submit revised landscaping plans for the property li~1e ~~~~ on the north in order to prnvide additional protection for thoae property ~.,,i owners. Commissioner Kaywood seconded t:ie motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ 'I STREET NAME CHANGE - INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, to consider a street name ' change for Sunkist Street extending northerly from =! La Palma Avenue to the Riverside Freeway to be renamed "~' Miraloma Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of the proposed atreet name change, noting that the Traffic Engineer had stated that a name change at the existing location made signing almost impossible and recommended that the name change should be at the intersection of two surface streets to allow logical signing and eliminate possible confusion to the public - therefore, he suggested that Sunkist Street be renamed to Miraloma Avenue at La Yalma Avenue. Furthermore, there were no residences ~ involved fronti;lg on this section of the street and no one would be incon- venienced by the change. ;`' No one appeared in onposition to subject street name change. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. = Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-26 and moved for its passage • and adoption to recommend to t:~e City Council that Sunkist Street be renamed Miraloma Avenue extending northerly from the intersection of Sunkist Street ~" and La Palma Avenue to the Riverside Freeway, based on findings. (See Resolution Book) ~. On roll ca31 the foregoing rPsolution was passed by the following vote: j AYES: C02",MISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COI;AiISSIONERS:. None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland, Seymour. *. _ . 3 ~.J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM.?ISSION, February 8, 1971 ~ ~ 71-76 REPORTS AND -- ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE ?ERMIT N0. 323 - Request for an indefinite extension of time for the use - Property located on the east side of State College Boulevard, approximately 500 feet north of the centerline of Placentia Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor *:alcolm S2sughter reviewed the location of sub3ect property, uses established in close proximity, and the request for an indefinite extension of time for the continuation of the ambulance service presently in opetation, noting that the ambulance service ha3 been approved by the Planning Commission on November.24, 1962, for a per3od of two years, and an extension of five years was granted, which expired De.cember 18, 1969 - therefore, if the Commission recommended an extension of time, th3s extension of time be retroactive to December 1•8, 1969, for a two-year neriod to December 18, 1971, with an additional two- year extension of time to exnire December 18, 1973. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to grant an extension of time for the `. ambulance service approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 323, retro- ~` active to December 18, 1969, for a two-year time extension to ex~ire - December 18, 1971, and for an additional two-year extension of time to expire December 18, 1973. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. . *fOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 CLARIFICATION ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENT UNITS CONTAINING MORE THAN THREE 3EDROOMS. `~ ~:' ;.~e ': • ~ e;.:=, Ass3stant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed for the Commission the off-street par~cing reeuirements of the multiple-family residential zone noting that the Code specified 2'~ spaces for a three-bedroom unit - however, no provis;'on was made for units having more than three bedrooms, and since the Development Services Department has received a request for parking requirements for an apartment complex which included some four-bedroom units, staff was requesting clarification from the Commission for a deter- mination of the number of parking spaces to be required for such units, aad ehat the current Off-Street Parking Requireaents of the Anaheim :~?unicipal Code was a result of the staff studies in 1969. Said studies had origiaally nroposed a category of parking for units having three or more bedrooms - however, it appeared that the words "oz more" were deleted when the final wording was adopted. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the staff's request, and upon its conclusion, it was determined that at leas.t one-hal# more space per bedroom should be required over and above that required for three bedzooms. C~mmicsioner Farano offered a motion to direct the staff to further study the parking requirements for more than three-bedroom units and to set for public hearing an amendment to the ordinance regarding said parking. Commissioner ICaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEPf N0. 3 ORANGE COUNTY USE PERMIT N0. 3121 - Property located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road opposite Mohler Drive - Proposal to establish a mobilehome park with 347 spaces for a 35-acre site - Danker property. Zoning Sunervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Planning Commission Orange County Use Permit No. 3121, noting the location of subject property and the nroposal to establish a 347-space mobilehome park on sub~ect pronerty, and then briefed the report by staff. Discussion was held by the Commission, it being noted that if sub~ect petition were approved, all the sfforts, time, money, etc. which the City of Anaheim and the Commission had spent would be lost since the proposed develooment would be contrary to the density study - General Plan Amendment No. 122; contrary to the Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element - since .'.v ' .._:: ;~...-~. . ~; - ' ~ ~. _ '° ~ ~~ , . 1 :. ' :~ ;;., 4~'.: ~ ~' ~ : ~ .: ~ f 1 . 1..~-;-.. _ ,` .. _ -' J ~ C~ MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 8, 1971 REPORTS AND RECOt4;?ENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued) ~ 71-77 access points in the canyon area had been adopted, and the proposed develop- ment did not provide for circulation tc the ad3acent parcels which would create landlocked parcels; and that it would also be contrary to the newly-adopted Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone, (Planning Commissioa) since setbacks along Santa Ana Canyon Road, landscaoing, and special buffering techniques were not indicated on the plan. The Commission was of the opinion that a very strongly worded recommenda- tion be forwarded to the City Council zn which denial be recommended on the basis of the foregoing statements, since if this were approved and develoned, any hopes of establishing the canyon area as a highly desirable residential area caould be negated, and that the environment which was indicated on the plans was not scceptable or appropriate for res{dents of these mobile homes, since no buffering from freeway or expressway noises was proposed, whereas these residents should be afforded the same environ- mental amenities that other residential uses are and ~~ill be en~oying. Furthermore, the proposal would not be compatible with the established residential ases and could sub~ect residents of the area to oossible devaluation of their surrounding environmental amenities they have been en~oying. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to strongly urge the City Council to recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission denial of Orange County Use Permit No. 3121, on the basis that the proposed use would be contrary to all concents of the density study - C~eneral Plan Amendment No. 122; the newly-adopted (?laani~g Commissian) Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone, and the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan since adequate setbacks, buffering, density proposed, and circulation was not provided; and that development as proposed u~ould create a number of 1.andlocked parcels causiag hardship in their development in the future. Farthermore, that residents of mobile homes should be afforded the same environmental amenities which other residential uses en~oy. In addition, the proposal would not be compatible with the established residential uses in the area, and could subject resi.dents of the area to possible davaluation of their surrounding environmental amenities they have been enjoying. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. ~fOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There be=ng no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:42 ?.*f. Respectfully submitted, ~%. ~. ~- ~ .r: 9NN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ' ~•` ~ ~ ~ ~i .v, j : x~ ~'~6 ~~' l~{'~~ +n l,.GA~re.jYX "~' .J. ~ k 1 j f, ` 7,._. ~ P~kd `W .Yt,t.;~~~~ j., A"'S y~ a'S +Y;xt t 2 i, /' ~ .tt Y. ' ~~~In,~.~+~! ~y fi~i ~ t t ~~~ T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~. ~~ d i . r r l ~' ~ w r v s ~,~~` r ~f~u ~. ~~ ~ y n• ~ t ~ 5 t}~~ ~ , 4 t ~ ~ ~ v`j 1 ~ ~~.: 1~ ? " 1 ,4 t C .. . > > ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '1 ~ ~ . y ; ~ J ~ ` ° ti~ i, l . ~• f~T '1~ f ' ~ 31r.. x ; '1 - W ~ ' l _ \ ~ ' ,.~y l. . y p ~ _ ~ (.' ~ , +~ 4 p -c ~ M ~ ( t t ..t a_F . n ...'1.. . . , . .. . . _ .. . ' ~ . . .~~ _ .. . ,[i ; ~ r. ~~ r,~ ~ ~~ > ~ 1 ` ~Ks ti : . ~ ~ , ~ 1 ~~ ` 3 ~ f:= t= ''t .~ i '~ - ~ { - ~ : ' . ; .,.'..-. ~ ~+,~ r, f .~i:. ~ A , :;1 `~ . ~ -w+i .~- . .. _ .. _ ,' ~ - t ( ~t r a = 1 \ I ~ _ ~~ ~ . . '` .. ~. . ~ ~,< r, ~ ~