Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/03/22. * , t~.`: . ~ d ~~. • City Hall Anaheim, California March 22, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COb1MISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:10 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano (who entered the Council Chamber at 3:05 P.M.), Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to ALLEGIANCE the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Ma.nutes of the meeting of February 22, 1971, were THE MINUTES approved as submitted on motion by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and `!OTION CARRIED. (:ONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD H. YODER, 17291 PERMIT N0. 1218 Irvine, Suite 107, Tustin, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH RETAIL AND SERVICE BUSINESS FIRMS PRIMARILY SERVING COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WITH ONLY INCIDENTAL SERVICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres at the north- west corner of Kraemer Boulsvard and La Jolla Street, having a frontage of approximately 607 feet on the north side of La Jolla Street and approximately 628 feet on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard, and further described as 1401-1515 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the February 22, 1971, meeting to allow time for additional study regarding the most appropriate uses in the M-1 Zone. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, approximate size of the property, existing zoning, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish retail distributing and service business firms serving commerce and industry with incidental service and sales to the general public, noting that the petition had been continued for several meetings to allow staff time for additional study as to the most appropriate uses. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the Report to the Commission, noting that the petitioner had submitted a letter indicating the types of usas proposed and the parking provided, noting that if some smaller shops were proposed, perhaps the amount of parking would be of significant importance since it was not the intent o£ the parking standards in the M-1 Zone to expect extensive parking to be generated by industrial uses; that the Commission would have to determine if including retail distributing and service firms in the permitted uses would be the same as business and professional offices primarily serving commerce and industry; that it was rather 71-126 k:~:-, . . . ~ . . _ ' r::~~::~::~,..'~T', ~.~ -.-:c .... ~_ x . . ~ , . . . ~ ~y . d ~. ''' ~ ~ i , e ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-127 CONDITIONAL USE - difficult to arrive at a list of specific types of PERMIT N0. 1218 businesses that might be anticipated to establish (Continued) themselves at this location - therefore, if the Planning Commission determined that this particular development was of such a nature that it would not be detrimental to either subject or adjoining properties, the Commission could determine whether or not to allow staff to make determinations on these uses and whether they fell within the scope of intent of the Commission. However, if, in the future, staff was unable to determine whether or not a proposed use would fall under this section of the ordinance, it might be necessary for staff to bring the uses to the Commission for determination. Mr, Don Yoder, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the Report to the Commission covered the subject quite well; and that they had attempted to pinpoint the uses as much as possible. Commissioner Gauer noted that Ward $ Harrington, The Handyman, or Angels Hardware on Chapman Avenue were all large concerns originally intended for industrial orientation but were now almost entirely geared to retail uses. Mr. Yoder replied that the hours of operations for these facilities were different than the :-~ y proposed, and it was not their intent to serve the public in this manner. 3j 1; ~, Mr. Roberts noted that service and business firms were permitted in the M-1 Zone so lon as h :a g t ey served industry primarily, ~,. ,'* ^;i ~ Commissioner Gauer noted that The Handyman served many types of hardware businesses - howe ; ver, they now served more of the homeowners "doing their own thing", and in his estimation whethe thi ` ` , r s type of use could be prevented where it would not harm industrie i " < s s nce the traffic generated from a retail use was the most undesirable part of a . : ~ permanent retail use in an industrial area - therefore, some measure should be take where each us , ~ , n e could be controlled to make it compatible with the indus- trial area. r' '~ ~ Mr. Yoder noted that it would not be their intent to have to th ?~ general sales e general public, nor would it in any way be the same Hand Th ' as yman. e ~ i~ N, No one a Pp ~ ppeared in o osition to sub'ect petition. - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Gauer noted that he would not like to see a type of retail- oriented business su h ~~ c as Ward $ Harrington, even though they would serve businecses. Most of their busi ' ~ ness was geared to retail trade, and this would create a traffic problem for re ula i d g r n area. ustry in the ; ^~ ;'r k~ :t: ~';. ,:;, , . ;~_s.: r: _., ~:', `.~e ' ~ ~ ~_~ Chairman Herbst noted that the petitioner was proposing the retail sales to be only incidental to the primary use, or about 75% industrially- oriented and 25$ retail. Commissioner Gauer expressed concern regarding the possibility that a firm would not be making sufficient money with industry-oriented customers, thus opening up the use to more retail sales - this, then, wou~-', create a problem as far as traffic was concerned and possible inadequate parking. Further discussion was held by the Commission on a means of controlling the type of uses to be established in this area, whether or not a time limitation should be establishAd for the petition, and whether or not the types of uses should be encouraged in the industrial area where they were primarily industrially-ori.ented. . ~~ ~ ~ . _. - ; ~.. . ~:.x~. ~ I..._. __ :, , , r ~;; ~ _,* ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-128 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-44 PERMIT N0. 1218 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant (Continued Petition for Conditional Use Permit Na. 1218, ~_` ~ requiring each use proposed to be established on subject property which was intended to qualify under Section 18.52.050(2-a and 2-b) should be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval in order that a determination may be . maae as to whether the proposed ~ise would be appropriate for the site and whether sufficient parking was provided on the property to accommodate an additional parking demand created by such a use on the basis that the :..: industrial complex in question appeared to lend itself favorably to ~~--;~:-<• -,- ~ allowing the proposed types of uses - however, the Commission also ~=: determined that extreme care should be exercised in judging whether ~:- `_t' specific uses qualified as retail distributing firms and/or service ~ businesses primarily serving commerce and industry; therefore, any '.~: ~~~ proposed use should be reviewed by the Planning Commission in order that ~! a judgment might be made as to whether a proposed use fell within the ~~ Commission's intent as to which uses might be considered as retail distributing firms and service businesses, at which time the Commission -;'., could also determine whether sufficient parking was being provided on ~. the site to accommodate an additional parking demand created by such a _ use or uses. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: `.~:, ~; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, :: Seymour. .'~~± NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. '; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. `~~ VARIANCE N0. 2238 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. AUGUST VILJAK, 511 North Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting ~ WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED UNIT SIZE, (2) ~~ MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A 6-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: q ~4' rectan ularl g pP y ''~ S y-shaped parcel of land having a fronta e of a roximatel ,,..,;~ SO feet on the west side of Illinois Street, having a maximum depth of ° ~~ approximately 157 feet, and being located approximately 308 feet north ?'~ of the centerline of Broadway, and further described as 207 South ^i Illinois Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. :~i :i ~1 Subject petition was continued from the March 8, 1971, meeting to allow -'' time for the petitioner to be present. ~~~ ; :, -'~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of u sub'ect ro ert :~k 7 P p y, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning ;. on the property, and the waivers requested, noting that the petition ; was continued from the March 8 public hearing to allow the petitioner time to be present. fry ~; ~ : y~. • `:; y':•:...' <: i~ ~:. akc. : , , i I ~~~ .~._..t {t`.; i~~ Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the proposal and evaluation, noted that the petitioner was proposing a 6-unit apartment complex having 6 covered and 2 open parking spaces, whereas Code would require 3 open parking spaces; that one unit was 600 square feet and was proposed as a bachelor unit, whereas Code would require 700 square feet; that the petitioner was proposing to locate the wall for the garages along the side property lines, whereas Code would require a 14~-foot side yard setback along the south and a 14-foot setback along the north property line; and that the petitioner indicated 134 square feet of recreational space per dwalling unit on the original plan, while the revised plans indicate 207 square feet - however, there appeared to be no substantial change in the former plans to the revised plans, therefore, it was evident the petitioner was incluaing those areas that were proposed to be devoted almost exclusively to pedestrian accessways. In addition, the Commission would have to determine whether this met the intent of the ordinance. m",."'."'7:i~*.9r'~'_. . . . . . .. . . ~ ,. - .. . . ~ ~ y ..: ~ f 1 ~x; r ,r<, ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-129 VARIANCE N0. 2238 - Mr. August Viljak, the petitioner, appeared before [Continued the Commission and stated that the plans for subject '. property were the same as for another parcel he ~ owned and which proved to be highly desirable by the tenants, and then reviewed several of the multiple-family developments in the general vicinity, making comparisons as to size with subject property. :~ • Mr. Viljak then noted that subject property was near commercial property where smaller units were more in demand, and the property he owned on . i Zeyn Street was near residential property where larger units were in ~. ~ demand - therefore, fewer units had been developed on the Zeyn Street ;~ property; that most tenants did not like to have their side of the ~y~"~"~- building left open where intruders might lurk; that the new parking ~ requirements made it impossible for him to meet Code parking, and this °~i was very expensive to lose one unit since cost of land in the downtown area was considerably higher than in the outlying area; and then, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he built these units ! for rental purposes and intended to retain the property. Chairman Herbst requested the petitioner to explain how he intended to ~ handle trash disposal; whereupon Mr. Viljak stated there was adequate ~ room in the rear, and he indicated on the plans where the trash area would be located near the turn-around area. '` Chairman Herbst then inquired how the petitioner calculated the recrea- ? tion area; whereupon Mr. Viljak replied that if the City permitted ` using the walkways, then they would meet the Code-required recreation '~ square footage. -ix Chairmaii Herbst noted that the petitioner was overcrowding a small parcel of land which should have a maximum of five units instead of the - six proposed, and if this were done, then most of the waivers would not f~'~''~-- be needed; that he could not vote in favor of a petition where waiver '~-~ of parking was being asked because of the parking problems existing in ?''`"~"~~ the Center City area; and that more open space should be provided since ~=<~:i:~~`;;~ other properties in the general area were never granted the waivers =~ "°>= which the petitioner was requesting so that he could enjoy a property ~~~ right not enjoyed by other adjoining properties similarly developed. * ~~ Mr. Viljak replied that it was his intent to have smaller units having `` fewer residents, and recreation•area would not be needed as much as ''''~ would be necessary where children were considered a part of the complex, ': ;~' and that he had many tenants in apartments where no one had automobiles. '~ Furthermore, where apartments were located near places of employment, ':<, tenants could walk to work, and that where development occurred in the . older downtown area, the City should grant waivers because the cost of land ` was considerably higher than in other sections of the city. "t Mr. Viljak, in response to questioning by Commissioner Kaywood, stated q that the four-unit apartment complex he had was located at 912 North ;: Zeyn Street, and the proposed development would be similar except that ,1 six units were proposed. `- Mr. Don Rees, 999 North West Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he concurred with statements made by Chairman i" >r~ Herbst - that smaller, city lots the size of subject property should not be overcrowded; that the petitioner had not demonstrated this was a hardship parcel; that if the petitioner were able to build in other areas of the city with fewer units, then subject property could also be built in a similar manner; and that adequate recreation areas were as ~- ' essential for adults as we~l as children. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, s,: stated that the existing alley was only 15 feet wide - however, a condition of approval would require additional dedication, making that ,~ portion adjacent to subject property a 10-foot half-width; that if the 2 *': ~: _ .. . • ~, _. , ! - - - -- - -- ~ - - - . '¢- ~~ ==-`- : -• ~ ,. f + ~ ,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-130 VARIANCE N0. 2238 - Commission required revised plans, the turning radius (Continued) where the trash area was proposed. could be changed. Furthermore, the pedestrian accessways could not be included as part of the recreation ar~a as the petitioner proposed. Mr. Viljak, in rebuttal, stated that wzth six smaller apartments there would be fewer people than in large units where there were more than three to four members in the family. Chairman Herbst inquired of the petitioner whether he would prefer to have the Commission act on the petition at this hearing, and from some comments by the Commission, it would appear that the Commission was not in favor of the waivers requested because of the overcrowding of the lot; or whether he wou13 prefer a continuance to allow him time to revise the plans, reducing the number of units which, in turn, would eliminate many of the waivexs now requested. Mr. Viljak replied that he could have revised plans to staff by Friday; therefore, a two-week continuance would be preferred. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 2238 to the meeting of April 5, 1971, to allow the petitior:er time to submit revised plans as suggested by the Commission. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES AND ERMA FRANK, N0. 70-71-35 1616 South Euclid STreet, and CHARLES AND FREDIE KUHLENBERGER, ~233 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, VARIANCE N0. 2237 California, Owners; H.M.S. AIR CONDITIONING CORP., 760 North Main Street, Orange, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.18 acres having a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the north side of Placentia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 380 feet, and being located approximately 220 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. 'I REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIt1L, ZONE. r~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, ,,,_+j MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (3) MINIMUM - ~7 LAND AREA PER DWELLING UNIT AND (4) M.iNIMUM ~~ ACCESSWAY WIDTH TO ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY, ~~' 30-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~-:i;~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~ subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, ~ noting the reason for continuance from the=March 8, 19''1, meeting was to ~ allow time to readvertise the petition, incorporating t;e property ; fronting on Placentia Avenue; that the plans proposed for the original ~,; parcel were still intact, and the applicant had also submitted schematic plans showing an 11-unit apartment complex on the southerly parcel fronting Placentia Avenue - however, these plans were schematic only and were not to be considered as part of the variance actinn; that 42 parking ~`~ spaces were proposed for the property, whereas Code would require 45 :' spaces - however, since this property was proposed to be developed in ~=~ conjunction with the property to the east, sufficient parking would be , F F ; provided for the total complex; that the ordinance rec~uired 1200 square ~' eet of buildin area pp pro osin ;,.. ,:' g per dwelling unit, and the a licant was P g • only 1033 square feet per dwelling unit, or equivalent to a density of :,, 42 units per acre; and that the primary question before the Commission was one of the intensity of land use. In view of the appruved R-3 project to the east, the land use itself should be viewed as an extension -' of an already-approved use; however, the proposal to develop 42 units per acre did exceed Code requirements since 36 units was maximum, and this -Z took on additional significance when it was realized that the main part of the project was proposed essentially on landlocked parcels, ~::. `.kt i ~ a .~r.s~~'l~ „ ~~ ~ ~, :- ' • ^0 _ ~. :;, ,. .; - ~ f I i i ~,. ~ t:~;,.:~ ^ r ~ ~ ~ - l~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~~C - ~ ~ ~ MINUTE.°, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22 1971 , 71-131 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Herbst inquired of the petitioner whether N0. 70-71-35 or not they had resolved their easement problems i s nce the easement only was applicable to the Frank VARIANCE N0. 2237 property to the n orth, and since it was technically (Continued) impossible to resolve this, the Commissi '' on could not consider the petitions until steps had been taken b the i ' y pet tioner to obtain additional easement permission from the union. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the petitioner and the Commissi that there was no w d'. -- on ay possible fo•r L;.e Commission to take action unless this additional easement was secured from the i ' s; wi on to allow access on said easement from the property to the east. +; ~'. Mr. Dave Maher, proposed developer of the ro ert e Commission that this could be resolved prior to th Y a V ` ~ e issuance of a buildin g permit. - = ;~ ' Chairman Herbst noted that this would have to be resolved before the Commission could take .. any action, according to the law. _~~ _;'; Mr. Charles Frank, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and advised the Commission that he would proceed t k -: ~ o ta e whatever steps were necessary to obtain this agreement, and then in quired of t he Cummission whether ~~.:. r, " 4 or not the petitions could be considered, eliminating his parcel. ~~ L' ~ti~ r, ~~. Chairman Herbst noted that it was very important that the property have some access other than havin acces h ~,, ~ g s t rough the parcel to the east over , the Frank property. J ; ,y,~ ,= `~;' 3 Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassific ti ,~~: ;'~~ ' a on No. 70-71-35 and Variance No. 2237 to the meeting of April 5, 1971, to allow time for th _~ ;`~:;~! ~ ~'~'~ ' `;: e petitioners to resolve an easement problem. Commissioner Kaywood seconded th C : = ;;~ ARRIED. e motion. MOTION r'"; -- _ - ~ ~ ~ ,~~ = : ~ _. . . ' ' ' ' ' n' ~' °' i. .' ~ _ ~ ~.::~ ~' ~~-;.-~~ ,~ .~ ~'::..:._.., , . _~ ; ~~ ~ 1. - •. . .'-iM;- 1 ', -.i i ~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-132 VARIANCE N0. 2242 - PUBLIC HEARING. C. M. BROORS, ET AL, 919 North West Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; T_HE MC MICHAEL TENTATIVE MAP OF COMPANY, INC., 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, TRACT N0. 7198 California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA, (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, AND (4) FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARD SETBACKS TO PERMIT SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PitOPERTY INTO 12 R-0, ONE- FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONED LOTS on graperty described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 224 feee on the west side of West Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 465 feet, and being located approximately 941 feet north of the centerline of North Street. Property presently classified R-0, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOF:~.T.: THE MC MICHAEL COMPANY, INC., 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineeri Comgany, P. 0. Box 3668, Anaheim, Californio. Sub3ect tract, consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 12 R-0 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide sub~ect property into 12 single-family zoned lots with waivers from the R-0 Zone for the minimum required front setback, minimum required side yard, minimum rear yard, minimum lot width, minimum ground floor space, and minimum required setback from West Street. Mr. Slaughter further noted that the petitioner was proposing lota ranging in aize from 7000 to 7500 square feet, having homes of approxi- mately 1332 square feet with only a 15-foot aetback frvm West Street and a 25-foot wide accessway from the tract to the expandeci Sage Park to the west where a Little League field was being developed. ;`' Mr. Slaughter, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the question before ~' the Commission was whether or not there was justification to waive almost •-~ all of the site development standards of the R-0 Zone since the variance ' procedure was intended to allow relief from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance where its application would deny to that particular :(~ property the right en~oyed by other properties in the general area and ~' zoae; and that it would appear that by reducing the number of lots and '~'^`~ providing structures containing Code-required square footage, that most °~ of the Code requirements of the subdivision would be more consistent with ,'~~~ other tracts in the area, thereby more closely meeting the intent of the '~=~; R-0 Zone. :F ;:, Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer for the proposed Cract, appeared before the Commission and reviewed maps posted on the wa11, indicating the location of the property and the ad~acent Little League park which would become part of Sage Park, and then reviewed the past history of the Little `:~ League play area. ;: `~~.~ Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission could not consider any area - made for purchase of additional property for the park but only the - appropriateness of the land use proposed for sub~ect property, and i` `~t requested that the agent for the petitioner confine his comments to that i;. ~- only . :i.. . '` `i Mr. Queyrel replied that this was part and parcel of the reason for the ~ '` a~cessway leading to the Little Leaoue park through the proposed tract 5:;,: aince the Parks and Recreation Director stated that the City would not ~„ r< expand Sage Park unless an additional accessway was provided since only r•,,.,.,.,; one existed, that being from North Street and I,ido Place; and that they had been attempting to work out the access problem with City Manager Keith Murdoch and Mr. Collier, the Parks and Recreation Director. •~ Mr. Queyrel further noted that prior to submittj.ng a similar map approxi- mately a year ago, they had a civil engineer make test horings which indicated that there was 3 to 8 feet of debris on a portion of the ~. ~. ~ , f. _ +i:'J~LI ~. . . _ .' . .. . . ' . ' " . ~ . . . . ~ . , .. ~ .. . .. . 1- _ r .. _ . . ~ ~ . _ . _. . ... ., " . " _ _ • . ~i ` . . . . "} . .. . . .l _ ~ _ f . ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX.PLANNING COMMISSION, Mazch 22, 1971 71-133 VARIANCE N0. 2242 - property, and development costs for the two lots affected would have been $13,000; that because of TENTATIVE MAP OF expense involved in moving the debris and replacing TRACT N0. 7198 it with fill dirt, development became prohibitive; (Continued) that the proposed lot size of 7000 square feet com- pared favorably with the ad3acent 7200-square foot lots; and th~n revi~wed the various lots along West Street and adjoining property to indicate that most did not conform with the R-0 Zone site development standards established on the property - therefore, he took exception to the Repcrt to the Commission statement that most of the prqperties in this area conformed with the R-0 Zone. Commissioner Seymour inquired as to other setbacks on the east side of West Street. ~. Mr. Queyrel replied that aome started at 25 feet and ranged all the way `° to 100 feet - however, one lot airectly across from sub~ect property had a 20-foot setback, while most were 25-foot setbacks. Commissioner Rowland then inquired as to the setback on Mr. Queyrel's ~' property which was ~ust o£f West Street on Park Avenue. ~: Mr. Queyrel replied that the setback was 25 feet from West Street - however, he had a side-on to West Street, but the house next door, which was ~ust moved in, had a 25-foot setback, and it was the intent of the developer to have all lots side on West Street. However, by agreement ~ with the adjoining property owner and a condition of escrow, the two -;.,.,;i lots having a side-on on West Street would face West Street but would have vehicular access to the properties from the proposed new street. Commissioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 3:05 P.M. ~ ~'' ' ~: ~. - .~ ~ j `d *'- -..ki ., ; i ~ Mr. Queyrel then noted that the grading cost for the property had increased the cost of the raw land to $9,000 a lot; that it was proposed to have smaller homes which would be comparable with other homes on West Street in this general vicinity, ranging from 1225 to 1325 square feet; that although staff had indicated the homes in the R-0 Zone were required to be 2000 square feet, it was necessary to build in the price range of the ad3oining properties; and that lenders, such as the Anaheim Savings & Loan Association, did not like lending money for construction under certain circumstances, such as where property was ad3acent to a park. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether sub~ect property was all cut and fill; whereupon Mr. Queyrel replied that the entire property had some cut and fill - however, the property to the west was considerably deeper with its cut and fill; that the Brook§ home 4-ould be demolished; that in order to build homes on this property it would be necessary to take out the debris and put dirt back in; and that many of the olde; residents and Mr. Murdoch were fully aware of the condition of the property - however, the soil engineer gave a more scientific report on the composi- tion of the soil. Mr. Robert McMichael, 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, the proposed developer of the subdivision, appeared before the Commission and noted it was planned to have a three-bedroom and family room home of about 1325 square feet and the four-bedroom would be 1525 square feet; that these would be similar to the duplexes built on Pearl Street which were ad3acent to $50,000 to $100,000 homes; that these homes would sell in the vicinity of $29,950 to $31,950, having shake roofs in the front and a combination of wood and redrock in the rear; that the homes would be of Spanish design which would blend in with the neighborhood; and that where lots were wider, it was possible to develop rather attractive homea - however, with a narrow lot, this was extremely difficult. Mr. Richard Maus, 907 North West Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his home was immediately ad3acent to the south of sub~ect property; that the agent for the petitioner was stating that _ - _ , _~ ` r, ~ ~ ~ -- ~ _ ~~ ~ ! 1 ~ ~ ~ 71-134 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 VARIANCE N0. 2242 - properties in this general area were, in reality, R-1 size lots even though the zone was R-0 - however, the TENTATIVE MAP OF R=0 Zone extended from North Street north to the flood TRACT N0. 7198 control channel, and many homes in the area had minimum (Continued) 10,000 square foot lots with minimum 2000-square foot homes; that there may have been some digression from this, but this had occurred prior to the R-0 Zone having been established on the property, and what had occurred in the last eight years were homes ranging in the 2000-square foot class on ~ much larger lots than was proposed, some having an asking price eight ~'` years ago of $50,000 - therefore, the type and quality of home had been w:~:;:-;;:;"R,'~~ established for some time in this area; that the homes that were indicated ~ on the map as being zoned R-1 were required to construct 2000-square foot '~ homes, and if there were aay intervening homes that were smaller, these ;f' were built prior to establishing the R-0 Zone site development standards for the area north of North Street because this area was "old Anaheim" and ~^ - it was like a country area fifteen to twenty years ago when there were little controls; that as a result of establishing the site developmer:t y standards of the R-0 Zone, this area had been growing, and the area was ~ beginning to appreciate in value, and as far as the City was concerned, these property owners had maintained their properties, constructing additions to their properties to retain this high-quallty appearance - therefore, he would request that the Commission not permit any digression from the R-0 Zone requiriag 10,000-square foot lots to permit these ;:~ 7000-square foot lots, or a 33X reduction; that not only was he speaking for himself but for many of the neighbors in the general area who would be affected by the proposed reduction in lot and house size; and that all had agreed that sub~ect property should be subdivided and developed ~~; with lots and homes that were comparable to others now developed in the ~`~ area because this would depreciate the value of the larger homes in the area. ;~ Mr. Maus also noted that the property to the west of the subdivision :y~1 proposed 36 parking spaces - however, this parking would spill over into f the new street and even onto West Street when Little League games were >,'J in progress; that there was a considerable traffic problem on West Street, `'_~~`f which was a thoroughfare; that the Planning Commission had recommended =~ that West Street be widened some time ago - however, that went by the ,;! wayside; and that although the petitioner should be complimented for `' considering giving access to the park, he did not take into consideration t; the excess parking which would spill ouf into the new subdivision from .,ai the park. Chairman Herbst noted that whatever was developed on sub~ect property, there would always be a parking problem, and this was something the City was faced with each day because of the automobile-oriented living environment of Anaheim. Mr. Maus noted that Sage Park was overcrowded, and he would agree sub~ect `;;;~ ~I property should be developed, but there would be considerable traffic I from the parking area of the park. ( Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission had to consider land use and " not overcrowding park facilities of Sage Park. Commissioner Rowland noted that the statements made by Mr. Maus regarding parking should be addressed to the Parks and Recreation Commission since the Planning Commission could do nothing to resolve this problem because this was not within their jurisdiction. a` Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 3:25 P.M• ` ~i Mr. Maus noted that with the addition of the new Little League facilities ; and access through subject property to this Eacility, this would add to ~ an already difficult traffic and parking problem on West Street. 1 `t I ,^~ Commissioner Rowland stated that he welcomed this type of activity for ,~ children rather than having them participate in some other detrimental activity - however, the Parks and Recreation Commission would have to .~kt .:, ~i I ~ , 'y C ` ;~ ; . r 1 i ,~ ~i ~" ~....~ ~ - - . . c ~ . ~ ~ ~ MZNUT.ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-135 ~ VARIANCE N0. 2242 - study the parking problem on the park site, and that • a representative of the Planning Commisa~.on was also TENTATIVE MAP OF on the Parka and Recreation Commisaion sud, therefore, _ TRAC'P N0. 7198 there would be some correlation between the two (Continued) badies. • Mr. Maus again stated that the problem of only 7000-square foot lots was still of ma~or concern before the i;ommission since this was within the realm of zoning; that there would alsu be a minimum parking area in the driveway of each home, with no access to the rear of the lots for the _ storage of recreation vehicles, boats, etc.; and that the average family `~'`4~ had two to three vehicles, therefore, there would always be at least one ,,.`"' vehicle parked on the street within the proposed development. ~~' r Commissioner Rowland noted tha~ the of.f-street parking requirements were :; , the same whether subject propert was zoaed R- Y 0, R-1, or R-2-5000, and if this petition were approved, the parking proposed would qualify uader the ' standards of the zone; and that the problem of no room for campers, trailers, '' boats, etc., was a community-wide problem but was not a consideration before the Commission at this hearing. ~ - Mr. Maus again noted that this would be a problem in the future - there- fore, the Commission should require that the property be subdivided with 10,000-square foot lots in order that this type of parking problem would be minimized because of the possible in3ection of parking by visitors to the park to the west; and that purchasers of these homes would then be most unhappy if they had no parking available on the street for their gues ts . Mr. Don Rees, 999 North West Street, appeared before the Commission in ~ opposition and noted he would take exception to the statements made by Mr. Queyrel; that when he purchased the southerly half of the lot adjacent ;~ to his property in 1956, he had paid $5,250, and upon discussing with Homer Wallace of the Building Division, he had been informed that he could not obtain a building permit because there was 30 feet of fill on the property. Subsequently, his money was returned to him because of this, but he owned a$70,000 home which qualified this as an R-0 area, `~ aad he would hate to see this area go "down hill" by permitting all the '` waivers being asked, which would reduce the type and quality of home in '.~~ addition to the size of the lot, and then inquired where in the petition was the parking lot to the rear of the homes to be considered. "' Commissioner Rowland noted that the tract map did not encompass this parking area, although it was so indicated to give an idea of the access- way and possible parking for the park. Mr. Rees then noted there must have been pressure being placed on the public because the Little League was already developing, and this pressure would appear to be an attempt to have the proposed tract approved; I that he had suggested that the proper procedure would be to condemn the ', property and build a park on the property; and that since he had paid $5,250 for a lot having fill land which was a portion of sub~ect property, this property had not appreciated at all because no change had taken place since he had made his purchase. Commi.ssioner Gauer noted he had been a resident of Anaheim for many years and had viewed this property many times, which appeared to him to look like a desert. {, ~~: ` Mr. Rees then noted that he could not see anyone purchasing this property ; for the development of any type of residential home, and the property ~. should be purchased by the City for a park since that would be the only F,: . use that could be placed on the property. F;: Commissioner Allred noted that the question before the Commission was ~ approval of the tract map and waivers requested, but as to purchasing 'j the property for a park, th3s was not within the 3urisdiction of the Planning Commission, nor could they even make such a recommendation or ~ .~. : ~. i~, ; _ - 4 - ; ~ _ - „; ,~`W: • ._ ' 45 d \ , ~.. . ,~.:r: ~ - ~'`' - ~ . . _ _ . . _ . ... ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, March 22, 1971 71-136 '_ VARIANCF N0. 2242 - consideration, and that as far as he was concerned, ~here had been no pressure placed on the Commission TENTATIVE MAP OF to approva the request, and the Commission would ~ , TRACT N0. 7198 only consider whether or not this was R-0 property (Continued) and if so, were the waivers requested warranted because of some type of hardship. ~ • Mr. Rees noted that the entire area had appreciated considerably because • others who planned on building were required to have minimum 2000-square foot homes, and to permit development of sub3ect property with 1300-square foot homes in this area having 2000-squaxe foot homes would be detri- -.tis~-. mental to the existing residences. ;~ ~ Commissioner Farano returned to the Council Chamber at 3:32 P.M. '~ Commissioner Allred inquired of the engineer whether or not consideration had been given to increasing the lot sizes to 8000 or 9000 square feet _ instead of below the R-1, 7200 square feet since this area was zoned R-0. Mr. Queyrel replied that there were large homes in this area, but they ~ were the exception rather than the rule, and the homes on Redondo Drive _ were small, but the lots to the north were only 60 feet wide, and two lots across the street were only 52 feet wide and were developed with very small homes; that this was the last remaining parcel; tliat the Commission could also consider the fact that there was R-3 zoning to the ~: north and a convalescent hospital - therefore, one must consider the '~' surrounding uses and develop in that fashion in order to obtain the price; that the services of a soils engineer and the removal of debris had increased the cost of readying the property for development for each lot :~,~ of the subdivision; that friends in the industry had agreed to do the work at ao-cost basis, and if they were required to build larger homes, the cost per lot would go to $12,000. ::y ;~ Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not Mr. Queyrel felt that he ; would rather build smaller homes ad3acent to the large $50,000 to $75,000 ~ homes. Mr. Queyrel replied that the existing Brooks home was small but very ,,~ neat, and the depth of the lots wa~ consid:~rable; that the Maus property :, also had several small buildings on it - therefore, the Commission would >°I have to consider the smaller homes immediately adjacent to sub~ect ;'~ property. However, one could not compar!~z the homes north of North Street I~~ ,; with those south of North Stree t w h ic h were very large, and the entire ~" subdivision to the west and south was subdivided with 7200-square foot ~~' lots; that the overlying zone was extended to the east, and there were :yi many narrow lots - therefore, how far should one consider eveluating ~, the worth of the property or development of the land; and that there were 35 pazking spaces for Little League. Furthermore, there was no contact made with the general public to persuade them that the tract should be approved. Mr. Rees then inquired whether or not Mr. Queyrel had a son in the Little ~ ': League; to which Mr. Queyrel replied that he did have a son in the Little ', League. n ' Mrs. Cti~~ 9~North West Street a , ppeared before the Commission and noted that both the Rees and Maus homes were beautiful homes; that a ',`~ home adjacent to the flood control channel sold for $21,000 and another '` on the street sold for only $20,000; that she saw no reason why the ~ proposed development would not be an asset to the area; that the size and shape of the parcel was such that it would have problems in develop- : ing; that she would like to see this weedy, "~unky" parcel developed with '_` homes from $29,000 to $31,000, w'aich could be developed as an asset; that she was in real estate, and when people were in the market for a home they always knew what they would have to put up with - therefore, any problem as to noises from the park would be taken into consideration when people purchased these proposed new homes. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1: .-..~:C ~ -. ~ ~ - : ~4 ,~ ..L.,.:.... . . . _ , - T .~ . . . . ~f ., r - ~ ~ -.- ,rp;~~;y~~~ _ ~ ! t' . . ~ ~ ~ '~ -.a~ MZNUT~S, CITX PLANNING COMMYSSION, Mazch 22, 1971 71-.137 . ." . ~ :-*:. ~ '; i -~ ;.~ VARIANCE N0. 2242 - Commissioner Seymour noted that the petition was a controversial issue and there were merits to arguments TENTATIVE MAP OF Eor both sides; that the engineer of the development TRACT N0. 7198 was of the opinion that the area did not warrant or (Continued) need R-0 residences and tried to prove this area was not truly developed with R-0 zoned homes, or that the lots were the minimum required; that the matter of this property being ad3acent to a park might have some tie-in, but this was beyond the scope of the Commission; that although some of the property was in the R-0 Zone, per se, in his opinion there should be minimum standards imposed, such as R-1, 7200-square foo~ lots, snd if the petitioner would redesign the tract map to meet the R-1 atandards, this might reduce some of the waivers beiag requested. Mr. Queyrel noted that regardless of whether sub3ect property was R-0 or R-1, because of the need for a street through the property, they cculd not meet the minimum setback because this would make the lots too shallow in depth; that it would be difficult to develop a house to meet the minimums set forth for this area, even if R-1 were approved; that only a small portion of the two lots on West Street extended to 15 feet, whereas the ma3or portion was 25 feet, but it would be difficult to place a large size home on the parcel and still maintain the 35-foot building setback required on West Street - therefore, he felt that not all the waivers would be removed, even if the R-1 Zona were on the property. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2242 on the basis that the proposal did not conform with the standards established in the area, and that a minimum of 7200-square foot lots should be developed with homes comparable to the size required for the area in the R-1 Zone, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship existed. On roll call the foregoing resolution resulted in a tie, Commissioners ~:.~ Seymour, Kaywood, and Rowland voting "aye" and Commissioners Allred, '' Gauer, and Herbst voting "no". Commissioner Farano abstained because he was not present for the entire presentation by the agent and the developer. ',~~ ~ Commissioner Seymour further noted that in the findings of the denial ~-~ it was his feeling that the proposed development should conform with the ~ri site development standards of the R-1 rather than the R-0 Zone. ~ - Chairman Herbst inquired how many of the lots did not meet the R-1 Zone requirements; whereupon Mr. Roberts noted that nine of the twelve lots were less than 7200 square feet. Chairman Herbst then inquired of the engineer of the pro~ect whether or not he could meet the R-1 requirement for lot size. Mr. Queyrel replied that most of the lots were almost at 7200 square feet and were short only by 200 square feet; however, it would be difficult to meet this requirement on the south side of the proposed street since the : square footage was only 27,000 square feet, and this would mean eliminat- ing one lot and increasing the size of the lots to almost 10,000 square feet; that their thinking in proposing this •:aas similar to that approved ' in Santa Ana Canyon some time ago - there:ore, it would appear that regardless of whether R-1 was required, a variance still would be 'I necessary. However, they were faced with a limited amount of time - therefore, they decided on t~e variance procedure. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve sub3ect petition. ~: Further discussion was held by the Commission, it being Chairman Herbst's ~~~ opinion that this was one of the problem parcels, particularly since the ^~ lot dimensions were changed wh~n the Carbon Creek Channel diagonally 4' bisected them -*_het he would prefer to have this property developed, ~ ake ; ~ ~ ~ `k ~ . ... . . ., .. - . .. a~ ~_,cy,~. ..::~.~,..-,~ . . ; :. ~ . . _ ~f ~ . ~ ~ ~ - ; i~ .._~ -~:..~..,..-~t' ' - . _ , ~ 'i , ~ . ., - _ ___.. . / ~ ~ ~ MZNUTES, CITY ~LAVNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-138 VARIANCE N0. 2242 - particularly with a developer with whom the City was familiar and who would develop a tract of homes in TENTATIVE MAP OF the city which would up~rade this area; that there TRACT N0. 7198 was a possibility that the property would never (Continued) develop since tiiis property was a former dump site, and removal of the debris and refilling was a very expensive ~ob - therefore, he would consider both the size and shape together with the fact that the composition of the property was a former dump site as being sufficient proof that a hardship existed; that many of the lot sizes proposed were larger than many of the lots in Anaheim, particularly where R-2-5000 square foot lots were permitted to develop; and that the lot size did not necessarily regulate the cost of the home. Furthermore, the overlay map presented by the engineer of the project indicated that if subject petition were considered favorably, then the uses would be similar to those already enjoyed by ad~oining property owners, and perhaps the petition should be continued for the petitioner to resolve some of the problem~ presented to the Commission, with consideration being given to the possibility of granting R-1 through reclassification rather than requesting waivers through a variance. Commisaioner Gauer noted that he wanted to bring out publicly the accusa- tions or innuendoes made that individuals were reached and bought by Commissionerusinc~e 1934nand hadsneversbeennapproachedhto change hisnvote in any way. Furthermore, he would not do so even if he had been approached, and he felt that the members of the Commission and City Council were citizens of high repute, and that as long as he was a member of the Planning Commission, he would not yield to pressure - he was his own maa. Mr. Rees from the audience apologized to the Commission, stating that he had not intended to infer any accusations - however, because the Little League had already started to develop the park and diamond, he felt there could be pressure on the City to develop sub~ect property, but it was not his intent to cast aspersions on any City representative or any one of the residents in the area. Commissioner Rowland noted that many of the problems facing this petition which were being opposed by the reaidents of the area could result in the petition being denied - however, he would like to state that the City was in a period of change in land use policies which should be recognized; that homes that were once considered to be very expensive because they contained 2000 square feet, as time passed, building ~osts and apprecia- tion of land might tend to be developing something that might be considered less habitable by people in this same financial calibre, like interests, age, and convictions, but people who formerly lived in large homes were now moving into smaller homes but were still of the same social status and means as those in larger homes, and this was because of the high cost of land - however, the proposed pro3ect varied too far from norm at this point in time, but he would vote in favor of this property if it could be demonstrated that the waivers requested existed in the area today; that this property could be developed as a planned unit development, thereby negating the waivers because of lot size; that he would not approve a 15-foot building setback on West Street, but he would consider a 25-foot building setback since this already existed; that the yard depth and side yards appeared to be no problem because the quantity of space was not imporCant - what was important was the physical dimension, and these should be findings in the event sub~ect petition was considered favorably. f; Mr. Roberts observed that it appeared a number of Commissioners felt that ~~ subject property could support less than an R-0 subdivision, and if this :.: were so, then perhaps the Commission would prefer to deny the request and recommend that a new petition be filed for a lesser number of lots, or another alternative was to continue subject petition so that the developer could redesign the tract. `, ~ ^5 a ~ 1 I , _ = ~ MINUTES, CI.TX PLANN ING COMMISSION N~h ~~ , 22, 1971 r VARIANCE N0. 2242 - 71-139 Commissioner Farano noted that h :~, TENTATIVE MAP OF e had discussed his abstention vote with lleputy City Attoraey Frank Lowry wh h TRACT N0. 7198 , o ad advised him that he could tender a motion for continuance i ,~ ;.,~,., (Continued) n order to allow him time to review the plana and a transcript of the minutes since he had not been present for the full presentati,on. Mr. Lowry advised the Commissi Commissioner Farano on and interested persons that since held the tie-breakin vot g e, it was within his prerogative to request continuance in accordance with of Ord er. the Roberts Rules Commisaioner Allred withdrew his motion of approval +,: ,~ ti ' . ~, . ~; , ~= •. ' ;~~,: A "~ 'r ~ . .`" l~~!~~~~ ~~ Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2242 and Tentative Map of Tract Nc~. 7198 to the meeting of April 5, 1971, to allow him time to review the ~~lans and transcript of the minutes to acqusint him with the evidence subm::tted and which he had not heard because he was not preseat for the full hearing. Commissioner Gauer seconded S:he motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Seymour noted, for clarification, that at the next meeting it would be in order to offer a new motion or reopen the hearing if there were more evidence to present and for Commissioner Farano to ask questions and receive ans~.ers to any problem areas. RECESS - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recess the meeting, The meeting recessed at 4:10 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:25 P.M., all Commissioaers bping present. pr:~ ~ . . . , ~ _ - _ ~ ~ -.._\5 ' ~ . ~~4~ ~ . il~r t~~~' . - ..'~~ .~t ~ ' [ C '_..~. - .~ . . 'i f ..m.~ ~..s,,..o • -- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-140 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT S. TOUSSAU, 3851 East Howe N0. 70-71-37 Street, Pi•ru, California, Owner; PONDEROSA HOMES, 4570 Campus Drive, Suite 10, Newport Beach, VARIANCE N0. 2241 California, Agent; property described as: .4n irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.5 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 504 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, having a m.aximum depth of approximately 657 feet, and being located approximately 20~ feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) CARPORT BNCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, (2) STORAGE CABINET LOCATION REQUIREMENTS, AND (3) MAXIMUAf DISTANCE FROM A UNIT TO THE CARPORT, TO PERMIT A 157-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to develop a 157-unit, one and two-story apartment complex having a peripheral drive with two access points to Sunkist Street; that 68 units were proposed to be located more than 200 feet from the carport which served the unit, and some were as much as 40 feet beyond the maximum 200 feet allowed; and that the petitioner was also proposing 98 of the carports to be open on all sides, and because of the open carport treatment, the applicant had found it necessary to move the required storage units to the units themselves, Mr. Slaughter, in conclusion, noted that the primary issue confronting the Planning Commission was one of land use and whether this development would be a compatible use with the contiguous single-family homes since the Anaheim General Plan indicated subjPCt property for low-medium density, which was intended to be implemented with R-2-5000 Zone or R-2 Zone having a maximum density of 18 units per net acre, whereas the proposed development would be developed at approximately 24 units per net acre; and that if the Commission determined that multiple-family lanrl use would be appropriate for this site, consideration might be given to limiting the density to that contemplated by the General Plan. Mrs. Ann Madison, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, realtor representing the petitioner and agent, appeared before the Commission, noting the uses established around the perimeter of subject property, emphasizing the fact that commercial zoning was approved along the south, and the freeway off-ramp was proposed on the southeast boundary with R-3 and R-2-5000 developed to the west, which made the proposed zoning appropriate for subject property; that when Sunkist Street extended south of Ball Road and the Orange Freeway was completed, this would add considerable traffic to the street, making it less desirable for single-family residential use; and that although R-1 had been approved on the property, the original developer had backed out of escrow, and for the past two years, due to lack of interest in R-1 or R-2-5000 development because of the price of the property, nothing had occurred. Mrs. Madison then noted that she had been working with the develo~~rs of Ponderosa Homes for so~re months trying to arrive at a compatible use and plan for subject property; that she haa then contacted the property owners adjacent to the north and east - however, they appeared not to be interested in R-3, and the few who were interested requested that if this were approved for apartment development, that a landscape buffer strip be provided, and they were flexible as to the type of carports proposed; that the developer had agreed to a 10-foot buffer strip along the north and also proposed both open and closed carports since the apartment residents would also like to view the landscape strip, and this was possible through the open-type carport proposed; that the developer also agreed to placing a 5-foot landscape strip at th~; terminus of Hilda Street as requested by two of the property owners on Hilda Street who would be affected by the proposed development; and that although a petition might have been submitted by a number of I 1r ~ ~ f~ ~ 71-141 RECLASSIFICATION - property owners, thos~ affected would be on the south N0. 70-71-37 side of Whidby Lane and along the southerly end of Hilda Street, and a petition signed by eight property , VARIANCE N0. 2241 owners indicated no opposition if certain site ~,~. Continued) development standards were met had been submitted and was on file (four of the eight signatures were addresses not adjacent to subject property). There- :. fore, if R-1 or R-2-5000 were developed on the property, two-story homes could be constructed as close as 10 feet from the property line, which would leave adjoining property owners with little privacy, whereas the proposed development would have only one-story apartments behind a ~~~. ~-:---~~ IO-foot buffer strip which would be muc:i more effective than developing ~.,µ.A,. k ~ with single-family homes. # Commissioner Farano noted that Mrs. Madison had stated one of the factors to consider in determinin th `' g at the property was more appropriate for R-3 was the fact that C-1 ~~` ' property was to the south and a service station was proposed at the northeast corner of Sunkist and B ll . '; a Road, as well as the freeway off-ramp, and then inquired whether th e agent felt R-3 was more appropriate; whereupon Mrs. Madison xeplied that the R 3 ~~ - would act as a buffer between the R-1 and the C-1 to the south as well th as to e west. ~; Commissioner Farano then inquired whether or not the z;~ agent would have the same opinion if there were no C-1 to the south. ~ Mrs. Madison stated that the property was appro riate fo C 1 would have some bearin i ~~ g on ts appropriateness, as well as the of£- ramp of the freeway. In addition, with the pros ect f : ~ ' p o extending Sunkist Street, there would be considerably more traffic together with the fact that R-3 had b d ~. een eveloped already to the west and a service station was proposed for both the northwest and th ., ,.:~~€ e northeast corners of Ball Road and Sunkist Street. ,-~ ~'~~± Commissioner Farano then inquired who had applied for the C-1 Zone; whereu on M M c;:•~~ p rs. adison replied that the owner of subject property had C-1 zoning approved on the basis th ~; at the service station had been approved while the property was under the jurisdiction of th C ? e ounty, even though it had not been developed to C-1; and that R-1 ;j ~ , ;, was approved subsequent to the C-1 zoning - however, the prospective developers had backed out f ,;;'•. ,;~ . . a o constructing the homes because of a number of factors ; y ,. ; i~ ~ . Commissioner Farano then commented that the C-1 had bee ; :~ : t n requested by the owner of subject property - therefore, it would appear he had creat d hi h } , n? e own s ardship as it pertained to land development on subj ect property. j~~~' -~' `: Commissioner Gauer noted that the plans indicated 68 units were more than 200 feet ~rom , ~ a carport, which he felt was highly undesirable. f 3 Mr. Doug Simpson, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission representing the developer noti h ~` ; ~ , ng t at the proposed plans were the best for buffering the adjoining properties b ri i ,, ~ y ng ng the property with open carports, and it was his opinion that all units were within the 200-f y oct periphery of all units; that the apartment development to the west, which they also c t ~ '? ons ructed, had some units that were more than 200 feet from a carport, and the units in that develo ment whi h y~ p c were more than 200 feet from carports were immediately adjacent to the swimming pool whi h , :;i , c were the most desirable units in other developments. • ? ` f Commissioner Allred inquired where the developer proposed to provide the storage area for these ~~ '` ~ open carports; whereupon Mr. Simpson replied that the open carports were proposed so that a ry~ ~~ ~ greater expanse of green area would be visible to the tenants of the apartments and the t , s orage would be provided adjacent to the patios oi the apartments, which was far bettcr for th ,•:, : e tenants than having the storage area in the carports, which would not be as accessible . ~Z . as a storage area immediately adjacent to the patio. In addition, these apartments would be geared to d l a u t living only. ~:; '; .~t: , :' i' ' ! ~ ~'„_ .. . _ ~~ - ". . ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ r'~ +~~I: • ' ~ ~ ~ _ . ~. - . . - - - . . . .. ~ ... ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .., . -_- - - ' - - - . ~_ - . ~y_~~ -i . ,~s. ' ~ . "~ ~ ~ c~ t~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-142 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Simpson then reviewed all the multiple-family N0. 70-71-37 ~evelopment occurring along Ball Road and on Sunkist VARTANCE N0. 2241 theeCountytfor apartmentswtolthe westnofathe~exteny Continued sion of Sunkist Street, further noting that they were proposing one unit per 2075 square feet while the that they would extend2the~greenubelt areaunearPtheZdrainagereasementand Chairman H~arbst inquired why the develoner felt that a 5-foot buffer strip was adequate for the sar.gle-family homes to the east and was proposing e; 10-foot buffer strip for those single-family homes to the north; that the Commission normally required devexopment of the property with single-family homes abutting single-family homes; that he felt the single-family homeowners were entitled to protection since the owners of subject property would be gaining in the number of units with the zoning proposed - therefore, these homeowners should be protected with all protection provided by the developer requesting the more intense use of the property. ~ Mr. Simpson replied that one property owner on Hilda Street did not want any setback - however, they would be agreeable to whatever setbacks the Commission would require; that they would attempt to save as many eucalyptus trees along the Hilda Street stub as possible; that some of the property owners on the noxth indicated they wanted all enclosed carports - however, it was their intent to have only t.hose carports opposite the apartments open. i~; ; Commissioner Seymour inquired whether it was the developer's intent to -'~S have the carports along the north enclosed; whereupon Mr. Simpson replied ~j that some of the property owners preferred closed carports, but they would prefer the open-ty~.-: ~arports so that tha apartment tenants could ,.f also view the 10-foot gr~ aelt area; that the proposed development would be basically the sa~n~ as the apartment development on the west side ;'} of Sunkist Street; that they managed their own apartments and did not ~ sell them after construction; and t':at this was the last 7 acres Ieft to ~j be developed in this area. f `~:I Mr. Stuart Noble, 2526 Whidby Lane, appeared before the ~ommission in ~ opposition and submitted a petition signed by 101 single-family hone- ~ owners also in opposition to the ~roposed development and noted that the '' Commission denied R-3 zoning for subject property twenty-eight months ~4 ago, and the master plan at that time did not call for multiple-family ,'.; residential development on the east side or" Sunkist Street - however, '~ since that time, there had been 786 apartments approvea, and with that ``'?i approved by the County west of Sunkist Street extending to Winston Road, ~ an area comprising 60 acres, if develo • ed for p a artments the tot ~ P this would br' al ~.partments in the area , . .ing to 2 486 uni , ts; that a com e real estate broker stated this was R-3 property - however, int1969e the ~ City Council approved subject property for R-1, and three days ago the petit~.oner had asked for an extension of time to meet the conditions of approval of this R-1 zoning; that this land did not abut Ball Road - „ therefore, this could zot be considered being at the intersectio~i of two arterials; that the single-family homeowners' position was the same as it was in 1968, and as a result of the previous action by the Commission, investments and improvaments had been made to the single-family properties; '~ that many improvement companies would not lend for improvements if proper- ( ties were adjacent to R-3 zoned property; that although the petitioner had I indicated these would be adult-only apartments, this would be true only so long as they had adult t~nants, and when apartments remained vacant, it wouid not be long before they permitted children; that the King of Siam ' apartments on the south side of Ball Ro~d had 21 vacant units out of 101, and they recently set aside an area where families would be permitted, although originally they stated this would be an adult-only complex; that there would be many apartment units completed shortly in this area, and it could be assumed this same situation would occur; that even though he was f.ully aware of the fact that the Commission could not take economics ~ into consideration, this was of prime importance to the residents of the '=y - ~-.~:.~35;~~.:::~_..«..,H' . . ~ C ,~.•r. ~,~ -:.::.~;u.. _ _ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~, . .'. ! . . . . . - ~, ~ ~ ~ . ~ I ~ , , - ,i ~ : . ~ .. ~ . . ~ L) MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 70-71-37 VARIANCE N0. 2241 (Continue {J 71-143 - area because of school conditions if many children were permitted in this area; and finally, the real estate agent for the petitioner ha3 advised a number of the single-family homeowners that the City would have to grant R-3 because this was the only land use that could be developed on the property. Mrs. Madison, in rebuttal, stated she wanted to make one thing clear regarding the statement that the City would have to grant R-3 zoning - she did not make such a statement. Furthermore, when she originally contacted Mr. Noble, he had stated he wished he had not opposed the R-3 originally - however, subsequent to that meeting, a very recent meeting was held at which time Mr. Noble advised her he would again oppose R-3 zoning, and that only thirteen homes would be affected by the proposed development. Mr. Simpson also appeared in rebuttal, noting that the opposition's statement regarding loans being unavailable if adjacent to R-3, it would depend upon the comparable zoning in the area, which would determine whether or not the loan would be made. Furthermore, they were fully aware of the number of multiple-family residential units being developed in the area - however, they proposed a majority of their units with two bedrooms. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Slaughter advised the Commission that the service station approved by the County on the northeast corner of Sunkist Street and Ball Road would require the filing and approval of a conditional use permit because of the possibility that residential uses might be within 75 feet. Mrs. Madison advised the Commission that the conditionai use permit was granted while under the jurisdiction af the County, and the property was now owned by the Union Oil Company - thus, they assumed that in the future a service station would be constructed on the property. Commissioner Seymour inquired of staff what type of zoning was requested in 1968, which was disapproved by t:te Planning Commission and City Council. I~, 'V Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that R-3 zoning a'=j together with a conditional use permit for a planned residential develop- 1 ment had been filed, at which time 166 units were proposed, and then read " ' the Commission's resolution of findings for denial. a~ ; Commissioner Farano noted that at the last hearing for R-3 zoning on the ~ property - although he had looked in the minutes for specific discussion ''•~s and could not find this - the general attitude of the Commission was that the General Plan as adopted and amended called for low density, and the ".': Commission's discussion was in view of the fact that the property across '1~ the street was rezoned; that the Commission looked at Sunkist Street as -~' the dividing line for multiple-family development - however, they did 7. recognize that this property would have a slight problera and recommended that 6000-square foot lots be developed; that although the Commission saw a need for some high density, the Commission still did not feel that subject property should be R-3, and R-2-5000 was even discussed but the A Commission decided that was also too dense; that the property to the south was zoned C-1, and this was specifically zoned at the request of Y;~ the petitioner since a portion of the zoning had been established in the _~ County and was not tne recommendation or conversation in discussion of the Commission's attitude since they felt it was incompatible with the ~' area and was not the manner o:' development for the area. Furthermore, the ;'' '~ area was still much the same a~ when the Planning Commission considered it '° '' before, and if there were any hardship to consider as it pertained to ~`; :, C-1 zoning, it was self-imposed and should not be taken into consideration ~: " as being the criteria for granting a more intense zoning for subject ;;;- property. ;~ - ~ t,- .~e <' 4-~ - . . ::z .. . r ~-. ~...rr, a,~..~ ~ «.s~. . ~ ~ . , . . . ~ ~ _ ,-.: `^~~~~BE, ~~~- C K.y~.~!~ ~ ' ' S ` ~ . . . .~. . ~ \ . ~ . . ^ 1 r ....,...~.e.~....--- I: ~ ~:. - i r `. MINUTES, 4 y PLANNING COMMISS ~~~ ~~-_i ION, March 22, 1971 71~144 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Herbst noted that he had viewed the R-3 NO. 70-71-37 property on the west side of State College Boulevard and reassured himself that this was a tragic mistake. VARIANCE NO. 2241 A 10-foot wall abutting R-2-5000 or R-1 homes might • (Continued) make the property attractive to the R-3, but when it was adjacent to single-family homes, it made it look like a jail, and he would never again vote for a high wall but would insist, again, that a 20-foot landscape setback strip be provided which single-family hameowners needed as protection since they had been established there prior to any R-3 use being proposed. : Commissioner Gauer noted that at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue °~;•` and Rio Vista Straet the Commission had required R-1 homes abutting R-1 ,,,.~; homes, with R-2-5000 on the opposite side of the street - therefore, °~ ' this be required, or a minimum 20-foot strip of landsca in be ~ ~ to relocate the vehicles away from the homes because the exhaustrcouldd asphyxiate the single-family :~omeowners when the wind was blowing just right. ' Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No, PC71-45 and moved for its ' passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of ,~ Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-37 on the basis that no land _ use changes had taken place on the east side of Sunkist Street to warrant favorable consideration of the proposed land use change; that although the property to the south was zoned C-1 and the claim of the petitioner that buffering between the existing single-family uses and commercial uses had been favorably considered in the past, the petitioner had ; created his own hardship by requesting and obtaining the commercial zoning, and che fact that there was C-1 zoning to the south could not ~~ constitute a reason for a ri Planning Commission at theProving R-3 zoning for the property; that the ;; previous public hearing for a multiple-family residential zone request recognized the possible difficulties with devel- ?~ opment of the property and recommended as an alternat•, to an R-1-7200 ~ subdivision that a single-family subdivision of 6000-square foot lots ~ would appear to be appropriate under these circumstances; ane that the ~. proposed reclassification would be incompatible with the~single-family residential development on the property to the north and east. ~`` s; i Resolution Book) (See {;.~ >s :_i Prior to voting, Commissioner A11red noted that since R-3 zoning had ;' developed along Ball Road and to the west of subject property, it would y ~ appear much more desirable to have this developed for R-3 the 20-foot landscape buffer strip were developed adjacent to~theesingle- r~ family homes on the north and east since R-1 zoning could permit two- ' story construction, whereas the petitioner would be required to maintain ! single-story construction within 150 feet of both the north and east ` property lines. " ~ Commissioner Rowland noted that one of the major changes since the last -,'~ time R-3 zoning was considered for subject propertp was the fact that R-3 had been developed on the west side of Sunkist Street, and the development before the Commission was essentially reasonable, although some of the waivers requested were self-imposed; that with a density : more in keeping with the low-medium designation, these waivers would _~< aisappear; and that if this conformed in every respect with the R-3 hePwpuld thencbetin~favor of2the~reclassification and~variancerequired, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. ~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Rowland. ~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-46 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2241 on the basis ,' + that the Commission recommended denial of the reclassification of subject property, thus subject petition would no longer be valid and, therefore, ~Z was denied. (See Resolution Book) ~- .~:t s ~ ~ _. ^ : ~ ~ f,~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-145 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed NO. 70-71-37 by the following vote: VARIANCE NO. 2241 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, • (Continuedj Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ASSENT: COMM2SSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HE~,RING. MYRNA MYRON, 4455 LoG Feliz PERMIT NO. 1228 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; ROBERT _ MOONEY, 121 Ea~t Mason Street, Santa Barbara, ~~ California, Agent; requesting permission to have -:,,.:..~ ON-3ALE BEER AND WINE IN A RESTAURANT on property described as: An ' irregularly-sha ed ~ p parcel of land located at the northeast corner of State Colleqe Boulevard and Center Street, having approximate frontages ,, of 157 feet on State College Boulevard and 164 feet on Center Street, and further described as 100 North State College Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~ subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to conduct on-sale beer and wine as an incidental use of the property, the primary use being the sale of food; that the applicant stated the sale of beer and wine other than as a beverage accompanying a meal was > not solicited; and that the Planning Commission might wish to determine ~, ~r°. whether the proposed on-sale beverage sales would be detrimental to the i~ surrounding land uses. Furthermore, when the walk-up restaurant to the - s! north was approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1037, the Planning Commission required dedication of vehicular access rights to the alley and construction of a block wall along the property line in order to ,~ preclude commercial use of the alley; therefore, since subject property _j abutted the same alley, the Commission might wish to consider having ..l dedication of vehicular access rights and the construction of a wall along ~ the alley - however, when the C-1 zonin was a `~ requirement of the zonin a g PProved, this was not a p~ g pproval - and if there still was concern over w the commercial use of this alley, the Commission might wish to require ,:. ';I dedication of vehicular access rights and provision of a wall separating ~~ the property from the alley as a condition of approval. r J '~ Mr. Robert Mooney, aqent for the petitioner, appeared before L•he ~ , Commission and noted he was the architect of the develonme~t; that the `, ,::~ sale of beer and wine was only to accommodate diners an3 wauJ.d be o;~y ~.,.-,•~; incidental to the sale of food; and that there would be nc• }~ar on the ;f premises, and only one type of beer and wine would be sold. ~;'~ Mr. Mooney further noted that if access to the alley were prohibited, this would defeat the sanitation requirement of pick-up from tne alley. Chairman Herbst noted that a serious traffic conflict and hazard had been created by having both ingress and egress on State College Boulevard, and this could be resolved by the petitioner having only egress to State College Boulevard and ingress and egress on Center Street; and that he had experienced great difficulty in gaining access and leaving the premises because the traffic flow was not compatible with normal traffic on State College Boulevard. `.?r', Mr. Mooney suggested that perhaps the bumper strips along the alley could be removed; that he had discussed this problem with staff since the plan was approved originally without the bumper strips along the ~;, alley. i; Chairman Herbst ir.quired of staff whether these bumper strips would h-: adequate. ~`'- : Zoning Sup~rvi.sor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that staff preferred no lsigress to the alley since this could lead to having :,; commercial traffic through a residential area; that if the Cemmission *;; . ./:t . ' ~c:~` ~ ' ~~ _ .. y ;c~i . e ~ ... ' . ~ i ^ ~ ,,... ~:~ t.~ L.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-146 . CONDITIONAL USE - felt the masonry wall along the alley was not PERMIT NO. 1228 necessary, at least dedication of vehicular access (COntinued) rights should be required since, from a legal standpoint, access could not be prohibited unless so required by said dedication. ~: Commissioner Rowland noted that the interests of the City could best be served by knowing a traffic problem existed, and he would suqgest reorganizing the traffic ftow and parking pattern as it applied to r~ access to State College Boulevard, permitting egress only to State College Boulevard; that only two parking spaces should be removed from ,,,,:. ;;::,r. ' the northerly property line so that traffic as it entered off Center ~ ,;; Street could also exit to the alley - if the egres~ to State College ~: Boulevard were stacked, this would then allow the patron to have exit to ;~. State College Boulevard through the alley by way of the space made avail- able by removal of two parking spaces, and parking area along the north should be re-stripECi and by so doing, traffic would normally circulate to -~~ '~ State College Boulevard, since only in rare instances would traffic exit to the residential area to the east. This would also resolve the back-up ~ problems to State College Boulevard presently existing. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~;; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :,';~~ Commissioner Rowland affered Resolution No. PC71-47 and mo~-ed for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1228, subject to having the parking area re-striped along the north side K' of the building in such a manner that the driveway to State College Boulevard would have egress only, and a second egress should be provi_ded !;~~ to the alley to the north. (See Resolution Book) ;;.: :~F. ~`u.;~;':;`~ Cn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~s ,;~ ,i.~~'~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, 3~ t ;,f! Seymocr. . t^, ,~?'~q~)~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. 3ii""'':'.''~'ti7 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~" °`' CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES R. AND PHYLLIS M. TALMAGE, ~~ PERMIT N0. 1229 10432 Center Drive, Villa Park, California, Owners; ;<.;;ti„tya requestinq permission to ESTABLISH A STORAGE FACILITY ',=':~ FOR BOATS, TRAILERS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITH WAIVER OT (1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED ~'`~`': LANDSCAPED SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly-shaped " parcel oE land consisting of approximately 2.2 acres, having a£rontage ~ of approximately 385 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approx.imately 310 feet, and being located approximately ~2 opposite the terminus of Howell Avenue, and further described as 2300 - ~ East Katella Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, _ . r :~ ZONE . Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a letter was on file from the petitioners reqUesting a two-week continuanc:e of ~;:: subject petition. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue Petiti~n for Conditional Use Permit No. 1229 to the meeting of April 5, 1971, as requested by the ~1. w petitioner. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. :~;~ '. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. XY2 INVESTMENT FUND, 5152 Beach ~r PERMIT NO. 1230 Boulevard, Buena Park, California, Owner; ROBERT CRANDALL, 1279 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, 'j California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 218-SPACE TRAVEL TRAILER PARK WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.2 acres, having a frontage of .spproximate:y ~:; .fkt .. 1 ' . ~ 3~.' . .. _.. r'. . ~ . ~ " . _ . _ .'~~_ ~ S.F . .- ~ . . ' . ~ ~ _ ' : . 4 _ _` - , i' ,~ :; ~...::.--- i >..: ` I , _ - i ~ ~~ ~ ~ I~~NUx~~~ CZTY ~LA,NNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-147 CONDITIONIIL USE - 540 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, having PERMIT NO. 1230 a maximum depth of approximately 500 feet, and being ;:;Y., (Continued) located approximately 800 feet north of the center- - line of LincoZn Avenue. Property presently classi- ;' fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 218-space travel trailer park with waiver of the minimum _ required front setback, noting that the park would be developed sub- '``-' F stantially in accordance with the proposed Travel Trailer Park Ordinance c "~~ which the Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council for "-"• adoption; th.at the only deficiencies from the proposed ordinance were ' the minimum required recreation area and minimum vehicular access; that :~ a minor modification of the site plan would correct these deficienciQS; ,; that the proposed masonry wall and building were located 15 feet behind - the Beach Boulevard right-of-way line, whereas the R-A 2one would require ? a minimum 25-foot setback; that the onl access to the Y park would be from ; Beach Boulevard, and discussion with the Traffic Engineer indicated that :~ the proposed driveway should be relocated due to the potential traffic conflicts along Beach Boulevard, and in view of this, the Interdepart- mental Cammittee had recommanded that the driveway location be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Furthermore, the Commission would wish to determine whether the proposed land use was appropriate at this _ location, and if so, the Commissian might wish to discuss with the applicant the proposed method of waste disposal from the self-contained trailers. ~,; Mr. Joe Bonadiman, 1265 Kimball, San Bernardino, appeared before the ?'~ Commission, stating he represented the agent for the petitioner and wanted to discuss the relocation of the entrance to the park since he °,;..t,~ had discussed this with the Traffic Department, anc they did not recall ''- ,_;y making such a recommendation. Office Engineer .'ay Titus advised the Commission and the agent that the ~ ` y State Division of Highways was involved in an improvement program on ~ " ?~ Beach Boulevard, constructing medians, islands and openings in the medians ' , and a check was made to determine if this entrance would conform with the ;, ;`j State's plans - however, it was determined that it did not conform with ::;;~'i median openings on Beach Boulevard, and if their entrance were not re- ,;;.:.sj ' ' located, traffic conflicts could result - therefore, staff recommended ; ;:t this be relocated to conform with the openings establishe3 by the 5tate ;'~~ Division of Hi.chways along Beach Boulevard, and tnis was to be subject ~.~ to the approval of the City Engineer. Mr. Slaughter noted for the Commission that this matter had been dis- ~` cussed with the City Ehgineer on March 19, it being determined that the ;" access was just north of the center divider. break and north-bound traffic could not enter this park at this entrance - h~~wever, this could be _:~, accomplished if the entrance were mcved slight].y northerly. Mr. Bonadiman stated that since staff had suggested that this be re- designed to conform with what was proposed or developed by the State - ` for the median, if this could be diacussed further so that they would ' . ` be in agreement with the Engineering Department and the State since he ? ` r, was not desirous of creating any hazardous situation. '. y Mr. Titus noted that a condition of approval was that access be subject f- to approval of the City Engineer, and this would be covered adequatelp r.,' ' as far as discussion was concerned. Mr. Bonadiman then continued by stating that he was unaware that waivers were necessary becaas he had attempted to meet all the new Travel Trailer Park Ordinanc,. requirements which the Commission approved and recommended to the City Council; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles ` Roberts noted that because the R-A 7.one required a 25-foot setback and subject property was R-A, this was the reason for advertising the waiver. a . ~ ' i . -- ,_. . . . . . . .. .. , r~. . ,, _ -. ';~r3~_4 _ ~ ' - . ' . . ` ' ._i ' t ~.. ~ . i ~ , ' . ; 1 :~ ~ L~ {J MINUTES~ CzTSC PLANNxNG COMMISSION, Mazch 22, 1971 71-148 CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the developer PERMIT NO. 1230 planned a dump station on the site. (Continued) Mr. Bonadiman replied that all spaces would be completely sewered, which would mean traps would be available for dumping. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that prior to the meeting he had discussed this problem with the Assistant Chief Building Inspector, who advised him that the proposed plumbing facilities required for this project would take care of this item_ ~:<,;~f Mr. Bonadiman noted that when a park was designed and was completely ~, sewered, this would more than meet the State and Federal requirements. &1 Commissioner Farano noted that where there were new parks and small, young trees were planted, until these trees grew up, the travel trailer parks would look like a Iarge parking lot - therefore, something should ~ b~ done about planting of trees within the park itself rather than on the periphery:..' just _ Mr. Bonadiman advised the Commission that there were plans to have 15- qallon trees on 30-foot centers, which worked out to one tree per lot , and all lots woul@ have pull-through facilities except on the perimeter %, . Commissioner Allred noted that there were many travel trailers which ,,:,E! were more than 24 feet, and with a maximum 20-foot car, this would be more th th l ~ an e ot size which averaged 40 feet; whereupon Mr. Bonadiman _;~; replied that their design criteria was in accordance aith the types of t ;' visitors to the city, since Anaheim would be having people come into the cit to st f ~ ' y ay or a day or so, and they would be usinq their automobiles; that the majorit of th i • ~~ y e v sitors would be arriving with travel trailers as o d - : ppose to motor homes or campers;.and that these people would come !..~ in and unhook their automobiles; that the majority of the travel trailers in California were less than 20 feet and those throughout the United States were smaller than that; that they did not design a park for the maximum because the property was too valuable; that the demand was great f '; or this type of facility - therefore, the demand for space for larger y trailers would be less; and that of the 100 manufacturers there were <?"7Y ": ; , only 10 who made coaches in excess of 32 feet, and most of them were less th 30 ~ ; an feet. ;`~~ ~ 'w Commissioner Rowland inquired as to the rental fee proposed; whereupon : ~ n, '~ Mr. Bonadiman stated it would be about $7 per night in the "on season" ,,ri. and $4 per night in the "off season". ?.`;; Commissioner Rowland noted that at the "off season" rate the developer ":= would be accomplishing the same thing that the Commission was attempting ~ to do - and that was discouraging providing a livinq environment that a would not be an asset to the community at large during the "off season" ;,~ such as monthly rentals. n _ '~ Mr. Bonadiman stated that the only way to protect an operation of a park in the city would be the economics of. the park, and this type of tenant :, ~ would be patronizing a substandard pa±-Y,. !;' r~ Commissioner Rowland noted that travel trailers were cheaper than an apart- ~~ ment which could not be rented with the facilities provided and which would be commensurate with community values - many times he had seen people with trailers and six children - therefore, this would be a ~~~ cheaper means of living than in an apartment, and economics was a factor. ~:,, Mr. Bonadiman noted that the success of a park was through "word of 2;:: mouth", and many parks did not want to get a bad name, and sugqested this could hurt the occupancy rate. Commissioner Rowland then asked Mr. Bonadiman that since he was the .t _ consultant who appeared before the Commission when the Travel Trailer Park Ordinance was being considered at public hearing, what would he ° suggest as a positive method of "heading off" an abuse that woul~' harm `~,-~ the community and the industry. j ~t ' 'i , __', _. . ; ~ n . _ - , '~ _ _ - ~ - . ~_~ . t ~. ~ ~~ ' ,~ ~ , ~ . ~ , -, ~ ~ 9el M2NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-149 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Bonadiman replied that some parks limited the PERMIT NO. 1230 stay, but he did not know of any areas where a (Continued) time limit was set on a travel trailer park. Commissioner Seymour noted that since each park had ' " to be approved by a conditional use permit, if this abuse were noted, , ' ;. ; , the conditional use permit could be revoked. ; '; ' _ Mr. Bonadi,sr. then stated there were also health problems, and the , conditional use permit vehicle could be used to establish a time limit - - ~-: however, he did not feel this would be a problem since he had never seen _ ;,~~, ~ it develop in this typ~ of recreation vehicle park. However, this might ;1~ ' ~;~,;; be a problem use in the desert or in a retirement area where people were ~~ prone to stay a considerable len9ti~ of time - therefore, he would suggest two possible solutions to the problem, those being, limiting the time of _ the use being established - for instance, for two years - which could be _ :`a reviewed by the Planning Commission, and if this problem existed, then t a time limit of four weeks could be established for a maximum stag. -~' Continued discussion was held by the Commission and Mr. Bonadiman ' '~ regarding the manner and means of controlling more permanent tenants. The Commission then inquired of Mr. Bonadiman what was planned for the area marked "natural ground" since it was their opinion this should be landscaped or at least covered with colored rock; whereupon Mr. Bonadiman s.u:: replied that this area would not be left bare but would be planted with ;~; ,,; plans or shrubs - however, there would be no colored rock. ~:~; ;_',~ Commissioner Kaywood then inquired why the developer was proposing only _ a 15-foot setback from Seach Boulevard. `=:i '~ Mr. Bonadiman replied that under the new Travel Trailer Ordinance, 15 ,~v~ feet was the requirement, and in the desiqn ali requirements of that _ s.j ordinance were maintained. '; Mr. Roberts also noted that in addition to the 25-foot setback required in the R-A 2one, the maximum size of a sign would be 20 square feet; there- ;_{ fore, if a larger sign was proposed, this would hava to be approved under a ~ :•:,,,~ variance since the sign waiver was not advertised - however, if the ;! petitioner met all oP the requirements of the C-1 Zone and the property _ ` were reclassified to the C-1 2one, then a larger sign would be permitted. ~~:i Furthermore, this sign would have to be located in the center 20$ of the ` ''~' Beach Boulevsrd frontage. Therefore, he would suggest that the zoning '`?:;~.~ be completed since the setback in the C-1 2one was only 10 feet. ~a v.',:;}: Mr. Bonadiman replied that the locations of travel trailer parks were ' well advertised in brochures for the travel trailer puhlic - there£ore, ,~_: i a large sign would not be necessary, and perhaps the size permitted in " the R-A 2one wou2d bz adequate. However, he did not think the owners of ;3, the property wanted C-1 zoning for the property at this time. -~z ? ~:=' A petition of opposition signed by 23 residents north and west of the `",`; property was read to the Commission. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~; The Commission ir.quired whether or not any access to the alley to the ~. west was planned and whether or not this could be a requirement of =• dedication of access rights to the alley with only a crash gate for E.~. - . :. =' . fire and police protection. y:<. s.:: . ,, : ~;;?:~ Mr. Bonadiman noted there was no intent to use these alleys to exit ~',.'°: :•` because a wall protection was groposed. The Commission then inquired as to the height these trailers would be ' ' and how far above the wa11 would they extend; whereupon Mr. Bonadiman j replied that the hei.ght wou'Ld be about 8~ feet, with a slightly higher footage with a fewer high t:railers; that it was their intent to set back some distance from the residential uses - however, adjacent to the * ~, ~ ~ ..s i , . i- ~ ~ V MINUTES~ CITY pLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71~150 CONDITIONAL USE - 2ody property there would be no need for a setback PERMIT NO. 1230 because there ~+ould be only trucles viewing the tops (Continued) of the trailers. Commissioner Allred noted that if subject petition were approved, a condition could required landscaped setbacks and trees and shrubs which would eventually hide from view the tops of these campers. Mr. Bonadiman replied that it was their intent to have the park with a pleasant appearance adjacent to thp R-1 on the north, and by providing additional setbacks, this difference could be picked up elsewhere, but there was also the problem of drainage to consider. Mr. Roberts inquired of the Commission whether or not they wanted to review the Travel Trailer Park Ordinance - in view of the comments made by the Commission since there appeared to be some flaws in the proposed ordinance. However, it was now being reviewed by the City Attorney before the City Council held a public hearing; whereupon the Commission requested that both the Travel Trailer Park and Mobilehome Park Ordinances be referred back to them before going to the City Council, but with the comments and recommendations of the City Attorney. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the staff had done extensive research on both of the proposed ordinances and had consulted experts, as well as having experts present at public hearings - however, it would appear there still were problems to iron out. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the City Attorney had expressed grave doubts as to the constitutionality of the proposed ordinances. Commissioner Allred noted that the reason for requiring a buffer strip was hecause the petitioner was requesting a density greater than R-1 or R-3, and in the past the Commission had attempted to protect residential uses, particularly R-1; therefore, he could see no reason why the R-1 in the City of Buena Park should not also be afforded this protection. Commissioner Rowland then noted that if the agent for the petitioner would stipulate to meeting the requirements of the proposed ordinance and he could "live" with them, then he would consider this favorably, and then make changes to the ordinance after the City Attorney had determined the legality of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Bonadiman stipulated tY~at they could "live with" the standards set forth in the proposed Travel Trailer Ordinance, and the reason for that was they wanted to have a gaod park in the city, but since a time limit was involved, they did not want any delays because it was hoped to have the park open for the influx of vacatiuners this summer. C~mmissioner Seymour noted that perhaps a precedent would have been set by having a 20-foot green belt and open parking in an alley. Mr. Bonadiman stated that since the Commission was attempting to break up the stark appearance of the travPl i.railer park adjacent to residen- t:ial uses, if he could devise a means by which a hetter plan could be presented and staff felt that one tree in the center of each lot would be adaguate with said trees being 3 feet from the wall, if the trees •,rere farther away from the wall, this would make it difficult for trailers to back up since the trailers had to be at least 6 feet from the wall, and the farther awa~ storage of trailers was required, little could be accomplished in having a better appearance since the size of these lots was larger than average, and that he felt the trees together with the 6-foot setback of the trailers would be sufficient to carry out the intent of the Commission. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-48 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1230, subject to conditions, providing 15-gallon trees on 30-foot centers and low shrubs which shall be planted in a 10-foot wide planter strip L' . ~ "~.,..-s'i.:. ' ^~ ~ ~ _ ~~,~.~~~~ ~ f ~ , ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 ~~~ 71~151 CONDITIONAL USE - along the nc=th proper~y line and in 6-foot wide PERMIT NO. 1230 planter strips along the south and west property (Continued) lines, and the stipulation by the petitioner that all lots within the travel trailer park wnuld be equipped with sewer traps and no recreational ;! vehicle storage wou~d be permitted on the property. (See Resolution sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '.:~. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ~~ `"'~~',, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ?AF ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. '',~~ _ Commissioner Seymour left the Ccuncil Chamber at 6:25 P.M. VARIANCE NO. 2239 - PUBLIC HEARII3G. THE HERTZ REALTY CORPORATION, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 350, Los Angeles, ~ California, Owner; GEORGE MIRRICH, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1133, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requasting WATVER OF PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT RENTAL OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES on _ property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a `;r,, frontage of approximately 112 feet on the north side of Katella Aventte, having a maximum depth of approximately 246 feet, and being located approximately 157 feet east of the centerline of Clementine Avenue, and further described as 221 West Katella Avenue. Property presently :,-;,; classified C-1, GENERPIL COMMEArIR;L, ZONE. ~V'~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~ subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal ~-.~~ to add the rental of recreational +~ehicles to the existing automobile ':r! rental agency, noting that the e:isting car rental agency was approved .:;.~ prior to requiring a conditional use permit; that the petitioner was sr `~ also proposing a wash area and an additional gas dispensing unit to service the vehicles - however, the Commission would wish to determine ~_~'~ whether the proposed use would be appropriate ~a the Commercial- !;`~ Recreation Area and whether rental af these vehicles would be providing a needed service to the tourist trade in the area and~or to the community - at large; and that if it wexe determined that the use was appropriate, `~''h' then perhaps the Commission would ~ike to consider requirinq a 6-foot '":`~~ masonry wall at the setback line al~ng C1e~entine Avenue and adjacent to ~~r the service statian in order to screes. the storage from public view. :`: Mr. George Mirrich, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented a brochure of the type of vehicles they proposed "; to rent, noting that they had a similar operation in Gard.en Grove and ~ne ~ in Santa Ana. ,_,s Commissioner Kaywood inquired why tfse petitioner felt he needed an i~ additional gas dispensing pump unit. _, Mr. Mirrich replied that they did not plan to have another gas dispensing unit; that there would be no sanitary facilities for dumping since '`~ arrangements were made to use the Vacationland facilities; that they plann,~d to put up lights and gates; that the interior of the vehicles would be cleaned on the premises, and the exterior would be done by the ;~;, carwash down the street; that they planned to have approximately 20 = vehicles on the premises and only for rental purposes; that they had '~ done an extensive study and determir.ad that the proposed service would ~~~ ; benefit the community as a whole since there would be an expenditure of E,- %'> $15 per person per day over and above the rental of the vehicles; and that the minimum rental would be $200 per week and a maximum $275 per week, with 12fi per mile additional. t Commissioner Y.aywood noted that the present plans indicated a chainlink fence and inquired whether or not the petitioner had considered a 6-foot masonr} wall. ~; .,1~e : - .~ ~ ~ ' ~ T _- _ _ * !, - ~.11 . . . -. ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ - . . i~ .. .RT~~•~ . ~ .. .. . ~ _ . . Y ~ V .~~ ~; i -. .._.-- C~ ~ --- ____--- MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIpN, March 22, 1971 ~~~ 71-152 VARIANCE N0. 2239 - Mr. Mirrich countered with the possibility of a (Continued) redwood slat fence - however, the Commission felt that a 6-fnot Masonry w,;7,1 should be required adjacent to the Clementine Av~ni.e frontage, No one appeared in c~position ta subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission on whether or not to require a 6-fo,t masonry wall adjacent to tne service station; whereupon Mr. Mirrich replied the Commission that thc~:r ~.~hicles wo+a?d not be seen from the service station site because of the many lar~.:~ r.rucks park~c~. on said service station site. Cnmmissioner Allred cffered Resolution No. PC'1-49 and r.,~y~r~ for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Varian~e No: 223a, subject to construction of a 6-foot masonry c~1].1 to the rr:ar of i:he ceZuired 3-foot landscape strip o.~ c;.lemeatim~~ :=,venue; that the pe:.'_tic~ne.r had stipulated to no afid•;tiona.Z ~Yas dispznsing units and no cu.rc,«Sy~ or dumping on the site. (See k_;;ci .tion Book) On roll call the f'oregoing resolution was passed ~y the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Far~nn, r, NOES: auer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. COMMISSIONER~: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. VARIANCE NO. 2240 - PUBLIC HEARING. MARY MATUCHANSKY, i;/o Eve~rett J. Beesley, 1034 C. C. Chapman Building, 756 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Owner; RINKER DEVELOPMENT COD?ORATIOIY, 2. O. Box 2218, Anahe'm, California, Agent; reques~.ing permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION NOT AT THE INR•ERSECTIUN OF TWO MAJOR, PRIMARY OR SECONDARY HIGHWAYS on Prop>_rty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land. located at the northeast corner of Brookh »rst Street and Orange Avenue, having approximate frontages of 150 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street ~ and 150 feet on the north side of Oranqe Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENEF~L COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning ;up~r~;i5ur Malcol~.~ Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established :n close proximit;~, an~ the proposal to establish a service sta*_ion at the northea~t cerner oi` Srookhurst Street and Orange Y~venL:e in ~he C~1 7,one, wherea:. Code would permit a servine station to be established only at the i~eter5ectir~n of two arterials, noting that the prcoerty up uatil six months ago was d~veloped with a service statzor. - a nanr_~.nE~:r~irg use - b.owever, tnat station had been demolished, ther~rore, sny non~:onforming rights which that service station had, ceased; and that the p~•timary ques•tion before the Commiasion was whether thi,s location was appropriate for the use. Therefor2, in order to make such a determinatior., the Commission wou£d have to consider not only the impact of this ~a.rticular use on the surrounding land uses, but the potential impact of service stations in the city generally - and staff had prepared a survey of service stations throughouc the city showing the vacancy factoz which occurred durinq 19?(; (see Report to the Commission). In addition, if the Commission felt the reques;:ed variance should be granted, the Commissicn might w.isn to consider ::he desirability of requiring access to the b.ays from tI:e r~=ar of the servicc station, away from the street. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney representing the a3ent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted t:!~a~t he t~.d discussed traffic problems with the Traffic Engineer as they pertaine3 t~ the definition oz' streets and traffic - therefore, the question of traff:c on the street would be no problem since a highway as projected on the Generai Plan was for potential volumes and not actual da31y volumes; and that there was far less traffic on orange Avenue - however, Brookhurst Street was ranked as the third heaviest-travelled street in the city, ~, _._•.•rc.:. _ - , _~ ~ ~ - : - . ~ ~ - ,* + 4F~ ''~~~r~' / - _" "__ . . ~r _ ~ ' ' . . ~ _ ~ "l ~ ~_.. ..." "_ _ _' ' e ~ MINUTES, CzTY PLANNING COMMISSION, tinzch ~~, 1971 71-153 VAf22ANCE NO~ 2240 - Mr. Knisely cnen noted thaC the petitioner-agent (Continue~; :EsJrmerly o~erated a service station across the street , `r~am subject praperty - hor~e-rer, this was now closed, r and it was the oiY company'ss intent to c~nstruct a , new service station on subject proper}y bacause the site was larQer than ,~ the former site, and the oil com an w ~ P y as in the orocess of ::uilding larger, ~ better facilities - therefore, the er.isting site of tb: !.cabil Oil gas station was ixcsufficient to accammodate the neF~ sexvi~ce station facilities. ~ Mr. Gerald Builer, representing ttie agen+_ for the petitioner, a;ared ~, ( before the Cont~ission and noted that the Mobi3 Oi]. Company hzd ..:e ~,r~ considerable r,nanges to their ma•~-,;eting policy anii presentl~- had new ~ ra stations at isroo;;hurst S~.rP~t a;~i3 ,L:•.ncoln Avenue a~d another on Ka:.=11a ~F~ ~ ' Avenue. E , 4 ,('~ . t P,''t~ ; Chafrman Herbst inquir_~d wtethe;. it was the petiii.;,n,~r';; intE~nt to -emove t> ;,; ?1 the c•-~:isting servicc: statiun bu~ld:°.ng at the northwest corncr of this ~ , ~` inte.r:+ection if d;:velopment uccurr..,3 on subject property. ~ ~ Mr. Butler rep].ied that th.~:3 service a~tat~on had been thFre for fifteen r, f ~ years - however, he did not know if the buil.ing would b= removed. Comm:Cssioner Far~no inquired wllether or not ±:he same p,~rrator of the ' service station a~ the northwest corner would also ope:rate this service % =' station; whereupon a negative reply was received. ',c ', Mr. R~~bert Graham, 9901 Paramount Boulevard Down~ !' MobiZ Oil Com an ~ Y. represeiating the ~ p y, .appeared before the Commission ar•.d stated that they ` •~,, had a successful stai?.on at that i.ntersection ~or many years - however, '~;, in oxcler to keep up with ~he currc:xit trend, they wouTd have had to remodel ~i their =xisting site, and sinr.e it was not arge enou3h to accommodate the ~j new _s:rvice station bu3lu~n,• ar.d ~umps, thep did not r.e iew their leas-e. , :j Howevrr, since subject proper;,y :ras available, they felt it was better to ,• ~~ ~ rPlocs:i2 to the proposfd site• and have a new service station. Further- :~ more, there was a vi~ibi.l?.~y p.c~oblem at the northwest corner which was ~ ~~ not sa r,n e•:bject propezty. Tn addition to that, staff had suogested ` that thN l~ays have rear entry - however, this would give a close;: appear- ~~ ance WI1YCf: cauld be a deterrent to a successful business - therefore~ if ~~ subjr;ct petitian were approved, they would re4uESt that no cond:ition be ,;! ,;'~ attached r~quiriny rezr e:,cry to the ba3•~ be mac?2. :i No one appeared .En ogposition to subject petition. 4~~ :~ i;j THE HEARITiG WAS C:LOSF.D. `~~ ~ Coms,iscioner Kaywood r.~ted there were a on Rrookhur~c Street betwee,i Li.ncoln AvenueXandtthe cityelimitsJontthes s~uth, an~ to add another would be compounding a rather untenable servic~a station situation on Brookhurst Street since statiszics indicated there `a were a number oc :;t~.ticns curre:~tly closed. ',`t Commissi~~ner Kaywood offered Resolutior, No. PC71-51 and moved for its passage anci ad~pt::.on to deny Petition fcr Variance No. 2240 on the basis that there were no exceptional or extraoxdinary circumstar.ces to warrant ,~~=~ favorzble consideration of adc:ing a serv~ce ~tation to an ii~tersection not meeting CodP requirements, and that there were 12 service station sites located on Brookh~irst Street between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road - =~ th~refore, there was nu need for an additional service station in this general area. lSee Resolution Book) .. ~ On ,:oll call the foregoing res~lution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMiSS?ONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. r. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. Chairman Herbst, in voting "no", stated that as much as he disliked = service stations, since subject property was formerly occupied by a _ servicE station, to deny subjeci petition would be denying a right for r ~ ~ - --- _ ~' `~~'a~'°°° ~.~...~.~.,.~.~=~~~~',; ~ ..~.., a.,.~...~1r.~'~"~~ w, Q. ~.;:~ .,~y: -' ~ _ ~ y e f ~ _...- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~~ i MINUTES, CITY 2LANNxNG COMMISSION, March 22, 1~71 71~154 ~ 1 vARIANCE NO, 2242 - a use best suited for this site which had formerly (Continued) been occupied with a service statiU,z and which was proposed to be operated by an oil company located at this same intersection for fifteen years. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY, c/o Eldon V. NO. 70-71-3E McPharlin, Attorney, 611 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, CaliPornia, Owner; BRIAN CHUCHUA, c/o Peter M. Gwosdof, Attorney, 1695 Crescent Avenue, Suita 560, Anaheim, California, Agent; reque~ting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.5 acies having a frontage of approximately 468 feet on the south side of Frontera Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 430 feet, and being located approximately 2,300 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street, be reclassified from the R-A(O), AGRICULTURAL (OIL PRODUCTION) 20NE to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE., to establzsh an automobile sales and service facility. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 6:55 P.M. , stating that because of a possible confiict o£ interest, he could not participate in consideration of subject petition. Assistant 2oning ~upervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in close proximity, and the pr~posal to h.ave ~:-3 zcning on the entire parcel, which zoning would permit other use.s th~n that proposecl by the petitioner to establish an automobile sales and service facility with office-showroom entailing apgroximately 18,C^0 square feet adjacent to Frontera Street and a 3000-square foot s body shop proposed along the future Jackson Street right-of-way, with r.~~ the balance of the sitE to be asphalted and being cesignated for employee parking or automokile display purposes; that the office-showroom would 1 be a large;~ng;;~Lr~al-type metal building with slumpstone block front, ~~~ and the proposed body shop would also be of inetal construction a~d would be oriented so as to rear onto Jackson Street; that the nrimary question before the Planning Commission was one of land use since the General Plan indicated the entire Frontera Street frontage from Rio Vista Street to Glassell Avenue as being appropriate for medium-density residential ~ development, and approximately 25 acres at the southeast corner of Rio ,~ Vista and Frontera Street had already been appr~ved for an R-3 condominium development; that the property immediately to the south cf this parcel had "t` been approved for development as a mobilehome ~i park, which was considered ,~ a residential use, and additional property to the east had been developed s~.i for apartment use along Armando Street, with additional property west of that project also having been approved for R-3 use; that the proposed land use would not conform to the land use designations of the General Plan since heavy commercial use was proposed in the very center of an area designated for medium-density residential use, and the text of the General Plan provided that one of the policies of the City was to exclude commer- ~~ cial and industrial uses from residential areas; and that approval of this ; zoning at this location would appear inco.sistent with that stated policy. 'ii. '~`A:~ Mr. Slaughter then noted that the C-3 2one contained essentially no site development standards, no required setbacks, no landscaping, and allowed a very broad range of commercial uses which could clearly conflict with the living environment of future residential developments in th4s area, , and in the event it was determined that this land use was appropriate, the ``I Commission might wish to consider the desirability of stringent standards ~ to assure that this us~ and any other use that might develop on the ` property would not be detrimental to the anticipated residential develop- ` ment in the area. :,i; i ~~ Mr. Peter Gwosdof, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented pictures of the ~xisting uses around the proposed facility and pictures of other residentia~ u~es having commercial uses in close proximity, : and noted that they realized the General Plan indicated residential uses Z for the property - however, they proposed this as an auto dealership, ,~ , ~ - '~.-_..,.., - ~~ ~ . ! ~ ~ i ~J `.1i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 ~~ 71~155 RECLASSIFICATION - whic:i would provide an excellent buffer zoning NO. 70-71-36 between the R~.verside Freeway and the residential (Continued) uses and would be an income-yroducing, tax-paging facility rather than something that would be a burden on the schools, roads, etc.; that there would be no added increase of traffic on Frontera Street; that there were oil wells to the west and south, and the R-3 Zone did not permit construction of apartments adjacent to an oil wel.l; tYiat there already existed a non- conforming use in the form of a printing company in this general area; and that it was not inconceivable to place this type of a use in an area since it was compatible to the R-3 Z~ne and would act as a buffer between the freeway and any other residential use. Chairman Herbst inquired what type of traffic the petitioner proposed to qenerate in such an isolated area having very limited access. Mr. Gwosdof replied that access from the Riverside Freewa7r could be accomplished from Kraemer Boulevard or Glassell; tha:. there would be far less traffic from this proposed use than would be from an apartment or a mobilehome park; that this would be a Jeep dealership; and that the purpose for having it along the freeway was to have freeway exposure to prospective customers on their way to and from the desert and the mountains. Chairman Herbst noted that it was the Commission's opinion that Frontera _ Street was planned for considerable traffic, and the proposed zoning would be spot zoning wherein limited access for commercial trade would be avaiiable, and that it had been the policy of the City in the past not to permit the interjection of c~mmercial trade or traffic into an area developed or being developed or projected for development for residential „ uses. Mr. Gwosdof noted that the R-3 development would have to stop becanse of the existing oil wells and the printing company. Chairman Herbst ,:oted that the oil wells wouZd present n~ problem since a residential development could occur if the setbacks were adhered to adjacent to an oil well. ,:~~ ; ~.- ~~ ~ ~ ' ~. ~ke ; Commissioner Gauer noted that the proposed automobila aqency would be establisha.ng a use completely away from exis4.ing automobile agencies, and that inadequate freeway off-ramps would act as a deterrent; further- more, where an automobile agency was adjacent to a freeway off-ramp, such as Cormier, it was located in the industrial area where adequate off-rzmp facilities were available. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TIiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Ga~ier offered Resolution No. PC71-52 and moved for its passage and adopt3on to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Rec~assification No. 70-71-36 be disapproved on the basis that the nroposed reclassification was neither in conformance with the Anaheim ~eneral Plan nor compatible to land uses alzaady approved or established in the area; that the proposed reclassi£ication would not be appropriate for the area and would create a detrimental effect upon the adjoining land uses proposed and being developed far multiple-family residential uses; and that the proposed use would not appear appropriate in this area and most other uses permitted in the C-3 2one would be harmful to the peace, health, safety and qeneraZ welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and that approval of subject petition w~~ld be creating spot zoning. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~OMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. ,~ •,• ~.,-~ " ~ f _a. , _ . '~ ~ ~ ~ ~__., ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNZNG COMMISSIOiJ, March 22, 1971 ^ l,~ 71e~1~i VARIANCE NO. 1328 - Commissioner iCaywood requested that the Commission return to Item 9 and consider the possi'~ility cocktail lounge on the~siteinowibeingrusedefor~alcar rentalaagencya Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-50 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Variance No. 1328, on the basis that the use had never been exerci.~ed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywoad. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. Commissioner Rowlai~d returned to the Council Chamber at 7:10 P.M. REPORTS ANA - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 218 (Free Methodist ^hurch) - Request for approval of revised plans. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the loca::;;on of subject property, uses established in close proximity, noting that the Free Methodist Church was requesting appr~oval of revised plans which indicated expansion of the existing church parking area and a one and two-story addition ta the existing church auditorium; that this ~xpansion was made possible due to recent acquisition by the church of a 16~-foot strip of land to the nort}; of the church site; that th2 proposed addition t~? the church included a one-stery addition on the northerly side of the ch,apel and a two-story addition, 26 x 50, feet, to the rear of the chapel; and that there would be a 10-coot setback between said additions and the alley to the north. The Commission reviewed the revised plans. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve revised plans submitted for Conditional Use Permit No. 218. Commissioner Farano se;~nded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 70-71-34 - Reconsideratiun of Commission action. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that it was the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the action taken by the Planning Commission in approving Reclassification No. 70-71-34 had some legal implications in that the properties could not have a resolution of intent of two major zones established on them, particularly where the M-1 2one already existed on the property; that the advice given by staff that this could function as an overlay zone was incorrect - therefore, the City Attorney's offica and the Development Services Department would recomu.en3 to•the Commission one of two courses, either to rescind Resolution No. PC71-41 or to adopt this resolution as to the R-A zoned properties ana the Anaheim Stadium and Pacific World project properties only. Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the property would still be in the M-1 2one if the site development standards of the C-R 2one were not met. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that he had given them erroneous advice since approvel of two major .^,ones of properties would be settinq a precedent because only the R-A 2one could have a resolution of intent to a major zone because it was considered to be a ~.- _ ,s ~i ~ ~ '~ ` -- ~ , _ . . ; i ~ . I ~~ i ~_ } U ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71-157 ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 2(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS holding zone and not a developing zone. Therefore, if the Commission so desired, they could amend their resolution to establish u resolution of intent on the stadium property, the Pacific World property, and any existi.ng R-A zoned property encompassed in •the reclassification to the C-R Zone. - CY:-~::~rman Herbst noted that statements by the property owners and lessees in the area were indicative of their feelings for the proposal, and many were concerned that they would not be able to expand their M-1 uses if '.. the proposed zone were established on these properties, whether R-A or "~ not. ,y~, r.i. . Commissioner Rowland inquired wheth~er or not the site development '~:; `. standards of the M-1 Zone could be incorporated into the C-R Zone, '~ thereby making this a more legal manner in which to pracess either M-1 ~? `+ or C-R. a Mr. Lowry repliPd that the C-R Zot~e wov;.d have to be amended at an advertised public hearing. ~ Chairman Herbst then noted that the Commission recognized that the City had The Orient project on the City Council and Planning Commission agendas for eight years, and to date nothing had happened as it pertained to The Orient except that it had cost the City of Anaheim many thousands of dollars in industrial growth since many industries who wanted to establish in the Southeast Industrial Area looked elsewhere when tt~ey found out that the City was entertaining thoughts of C-R uses for the area. Furthermore, it was his opinion that nothing would be established in this area as it ' pertetined to M-1 now because the price would be too high for the land. ::; "! i ; Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that any consideration of a change f to the Planning Commi.ssion's action should be considered at another ~1 advertised public heairing, particularly in view of the explanation given ,:~ property owi~ers at t.1e previous public hearing regarding havinq dual ' ,~ zoning for the property, namely, M-1 or C-R, and that perhaps the Commissi~n ~ ,~ might consider l~_aving the property as M-1 and just consider petitions as they were presented for commercial-recreation zoning. j :t ~ Commissioner Rowland stated that the C-R Zone was started in order that I;~• ~ the stadium could be placed in its most appr.opr.iate zor_e since the City ',~y~ acquired prime M-1 property for the stadium, aiid since the City took that step, the Plaaning Commission felt that the community at large should be given notice of this, but as it had turned out, the stadiur, had "~ittle ,'•~. effect upon the industrial zone except to be there physically since there was no change in the traffic pat~ern and there was no detr?:nental effect. However, the Pacific world was something else because it appeared to »e `:;r float3ng around like a deflated balloon - nothing had developed, and in ;;~ all probability nothing would happen in the present economic state of the nation. Furthermore, as a planning commissioner, he was a strong advocate for the C-R 2one on the property, but now he would be willing to have another General Plan amendment to take the C-R designation off the Plan. Commissioner Gauer was ir~lined to leave the General Plan designation as it was but discourage o. more zoning of properties in the area sincE~ the City had no idea of what was planned for the properties, and that included the Pacific World property. Commissioner Farano, referring to Commissioner Rowland's statement to '~ ' have the General Plan amendment again, stated that the General Plan '.° ' indicated what the Commission's present frame of mind was, and C-R would ~` be most appropriate for the area. However, i£ the amendment were proposed, ° this would also indieate to the people that the Commission had change~ k~ j its mind, and the property was still prime industrial property, but this was not, in fact, true, and the Commission would be leading the industrial : property ownprs down the "primrose path", and this could create more ~~ problems. *,;' ; .~ . : i i.~ - . .. . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ f. . . . . . : . . ~ . ' . . .. ~ _ ia , ' ' .. . . . . . ' _ ' _ I . - . ~ ` r-~ - , ,~ -- - i - ' ~ C.~ ~'> ~~ MINUTES~ CITY $LANNING COMMISSION, March 22, 1971 71~158 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 2(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Rowland responded that what would happen would be removinq a zoning action as well as other incompatible uses. Chairman Herbst noted that the vacant properties around The Orient had ,' stagnated because there had been no land use change since industry did not want to develop in close proximity to a most incompatible land use having conflicting traffic patterns. -- Fssistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the ~ Commission that the intent oY the General Plan was not to lead in9ustry °~'.~"`"~. down the "primrose path" so that industry would not 2ook at the 80 acres as being industriallr oriented. ~. Commissioner Farano inquired whether industry wculd continue to be dis- couraged if the General Plan were to remain with the commercial-recreation . designation. 1 Chairman Herbst noted that the traffic patterns for the C-R were the _ reverse of an industrial area by bringing business into the area during working hours since thousands would be visiting the area if, in fact, The Orient did materialize, and it would forae out the existing industrial ~:; property owners there; and that for proof one only had to talk with George ;, Moran of the Southern Pacific, who had told him that dur.ing the past five ~' years much of the industry potential had been discouraged.. ".' Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission c,ould reverse theix previous action "d or no action be taken - however, if The Orient did not gry through, the Commission could recommend to the City Council that this ~8i0 acxes could '{ be reverted back to M-1 use, and then have an amendment to the General ~~ Plan. Commissioner Farano noted that this would put people on notice that if they were interested in commercial-recreation zoning, they had better hurry up or the City would consider M-1 for that property again. Mr. Thompson noted that since The Orient had tied up 80 acres, this might lead industries back into the area - therefore, a more approF,riate traffic pattern would be established. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct staff to set for public hearing reconsideration of Reclassification No. 70-71-34, wherein the Commission might con ider rescinding the previous action taken on March 8, 1971. Commissioner ~ seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED. (Public hearing scheduled for April 19, 1971.) ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDERATION OF ESTP.dLISiiING A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO M-1 FOR PARCELS I,OCATED IN THE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that there were a number of small parcels still within the jurisdiction of the County which came within the sphere of influence of the City of Anaheim in the Northeast Industrial Area; that sometimes these property owners or prospective developers wanted M-1 zoning immediately upon annexation - however, because of the length of time it took for advertising and setting for public hear- ing before the Commission and City Council, a minimum of three months passed, and, therufore, staff would suggest that the Commission consider these properties at such time as they were annexed into the City of Anahein:. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct staff to initiate reclassi- fication proceediags set for public hearing April 19, 1971, for those odd parcels still remaining iri the Count} located in the Nor:.heast Industrial ~ fs"~,_;~. ~ ~ ~5 f - _ , ! .. . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ MINUTES~ CITX,PLANNING COMMISSION, Mazch 22, 1971 REPORTS ANi~. - ITEM N0. 3(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS ~ 71~159 Area which were within the sphere of influence of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Kaywood secondefl the MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE FOR WALTTUT CANYON ROAD BY ANAHEIM HILLS CORPORATION. ;., Zoniizg Supervisor Charles Rob~rts advised the Commission that a copy of a V~.~ letter had been sent them from Mr. Stark of the Anaheim Hills Corporation ~'~-:::;:~ (Nohl Ranch) requesting consideration oE a street name change for Walnut 'ta Canyon Road, and sugqested that if the Commission considered this a worth- while suggestion, that the stree~ name change be set fur public hearing. The Commission indicated that there was more information they would like " on this request and suggested that staff bring the Commission a more ;-~ detailed report of the proposal, said repprt to be considered under ;A;! Reports and Recommendations at the April 19, 1971, meeting. = ~. ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 856 (Avis Rent-A-Car System) - 115 West Katella Avenue - Request permission to add a gasoline storage tank and dispensing pump in conjunction with the automobile rental agency . Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property, noting the uses in close proximity with a service station immediately to the east, a laundry to the north, a motel and service station to the south, and a service station to the southeast, all property in this area being zoned M-1, and the request of the representative of the Avis Rent- A-Car System to permit establishment of a gasoline storage tank and dispensing pump on the nroperty to be used solely for servicing of the company's equipment and not for the sale of stored products to the general public. +"" ;~ Chairman Herbst noted that as long as the property was zo;ied M-1 and the ~. proposed use met the Fire Department standards, he could not see why they -;sk could not establish th3s •~~~;:;;,~f proposed addition. ~+;'. Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission had previously had a very •'~,~ "hairy" discussion regarding this and inquired whether this was the same ;;b location where the petitioner had advised the Commission that they would _` ;,~ not ask for gumps . ,;,'~ Mr. Roberts stated that this original request was for a car rental a enc ;~ whereas the one under which c o n s i d e r a b l e d i scussion had been held was Y~ a djacent to or surrounded by motels. ="~ Comaissioner Allred inquired whether there was a similar car rental ~.;; aqency that was desirous of coming in and renting behind or adjacent to ;~ the service station and the Commission also denied this; whereupon ,: Mr. Roberts stated this was at another location. , , _F ^ Commissioner Farano noted that he believed this petitioner also stated at the time he came in that they would not have gas pumps since they f would be using the service station to service the cars and the carr•~sh ~ r across the street. '; ~ .;~: .~e . ~ ~. ~`:.~ ~, Mr. Roberts then briefly reviewed the findings of the petition, noting that there did not appear to be a statement to this effect - however, he would review the file in greater detail. ----,~ .~~~. . ,,,.,,, •ni~=' -- . ry . _" _e:. . . , ~ ' . - ` 'y i .. ej'+ _ -. 1 . r .1~_.... `-- 1 -- - ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY ~L,P~NN~NG CQMM~$S~ONf March 22, 1971 71-160 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 5(Continued) RECOMMENDY~.~TIONS Chairman Herbst noted that the on3.y point he could make was since this was an M-1 2one and most M-1 ' facilities could establish gas pumps on their property, if they met the fire standards, tdzen the use requested would be permitted in the M-1 2one. ~ Mr. Roberts noted that the property was zoned M-1 and so were all the surrounding pronerties, but the question before the ~ommission was whether or not it would be within the Commission's original intent to allow this type of use under the conditional use permit approving the ' car rental agency since the original use was not a permitted use in the ~~ `,.~.~,, M-1 Zone, and the request would be to permit gas dispensing facilities v , in the M-1 Zone; that this had been discussed with the City Attorney, ' Joe Geisler, and he had indicated that in the eveat the Commission felt ~`;~ this type of facility would be appropriate, it would be a good idea to make two findings: 1) the use would be permitted as a matter of right in the M-1 2one and 2) that the gas tanks and pump would be an accessory '~ to the use permitte3 under the conditional use permit. 1 Commissioner Gauer noted that since Avis advertised "th~y tried harder", they should try to get their cars gassed and washed elsewhere. Chairman Herbst noted that since the area was compatible for the request - washing cars and servicing them - he could not see any reason for requir- ing them to have another public hearing; that they only wanted to service their cars. '. Commissioner Farano disagreed with Chairman Herbst, stating that he felt that just because this was an M-1 2one, they should not be permitted by '~ right since if this were allowed, it would make the Commission's decision wrong on a previous denial across £rom the Convention Center, said request had been denied twice by the Commission and City Council. Chairman Herbst noted that there was a difference - the one was surrounded by motels, and industrial uses surrounded subject property. x;' ~? Mr. Roberts stated that upon further examination of the file there was a •;~,,; finding in the Planning Commission resolution which indicated that the ':;::~ petitioner had stipulated that the primary use would be as a business '~~``~ office for rental cars, with no servicing or storage of cars; and that ;~`~`-': Mr. Slauqhter would read from the minutes statements made by a representa- .'~';y~ tive and the agent for the car leasing firm. --~~~~•~:•~~;!1 Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slauqhtex noted that in the minutes the request was originally advertised to permit an office for an auto- mobile rental agency; that the agent for the petitioner stated at the public hearing - as set forth in the minutes -"that the proposed use ; would be the headquarters for several counties in Southern California, - ~ and the maximum number of employees would be si. and the use would be - for an office, and no storage of cars would be proposed, nor would the repair or maintenance of cars be done on the premises. F~i•-thermore, t pick-up would not be from the premises since cars would be shvttled ~~!~ from the nearest pick-up station." 1• Mr. Slaughter then noted that since the request was strictly a~ office I i` use under the conditional use permit, the Commission would have to determine whether this request for gasoline storage and pumps was an accessory use or not. ~i' . : k`- Commissioner Rowland noted that in order to get this newest request `;'' approved, the petition would have to be readvertised since the use was ?` a roved at a ;^ PP public hearing. ~~ _ ;;.`,. Commissioners Farano and Allred concurred with Commissioner Rowland's statement. i Commissioner Farano then noted that since this property approximates or was adjacent to thia C-R Zone, the use proposed would not be proper at all. *: (.~t.,' i` ~ as ~ ~ ~ ' qR `~ _ : - - i ~ ~ 1, , ~~ ~ R~'~'~~~~ ~ r ~ ____ - ,~ ~ .~ ~,~~ MINDTES~ G~~Y PLANNING CQNJly~$SIQN~ 11axCh 22~ 1971 71~161 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 5(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Gauer stated that the petitioner should make application to set this for pu~13c :hearing. Chairman Herbst noted that perhaps he was wrong in h~s first statement since staff had read the original request of the petiEi.one~ for a specific use, and this was considered at an ad°vertised public hearing, Mr. Roberts then reviewed the request of the original app].ication, which requested service and business office use raith waiver of the fr.ee-standinq sign area, and the statement read by Mr. Slaughter which was presented by the agen~ for the petitioner. " ~~ Commissioner Allred then noted that he would interpret that as a rental ~;: service and office this would be for renting automobiles only. -f Chairman Herbst stated he could not understand why Avis would want an ~ office without storing the cars on the premises. ~; Co~rmissioner Farano stated he felt this should be set for public hearing, and the petitioner should be present to explain to the Commission what their oriyinal intent was and what they were now proposing. t" ':' Commissioner Rowland stated he felt that the Commission had no choice ~: but to require that this be considered at an advertised public hearing since the newe~t request would not fall within the original request for use of the property under the condit3onal use permit. ~~i; Commissioner Farano o£fered a motion to deny the request for approval ;'~ of a gas storage and pump facility on the property under Conditional Use Permit No. 856 on the basis that the original petition was for a retttal -~.,.'M1'`.~ sales office, and the agent for the petftioner so stated; and that the ~ peti}ioner be advised that the Planning Commission could only aonsider ; ~ this request at an~ther advertised public hearing at the petitioner's expense. Commissioner Rowland secanded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ' ;~ ~=~ ITEM NO. 6 "? CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT NO. 1221 (Vicki Nelson) - ;~L; Establish a carwash at the northeast corner of ; East Street and Lincoln Avenue - Request for ~'-; ~ amendment to conditions. 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter advised the Commission that the requirements of the Engineering Department as they pertained to subject ':~ property in Resolution No. PC71-15 approving Conditional Use Permit No. ;, 1221, appeared not to be quite the intent of that department and suggested ,`', an alternate to Condition No. 2, to refer to East Street for improvements. ~' ';~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-53 and moved for its " passage and adoption to amend Resolution No. PC71-15, Condition No. 2, ~ granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1221, to delete reference to Lincoln Avenue and make reference only to East Street. (See Resolution Hook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: :'i ~:/ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst. `` NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None. :Tt:`' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. ~,,__;; ~y ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. - ';C;~..:, -.. . ~~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, ,:. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Co,i~missioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ?~ The meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ' akt , Li~ 2~ '+. ANN KRERS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ ~'`-. ;~~ ~ ~ _~: .li:.: . , . .f .. ~i-~ . . . . ~ . . ~ : .. ._ . . . ~ . .. _ ~ . , . ~ .. 4~ . . . . , - .. . . ,. ~. . ` . _ .