The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1971/05/03. ___ ~ -: ~ l . ~ ~ ~~ Ci,ty Hail Anaheim, Cal3fornia May 3, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:05 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSEiQT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano. 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: ~,nn Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Seymour led in the Pledge of Allegiance to ALLEGIANCE the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of April 5, 1971, were approved THE MINUTES with the following corrections on motion by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED; Page 71-180, paragraph 9, add the following: "Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-57 to grant a sign at a maximum height of 40 reet. The foreqoing motion was tied by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland." Minutes of the meeting of April 19, 1971, were approved with the following corrections on motion by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, and MOTION CARRIED: Page 71-207, paraqraph 4, line 3, should read: "she had visited the property and found none." (Delete: "the Commission....earlier in the day.") Page 71-228, paragraph 9, line 7, change the word "concern" to "concert". TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: J. W. KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPAYY, INC.~ TRACT NO. 7137, 4450 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California. REVISION NO. 3 ENGINEER: Millet,/~ing & Associates, 1303 West Valencia Dr3ve, Fullerton, California. Subject traat, located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana Ri~er channel east of Imperial Highway, containing approximately 90 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 433 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 3 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property, existing and pending zoning on the property, and the proposal to subdivide 90 acres of land into 433 R-2-SOUO zoned lots; that the lot depths proposed in the most recent revision conformed with the recent revision of the Santa Ana Canyon Scenic Corridor proposal; that the proposed tract map should provide adequately for circulation in the area and to adjoining properties, provided that the westerly cul-de-sac of "B" Street is moved to the westerly property line to provide for future access to the propezty to the west in the event the mobilehome park does not develop or is removed and another land use is proposed; that although 71-233 it716'L-~Y".?"'~a,~" ^ • . - ~ _ a ~ ' -=` a - ~ -y i ^ ~ t ~ ~ '~ ~ c_~ ' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ma 3 1971 r Y , 71-234 ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - the map indicates that a 6-foot masonry wall was to TRACT NO 7137 b . , e constructed at the top of the slope along the REVISION NO. 3 Fairmo t B n oulevard a~•;gnment, the Engineering Division' (Continued) expressed concern that this arrangement could prove , ' undesirable, slnce the slope would be an actual part - of the residential lots, and overwatering by the home- owners might cause serious erosion to the slo e and d p amage to the street, therefore, the Engineering Division recommended that the wall b ' e placed at the toe of the slope, and that the City would maintain the slope rather th ,,;-~ ''" . an the homeowners. Furthermore, a condition of approval should require a ~ p yment of the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to b ~ e appropriate by the Ci.ty Council. ~ '` ' Mr. John Klug, developer appeared before the Commission and commented on th e recommended conditions noting that Condition No. 3 required dedication of vehicular , ,' access rights, however, Lot No. 433 was not planned to be developed at this time and t , a such time as it was developed they would like to have access to streets. '~ zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that this ~ was a valid comment since it was an unplanned lot. ~ Mr. Klug further noted that in Condition No. 7, the alignment of La Palma Avenue and Fairmo t B ~, n oulevard should be subject to the approval of the City Enqineer, and inquired wheth th er ere was any plan to change the align- ment from that presently existing, since the tract ~ map was designed in accordance with discussions with staff, however if ther ~~ : , e was onl to be minor adjustments, there wouZd be no problem but 3 f thi d j , . s aliqnment were shifted substantially, it could affect the tract r ;, ~ - : . ~reupon, Office. Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the rea~;: f 9 : ;~ ., or that condition was because of the fact that the Oranqe County Road Department was still j ? studying the need for the extension of Fairmont Boulevard beyond La Palma Avenue and al ;~ , so the possible alignment, if Fairmont Boulevard did go beyond La Palma Avenue. ~}~ j Commissioner Seymour inquired what adverse effects this could have to th '~~ ; ` e Klug property, whereupon Mr. Titus stated that Fairmont Boulevard might b l ~ :? 'y e p anned to cross over the river and connect with Walnut Canyon Road, and if this did ha en th x pp ere could be a change in the alignment, and addition grade would be needed for Fairmont whethe it al ~ " ~" , r remained at natural ground at La Palma Avenue, or if it would be above natural ground - ll t ~ ~ ' a his could affect the alignment both north and south of La Palma Avenue. ,, ~ ` Chairman Herbst inquired what would happen to the tract if it w ~ _ ere approved and the County was still studying the extension of Fairmont Boulevard? s . ~ Mr. Titus stated that he and Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson had talk d f e with the County Road Depart~ent and asked them when the study would ba completed - with t ; _ ou any definite date. Therefore, if there were only minor adjustments to be made to th li i e a gnment there would be no problem, but if it happened there would be a major chan e thi ! _ g , s would mean a revision to the tract map. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that he had talked more recently with th I ~{ e Road Department, and their proposal to realign soutY, of the river and tying in with Fairm t B ~ on oulevard, as proposed by the developer, and it was his opinion this should not b a ' I e major problem, since it was the City's opinion, even though the study was being made b th ~ I y e County, that extending Fairmont Boulevard southerly could not be justifi d ~ w e on the basis of traffic. Quite frankly, at this period of time this would '; ` not be a street that Anaheim would be developing south of La Palma Avenue, tyinq it in with ~~ Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Titus noted that traffic-wise, there would be no need for the street but t hi , ~ , : s must be worked out with the County alignment-wise, and there might be no problem b t th , u ere was a question as to grade. Then in response to a question by Commissioner Allred stat d th , e at they did not anticipate too much effect would result, but the Engineering Divisi ' on needed the flexibility iE there was any problem. * .+fec ~ .. ... - ;, •:- i ty ,: :. __ ~ L _ .. " 'f . - _ .. ;~. x--~-......~ ' .' f'i , _ ~ ~ _~ ~ r ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY rLANNING COMMIf;SION~ May 3, 1971 ~ 71-235 TENTATTVE MAP OF - Mr. Klug then noted that the discussion just held also TRACT NO. 7137, pertained to Condition No. 8, as it pertained to REVISION NO. 3 whether or not Fairmont Boulevard was extended, and (Continued) the costs to improve Fairmont as it affected subject tract, even though the street would not directly benefit the tract, it appeared there was no need for its extension since La Palma Avenue provided all the circulation necessary for this area north~of the river, and the only reason for even consideriag it was because it appeared on the County's Master Plan of Streets and Highways the only possible use might be to provide circulation for the hillside above Esperanza Road tc the freeway; that there was considerable expense involved in developing Fairmont Boulevard which included dedication and the fill for the embaakment - thus this street was circulation that would not ultimately isenefit the City. Furthermore, since the developer would bear the cost of providing 35,000 yards of fill dirt costing anywhere from $17,000 to $52,000, the City should bear the cost of construction of said street. Therefore, he would like clarification af Condi.tion No. 8, did it include the cost of construction of the street as well - Fairmont Boulevard, or was the City proposing to construct said street. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission and Mr. Klug that the City would be ~ responsible for t.he street improvements, if the developer provided the ~` fill at Such time as it was extended to Esperanza Road; whereupon, Mr. Klug then stated that with the understanding of the City being responsible for street improvements, they would be agreeable to providinq the fill. Mr. Klug further noted that under Condition Nos. 9 and 10, they were comply- ing with the zoning requirements when the R-2-5000 zoning was approved for subject property, which included the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one require- ments, therefore, he could not see why conditions were applied to the south side of La Palma Avenue, since the lots had a 50-foot setback between `~~ the right-of-way and any structures, as well as providing a 6-foot masonry wall and landscaging adjacent to said wall along La Palma Avenue - thus why should the developer be obligated to fence the flood control channel and landscape the south side of La Palma Avenue when it was not a part of the tract, since these would be improvements that would not benefit the City as a whole; however, they would be willing to fence that portion of Lot No. 433, since that lot would not be developed for the present. In addition to havi,ng to meet the requirements of the SC Zone, the lot yield was less per acre than the R-2-5000 Zone would permit elsewhere. Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that since the developer was being required ~ to provide improvements for La Palma Avenue and since this had been a require- ,~ ment of other tracts developing adjacent to the Santa Ana River Channel, and since subject property also abutted this channel the developer should ~ bear the cost of providinq the necessary protection for residents of his ~ tract. Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated the Orange County Flood Control District did not provide the fencing for the channel, and required it of the developers of all tracts that had been approved and developed in this area. Mr. Klug then stated that the requirement seemed to be rather unreasonable for the developer to provide the fencing for the flood control channel, although he did not know if the City had any control over the requirements of the Flood Control District. Mr. Roberts noted that with respect to Mr. Klug's comments on the landscaping on the south side of La Palma Avenue - if La Palma Avenue were to bisect his property, it would be his responsibility to improve both sides of the street - and this would be the same situation. Mr. Jeff Millet, engineer of the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and noted that the Flood Control District had condemned his client's property for this channel, and now it appeared they also wanted the client to erect a fence on the property that was condemned, although they would not permit the fence on the OCFCD property because if there was any damage to the fence the OCFCD would not repair it, but would expect the adjacent property owner to repair it. However, there was one thing he i ! ~ #~._ _ -:~.r~w.~;~~':t . , , ^~ ~ ~ .. ~. . . - j ~ ~ ~ ~ : . . ~ . . . ~.+ ~ . ~ ~ l ~ . . _. . . . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt3MISSION, May 3, 1971 71-236 TENTATIVE MAP OF - could not understand because once before the OCFCD TRACT NO. 7137, had requested dedication, and the Anaheim Planning REV - ISION NO. 3 Commission had stated that the OCFCD should try to (Continued) get their own property -why was the Commission now considering requiring all these conditions. Ir. addition , the OCFCD only provided a three-strand fence, but the condition of approval required a chain li k n fence; and that La Palma Avenue should have been aligned farther south, co that the develo er w ld h p ou ave only been required to dedicate one-half of the street width. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision IJo. 3, subject to the following conditions with the added conditions that the westerly cul-de-sac of "B" Avenue be moved to the westerly property line to provide for future access to the property to th e west; and that the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees be required at the ti h me t e building permit is issued. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion: Prior to voting on the motion further discussion was held by the Commissio n regarding the chain link fence condition - whether the approval of the tract should be conditioned upon the fence being provided by someone - whether the OCFCD should be required to erect the fence or whether it , should be a condition of the developer. After considerable discussion it , was determined to retain the conditian as set forth by staff. THE MOTION BY Commissioner Seymour CARRIED. (1) That should thi~5::si~bdivrision be developed as more than one subdiv- ision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (Z) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos. 1 thru 10 168 th , ru 7.84, 60 thru 65, 185 thru 193, and 303 thru 310 a d n La Palma Avenue; and that a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on th e property line (toe of slope) between Fairmont Boulevard and lot N ~ os. 46 thru 60 and on the property line (toe of the slope) between Fairmont Bouleva d 3 r and Lot Nos. 193 thru 209. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities shall , be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway garkway the full dista nce of said wall; plans for said laridscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installati ~ on and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. ~ (3) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings ~ to La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ~ (4) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. t i (5) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (7) That the alignment of La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (8) That the tract developer shall place the eZtimate embankment for Pairmont Soulevard, and install reasonable slope landscaping, includ- ing irrigation facilities, in accordance with the requirements of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance the City of Anaheim shall assume maintenance of said landscaping. (9) That a 5-fcat chain link fence shall be constructed along the south side of La Palma Avenue in accordance with Orange County Flood Control District requirements. i i:~. - . ~ 4 • _ . ., .. n _ . t ~^, ``~ , . , .. , , - ` '~ 1 I ~ ,. . , ~ - MINUTES, C2TY PLANNiNG COMMISS=ON, May 3, 1971 TENTATIVE MAP OF -(10) That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation ; TRACT NO. 7137, facilities, shall be installed in the south park- ' .~.. - . REVISION NO. 3 way of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said landscap- (Continued) ing shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation Department. ' of Anaheim shall assume the~responsibilitylfor~maintenancetofcsaidhlandty scaping. _ (11) That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner ~--~ - satisfactory to the City Engineer. ~ (12) Th~i the owner(s) of subject property shall °s the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu feestastdetermined toabel~ y~' ' apprupriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. i (13) That the westerly cul-de-sac of "B" Aveniie be moved ta the westerly ~ property line to provide for future access to property to the west. ` ~. , a ,. ,.:; .;_~ •s , r<? ':i r1 '? i~: . -:= ,,,, _ . ?~`; a;'..~' '..: %::. ' ;^ ;~ `~ w ( ~ ,; VARIANCE N0. 2250 - CONTINUED PURLIC HEARING. DOYLE & SHIELDS REALTY COMPANY, P. O, Box 386, Westminster, California, Owner; California, Agent; requestingEWAIVERS90F (1)tMINIMUMdD2STANCE BETNEEN~ SIGNS, AND (2) FREE-STANDING SIGN LOCATION TO PF.RMIT AN ADDITIONAL FREE- STANDING SIGN on property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres, having a frontage of appro:,imately 343 £eet on the east si3e of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 267 feet, and being located approximately 197 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 934 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 19, 1971, at the request of the petitioner. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proxim3ty, and the proposal to erect an additional free-standing sign 43 feet from an existing free- standing sign, and the fact that the petitioner had requested a continuance from the previous meeting. No one appeared to represent the pet~ltioner. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts suggested to the Commission that subject petition be delayed until later in the meetinq so that staff could contact the agent for the petitioner; whereupon the Chairman stated this would be considered later in the meeting. Later in the public hearing, Mr. Roberts advised the Planning Commission that he had contacted the agent for the petitioner regarding his being present at the public hearing; however, the agent requested that the Planning Commission terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 2250. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 2250 since the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the petition. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i .. _ . t. ~~,';; r.,~n . .. . - , r - . . ~ ~ . 5• ,,, - . . ~ ~ . . . ~ d _r ~ ~ - ~ I / ~ ~ ~ {.J MINUTES, CITY PLAN NING COMMISSI7Ny N!$y 3, 1°71 71-238 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: HARVEY A. BERGER, 2478 Rue De Cannes, Costa TRACT NO. 7417 Mesa, California. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, California. TENTATIVE MAP OF Subject tract and Tract Nos. 7418 and 7151, consisting TRACT NO. 7418 of approximately 46 acres, located on the north side of the future extension of La Palma Avenue and south of TENTATIVE MAP OF Esperanza Road east of Imperial Highway, is proposed TRACT NO. 7151 for subdivision i:ito 74 R-2-5000 zoned lots; Tract No. 7418 into 91 R-2-5000 zoned lots; and Tract No. 7151 into 82 R-2-5000 zoned lots. 1 ..` ~}^. ~ ._ . ~~. '..~! ~;' .r s:_: '~ Assistaat Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented to the Planning Commission Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7417, 7418, and 7151, noting the location oE the property which comprised 46 acres of land and the proposal to subdivide Tract No. 7417 into 74 R-2-5000 lots, Tract No. 7419 into 91 R-2-5000 lots and Tract No. 7151 into 82 R-2-5000 lots; that subject property had be~~n approved for R-2-5000 zoning in Reclassification No. 70-71-25; that thP proposed lots appeared to conform to the conditions imposed in the granting of said zoning as well as to lot depths proposed in the most recent revisions of the SC Zone proposal; and that Condition No. 10 of Tract No. 7417 should be amended to nave lots read 44 through 49, while Condition No. 11 ehould be deleted. Mr. Harvey Berger, the developer, indicate@ his presence to answer questions. Mr. Vic Edge, representing the ~ngineer, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had received a more recent letter than that which the Commission had received from the Orange County Flood Control District which appeared to give approval to development of subject property, indicating that the new levees were constructed to withstand a 100-year flood bu± not a project flood, and that in the past a favorable flood hazard letter had been required of most tracts being developed along the Santa Ana River. Mr. Berger noted that the correspondence Mr. Edqe was referring to was dated April 26, 1971, and signed by Mr. Osborne of the Orange County Flood Control District; that this information had not been solicited, but had been freely given during correspondence regarding tract drainage problems - and then quoted from th= letter - concluding by stating the letter obviated any previous comments regardinq a flood hazard letter. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinior. that this was not so, because the Commission had sat through some very lengthy hearings on the flood hazards, and the letter by Mr. Osbornein his estimation said "nothing", since if the Commission could limit it to the parameters of 20,000 CFS, this was the implication that the Commission always had. Mr. Berger noted that in eighteen years as a developer this was the first he had ever heard on a standard project flood. Office Engineer Jay Titus concurred with Commissioner Rowland's comments as to the statement made by Mr. Osborne, since under a standard project flood ; considerably more water would have to be released at Prado Dam than 20,000 ' CFS which was the amount that the existi~~3 levees could handle, and this included both water from the dam and runoff from this entire area. Mr. Berger noted that the engineer felt this was all theoretical; whereupon Commissioner Rowland noted that unfortunately financing of a tract map was based on this. Mr. Berger then noted that it was hoped that the City of Anaheim would be able to assist them in this matter. ~ Commissioner A11red offered a motion :o approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7~I17, subject to the following conditions, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, ~ and MOTION CARRIED: i ~3 ' - ' . h . ~ . _ ~ . . . . , . ~f ~ . . _ - ~~~~ .. . ... ~. . . . _. . ~ . .~' ~ . . ~; ~ _ , _~, ~_~ _. ~ • -- -~~ .. . _ ~i. . ~ .-~._. _ .•. ``r: ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-239 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7418, AND 7151 (Continued) (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be subraitted in tentative form for approval. (2) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (3) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (4) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map, (5) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreaticn in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the buildinq permit is issued. (6) That drainage of Tract No. 7417 shall be disposed of ia a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. (7) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (8) That a 5-foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the south side of La Palma Avenue in accordance with Orange County Flood Control District requirements. (9) That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said landscaping sha11 be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation Department. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim will assume the responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping. (10) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot No.(s) 44 through 49 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Followiag installation and acceptance the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7418, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and N10TION CARRIED, subject to the ~ following conditions: f (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (2) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. i __... . _ ~ _...--- -- _.... __ 7 (3) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and t' approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (4) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (5) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. r ~' . .p-_;•.: - n ._. r-,:~ -:: l _a .....-:~_r•. ;`1 i ' _ ~ . ~ • i ~ ~' _~_ ~ . (~ ~ !_) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, May 3, 1971 71-240 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7418, AND 7151 (Continued) (6) That drainage of Tract No. 7418 shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. , (7) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley , openings, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (8) That a 5-foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the south ` side of La Palma Avenue in accordance ~~ith Orange County Flood Control ~-:~ ..-- District requirements. ..., : (9) That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation faczlities, shall + be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for _ i said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval j of the Parks and Recreation Department. Following installation and -_ acceptance, the City of Anaheim will assume !:he responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping. 1 (10) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot niasonrg wall shall be constructed on the south property line(s) separating lot - No.(s) 55 through 62 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance oE said = wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject } to the a pproval of the SuF~~rintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance the City of Anaheim sha~i assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. _';;: ~ Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract °-,~ No. 7151, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and MOTION CARRIED, subject ',' `. ~ i^„j t~ the following conditions: c~ •^~ (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, ;~ each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. '_~ (2) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. :~ (3) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to ?.;;1 and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. '~`,"~~ (4) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior '~ to approval of a final tract map. (5) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim = the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to ~`~? be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. ~ (6) That drainage of Tract No. 7151 shall be disposed of in a m~nner satisfactory to the City Engineer. (7) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. `~ (B) That a 5-foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the south side of La Palma Avenue in accordance with Orange County Flood Control "~,..;. District requirements. ~;: "' (9) That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall ;~ be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for r' said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation Department. Following installation and ~` acceptance, the City of Anaheim will assume the responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping. R` ; .f~! ~; ' :, :. _ ... _ _ ,. , . , •- . . _ - - ' ~ - ~ c ~;;k. ~-,+~. _ . ~ ~ , . .. .. . ' - ` _~ . 1 i ~~•: - "'~ i ~ ~ ~ ~,.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, May,3, 1971 71-241 , ; ' TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7418, AND 7151 (Continued) (10) That in accordance with City Cou'ncil policy, a 6-foot ma§onry wall shall be constructed on the south property line(s) separating lot No.(s) 44 through 51 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping ` including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented ~ portion of the arterial highwayparkway the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of thP Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following ~.~.~,~, installa';ion and acceptaac~ the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. A~ ~~ ' ,, , ~. ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPEB: W2LLIAM J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, '•±' TRACT NO. 7088, Suite K, Westminster, California. ENGINEER: Raab'& - ~E REVISION NO. 1 Boyer Engineering ComganX, 14482 Beach Boulevard, "~ Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract -' located north of Lincoln Avenue and east of Rio Vista ?; Str_et, containing approximately 14.3 acres, is proposed for subdivision '~. into 6 R-1 and 71 R-2-5000 zoned lots. 'j Assistant Zoninq Supervisor Malcolm Slauqhter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, - ~ noting that a letter had been submitted by the developer requesting a two- ti+ week continuance in order that the tract map might be considered in con- junction with a variance which was necessary since approval of the tract map was contingent upon approval of a variance. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of " Tentative Map of Tract No. 7088r Revision No. 1, to the meeting of May 17, ? 1971, in order that the tract map might be considered in conjunction titith ';,`;~ a variance petition. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~';:,..:: TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: FRANK H. AYRES AND SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ;.(.~~ TRACT N1~. 7422 6000 west Coast Eighway, Newport Beach, California. ~~ ENGINEER: Vall'ey Consultants, Inc., 9092 Talbert _ Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. Subject tract ; located east of Imperial Highway, between the Santa Ana River and Esperanza };.' Raad, containing approximately 45 acres, is proposed for subdivision into "^ 236 R-2-5000 zoned lots. , . .>_,~ ; - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted for the Commission that the developess had submitted a letter requesting a two-week continuance on ! subject tract in order to revise the tract to conform with conditions required under the resolution of intent for R-2-5000 zoning and to design _ ti the streets in accordance with the City of Anaheim standards. ;;;;; C;ommissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422 to the meeting of May 17, 1971, to a12ow the developer ~-i time to revise the tract map. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. _ `' MOTION CARRIED. . e~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: TARIQ M. SHAMMA, 2229 East Lincoln Avenue, TRACT NO. 7406 Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Shamma & Moiseve Engineering, Inc., 2229 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract located on the south side ;:'.", of South Street, approximately 670 feet east of the centerline of State ar College Boulevard and containing approximately 2.3 acres, is proposed for ~.~ subdivision into 13 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented to the Commission Tentative Map of Tract No. 7406, noti.ng the location of the property, 'i,`~ zoning action approved on the property which would permit zero side yards, _ and that the proposed tract map appeared to comply with all the require- ~ ments of the R-2-5000 2one and the stipulations and conditions established by the Planning Commission at the time the zoning actions were considered. R~, :.~-`, 2oning Su,pervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that Condition t3o. 7 of the recommended conditions should include reference to South Street. j i I i ' . _ ,._ . . ~ . ~ . . ~ .. _ , . . .. , . . . .~ ~f. .. . . . _ : . . ._ ~ ..- .' ~ . ~ _.i ~ ~ . ,r ` _, : i / - t ~ ~ ~ r --- ---_ ; ; ~J ~ MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 i TENTATIVE MAP OF - No one appeared to represent the developer. TRACT NO. 7406 (Co t' ~:~ 71-242 n inued) Commissioner Gauer offered a motion Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIEDconded by Tentative Map of Tract No. 7406 ~ to approve following conditions: , subj~ct to the (1) That should this subdiviaian be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (2) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utili- ties. (3) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orang.e County Recorder. (4) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map, (5) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the araropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (6) That drainaqe of Tract No. 7406 shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. (7) That the vehicular access rights to South Street, except at street and/or alley openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ($) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the north property line separating lot No, i and South Street, except that for r.orner lot No. 1 said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inches in the required front yard setback. (9) That a full curb return shall be constructed at the southeast corner of South Street and Priscilla Street as required by the City Engineer. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING c PERMIT NO. 1203 1801 Avenue of theAStars2~Suite,244CHURCHILL GROUP, California, Owner; re uestin ~ Century City, EXISTING MOBILEHOME LOTS TO TRAVEL1TRAILERoLOTSVINT AN EXISTING PARK WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA AND ALLCW ACCESSORY OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 22p feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 700 feet, and being located north and west of the northwest corner of Ball Road and Harbor Houlevard, and further described as Orange Grove Mobile Village (1009 South Harbor Boulevard). Property pzesently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ Subject petition was considered previcusly at the October 5 and November 30, 1970, and January 25, 1971, public hearings, had been continued indefinitely for.•fhe petitioner to resolve problems. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slauqhter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to convert existing mobilehome spaces to travel trailer spaces on Portion A and have accessory outdoor recreational vehicle storage on Portion B, together with the request to establish a 50-square foot siqn - however, the R-A Zone would permit only a 20-square foot sign; that the petitioner had indicated it was necessary to change the existing mobilehome spaces co travel trailer spaces because the newer mobilehomes were much larger; that the petitioner was proposing to widen the existing driveways to enhance traffic circulation; that the chanqe-over of the existing mobilehome park ;•~^..~.~-••a~;*+w .. . - . . . ~-~-- . _. _ ~, '~ ,. . , ` _ _ ~ r : 0 ~ ~:_~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, :•Say 3, 1971 71-243 CONDITIONAL USE - was to be a gradual change, with the central spaces PERMIT NO. 1203 being converted much later and the mobilehome spaces _ (Continued) , in the front of the park being the last to be converted, making this site solely devoted to a travel trailer park; that the petitioner was also .. propesing to utilize the State owned property to the south as a storage area and temporary parking space for storage of trucks, travel trailers ' and boats, which the Commission might wish to determine whether the proposed method of convertinq the property to travel trailer uses was _ appropriate; whether it would be appropriate to take whatever steps were ~~~ necessary to have a more attractive appearance by landscape screening and ~,,~''.' a masonry wall around the storage area adjacent to one of the primary ~" "' entrances into the Commercial-Recreation Area. Finally, due to the fact that there were a number of deficiencies in the utility services, the ~? ~ Building Division recommended that if this petition were approved, a condition be imposed that the park be improved to comply with Title 25 of _ the California Administrative Code as deeme~ necessary by the Chief Building Inspector. 1 Mr. Leonard Crowley, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented to the Planning Commission a supplement to the petition which outlined in detail the steps and time periods for improve- ment to be made to the park (copy on file). Mr. Crowley further noted that there had been a question as to whether or not the property owned by the State would be leased for a lengthy period of time for the use proposed; therefore, a letter was being submitted from the State which indicated that a three-year lease would be granted. •; Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that this letter "~ would suffice as to any question the City Attorney's Office might have '} reqarding the State property. Mr. Crowley also noted t?~at the existing swimming pool would remain in the center of the area for the present; that he had been asked whether or not the tenants would be opposed to conversion of some of the spaces for travel trailer use, and, therefore, he was presenting a petition signed by 44 residents of the park indicating no opposition; that the park would be completely aonverted to a travel trailer park by 1976; and that the reason for this gradual transition was because some of the residents in the interior area had been there for up to fifteen years, and to force them out now would work a hardship upon them because present mobilehome parks would not permit their size mobilehomes. `` Commissioner Allred noted that most mobilehome parks did not• permit these older trailers in their parks, and then inquired whether or r.ot the petitioner has pursued this fact with their presant tenants. Mr. Crowley replied that he had not - however, they were only converting ~ the perimeter spaces for travel trailers, and then in answer to a question ; by Chairman Herbst, stated that they would use the State property for ~ storage of recreational vehicles while tenants were on their vacation, and storage would be on a temporary basis only. Chairman Aerbst then inquired whether or not the petitioner planned to purchase the property from the State and if the recommended landscaping ,~ could be installed, since this storage area was adjacent to the freeway on-ramp, and the City did not permit vehicular storag!, in areas which were not completely screened, either with a 6-foot masonry wall or landscaning, or both. , Mr. Crowley replied that his recent supplement indicated that the planting of dense landscaping along the State owned property would be completed no later than June 1, 1972, said landscaping, he felt, would be sufficient to provide a visual barrier between the on-ramp and the State owned property; that said land would be graded and oiled by December 1, 1971; and that the storage of vehicles would be done in a systemized manner rather than the haphazard manner presently existing. •---- - - ~___ .?''4, ,,.. -.~~,. s . . - . ,; -g~~r:- ;~ ~, ~, •'' ._. . . . . . . .. ..A~ P .'" :..~ I' .. . .. ~r+-~ . . ~ ~ _ ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . _ ~ r .\~ , ~-~ ~ ~.~) MZNUTES~ CxT}C PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma;~ 3, 1971 71-244 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Seymour noted that statement No. 3 ( ~ PERMIT NO. 1203 indicated landscaping in December, 1971 - however, (Continued) No. 4 also made this statement, but a later date, f-"-' therefore, he would like to have this clarified. Mr. Crowley replied that they planned to have the storage area graded and oiled, with the planting to occur on the latter date. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not the petitioner would , agree to landscaping the storage area at such time as the area was proposed ' to be used; whereupon Mr. Crowley replied that they would not object to i that. . 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that this area ! was already being used for storage purposes. Chairman Herbst then inquired whether the petitioner planned to have any landscaping in the interior of the storage area; whereupon Mr. Crowley replied negatively. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that planting of a tree at given spacing would break ~ up the expanse and appearance of concrete in the storage area. ~ Mr. Slaughter inquired whether or not the Commission was considering ~ requiring a wall along the north and west property lines, as well as the south, ~ince this would be considered one parcel because of the lease to be given by the State. The Commission noted that a wall would be in accordance with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Al~red then inquired whether or not the petitioner would agree to providing landscaping at the rate of 2$ in the interior of all storage areas because this would very effectively break up the massive ~ appearance of all concrete; whereupon Mr. Crowley stipulated to providing the 28 landscaping. Commissioner kllred further inquired whether or not the petitioner proposed to have a dump station on the site; whereupon Mr. Crowley replied there was ~ none on the premises at the present time - however, it was their intent to ~ place one on-site if the property presently owned by the State were purchased. Chairman Herbst inquired what was planned for the 30-foot strip along the ;~ westerly portion of the property; whereupon Mr. Crowley replied that th?re ~ was an existing fence along the boundary and around the curve, and it was i their intent to have landscaping there. -~ 8 ~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner proposed to ~ allow any more mobilehomes in the facility since the sign indicated it was ~ a mobilehome park; whereupon Mr. Crowley replied that the sign company, in making the print, had inserted the word "home" - however, this sign should ~ read "The Orange Mobile Village". Commissioner Gauer inquired how the petitioner proposed to control the length of time the travel trailer tenants would be allowed to stay - a week? or two7 whereupon Mr. Crowley replied that during the summer months the cha~ge would be on a day-to-day basis since it would be rather expensive to stay on a permanent basis - however, they did have weekly and monthly raTes during the off season; and that when the interior spaces were vacated, they would not be leased again for mobilehomes but would be converted to travel trailer spaces. Chairman Herbst noted that this park was a little different than others, and the Commission was quite concerned that some of these travel trailer spaces would be leased on a more permanent basis and inquired whether or not the petitioner would agree to limiting the stay to two weeks; whereupon Mr. Crowley replied that during the off season many people spent the winter months in Southern California, and the two weeks would not be desirable - ~t;-. ' ~,.... _ ~~. __ ~ '' t`_ . .._ _ , 5 ' , f ' .. . . _ . ~ . ` ' 'i . _ I _ ; I ~ j V ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 ~~ 71-245 COIvDITIONAL USE - however, during the summer they would have to PERMIT NO. 1203 daily basis. Pay on a (Continued) Chairman Herbst noted that conditions attached to approval of a use went with the land and not with the petitioner. Therefore, if the property were sold and these conditions were not set forth, then the new owner could allow people to stay on a more permanent basis, which was not the intent of the Comm±s- sion since travel trailers were not considered desirable as permanent living quarters, and then inquired what time limitation would the petitioner stipulate to. ~~ a' ~ , ;;. +~ ' .-:. s::: ',i:'; , . G;*, ~.,, ~ :r ,t„. ~li~'. >_ ~.;: ~ ;• • 1 , ci ! Mr. Crowley replied that a two-months' stay would be more desirable since during the winter they would have monthly rates. Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that no more than thirty days should be allowed for a stay. Mr. Roberts asked for clarification of whether the Commission wanted a wall around the entire park or just adjacent to the storage area; whereupon Commissioner Gauer replied that since the petiticner was only leasing the storage property owned by the State, no permanent wall should be required. Mr. Roberts then stated that he interpreted the Commission's statements that they would be agreeable to permitting the chainlink fence with adequate landscaping. Chairman Herbst noted that if the petitioner did not renew the lease or purchase the State property, then that portion of the travel trailer park should be required to have a 6-foot masonry wall separating the trai.ler park from the State property. Commissioner Gauer ~ffered Resolution No. PC71-80 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1203, subject to conditions and the added conditions that dense landscaping be provided adjacent to the chainlink fence on the State area; that 2$ of the parking area shall be planted withitrees and shrubbery; and that a time limitation of thirty days shall be permitted for each stay at the travel trailer park; and further provided that if at the end of the three-year lease of the State property said lease were not renewed or the property purchased, that the petitioner provide a 6-foot masonry wall between the existing travel trailer park and the former storage area. (See Resolation Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allr.ed, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Farano. VARIANCE NO. 2252 - PUBLIC HEARING. RONALD H, AND CHARLOTTE RHODES, 9301 thistle Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; JOSEPHINE B. LOPEZ, 3136-B West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WA=VER OF MiNIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A ROOF SIGN AND A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as; A rectangu- larly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 45 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 88 feet, and being located approximately 120 feet east of the centerline of Topanqa Drive, and further described as 3136-B West Lincoln Avenue. 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 utilize the roof sign located approximately 30 feet from an existing free- standing sign, whereas Code would require a minimum of 300 feet; that the existing roof sign was consrructed in violation of the ordit~ance and without benefit of a sign permit; that the parcel was a relatively narrow parcel. of property only 45 feet in width on which three commercial tenants were '-~t.=.~"°"°'~-.r~ . ~x - ..~u: ; . , ~ ' - ~ . ~ _ _~ - 1 I f j:-: i ~ . ~ . ~-~ ~ E, ~ MINUTES, C=TY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-246 VARIANCE NO. 2252 - located, and as frequently happened, all of the allow- (Continued) able signing had been granted to one tenant, leaving the other tenants with only a wall sign; and that while this was unfortunate, it was still a matter of contract between the landlord and the tenants since the Si.gn Ordinance made provision for sufficient signing provided the landlord and the tenants allocated the signing in an equitable manner. Therefore, it weuld appear to be far more appropriate that ttie appZicant, the landlord, and other tenant in the center work out an equitable signing solution on the permitted free-standing sign since approval of such a variance could very well Iead to requests by other property owners in the area for similar treatment, and there were many stores in this general area and throughout the city which were faced with a similar sign situation. Mrs. Josephine Lopez, agent for the petitioner, apneared before the Commission and noted that she would agree that it would be ideal to have an integrated free-standing sign - however, the tenant having that sign state3 he did not want any other sign attached to it, and this was the reason for her providing a roof sign so that persons traveling at a fast rate of speed down Lincoln Avenue could be forewarned of her place since the wall signing was inadequate, and by placing the sign high enough, the sign could be seen from u distance by both directions of traffic. Chairman Herbst noted that although the sign would appear to satisfy the needs of the tenant, it was in violation of the Siqn Ordinance; whereupon Mrs. Lopez stated that it was necessary to have some form of identification since the other tenant refused to allow any attachment to his sign; and that although she had talked with the landlord who operated the store adjacent to hers, she received no satisfaction from discussing the possibility of an integzated sign. Commissioner Gauer noted that owners should get their tenants together and discuss additional signing so that the City of Anaheim Sign Ordinance would not constantly be violated. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~j Commissioner Gauer noted that if a tenant were forced to leave a shopping area due to the fact that integrated sign?.ng was not permitted, then perhaps ` the owner of said shopping center night be more concerned and attempt to get this integrated signing. Therefore, he felt that subject petition should be -' continued to allow the agent far the petitioner time to try to work out the '~ problem with both the owner and the other tenants in order that 2he City's Sign Ordinance would not be violated, and that if subject petition were approved, this wosld establish an undesirable precedent. Mr. Slaughter, in response to a statement made by Commissioner Seymour ~ regarding the fact that the adjacent property had a free-standing sign `~ and maybe it would be possible to integrate both, stated that the petitioner ' could not place a sign on that property since this would constitute a bill- board; that all that would be permitted on subject property was to add ' f-~ to the existing free-standing sign; and that the square footage of said sign was less than Code would allow. Mrs. Lopez advised the Commission that the man who owned the free-standing ~?~ sign had paid for this sign and said he did not want any other sign attached to it. ~:~~ Comr.issioner Seymour then noted that although said tenant had paid for the sk~' `~ existing sign, it did not mean he would have to go to any additional expense ~^ ' to have the integrated sign since this could be part of what the agent for the petitioner would be paying, and that the agent for the petitioner should take the additional two weeks which Commissioner Gauer had suggested ~` in order to try to correct the situation and suggest that the landlord take more affirmative steps to require the other tenant to permit an inte- grated free-standing sign since this could set a precedent for other small shupping centers througiiout the city. ~`: .~! :: _ . . . .._. , . , . . ; .. . .. . -- -- , f.;. , ~ . , .. .. . ~t . - ' - - ~.:r: , -' . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ '' .. . . - . ~ _ ` . ~y . I _ .. ~..: ' ~ r \vl V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Flay 3, 1971 ~ ~l 71-247 VARIANCE NO. 2252 - Mrs. Lopez noted that there was another store down the (Continued) street on which similar signing was permitted on top of the store; whereupon Mr. Slaughter noted that this was the Baskin-Robbins sign, but this was approved because of a lung lease arrangement presented which made this a separate parcel. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 2252 to the meeting of May 17, 1971, in order that tlie ~etitioner might be able to resolve the problem of possibly having an integrated free-standing sign. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2254 - PUBLIC HEAI2ING. S.V.D. CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, INC., 7807 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORP., 1100 North Main Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT, (2) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA OF A FREF.-STANDING SIGN, (3) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIGN AREA, (4) MAXIMUM AREA OF A WALL SIGN, (5) ROOF SIGN LOCATION, AND (6) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN A ROOF SIGN AND A FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ESTABLISH A ROOF SIGN AND A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel af land having a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the north side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 183 fee°.:, and being located approximately 294 feet east of the center- line of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2561 West Ball Road. 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 waive six sections of the Sign Ordinance, noting that in 1970 the westerly 60 feet of subject property was developed as a drive-in cleaners and a free-standing sign which used the allowable signing for that 60-foot parcel was built when the cleaning agency was established; tnat the plot plan submit+_ed indicated this parcel was 75 feet wide - however, only 60 feet of the property which had not been allocated for sign purposes remained; and that staff had calculated the proposed signina on the basis of the remaining 60 feet of frontage so as to preclude allowing the same frontage to be counted twice for sign area calculations. Furthermore, the applicant was proposing a rather extensive signing program for this small parcel of commercial property as reflected in the large number of waivers requested; that in addition to free-standing sign and wall signs, the applicant was also proposing a rather massive superstructure on top of the building, this superstructure had been determined to be a roof sign, and as such, it was located too close to the adjoining property line and the proposed free-standing sign since Code would require 300 feet between the two signs - therefore, the primary question before the Planning Commission was whether there was justification for six waivers of the Sign Ordinance for a small parcel of ~roperty which was flat, regularly shaped, and had no unusual features; and that it would appea±- that approval of this application would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests and would not be consistent with the Planning Commission and City Council's desire to bring signs into conformity with the existing sign regulations. Mr. Joe Romo, reFresenting the Federal Sign & Signal Corp., agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission stating he was available to answer questions. Com:nissioner Allred inquized whether or not Mr. Romo was familiar with the City of Anaheim Sign Ordinance and received an affirmative reply, and then presented a photograph for the Commission to view of t}ie existing sign and that proposed when the building was remodeled when the building would be entirely occupied. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the agent for the petitioner could possibly redesign the sign so that it met most of the Sign Ordinance requirements. ~ ' .uri _, C J i ~ `. . i l~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 ( ~ 71-248 VARIANCE NO. 2254 - Mr. Romo replied that he could not understand the (Continued) reason for six waivers since this was a matter of interpretation of the Sign Ordinance; that the sign proposed was a trademark, and these signs had been installed in other cities throughout Southern California; that these signs were already manufactured for the proposed type of use; and that they had a contract to manufacture the sign - therefore, since this was the standard size sign and type of sign, the waivers wese necessary, Chairman Herbst inquire~3 why the sivn had to be at the height proposed; whereupon Mr. Romo replied that the 25-foot high sign would not be proper since engineering drawings had established the height needed for these pre-manufactured signs. ,~. ; Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the sign was so large that it :t was necessary to erect the sign higher than the 25 foot heig:~t requirement. Mlr. Romo replied that thi~ was partly the reason. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission in the past hau other petitions 1 submitted to them in which it was claimed the signs were trademarks, and said signs being far in excess of the sign requirements - however, when the Commission had suggested redesiyn to meet the Code, the sign was presented to the Commission within Code requirements and still was a very attractive sign. Mr. Romo replied that he did not feel the proposed signs would be detrimental for that part of the city because from the photograph the adjoining commercial uses had been established. ;'>; i Chairman Herbst noted that he understood what the agent for the petitioner ;i was attempting to say - however, the Sign Ordinance specifically set forth =!`~ the permitted sign dimensions; that the proposed sign was so far out of '~ line that the Commission was not desirous of approving this, although ..:{ waivers from the Sign Ordinance, where only minor deviations were proposed, :~ had been considered in the past. However, the si n g proposed by thP peti- tioner had so many major waivers from the Sign Ordinance, and the Commission ~' in the past had never granted so many ,~aivers, he would suggest the petition ?~ be con~inued for the petitioner to submit revised plans of the sign. Furthermore, the figures that were proposed on the top of the building were - considered a trademark and, as such, were considered advert~sing signs. i~ ;';s~ Commissioner Gauer noted that he would suggest staff work with the sign company to indicate the limitations of the Sign Ordinance in redesigning this sign. ,~;; Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2254 to the meeting of May 17, 1971, in order to allow the L petitioner time to submit revised plans more in conformance with the Sign ; Ordi.nance. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. a RECLi~SSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. A. D. AND M. A. STRAND, 890 West NO. 70-71-48 Grove Avenue, Orange, ~alifornia Owners• . DONALD , F. BUHLER AND M. L. BOWER, 4001 Birch Street, Newport ~' Beach, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin ~f 4 , - a . roximat ,:- Pp ely 2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the ,~, north side of Cerritos Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately = 630 feet and being located approximately ~62 feet we.:t of the centerline '-~ of Knott Street, and further described as 3531-37 West Cerritos Avenue, be reclassified irom the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY r f~ RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close ` proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that the General Plan indicated properties in this area as being appropriate for medium-density development, and in view of ~. ~t ; ~'. , ~: ;. +'_ ._., . - _ - •' " ~ .. , k - - ' i ~ ` -° ~ --. ' , <.~ ' ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-249 RF.CLASSIFICATION - that designation, R-3 zoning would appear appropriate; ~ NO. 70-71-48 however, the property was very narrow and deep, and ~ (Continued) some difficulty might be encountered if the parcel were not combined with other adjacent property for a ~ single development. However, in the event the R-3 zoning were approved, the property would have to be developed in accordance ~ with the R-3 Zone standards which would limit development of the property to single-story units due to the adjoining R-1 and R-A land uses. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. '~~~'i` Commissioner Rowland noted that there was no way !:hat he would vote for ~~ this reclassification because of the size and shay~e of the parcel, and ~` because there were no development plans eith~r, and normally, if the -~~ parcal were suitable ~r the zoning ri~quested, then plans were not -,s required - however, bc;;.~ ae of the size and shape, it would be necessary '~ for the Commission to review plans or for land assembly in order to develop , the property. '. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that if they ~ were desirous of asking questions of the petitioner, he would attempt to ~ `+ contact one of the petitioners or agents, and perhaps the Commission 4 would like to continue subject petition until later on in the meeting; 3 whereupon Chairman Herbst determined that this should be done. ~ (Continued to page No. 71-255)~. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GERALDINE E. ROTH, ET AL, P. O. Box ~1 NO. 70-71-49 R, Plac~ntia, California, Owner; UPPER K RANCH, 11 P. O. Box 275, Placentia, California, Agent; request- 'I ing that property described as: An irregularly-shaped :~ parcel of land consisting of approximately 40 ar.res fronting on the south _ ^,J side of the Riverside Freeway, having a maximum depth of approximately ~ ;f 750 feet, and beinq located approximately 2,800 feet east of the center- ~ I line of Imperial Highway, be reclassified from the County A1, GENERAL $ ~~ AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. : r ;~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~ subject property, uses established in close~proximity, noting that subject 1 property was still in the County of Orange, and the petitioner was request- ~ ';; ing prezoning for the property to the City of Anaheim R-2-5000 Zone; that i ,°`..: the property was in an area designated for low-density residential uses on ~ the General Plan; that in 197d the Planning Commission and City Council ~~ considered General Plan Amendment No. 122, which included two alternative ~ density proposals for this area, and those alteraatives were: 1) retaining the present low-density designation then shown on the General Plan, or 2) 1 changing the density designation to low-medium density residential and i both the Planning Commission and City Council reaffirmed low-density , designation for this particular area; that in the description and purpose 'i of the R-2-5000 2one, the statement was made that this zone was intended "~ to provide for and encourage the orderly development of single-family residences on minimum 5000-square foot lots in areas deemed appropriate for low-medium and medium density residential on the General Plan - however, in view of the fact that the Planning Commission and City Council found this area was appropriate for low-density residential development, ; the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed R-2-5000 zoning '. would provide the type of development the Commission and City Council ~:; envisioned for this area. ~"`"' Mr. Slaughter further noted that the_.text of the General Plan provided ~';~„ . that one of the policies for residential devAlopment in the Hill and Canyon ~ area was to encourage development of a varietl of dwelling types and densi- ties which provided housing for different family sizes and age gzoups, and in view of this general palicy statement, this proposal might have certain im lications for enerat lannin principles in this area since 4 P 9 '= P at the present time 922 R-2-5000 .lots were proposed in various tracts on the north side of the Santa Ana River, and if the same type of develop- ment were permitted on the south side of the river, it would seem apparent '~;Y: that 5000-square foot lots would become the standard for development of the entire area bounded by the Santa Ana River, Imperial Highway, and ',"~ ' Santa Ana Canyon Road. ~ ~ i i' f~,. .~ ~s:' ,..., ... .. ~ - ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . : f ... _-: 3r,;, . ~... _.... , . . . . , . . ~ _ ^ ~ ~ , --~, , .. : ~ _~ . . .. . .. . ~ . i~ . ~ . .~ I ~ .. -- ~.~..,~. I . . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, i371 71-250 RECLASSIFICATIOPi - Mr. Jeff Millet, representing the agent for the NO. 70-71-49 petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted (Continued) that in submitting the proposed reclassification this was based on the fact that the City Council had indicated they would look favorably on this zoning for the property south of the Santa Ana Ri~~cr to Santa Ana Canyon Road even though they approved retention of low density for this portion of the Anaheim General Plan. Chairman Herbst noted that the Planning Commission in their resolution had recommended that both sides of the river be retained for low-density residential use - however, the City Council stated they felt low-medium density or R-2-5000 would be acceptable for that property north of the river. Mr. Millet then noted that they had been attempting to annex this property to the City, and at a meeting with City scaff r.egarding sewers, easements, etc., they had stated this would be considered favorably for R-2-5000 zoninq because mobilehome parks had been approved by the County on the properties nearby. Furthermore, there again arose the problem of den~ity, and if conditions of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, if approved, were met, this zoning would be no different than 7200-square foot lots. Chairman Herbst noted that there would be more people since the same conditions would apply to the R-1 Zone as it applied to the R-2-5000 Zone, except that lots would be a minimum of 7200 square feet instead of 5000 square feet, resulting in more people with the R-2-5000 Zone. Commissioner Allred stated he would rather see housing plans instead of approving the zoning. Mr. Millet replied that this had been a requirement in the past, namely, the submission of plans~.for approval for any development in the canyon. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone had undergone a number of revisions, and those properties on the north side of the river had been required to submit plans for approval as a condition of zoning on the property. Chairman Herbst noted that now the petitioner was proposing to have the R-2-5000 2one jump across the river, and the next thing one could expect was R-2-5000 zoning in the hillside area instead of the R-H-10,000 now on the property or projected for the area. Mr. Millet noted that when General Plan Amendmnnt No. 122 was considered, the City Council stated they might consider R-2-5000 zoning for that pro;~erty north of ':anta Ana Canyon Road if worthwhile development plans were submitted. Chairman Herbst noted that when the R-2-5000 Zone was established, it was in lieu of developing properties zoned or considered appropriate for multiple-family residential use, but it appeared this original logic had long been forgot*_en, and its intent was becoming more remote. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission felt this area, including subject property, was appropriate for low density, and the Commission should continue considering this as such. ,;, Mr. Millet noted that since there now existed a freeway on the north with ;;, its attending high spPed and heavy traffic, together with a drainage channel on the west and the Santa Ana Canyon Road proposed to be an " expressway on the south, which could carry up to 55,000 cars per day, S`^ according to staff's estimates, it would a ppear that low density would be impossible. Furthermore, this property was down in a hole, and for a ; higher yield, fill dirt could be brought in, which would raise the height !'= of these lots so that they would not sit in a hole. Commissioner Allred inquired how low this property was; whereupon Mr. Millet ,", repli._d that during the 1968-69 flood, the river took all the dirt out, R `% .~f:t ' - :.,--- .:. : , ...,:..:.,. . _, .. s k,,;~.=,.. •,,;..-.~,;;,, . . . ~ . 4y ! . , Q: , 'F ~ ~?. ~ . ,`'~ i;;. ,! t' I?!,. ~; j . *.'' , .f3! ;, .. i r -;c:, i.. ,,. _ : ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 ~ (~ 71-251 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ RECLAS~IFICATION - reducing the depth, and the freeway now constructe3 NO. 70-71-49 was higher than subject property. (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood inquired what kind of a problem would be presented to the schools who had based their long-range projections according to the General Plan - if there was an increase of one-third more homes, more children, and more cars. Mr. Millet replied that this had been a topic of discussion for a number of years - however, this was not flat ground where the yield would be higher, but was down in a hole and was the main reason for requesting the proposed zoning. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Planning Commission in 1970 considered General Plan Amendment No. 122 and determined that low density was appropri- ate for this area in which subject property was located, and there was little logic in the principle that because this property was less desirable it should be developed with a higher density, and that he would agree with Commissioner Gauer that subject property should be considered only for R-1 zoning. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson inquired whether the Commission in their stat.^ments was indicating to the City Council what they wanted for this area. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that since the reclassification was only a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council, the petitioner had a riqht to present his arguments to the City Council regard- ing R-2-5000 zoning. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-81 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-49 be denied for R-2-5000 zoning on the basis that the Commission had recommended low-density residential development in General Plan Amendment No. 122 for this general area, and the City Council had concurred in this recommendation. Furthermore, the Planning Commission also recommended to the City Council that.the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone be considered favorably for subject property in keeging with the General Plan recommendations, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) Mr. Roberts inquired whether or not the Commission intended that the condition of the reclassification be the submission of plans for approval prior to the introduction af an ordinance; whereupon Commissioner Seymour noted his motion was intended to include the requirement that any develop- ment proposed for subject property be subject to the submission of specific site plans which would conform with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission on the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and requested that this be made a part of the resolution. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood (see below), Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Kaywpod, ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Rowland ~tated that his reason for voting "no" was based on the fact that he would not vote for any residential land use for properties ;.hat would be under water; whereupon Commissioner Kaywood changed her vote to "no". ' ~ i %.c.;' . ~ ~ _a ^ ~ _ ~ ,' / I _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-252 ; RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a ten-minute recess at i 3:55 P.ri. i - -= ~ RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:05 P.M., ; Commissioners Farano and Seymour being absent. i I ~j, i i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARTNG. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING ~ NO. 70-71-50 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ; - California; proposing that property described as: i i:••c An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ~:~;' ..`~:;~ ` approximately 85 acres on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and ~' on the south side of the Riverside Freeway, having a maximum depth of :~ ~; approximately 1,340 feet, and being located approximately 2,000 feet ;~ east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, be reclassified from the , COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, ~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ; ~ subject pruperty, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal } to establish City of Anaheim zoning on subject property at such time as ~ it was annexed to the City of Anaheim. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING W~1S CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71~82 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for j~ Reclassification No. 70-71-50 be approved, subject to conditior.s. (See ;i Resolution Book) ;:1 -~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: c.~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. ~ ^_~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ~ ,,':~ - , ,,7 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. R. SPEHAR, J. LIBERIO, AND H. BUDLONG, `;={ NO. 70-71-53 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California, Owners; ~"; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Linaoln Avenue, TENTATIVE MAP OF Agent; requesting that property described as: An TRACT NO. 7419 irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- ~ ,;.`~t mately 45 acres, having a frontaqe of approximately ~ 1,540 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,340 feet, and being located ~ approximately 2,000 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, be ~ `' reclassified from the COUNTY P_1, GENERAL AGRICUI,TURAL, DISTRICT AND CITY ~ OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, 20NE. .~~ ' TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOP~R: RAYMOND SPEHAR AND J. LIBERIO, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject property is proposed for subdivision into 240 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~;' '~ subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that the petitioner had submitted a request for a two-week continuance h~" '~ in order to allow time to revise the tentative tract map. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassi- fication No. 70-71-53 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7419 to the meeting of ;~~ May 17, 1971, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Seymour entered the Council Chamber at 4:10 P.M. ti : .~! ,. _i ¢ ~ ~ i .'- ~'^u.,., .. . . . ~ . . . . . . . , _. ~ ~ . ' . .<yi'j.~..»..Y.~.~.e 4 ' ... , .::? ~-~: .. . .. . ' ~ ' ~ .. . ~ ~ r U ~ a~ ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-253 -, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. URBAN REALTY, INC., Box 2067, NA. 70-71-51 Fullerton, California, Owner; ALFRED D. PAINO, .- . 711 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; CONDITIONAL USE property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel PERMIT NO. 1235 of land having a frontage of approximately 140 feet on ~' the west side of Beach Boul~vard, having a maximum depth • of approximately 620 feet and being located approximately 1,300 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classi- fied R-3, MULTIPI,E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ''_M-~ - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~~ . -..,..:.; ..y ";.c, ~~.. . , , ... ;~., REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE. ;" Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a miniature golf course on subject property, noting that when the property was zoned to R-3 for the establishment of a 45-unit apartment complex, a condition of approval was dedication for the extension of Hayward ~ Street through subject property, with bonding posted to insure improvement of said street when it was extended northerly; that the petitioner was now proposing C-1 zoning on the property which would include the existing dedicated street, and if approved, Hayward Street would have to be abandoned or the golf course would have to be developed under an encroachment permit which could be revoked at any time. Furthermore, the Anaheim General Plan designated the Beach Boulevard frontage for commercial land use, with the balance of the property for medium-density residential use - therefore, it would appear that the zoning for the front 300 feet would be appropriate, ~ and the Commission might wish to determine whether or not the proposed C-1 °~ zoning - permitting many commercial uses - would be appropriate for the entire parcel, including that portion adjacent to the existing single- family homes, and whether the proposed use of the property for a miniature ! golf course would also be appropriate. Mr. A1 Paino, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he was the owner-operator of Home Run Park and proposed to develop t this miniature golf course; that he was desirous of having only the front ~"'r portion reclassified to the C-1 Zone, with the conditional use permit for .~ the continuation of the golf course on the rear portion; and then noted >,:~, the various commercial uses to the north, south, and east of subject ,;y property. Mr. Paino then reviewed the past R-3 zoning history of the property, noting that many of the single-family homeowners protested the R-3 zoning, and the extension of Hayward Street was requested by these property owners - however, they did not want Hayward Stree•t to be developed; that the single- family homeowners primarily affected by the proposed use had indicated they were in favor of the proposea miniature golf course; that regardless of whether the zone was placed on the front 300 feet or for the entire 600 feet, it would still affect the single-family homes; that Hayward Street would not be extended northerly because it would mean acquisition of an old home on the nursery property - however, the operator of the nursery had no intention of vacating the premises; that secondary access for the three large 10-acre parcels could be accomplished by a residential street from the west and Orange Avenue, which would be better for residential uses projected for the property rather than having access by way of a heavily traveled, commercial street. ~ Mr. Paino further noted that it was his intent to operate this facility in ~.; ,~' the same manner as he was presently operating Home Run Park, projecting this as a family-type activity; that he was also planning this as a tourist attraction, using a baseball theme with both Angel and other baseball figures, as well as the existing emblem of the stadium; ar.d that it was his hope to have this operation as successful as Home Run Park after ten years~. ~ Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not this was proposed as an interim use; whereupon Mr. Paino stated that it was his intent to operate it on a permanent basis provided, of course, it was successful. .IktR .I' , ;: ~, ~ ~'"~ T ~ ~) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ M3;• 3, 1971 71-254 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer noted that his reason for asking NO. 70-71-51 this was based on the fact that the City could grant an encroachment permit across that portion of the ~yr CONDITIONAL USE property dedicated for street purposes, which could be PERMIT NO. 1235 revoked if a difL•erent use were proposed for this (Continued) area as well a~ subject property. Mr. Paino replied that said street was required at the time the k-3 was approved because the single-family homeowners were opposed _ to the zoning; however, these homeowners also requested that the street be ;•:•. _ sealed off so that no access could he made, and the adjoining 10-acre "~r, parcels could be served as well from Orange Avenue or the residential ~~`~ '"'~'~;-Jf~ street to the west, rather than having access from a busy, heavily-travelen thozoughfare. Commissioner Gauer noted he could see nothing wrong as an interim use, but ! rather than giving up the dedicated portion, it would be better to grant the ' encroachment easement to insure that said street would be available for sts extension northerly at such time as the City required it, or if there was no intent in the future to extend it, the City could return the property to 1 the owner. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the ~ngineering Division would recommend that the easement be retained as it presently existed. :t _ . `,'-'~ ;~t 'r.~ ~,'~:6 :.; ;: ~ -z Y ~~f~, r. ~? ,. x k`, ;i ;t ' . ~'~ ~ I~~t . ~ ;~ , .~ :~1 ~_ Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the City would lease back this property to the petitioner if this were considered an interim use, or could this encroachment permit be revoked at any time. Mr. Titus advised thQ Commission that the City could issue an encroachment permit until the property was proposed to be used for street purposes. Chairman Herbst then inquired whether this encroachment permit would be granted subject to giving a specified t~me period for the use of the property; whereupon Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that an encroachment permit was revocable at will. Commissioner Allred inquired why it was necessary for the City to retain this dedication; whereupon Mr. Titus replied that ~he City was desirous of extending the street to Orange Avenue at such time as the larger parcels to the west and north developed. Chairman Herbst then noted that the Commission could grant the reclassifica- tion for the front 300 feet, retaining the R-3 for the rear portion, with a conditional use permit to allow the requested use for a given period of time. Zoninq Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to questioning by Chairman ; Herbst, noted that the properties to the north and south had 300-faot parcels -- however, both were still R-A parcels. Mr. Paino not.ed that there was a sewer easement on the southerly property line, and together with the parking and access, there would be only about 95 feet left fo~: a workable space for the golf course. Two letters were received from adjoining single-family homeowners indicating no opposition to the proposed use of subject property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-83 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 70-71-51 be approved for the front 300 feet only; that the petitioner submit a.new legal description for this portion of the property; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~.:-, - ~ : ~ ~, _. : R.k { <~ : _.. ~`>, , .; ~ _ - -~ - , _ . , . ~.. _ - _, - _ + ~ ; ~ ~ 1 .- --~---- - ~.~ {~ t ~ --- r1INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-255 RECLASSIFICATION - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, NO. 70-71-51 Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. PERMIT NO. 1235 , (Continued) Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-84 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1235, subject to obtain- ing an encroachment permit for Hayward Street from the City of Anaheim, and _._•. subject to conditions, with the added condition that the site development _...~ ,_ standards of the C-1 Zone shall apply to both the front and rear portions as it pertained to landscaping. (See Resolution Book) 5s ~ -~' .. On ro17. call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: `"' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. d ABSENT: COMMISS=ONERS; Farano. ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. ,7, B, Childers, 2951 West Ball Road, representing NO. 70-71-48 Mr. Strand and Mr. Buhler, a (Continued) sion and noted that Mr. Buhlerehaddabefore the Commis- pplied for this zone change as the potential buyer, and his not showing might indicate he was no longer interested in the ' proposal. However the _ , petitioner would like the zoning if it were at all ; feasible and requested that the Commission consider this. '{ Chairman Herbst noted that the ~; parcel was too narrow and deep to consider ,'~ applying blanket R-3 zoning on the ro ert land assembly of the adjacent deep lots beYattempted~inlorder~thatdtheat City's Code requirements as to site development standards of the R-3 Zone `` ~~ could be met; that the depth of the lot made it almost impossible for proper :1 development under said zone since the rear portion was over 600 feet from a ~ dedicated street; and that a variance ~aould be necessary if development 1, ;I~ occurred on subject property alone. ~~ Commissioner Allred further noted that the petitioner would be limited to .,,~ single-story beaause the adjacent properties were R-A and R-1 to the north- ; west; therefore, it would be almost impossible to develop a worthwhile '' project on such a narrow, deep parcel. Furthermore, if the Commission were ~~ to consider this favorably, then development plans should be submitted so Y~ that the Commission could determine what could be done on the property. ', Chairman Herbst noted that perhaps the petitioner should consider a six- ._ month continuance to allow time for possible land assembly and fpr the submission of development plans of the property. ` Commissioner Rowland stated that a one-mohth continuance would be more ;' practical, and if the petitioner at that time was unable to reso?,c; his ; differences or propose land assembly, then development plans cou_ e -F presented. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue oonsideration of Petition ~ for Reclassification No. 70-71-48 to the meeting of June 2, 1971, to allow ~: , time for the petitioner to contact adjoining property okners for possible ~, land assembly and for the submissior. af ae•,elopment plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. r:: ~, `r S^ ia: ~ . ~ ~~ . ~ '- .. ~~ ' ~:.' ••« ~.. . ~ ~ - .. ~ . . ~ - _ . . . i x 1 A . . ' ' . . ~ . ` . ~ ~ i i 1 ~y:~ ~ ! l-~ ~ ~.J , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-256 .; RECLASSIFICATION - HELEN G. MC CURDY, 203 New Avenue, Anaheim, California, NO. 70-71-52 Owner; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped .,_ parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 116 VARIANCE NO. 2251 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a • maximum depth of approxzmately 127 feet, and being •~ located approximat~ly 793 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further descrihed as 2204 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. , ~`~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AFEA, (2) MINIMUM ~~'' FRONT S~TBACK, (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARDS, (4) MAXIMUM ] LOT COVERAGE, AND (5) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASOI3RY WALL 7' TO PERMIT A 5-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. . i` t ;y Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, - noting that the original plan submitted with this petition indicated that ~;• the owner's unit would have an area of 1200 square feet - however, the appli.cant had revised the plan to reflect a 1260-square foot unit, there- fore, the requested waiver of minimum floor area for the detached dwelling ~~ unit was no lon er necessar ~ 4 y, and the remainder of the units exceeded Code ~ minimum; that_ since La Palma Avenue was an arterial highway, a 20-foot setback would be required - however, the plans reflected only a 15-foot front yard setback; that the plans also indicated that private patios ,~ would be provided along the southerly boundary of the property, and these , patios were proposed to be 10 feet deep, whe.reas Code would require a `,Sj- 13-foot yard, and the distance between the owner's unit and the other ~• '~N; apartment units was slightly less than Code would require; that the ~ ii General Plan indicated this area as being appropriate for low-medium ~ density land use - therefore, the requested R-2 zoning would appear to 'r be appropriate - however, the planning Commission would wish to determine ~ '31 whether the proposed development, with the requested waivers, would be =~ compatible with the sorrounding land uses, and while the coverage was only ~ ~ 1.3$ over the maximum permissible in the R-2 2one, it would appear that the land use intensity was rather high; that the ~.roperty immediately to ` ~~: the west was slightly larger than subject property, and there were only ~ ~ Eour dwelling units on that parcel as opposed to the six proposed for ~ '~ this parcel; and that the applicant had stated in his petition that no - exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existed here, only the require- i -~ ments of the owner and the applicant. Consequently, the Planning Commission ~ ~ would wish to determine whether the project should be redesigned to conform ~ y more closely to the site development standards of the R-2 Zone. E` - ~ ! Mr. David Gibson, 12712 Country Lane, Santa Ana, representing M±s. McCurdy, ~ the petitioner, apFeared beEoze the Commission and noted that he had ~ reviewed the recoaxmended conditions by the Interdepartmental Committee ~ -zb and would agree with them. Chairman Herbst .ioted that it ~•as his opinion subject petitions should be continued because the petitioner was requesti.ng too many waivers from the Anaheim Municipal Code with no hardship being proven; that the petitioner was crowding this land, thus the waivers seemed to be necessary. 1I Mr. Gibson noted that the plans had been presented for approvel - however, they realized they were not in accordance with Code requirements, and these waivers were only minor in deviation from the Code; that the owner wanted to have her unit separated from the other residential uses; that they felt they had met Code requirements since the plan had been changed three times prior to the latest one before the Commission. sf,; : Mr. Slaughter noted that the petitioner could redesign the prope~ty and reduce the size of the units, thereby not even having to reduce the number of units since the petitioner was desirous of having the number of units ~'~' proposed. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission was not concerned with the waiver of the minimum required floor ares or maximum lot coverage since ~~ tAe petstioner had submitted revised plans indicating the minimum floor `.~ area of the detached dwelling to be 1225 square feet, i iS S 3 ~ 1 i ~, . . , : 4.,~,~.-;~---~:::..~ • - ,~..---~~ ~ : ' ~ i ~ ~ <, j ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM:+l2SSION, May 3, 1971 71-257 RECLASSIPICATION - the maximum permitted lot coverage differential was ~ NO. 70-71-52 too small to be of concern - however balance of the waivers . 4ranting the •~ VP.i2IANC,S NO. 2251 to the west was larqer~andrhadudevelopedewitheonlyPerty (Cont:CnLi.ed) four units, to grant subject variance would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by other property owners. Discussion was hn_ld by the Commission as to the length of time to continue ~ subject petitions, the representative of the petitioner indicating that he ~ ,: ~. would agree to a four-week continuaace. ~ ;,,. .;; ,_*,_ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that if the necessary changes were ' "' ~~' minor in character as indicated, a two-week continuance would be a~l that ! ~ ~,~ was necessary. _ '~. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions - for Reclassification No. 70-71-52 and Variance No. 2251 to the meeting of ~ May 17, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. ~ Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOT.LON CARRIED. ( ~: I RECLASSIFICATION - PIIBLIC HEP.RING. JOE P. LEMONS, 1808 West Chalet ' NO. 70-71-54 Avenue (Parcel A) and WALTER A. ilIEHL, 1731 South , ~! , Euclid Street (Parcel B), Anaheim, California, Owners; s ~ CONL'ITIONAL USE F. EARL MELLOTT, 810 Avocado, Brea, Califoriiia, Agent; `i I PERMIT NO. 1236 property described as: Parcel A- A rectangularly- r~ sha ed f, p parcel of land hav_ng a frontage of approximately ~ VARIANCE NO. 2253 170 feet on the west side o~ Euclid Street, having a ~ maxLmum depth of approximacely 111 feet, and being 'l locateci approximately 330 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Parcel B- A rectangularly-shaped :j~ parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 66 feet cn the west side .-,~~ of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 120 fee~, and ;~ being located approximately 494 feet north of the centerline of Oranqe Avenue, and further described as 439 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE for both Parcels A and B, ;~~ REQUESTED CLASnIFICATION: R-A, AGRICULTURAL 20 . :~ , NE (Parcel A) , C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (Parcel B). ~ ! `~ ' REQUESTED CONAITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN ANIMAL CLINIC ON PARCEL B. ~ ' { ~ N ~.! REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR PARCEL A. ''~. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~ subject property, uses established in close roximit ~ ? the Commission, noting that the properties were locatedain aneareaoproposed ~ ~, for commercial conversion at the time of the adoption of the study of ~ ~ Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways; that in 1970 the Planning ~ Commission and City Council adopted Area Development Plan No. 95 which -`,;; established a secondary access system for these properties; that the a area development plan proposed an alley system which would allow three >b access points to Euclid Street and would require dedication of access `~~ rights to Euclid Street from all parcels except at an approved access ~ point; that the Planning Commission and City Counci•1 adopted Area Develop- ~ ment Plan No. 95 in principle but permitted the proposed secordary access ~i system to be private accessways rather than dedicated public alleys; and that this plan wovld apply to subject property wherein provisions of common ~` accessways along the south boundary of Parcel A and the westerly boundaries of both Parcels A and 73 - however, no direct access from Parcel B to Fm Euciid Street would be permitted. ~~ r: Mr. Earl Mellott, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that at the time the petitions were initiated, he did not know ` about the alley required to the rear - however, he had rearranged the plans so that he could obtain parkinq to the rear; that the person propesing to t develop subject property wanted access from the front since this was the only way to get the business started until the entire alley was developed; *~; ~ ~ ~ U ~ j , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 3, 1971 71-258 RECLASSIFICATION - not use the alley for access purposes and he had NO. 70-71-54 planned to park in the fron*_ rather than parking in the rear; that there was sufficient space for CONDITIONAL USE seven parking spaces off the alley, and there would PERMIT NO. 1236 be adequate parking wtien the alley access wa4 changed; ' that the request for Parcel A was necessary because VARIANCE NO. 2253 of an illegal lot split when one portion was sold off - (Continued) therefore, the variance was needed to permit an R-A parcel of less than one acre in size; that the property _, owner cf Parcel A presently had his home on thp property ..~.: as wzll as the vacant lot, and eventually he proposed to reclassify the ~{:r.+ ':; property but was not desirous of doing so at the present time because of the ~ possibility that his taxes would be increased, and this he did not want to r ' do until he was ready to sell; and that one of the recommendati~ns in the report regarding signing being required in the center 20$ of the property °`• would be rather difficult to do since this would locate the sign i.n the center o£ the driveway. Mrs. Cecile Gough, 421 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission 1. in opposition and stated that she felt the proposed use of the property . would not be compati~le with the adjoining land uses because it wa~ an animal hospital, and unless land assembly was attempted with all of the property owners getting together to make something reasonable out of this, any uses proposed could be detrimental; that they were caught in a bind where they cauld do nothing with their property s~~nce 20 feet had to be allocat~d for the rear accessway and an additional 10 feet had to ~+e dedi- cated along the Euclid Street frontage - therefore, they felt they would rather retain the residential use of their property nntil such time as all the adjoining property owners could combine their properties to develop ` it; that it would not be fair to allow the development of only a small i portion of subject property, and the resolution by the Planning Commission at the time they recommended consideration for approval by the City Council ~ indicated they did not like spot zoning at the time the real estate office •Y~ adjacent to them had been approved; and that if subject petitions were ::;~ approved and the request granted, she could not see why the other property ,,p owners could not have the same privilege of providing parking in the front ~,„ rather than requiring it in the rear and alley access provided as the p resolution indicated. ;~ Miss Paula Gough, 421 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission, noting she represented Mrs. Oma Booher, 417 South Euclid Street, Mr. Russell `.t Grey, 409 South Euclid Street, and Mrs. Howard Unkrep, 429 South Euclid " ~ Street, all in opposition to the proposed use; that the reasons just ,.-'+ presented by the opposition were also their sentiments, but they were also concerned with the possibility that this hospital would not be sound- proofed, and even if it were sound-proof, this would not prevent the dogs barking outside while beinq taken to the waiting room, and one could not - have five dogs in a waiting room without starting some kind of a fight which necessitated taking them outside, and their excretions could cause odors to build up; that dogs must be walked daily, which, again, would bring the problem of excretion and dirt; that the lot was too small for y the proposed use; that when the Tolar property was consid~red for reclassi- fication, the Commission stated they did not want spot zoning; that a sixty-year-old tree - a landmark - on the Tolar property had been torn out; that they were opposed to the proposed use; chat she was fully aware of ~ the problems of dogs, particularly puppies, since she had a number of them, and one had to change papers every fifteen minutes or take them outdoors ~ which, again, would mean undesirable odors and messes. ? Mr. John Harrison, ~38 South Falcon Street, appeared before the Commission '• in opposition and noced that he re resented the ' P property owners to the west of subject property; that their opposition was the same as was previously ~'~ stated regarding spot zoning, the prflposed use, etc. M.r.. Mellott, in rebuttal, stated that the dog runs were enclosed, and dogs would :~ever be taken outsid:~: of the building except to be taken to the ~ cars; that this would be a oiie-doctor hospital, and he did not intend to keep the dogs overnight - therefore, he would discourage this; that it was R' .~ ; . E: ;~_~~:+~.ie+ ~-x ~~, ~%" , . - . . _ ' ~ C _r ~,~ .~ ,~ s r U ~ MINUTES, C~Tx,PI~~NN~NG COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 ~ 71-259 RECLASSIFICATION - proposed to construct a glass block building having N0. 70-71-54 windows only in the front; that the building would be completely sound-proof• and that this would be a very CONDITIONAL USE trtodern building which he was sure the neighbors would PERMIT NO. 1236 not be ~pposed to. VARIANCE NO. 2253 Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the (Continued) Commission that the real estate office was required to develop in accordar.ce with Area Development Plan t:o. 95; that there was no alley presently existing behind the real estate offic~ - however, the resolution of the City Council ~ stated that the alley would be installed at such time as the adjoining properties were developed; and that he was gran~ed temporary access to and from Euclid Street. Chairman Herbst observed that it would appear these properties aould develop as individual lots rather than what the Commission intended when the area developnent plan was adopted, namely, land assembly of these parcels. Mr. Roberts further noted that one of the c~~:iditions of approval of the real estate office was reservation of 20 feet on the west property line and 10 feet on the north property line, which would be req•iired at such time as the City demanded it, as well as requiring the street and private alley improvements as the need appeared. Chairman Herbst noted that the area development plan required the alley area on the north of the real estate office - however, if subject proper~y were developed, then the alley could be zelocated on the south property line, thus starting the alley to the rear, and one of ~.he access points to Euclid Street could be developed, as well as removing the temporary access to Eucli.d Street for the properties. This also would permit those properties to the north of the real estate office to develop as they pleased so long as they met the intent of the area development plan. However, if subject property were permitted to have temporary access ~o Euclid Straet, this would be defeating the purpose of the area development plan. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompsoa noted that the intent of the area development plan was not only to allow assembly of parcels, but to develop the parcels individually with the number of access points proposed to connect with"the alley at the rear, and if this area development plan were adhered to, the commercial building could be developed to the front with the alley to the rear. Commissioner Gauer noted that since this was the second reclassification petition and tiie property was immediately adjacent to the real estate office, there should be a meeting of minds with the three properties owners to implement the area development plan since the petitioner of subject property was requesting t~ have a driveway in front of the property. Mr. Roberts noted that since the real estate o£fice to the north was required to provide only 10 feet, this could be applied ta subject property, as well, thereby developing one of the access points of the area development plan, namely, 20 feet. Commissianer Seymour noted that he would agree with Commissioner ~auer that when an opportunity presented itself, then the alley should .^ required to be developed - however, there was another consideration and thar_ was the fact that when the Commission considered the real estate office, the neigh- bors were present en masse, and they a~ked what types of uses would be permitted; whereupon Commissioner Farano had assured them that the normal C-1 use~ would be permitted. Therefore, it was very clear to him that the property owners did not find this proposed use as a normal C-1 use since it required a conuitional use permit, and approving this petition could be ~iolating the trust in the Commissi.on which the people had when the resolu- tion of intent to C-1 was recommended for approval. d::_ ~ ~t' , ~: .: ~~~ ~ f _r ~.G _ °r~w'.~ ..~. .'.. .. ~ i, . , i ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-260 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that before the NO. 70-71-54 Commission acted on subject petitions, the property owners should meet to see what could be done. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1236 Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not some flexibility was available regarding the access; whereupon Mr. Roberts VARIANCE NO. 2253 read the City Council resolution regarding the area (Continued) development plan. Commissioner Rowland noted that it would be possible for staff to administratively act to substitute the northerly 10-foot easement for the one on the south in order to facilitate the development of the~e two pieces of property at the same time, and since these exhibits were schematic in nature, relocation of the 20-foot accessway to Euclid Street from the north bouldary of the real estate office to its southerly boundary could be accomplished. In that way, it still would be meeting the area development plan requirements, although the real estate of£ice might have physical limitations in that regard. Commissioner Gauer noted that the C-1 2one permitted 38 retail uses and 29 service businesses. Mr. Slaughter noted that the opposition had indicated the Commission had ~ turned down zoning on these properties; however, this was a reclassifica- tion which the Commission initiated as a result of adoption of the study of Homes Fronting on Arterial Streets and Aighways in which the Commission recommended denial on the basis that it was premature - therefore, the two hearings might be confused, and the area development plan was the result of reclassification foz the real estate office. Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding continuation of subject petition until further discussion was held between the property owners and the petitioner; that the plan could be partially implemented if the accessway were developed between subject property and the real estate office to the north; and then inquired whether the petitioner o£ the real estate office had agreed to any relocation of the accessway. whereupon Mr. Roberts replied that these accessway approvals were subject to the discretion of the Development Services Department and Traffic Engineer; therefore, this accessway could be placed on the south side. Commissioner Rowland noted that he would agree with Commissioner Seymour in respect to the proposed use since it was too intense for this location. However, when one reviewed the many uses permitted by right in the C-1 2one, this particular type of use which would be completely enclosed in a building could be appropriate since there appeared to be a degree of protection that would be lacking in other normal C-1 uses, and this could implement parking to the rear of the structure by moving the building farther to the Euclid Street frontage, and the impact upon the residential area to the west would be minimized to a certain degree. Commissioner Seymour noted that he would agree - however, he was only reiterating what the Commission told the opposition - with a roomful of people - the types of uses that could be expected and approved, and approval of subject petition woulc? destroy the peoples' trust since a negative response was not uttered when Commissioner Farano had reviewed the C-1 uses that would be permitted. However, the request before the Commission was subject to approval of a conditional use permit and was a more intense use. Furthermore, he felt that the accessway could easily be relocated to the south since the property owner to the north would not suffer any hardship. Commissioner Allred stated he would not consider approval of subject petitions unless revised plans were submitted which indicated the alley location, parking location, landscaping proposed, and whether the rcal estate office owner indicated he would install his portion of the access- way. Commissioner Gauer noted that this would be an opportunity for these people to meet and start something worthwhile for these properties, assuming, of course, that the accessway would be relocated southerly. F~.~rther}nore, the 0 _a, :; M :.. .:.i z ~..; ~ ... :.i . . .. . . .. , ~ : - ~' 1 1, ~ ~ ' ~ C:~ ~~ ~J `'~ : MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, May 3, 1971 ~ 71-261 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - proposed use, although not allowed by right in the ~ - NO. 70-71-54 C-1 Zone, would be bezter than a a permitted use since this buildingtwould belcompletely CONDITIONAL USE enciosed, would be a:iew building instead of a con- PERMIT NO. 1236 ~..X. verted building, and could be complimentary to the ~ VARIANCE NO. Z253 area. (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration cE Petitions for Reclassification No. 70-71-54, Coraitional Use ?ermit No. 1236, and Variance No. 2253 to the meeting of June 2, 1971, to allow time for the ~=' adjoining property owners to meet to discuss the accessway and for the submission of revised lans showin the dra.vewa ~h" buiiding, landsca in P g Y~ relocation of the P~ q, alley developmPnt, etc. Commissioner Kaywood ~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ~q~ge~o~g~,rs--.i -~ - . .. ' . ~. . . ~ . . . . - ~t ~ . _ . . . ,~~s:_ ; - -.~:. ~~ c~ '~ .~~ ' . y~ .~ . ' . . . . . . .-_..~: _ . . . .f . _ ;4 _ ,. ~~ Q MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 REPORTS AND RECOMDIENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE - Consideration of revisions suggested by the City Attorney and the Development Services Department to the action originally taken by the Planning Commission. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that the revisions suggested at the last public hearing, together with those originally sugge~ d by the City Attorney's Office, were incorporated in the document ma:c.:d "Suggested Revisions to the Santa Ana Canyon Scenic Corridor Proposal" dated May 3, 1971; that these had been reviewed by both the Commission and interested persons present in the Council Chamber; that this proposal would accomplish many of the things which staff and the Commission were trying to do in this area; that these revisions had been approved by the City Attorney's Office as to their legal implications, and, therefore, staff felt the revision was in goad shape; and that perhaps there were some people in the audience suh-o would wish to comment upon certain portions of the proposed ordinance, even though this was not a public hearing. Furthermore, the Commission might wish to hear their comments. Mr. Thompson then reviewed the additional changes proposed with minor wording to Chapter 17.08, under Landscaping; page 4, at the present time a fee would be required for landscaping the median and unpaved portions of the riqht-of-way of Santa Ana Canyon Road from Nohl Ranch Road to Gypsum Canyon Road - however, this morning the Public Works Director discussed wit:~ staff this segment of the proposal and felt that the landscaping should be installed in accordance with an approved plan rather than having a fee paid, and since either way the intent would be accomplished, if the Commission so desired, staff would appreciate a favorable consideration. Then, in respoase to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated that after the landscaping was installed, the City would maintain said landscaping; that if the Commission would remember, along Santa Ana Canyon Road, as had been discussed with the property owners, and people who wanted to develop in the area, the City was not going to require the standard street section - curb, gutter, and sidewalks - instead, they had proposed that the existing unpaved portions of the park- ways and medians be lsndscaped with some type of screen or appropriate landscaping, such as was done in the instance of one of the few tracts developed at the corner of Santa Ana Canyon and Walnut Canyon Roads. This recommendation would mean rather than having a fee paid, a landscap- i.ng plan would be presented and the developers would plant the landscaping. Commissioner Kaywood then requested the precise wording being suggested for this change. Mr. Thomp.son then stated that Section 17.08.407 (a) should read: "The developers of property adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road between Nohl Ranch Road and Gypsum Canyon Road shall be required to install reasonable landscaping including irrigation facilities in the median and unpaved portion of the right-of-way in accordance with an approved plan. Follow- ing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping." Paragraph (b) to read: "The developers of property adjacent to arterial highways within the Scenic Corridor area shall be required to install reasonable land- scaping including irrigation facilities in the median portion of the right-of-way in accordance aith an approved plan. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping." Chairman Herbst then inquired who would decide on a precise plan and wo~ld this be an overall design for a~arkway system; whereupon Mr. Thompson I replied that the Parkway Mai.ntenance Superin*_endent wou13 approve this, and it would be similar to the existing requirement utilized throughout the balance of the city - the staff landscape architect would meet with the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and develop a suitable plan. R' .~c ~.';, - ~ ~ ~~~ ~1-262 ~ ~ ' 9 i,.,:-,'.~=-,-._...~.. . , ~ - _ _ ~ '~ ~ ~-} ~~l ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-263 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) ~~ ~ Chairman Herbst then inquired whether or not this would cost any more than . the landscaping fees; whereupon Mr. Thompson stated it would not cost more, , but staff had only some preliminary estimates of what an appropriate land- scaping fee might be, but that either the landscaping fee or landscaping would be substantially cheaper than the normal requirement of having to put in curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and since this would not be required, _. it was felt that landscaping would buffer the adjacent residential uses. ~'~'~` Mr. Thompson then referred to page 6, under ara ra h r~~~~' ; and read this P g P (9) of Chapter 17.08, paragraph and noted this was a permissive section, but iP i a developer wanted to leave somE windbreak trees, for instance in a project `~' ~~ ! like Ben Yorba's where they intended to retain the trees, that those trees could be counted to be included in the overall ten trees per gross acre, or two trees per lot; that it should be noted that these trees would be counted to make up the total required number of trees. Therefore, the following wordinq could be added: "Where a developer retains existing trees, said trees may be counted in calculating the number of required ~ 1 trees set forth in Section 17.08.354 ( c ) . ~~ Mr. Thompson also noted that one of the developers had made some comments to him which appeared to be logical, that being in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, page 4, under the Landscaping section, last sentence, the zone would require an average of 100 square feet of a planter area for trees. Staff's thinking was there might be areas which would be small _ enough for just trees, and in checking around other shopping centers where they had many trees, it would appear that this couid be changed to require an average o£ 48 square feet, with a minimum dimension of 6 feet for a planter area rather than 100 square feet - this would be more -~ appropriate. _~ Mr. Thompson conclv.ded by stating that other than the changes just suggested, ,~ staff felt this ordinance weuld achieve those things which staff and the Planning Commission set out to achieve, and if the Planning Commission Y''i considered the proposed changes to the Scenic Corridor _ then it could go before the City Council on the May 18,P1971Sameetingaasy~ suggested by the City Clerk. Therefore, if the Scenic Corridor concept were considered favorably by the City Council, it would be in full force and effect so that people developing and planning to develop in the Santa Ana Canyon would know what ground rules ar.3 regulations would 'nave to ' _ be met. ~ Mr. Harvey Berger, 2478 Rue De Cannes, Costa Mesa, develo er a before the Commission and stated he would like to withdraw his letterd opposing the Scenic Corridor Zone presented to the City Council on March 29, 1971, and most of the objections presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of April 19, 1971; hcwever, there were still two basic things which they disagreed with, and he presumed that one could not expect to get everybody to agree on everything, but he felt that the requirement of scenic highways and freeways to have a 150-foot lot depth was overly restrirtive and not in accordance with the original intent of that portion of the Scenic Corridor Zone originally approved by the Planning Commission and commented on by the City Council; that if the 150-foot lots could be =:1 reduced to 120 feet, this would be much more practical in development, and `' the other area along the secondar and lots, this should be reducEd to 110-footrlotsY-hthisawouldnalsoabefin20-foot accordance with the intent of the Planning Commission. ~ Mr. Berger concluded by stating that other than those two areas, he felt that t7e residentiai portions were certainly worka}-le and shouldn't ~verly hinder orderly development from a cieveloper's sta::. :,int, but there were some sections in the commercial portion of the ordinance package and the Scenic Corridor Zone which might stand some changing, hut Mr. Ray Spehar and Mr. James Liberio would comment on this; hcwever, those he represented ~ would lend their support to the revised Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone's approval. *. ~ al~t ~ ~: Eba_ ' ~ ^ ~ 1 ' --- ~ _ ~`~ ~ ~ _~ ~, , , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 ,~ 71-264 ~ REPORTS AND RECOMMENAATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) ~ Commissioner Seymour requested that the siz~ lots pro~osed be repeated; whereupon Mr. Berger noted in the revised sections of page 5, Section 17.08.352 (a) and (b) and then read these sections of the proposed changes, noting they would request this be changed to 120 and 110 feet since that • would still permit the 50-foot building setback which the Commission had _ •~ in mind when the original Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was recommended _ for approval to the City Cour.cil because originally no lot size was , ... : indicated, only a setback. r~>;; ; ~r ~c Chairman Herbst noted that the original setback was 75 feet, and provided '~ certain conditions were met, this could be reduced to 50 feet. '`~ '' Mr. Berger concurred this was correct, but assuming that these conditions ~ were met, then a 50-foot setbaok would have been correct - this was his intent, either a landscaped screen berning or design change in ihe wall. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mr. Berger found the wall 1 design change or landscaping screening ber~ to be acceptable. Mr. Berger replied that if these dimensions could be changed in the manner he proposed with the stipulation that there be design changes in the wall, `.~~ ;; then thia would be acceptable. E: ~;'. '; Chairman Herbst inquired why not leave the '- as set forth, and if these design changes werePosed wording in the code ~. ~ plans, then the bonus would be given and the setbacksereducede whereuponnt -~ Mr. Berger noted that this would be fine if this could be accomplish~d. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that since this would be developed within the "~ Scenic Corridor and the homes along the freeway and expresswa the ~ screening should be placed properly since this could make or break the Scenic Corridor because people did not want passersby looking into their ;+ rear yards, and that this'was an area he felt was vexy critical and _.1 adequate screening was absolutely necessary - therefore, he felt a smaller ~ 1 size lot would be acceptable provided, however, that considerably more .;'~ landscaping was provided. ~ ' 3 Mr. Thompson noted that the manner in which the proposed zone and amend- ~ ~ ments to the Subdivision Ordinance were written ~?t would give the Planning •':~ i ~~ Commission and City Council a great deal of flexibilit.y. It would require ' „~ greater lot depths along the freeway and expressways unless a specific pZan j,, was presented by a developer which indicated the setback in accordance with :•_::i~. Council policy on the proposed tentative tract map (i,e „ 50 feet along ; freeways and expressways and 40 feet along arterial highways). This > proposal, as Mr. Berger indicated, would be acceptable and workable since ; the Commission earlier approved tract maps presented by Mr. Berger where -i lots were adjacent to arterials did not meet the depth requirement but did ~~ meet the setback requirement of the proposed Council policy, and, there- fore, would comply with the intent of the Scenic Corridor proposal. `i ` Commissioner Rowland noted that the County was requiring a 75-foot setback. Mr. Berger .a<<uired whether or not the City Council Policy would be as '~ effective aer a^ ordinance. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that the policy was not the same ~' as a resolution, motion, or ordinance, but it made it very clear what the °.. City Council was thinkinq about, and from past indications, the City Council, i;~ y ;, . *I ~ . , i• 3 t ~~_. ~, ~. s ~ ~_ . .. . . .. . ~ . . " . . ~ ' f. . _ _ ~.. L~~.~~ ~ ~-••-'ti. ~ . , .. ~ ~ ~ . . ' ~ . .'~ ~ _ i ' / V ~ ~. / MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS^uION, May 3, 1971 EtEPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) 71-265 except in instances where amendments were made, had maintained their policies very well. Mr. Berger inquired whetltar er not the City Council could amend an ordinance as easily as a policy; whereizro:i Mr. Lowry replied they could. Mr. Berger then stated th.ay would withdraw their opposition to this particular portion of the proposed zone. Mr. Ray Spehar, 913 Paloma Place, Fullerton, appeared before the Commission and noted that he hud two potential service station sites at La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway and noted that at the last meetina he had been informed that he would need a conditional use permit for the one at the northeast corner of this intersection; whereupon Mr. Thompson replied that the Zoning Code requiring a conditional use permit had been in effect for some time and noted that any service station site within 75 Eeet of residential property required approval of a conditional use permit throughout the city. Mr. Spehar then noted that if Imperial Highway were considered a secondary highway, then they would be required to set back the building 50 feet; whereupon Mr. Thompson replied that Imperial Highway was a secondary highway, a as was La Palma Avenue, and the 40-foot building setback would apply. Mr. Spehar al~o noted that a 20-foot wide landscape strip would be required; however, this would create a hardship on him since he had such a long street ~ frontage on both Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue. Therefore, he would y' suggest a 10-foot landscape setback since he had visited other shopping centers where only a 10-foot landscape setback had been required in wb.ich ~ they had planted 3 feet with hedges and the balance with ice plants, together with trees, and there were many trees in the parking area - the ` area he referred to was on a boulevard around the Newport Shopping Center, ~ and it appeared th.at. the 10 feet would accomplish the same purpose and still ~ s~reen the parkiny area, and then noted he would be required to have 14 trees in one commercial area and 56 trees in another, in addition to the y trees required in the parkway. j a Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mr. Spehar could compromise ~ to a 15-foot wide landscape strip and reduced to 10 feet where a landscape ' berm was proposed. , Commissioner Rowland noted that the code already was reduced to 14 feet in i given areas, and the Spehar property was rather unique, therefore, he would not want to have the code broken down any further until it had been tested, since the Commission would have tc think abou*_ scale, even though the Newport Shopping Center was a very fine development. Mr. Spehar then noted that the proposal by Commissioner Seymour would be acceptable to him and further noted that the landscape screening was now being required adjacent to R-3 development, whereas previously onl.y a 6-foot masonry wall was required; however, the prospective developer of his R-3 property preferred an alley between the two uses. Chairman Herbst noted that it would be very difficult to write an ordinance to cover one specific hardship, and since the zone was written for the entire canvon, it would appear that if there were problem parcels, these hardships could be considered by filing a variance rather than incorporating them into the zone Mr. Spehar then noted that the requirement on TV antennas as it pertained to commercial would also be a hardship since TV repair and sales stores needed a higher antenna - in addition, where air conditioning was roof- mounted, this could also prove a hardship. [.-y -. ; ' } ~ _-.,y;. . . . .. . . .. . . i . . . ' ~ ~ ~-~ ~• ~. . ~ . ~ ~ .. . i ~.s~. _ ~ ~ . ~_ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) ~~ 71-265 Chdirman Herbst noted that if the roof-mounted equipment were totally enclosed so that it would not be visible from the hillside areas, there would be no problem. Discussion was held by staff and the Commission, it baing noted that these could be recessed in the ceiling or totally enclosed, and if totally enclosed, would not be considered as being roof-mounted. :~,.j,;,~;,, Mr. James Liberio, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, noted he c~ancurred with ~ the statements made by Mr. Spehar regarding the 10-foot Iandscape setback ~ since he had several commercial areas where a 10-foot setback accomplished '~` the intent of landscapiag, and a 20-foot stri would'b as it pertained to maintenance and care. He also noted tha•teatehisVOffice sor.:eone had tried to steal a very large evergreen tree, pulled out existing planting, and that the increase in size encouraqed more trash, dirt and ' debris to accumulate, which should be avoided. Furthermore, he was in .~ agreement with everything else set forth and wanted to compliment the - staff in explaining all the various facets of the proposed zone. _ Mr. Richard Harris, 5917 Arno Crescent Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated he represented several homeowners groups who were concerned ,' about the permissive section of the removal of eucalyptus trees in the ;;; Santa Ana Canyon area; however, it was almost a foregone conclusion that these trees, because of economic value, would be removed for sale as fire- - ? wood - therefore, he would suggest that some type of mandatory maintenance ';j program be written into the code which would require maintenance of the ' healthy trees of the qrove to help maintain the character of the canyon : as it was presently existing until such time as development occurred, ~~ since a dead aran e ~;, 9 grove was a very serious fire hazard. i Commissioner Rowland commented that this comment was well intended; however, ;,., one of the City Council had stated "everyone had a right to go broke" ;~ therefore, how could one enforce maintenance of peoples' properties when there was no money available, although he would agree this should be done. , ;~~ Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not the City was enforcing the ~ ! code regarding dead trees; whereupon Mr. Lowry replied that the City had :;,{ removed several orange groves, and the one at Lincoln and Sunkist was now , ~; being processed - the only thing he had difficulty was proving whether or not a tree or grove was actually dead. Mr. Gerald Stack, 43265 Buckland, E1 Toro, representing the developer of the commercial portion of the Yorba property at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, appeared before the Commission and stated that although he and Mr. Thompson had discussed the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone a number of times, there was one thing which came to : mind on which he would need an opinion, namely, under a multiple-family ,~ residential zone, Section 18.59.030, which indicated building locations - then read the section o: the code pertaining to the 50-foot building setback - that while in the commerc~al portion of the same zone for buildings in the _ same location, the setback requirement was 100 feet along £reeways and expressways, both zones having the same height of buildings, and t:~en noted ~~`i, that Mr. Liberio, who had appeared before, had made a point he could concur with, and that was the extreme pioblem of taking care of trash getting into landscaped areas - since his business was totally in the shopping center ;., field, having developed shopping cent^rs throughout Orange County and ,Y Southern California, and with all the problems they had of which there were many in this business, the one which gave them the most trouble, although it would appear to be a"nit-picking" type of trouble, they were always trying to get someone to clean the trash out from the landscaped areas since the average sweeping service did not want to do it because the ,~ ' sweeper operator did not kant to get off his sweeper machine, and in most ;t * . .~ ~ ` _a. t =: .- ~~ ~.. ~ ~J ~ ~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-267 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) respects he could not be blamed, since he was working in the early hours oE the morning bePore 6:00 A.M., his only interest was to do a sweeping job with his machine and gi, home. The trash problem in these planter areas was tremendous, though; therefor.e, they would have to have the gardner do it, and in no t;.:ne the gardner would say he had no time for gardening because he was having to remove all the trash which he felt the sweeper operator should have been handling, thus winding up with a constant running argument as to whose duty it was to pick up the trash in the landscaped areas. It was a real prohlem and should be considered in all serioilsness in the consideration of landscaped areas - it was a distinct problem, and he was speaking frum experience. Therefore, why the difference of the two setbacks between the multiple-£an~ily and commercial zones when the height maximum for both zones was the same and aZmost the same type of building. Mr. Thompson noted that many multiple-family units might be built just as the ones being proposed north of the shopping center, such as Cal-Prop was developing - in other words, in pinwheel fashion with areas of four to eight units which would give some break in the size of buildings, whereas the shopping center would be much more massive in terms of bulk, heigiit, length, etc., than one would find in residential areas, and it was felt, especially along expressways and the Scenia Corridor, that it would be better to have greater 'sefbacks for buildings which were often massive without any breaks. Mr. Stack stated that this did not answer his question, although he was speaking generally, but he was thinking about the c~mmon type apartment house, two stories in height, up to 25 .feet and typical of the apartment buildings in Orange County. This wuuld be a sizeable buildiny - one needed only to drive down the Santa Ana Freeway a short way to see the power of the particula~ types and size of apartment projects being deveioped. and in his opinion he saw them as massive as ta height and appearance as a shoppinq center which would be broken up by the parking areas adjacent to the builflings which made them appear to him as being light and a3ry. Chairmar_ Herbst noted that commercial areas had a great deal more flexi- bility than an apartment house because within the 100-foot setback area, the commercial areas would be allowed to have parking. `3 Mr. Stack replied that having parking adjacent to the right-af-way was .'"~' very important in conjunction with tenants. :`#,; Chairman Herbst noted this was the point of the Scenic Corridor since it -;".~ was not desirable to abut the buildings to the roads, and if this was ;• wh2,t the developers were interested in, then the City would have to forget abo~t a Scenic Corridor. Therefore, these uses should be placed farther from the road and would give one the ability to soreen them much better, and this was the purpose of the Scenic Corridor. ~ Mr. Thompson noted that in multiple-family areas one of the reasons that ;~ parking was permitted between the building and the right-of-way was to get the tenants to park on-site between the right-of-way and the units ~~; rather than parking on the streets -this would enable the City streetsweeper to get in and sweep the streets in these multiple-family are~s, which was something that was not possible in most other multiple-family areas in the city west of the Santa Ana River. ~'~- Mr. Stack noted that he was speaking generally of shopping centers, but obviously the location of the piece of property involved would have a great deal to do with design, but he, again, was speaking generally as to tenants - major tenants - they would be back of the road normally and there would be a row of buildings backing up to, for instance, Santa Ana Canyon ; Road because they, too, wanted to be away from the road, but one would generally find shopping center buildings were built around the rear ' periphery of the property, and he had only one building facing Tmperial ~`. _~'~. a~c I? ~ 1 '~ E.r. ~ ~ . ...b ~~ ~ MINUTES, CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 REPORTS AI3D RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) ~ l -~ 71-268 and another facing Santa Ana Canyon Road which, in effect, wculd be close to the right-of-way, but all the others would »e back; thereby creating a crescent or elipse where parking would be allowed in fron'c of the stores. Therefore, in his opinion, th^ average apartment h:,use created perhap~ as much elevation since both were limited Y.o a maximum of 25 feet, and, in conclusion, stated that this n~scussion had helped :iim in his thinking as to the regulations established for development in this area. m~ Mr. Thompson noted that in the hill and canyon area densities might be a j;, little bit lower than would be, experienced in areas w~>_st o_ the Santa Ana ~! River, because in the plan it was indicated that higher densities might ~, very well be proposed around shopping centers, but no attempt was made to -,; pinpoint these; however, in other areas that had been indicated for. R-2, i. the yield might be up to 18 units per acre, and wher. c.'.+e densit}~ .*as only ~ 18 units per acre, the appearance was often less bulky ~nd massi~~ when _ ,~ ~s related to some apartment developments in the ci~;• which h~.r3 been develop- - I> ing up to 36 units per acre. Mr. Stack stated it was his opinion that this should be considered in conjunction with this proposal since it did have some merits. Y.c~aev~r, he would still like to reiterate the proble.m of trash and litte~ : i:he planter areas which should be given very serious consideration. Com~issioner Rowland noted that the information and feedback which the ,:;~ Commission got from the non-public hearings were very good, but he wuuld ;C~ like to reply as to the difference between a commercial building and the ;i apparent height and width of a residential structure - other than height ,,~ and width there •ere other elements since he did *iot think one had ever ~ seen any buildi..gs in two-dimensiun, still, the detailing, *_he massing of _~ the elements, and the force of thrust, visually, of commercial or indus- 'i trial facilities were uniquely different than residential, he did not ~ feel anyone could ever confuse them, and if anyone designed a major shop- _:.<;j ping center in competition with the residential scale of buildiags around .i it, he would probably be building his first and last commercial shopping center from an economic standpoint - in most in^,tances the 100 feet would =! be well taken up with parking as it e~i~ted in most shopping centers; ::~ that question was not too pertinent and no '~3rds;~:.p, as such. was in that .,;,;~ area, particularly with the shape and cantour of the propexties involved. ~...~~ Mr. Thompson noted that there might be some Yarcels bt~cause of their si~~ and shape that would require a variance, and the City was alweys fac~d " with this type of parcel problem. Commissioner Rowland noted that one of the thiags th~~ ha.: happened since the Commission fir~t considered the Scenic Corridor Ove~rlay Z~ne was the ' fact that manp people had taken an interest in the c~n}~on who i:ad had little stake in it to date; many agencies were now looking at it; that the Commission had been quite concerned, and the reason for the Scenic Corridor coming into being was the fact that the County seemed to be permitting a number of uses in the area without regard to the community values of the ~ city that would eventually inherit most of that area, namely, Anaheim - , the City started to work on this and developed the ordinance by trial and ~ error at public hearings. One of the employees of his office was now ' attending a seminar at UCI which concerned itself with open space~ in Orange County. This seminar was composed of people from various plann~ag , agencies, planners - some very bright people - they were saying now whst Anaheim has done with the rest of the community, pointing out Harb~r Boulevard, for instance, and from things which had happened in the pasc in Santa Ana Canyon was nc* a local problem and should be handled e:~n a regional basis as a regional asset, and the City of Anaheim should not be attacking this problem because they did not have the "horsepower" to ~ ?:andle it, and in that regard, the County was now requiring a 75-foot setback at tbis point in time. Therefore, the fact that the City had now R a!:! . .. . . .._.. . .. . . '... _ :. _ . .i ... ~. .~. '... . .. . ~ .:.~ . '. . . . . . i ! . . . ~ . . ~ . . . , ' - ,. . - - I~ . ~. ~ ~ . - - .. (~ ~J ~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSiON, May 3, 1971 71-264 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM~;C,,~;i (Continued) watered down i:'~e Scr~~~_,- ~.^ --r,idor Overlay Zone originally proposed where it probabl, wisuLd ~r~ ~:orkz:;le but had now displeased many people who ~ va.2ued the canyo:: e,ve~ m~re than Anaheim would. Commissioner R.owl:sr~,~ then inquired where in the zone did the code refer to the slope zanalys~.a - would that be stri.ctly engineering? ~~. . Mr. Thomg~son repl;iecl that originally the Seenic CorriEo: (?ror,rlay Zune -... ' ": '` c~.ombined all thes~a standards; however, in going back :,;~:d wrsrk?ag with the `~; City Atto.rney, t~re :.ity Attorney felt that some of *_,i~.2~_ s~ancia;:as wo+~i3 ~ be mor:e aaprop=?aLe in the :Iill~i.de Grading Ordinan~~, ~thers more •;'~ - approf>ri.a~e in 'the Subdivision Ozdinance, and otner ~tanctarc;s should be ~ left in the Sceni.c Corridor Overlay Zone. Th~ reference to che slope ~ was c~n paqe 1. ~;: ~': . _.... `;' r:~ ~:. , A< ,F :g A _ ~~ Z _I ~ `: ~. ". i , Commissi.oner Ros~lan3 noted that the purpose of estab2is'zing a fla~ter grading s"tr,pe t.han presently ex!.sted in the balance of the hillside are was in r::^ogni'cion of the uniqut geographic character ~f ~he canyon, ,*.he fac± ±hat ~.he+_e were hills, valleys, and c~.n,yons, and by flattening the slope out, i.t was felt that it w~uld forcr. a higher concentraticn of developme,:t in the areas most suitable for de~velopment and leave the more difficult terrain less developed. This was what the Commission had said all along, "build where you ca.n and don't build where it is difficult". Furthermr,re, he fel*., that this recommendation ~hould go to the C3ty CounciJ. in that light. Mr~ Thompson nbted ~hat the ma;~o~: proi~iem areas had been rev.~lewed, an in discussing tl~is with many of the people in the canyon - as Mr. Berger pointed oz:t - were t~e cetbacks a»d slopes. Th:: way the pre+sent erdinance read, slc_+e~x were a 1~ to 1, and a steeper slope would :,~,~ permitted if a s,oils engir~ePr stated that a st~eper slope would *,e saf~ and stab2e. Stra•Ff o.~iginally brought to the Coxamission a reco:umendation that it should be a 2 h.orizontal to 1 vertical~ ana :rter numerous discussions, with develop~E:rs, engineers, etc., staff now stated a 1~ horizontal to 1 verticaJ. wa.s reccmmended - however, it tvould be made a requirement of the soils enyi.^.zer that he prove that he ~needed a stee•per slope in order to 'ne safe and stable. However, the Commission might ~ais;~ to recom:nenc: something di~'ferent to the City Council, but in di~~c•assiny this not only with ~Srivate dev=lopers and engineering firms ar;d at son;e length with the City's own engineers, toge:ther with the fact tia.at plann,~rs in the department had spent many hours looking at various develapm::nr_s, he did understand precisely what Cc>mmissioner Rowland was saying, but sta.ff wa~ hoping that a.n ordinance could be drafte3 that would pruvide many of the things the ~ommission originally intended, and that this aais one of the problem areas - tiierefcre, it was modified alony with the realitie:,• of 1?.fe. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission hsa spent mar.g hours an the Sar.ta Ana Scenir.. Corridor proposal, a:z3 he apprec_atecl the attendance of sa many people at these hearings a,:~? ~work se;;sions. Commissionar Gauer expresse3 his appreciation that there ~•~ere so many people involved in t;~is since that was one way a city could be plannad - where people came in to speak their piece - this ;-%as a ma~tter of civic duty and not leaving it uY to th~ ~ommission, later "cussing them out" Yor the i.ecision th.:; had made. The Commission had tried to incorporate into the zone the suggestions made, together with other suggestions made to:3ay reg~rding px,oblem parcels, since there was always the variance g:oce•dure available if there were problem psrcels, and relief could be r~~quested by presenting plans which could be reviewed by the Commzssion to ~:etermine the validity of claims - therefore, he could see no reason wAy~ a~noti~.n covi? not be made . _ , 5 • .,.,,,.- .. ! • ~ _• ~ I i ~.,' ~ r ~ - __ .~.:~~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CI:~ PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-270 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer of.fered Resolution No. PC71-85 and moved f~r its passage and adoption to reconimend to the City Council approval of the amendments to the scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, together with the recommended changes suggested by staff at this hearing. Prior to roll call, Commissioner Seymour noted that he concurred with Commissioner Rowland regarding the slope, and gr.anting the way they were now worded, it was a ste*+ up from the existing ordinance, but with- out going over all of Commissioner Rowland's statements, he, too, believed that at the outset the intention of the Commission was not to carve up the hills but to leave this to a minimum, and to develop antensely where possible, leaving the others as they ;~ere - therefore, under that type of philosophy, if Commissioner Gauer would accept it, he would recommend that Section 17,06.110, Subser_tions (a) and (b) relating to slopes, standards, and cut faces, be c:~anged to read "two (2) horizor~tal to one (1) vertical". Commissioner Gauer accepted this amendment and noted that he could not see why the Commission ehould accept a soils engineer's proof that a steeper slope wou2d be correct because no one would know what condition would prevail, particularly if a heav} rainstorm occurred when the ground would be so saturated thzt i.t would cause a steep slope to erode and slide. Therefore, he would rataer have a fixed limit and not have to depend upon an engineer's statement which cauld be given so that it would be favoring a c~lient's request rather than the actual condition of a slope. Commissioner Rowland noted that the engineer was responsible for these recommendations and was a highly capable person whose recommendation the Commission could follow implicitly, but ratheY than a matter of engineer- ing ability, it was a matter of conmunity direction; that the Commission kas looking at the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone which was supposed to encouraye high-density development in limited areas; and that there had been proof that there had been failures in the 1~ to 1 slope in the past. Commissioner Gauer aoted that the City of Fullerton had many hills all over their area, und they did not have high density in their hills. The~s were v>ry a+ctractive areas, and these areas had ordinances for the hil:s. Commissioner Rowlanc stated tha,t high intensity and density that conformed with the geograph?c and topagraphic concepts was precisely what he was ~ trying to ssay. ~ i I 'Ir. Thomps~n .re3uested clarificacion so that he could clearly understand 'j the Commis~;iori's inteat since C~mmissior,ar~ Rowland and Seymour were discussing a 2 for 1 slope; whereupcn Commissioner Seymour noted that Commissioner Gauer nad amended his motic~n to include the 2 horizontal for 1 vertica.l slope rather thar~ the l~i to i. as was set forth in the amended nor:sment presented to the Commissivn. Commissioner .Ga;•fr th!,a restated his motion, as follows: Commissioner Gauer offered R4solLtion No. PC71-85 and moved for its passage and adoption ~o recommend to the City Cuuncil approval of amendments to the original exhibit presented to the City Council in the Commission's resolution ~ recommznai~ig approval of Chapter 18.59 (SC) .SCenic Corridor Ov~:rlay Zone ~ as set forth in the exhibit presented to the Commission dated May 3, 1971, wit}: the added changes that Section 17.06.110, Excavations--Generally, + Subsection (a) Slop~ Standards Generally, be ameaded to require a two ~ (2) horizoiital to one (1) vertical slope, and Subsection (b) Cut Faces, ! to require a twa (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical cut face; amendment to 3ection 17.08.h07 Santa Ana Canyon Landscaping (a) and (b) to delete reference to 1~ayment of a fee and require that the developer provide ~ . _a ~_ f t: ,+',_ S' V t~ ~.~ ~ i • . k~.`,~ E.' ~ . ~:. ~: .~kc MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ,^_OMMISSiGN, May 3, 1971 REPORTS AND RECOMNSENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) 71-271 landscaping in the median and the unpaved portion of the right-of-way of Santa Ana Canyon Road from Nohl Ranch Road to Gypsum Canyon Roa3 and on all arterial highways within the area designated as the ~cenic ;:orridor in accordance with the specific Flan approved by the City of Anah~im; adding to Section 17.08.354, Landscaping and Natural Feature:., Subsection (g), "Where a developer retains existing tre.es, said trees may be counted in calculating the number of required treer set forth in Section 17.08.354(cj;" and that Chapter 18.59, Section 18.59.042 Si+,c Developmer.c Standards - Commercial Zones (3) (a) Landscaping, the last sentence of the paragraph be changed to r~ad, "There shall be an averaqe of forty-eight (48) square feet of olanter area provided per tre~e. Said planter areas shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet." (See Resolution Btok) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONBRS: None. ABSSNT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Mr. Berger noted that the engineer from Lander Engineering Company was present to answer any questions the Commission might have on slopes. Chairman Herbst advised the engineer that he could present his statements, although noting that the Commission had already passed on that portion of the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one, if he could present s.tbstantiating evidence to amend this, the Commission would listen to his statements. Commissioner Rowland advised the engineer that the discussion ,hould not be as an engineering matter, only as a developmen~ principle. Mr. Vic ~dge, Lander Engineering Company, appeared before the Commissio. and noted that outside of engineering tables, they also did a great dea:l of land planning, and when one was talking in terms of high density - tightness of a development - thea one was increasing the value of the land, therefore, making it worthwhile to provide a 2 for 1 slope and push it down the hill in the area,s which were being discussed - in thz canyon - the 1~ to 1 slope with the steep nature of the groL~d would give one more than what the Commission was really wanting in the 2 to 1 slope. Commissioner Rowland asked that this be explained - did the engineer mean more developable area? Mr. Edge stated this was true, it would give more developable area, but the 2:1 slope would also end up with a multitude of very long slopes, and one could have the slopes daylight much quicker by having the 1~ to 1 slope. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not this meant that the hills then could ba padded out more uniformly, making f~he pads and the slopes more uniform. Mr. Edge replied, not necessarily more unifermity - a 2 to 1 would make a more uniform appearance than a 1~ to 1, and this was what he thought the Commission was trying to cet away from, that was uniformity. Commissioner Seymour noted that was exactly what they did not w~ Mr. Edqe stated that what the City would really end up with would be a lot of very long slopes with very high density at the top rather than the slopes that would daylight more quickly if a l~i to 1 were proposeu and give consider- ably greater variety throughout khe canyon. Commissioner Gauer noted he could only speak from what he had seen driving up the Golden State Freeway where they had carved up all those areas. He did not know how many the Santa Ana Canyon area wou13 have, but what was being done elsewhere was not what the Commission was desirous of having. Commissioner Seymour left the Council Chamber at 6:31 P.M. ,~.. I;. . + `~ _ _ - ~ - f r _ , ; U ~~ ~ ~~~ , ' M.'.NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 71-272 ! , REPORTS AND - ITEM NO, 2 ~ RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1074 (East Anaheim ~ Mcthodist Church) - Property located at 14~7 ? East Romneya Drive - Request for clarification ; of maximum number of children permitted under j the conditional use permit. j ' i 2oning Supervisor Charlea Roberts presented to the Commission a requ~st ~ for clar.fication of the Commission's intent in permitting private J educational classes including classes for mentally retarded cl:ildren ~ -, ~:> in existing church facilities approved in Conditional Use Perm';: No. ~ "•.~. ~ 1074 for the East Anaheim Methodist Church located at 1457 East Romneya ~ i' , ~: Drive, at which time said resolution did not indicate the maximum number ~ ~~: of students that would be permitted,~altheagh the minutes indicated there ~ ~. would be a maximum number of 12 students - however, the Commission did ~ not limit it to these 12; that the East Anaheim Methodist Church now ",' wanted to conduct a Christian day school for 35 students, increasing to 100 stu-3ents within the firet two years of operation; that staff had `, received many calls from adjoining property okners in this area regard- 1` ing th~ proposed school operation, some stating that rumors had it there ,' would be as many as 300 students; that the s~taff had contacted the City 'r Attorney's Office, who indicated the resolution was not specific as t~ the number of students, but a reasonable number of students would have to be defined by the Planning Commission; that he realized without a ; -:~ written report, the Commission might not wish to make a decision - however, a repr.esentative of the church was present to present any ~~ evidence the Commission might wish to hear. ~; Chairman Herb~t noted that he lived in the area and had seen one of the .j; petitions being passed around the area; that it was his feeling that due ! to a misunderstanding as to what was praposed, the only way this could be ~' - ~ clarified would be to set it for public hearing. { 't I ..1 Mr. Roberts noted that N1r. Slaughter had discussed with the City Attorney's i ~~~ ~ffice this possibility - however, it was stated that if the Commission ~ wanted to establish a given number of students as a reasonable number, and ' ~~ if this did not conform with what the applicant was desirous of doing, ~:~ then another petition would have to be filed or this petition could be ~ set for public hearing. However, no petitions of opposition had been received in the department, although there were many phone calls. ~ Commissioner Allred inquired as to the maximum number of children this ' facility could accommodate. ' Mr. Roberts noted that by State law, the size of the building and the - play area governed the number of students. However, the size of this ! : ~ building evidently would permit well over 100 students. Mr. Norman Haan, 1230 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had made a survey of all the conditional use permits approved by the Planning Commission, and in only onE instance did these indicate the maximum number of students that would be allowed; and then • reviewed all the parochial schools in the city and the number of st~id~nts per acre. raid informacion having been based upon contacts with the various school representatives. , ~.i : `~ Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that i~ the City Attorney could I not give a positive statement on what could be permitted here, then he, as a Commission~~, would rather have it set for public hearing. Mr. Warren Schutz, 914 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that he was representing the church and the prospective buyer; that he was present at the meeting with the broker, buyer, and City Attorney, as well as staff, when they reviewed the minutes o£ the Planning Commission meetinq, and i.t was Mr. Geisler's opinion that the reasonable number of students would l~e between 75 and 100 students - however, Reverend Diehl ~~:~s not present at the meeting, and staff had a letter which Reverend Aiehl had prepared which indicated they would be happy 1 1.:: ' ~ ._, ~ . " ~~ " _- r~.~ ( . ~ y E ~ ._ , ~ , --- - ~ ~ tJ ~ c ~ ~ . ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANN7:NG COMMISS~CN, May 3, 1971 71-273 REPORTS AND ~ RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) ~ -- , to have the con.ditional usa permit considered at a public hearing on its 1 ~ own merit, however, the buyer and seller were pressed for time since ! ' . Reverend Diehl was desirous of nrepari::g the school f•ps operation for the ~ . summer nonths since the summer school would be needed if it were to be ~ i successful; that he was prepared to do whatever the ,r.ity Attorney and the Commission reques~ed; that the original condition::i .~se permit was grante._ ~ in 1954 for the c'hurch and Sunday school faciliti.e<, and the number of .~ ~`s- people and Sunday school ~students using the facil;ties was much heavier ;r, ~, than that cantemplated by Reverend Diehl, who proposed to have approximately ~ 35 students and was hoping to have 100 students within two years. ~ ~ i' Mr. Roberts then read the findings of the Re ort _ time the private educational school was a P to the Commission at the ~ ~ pproved in 1968. ~ Commi:sioner Herbst noted that his intent in approving subject petit::on ~ ~ in 1968 was to allow a church-operated, physically handicapped type uf ~ ~ school or nursery, and one of the coaditions was this should not be ~ - broadened into a full-£ledged school. ~ Mr. Haan then inqui~ed how he could ,lepend upon this action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Richard Harris, representing the church as co-chairman of the United Methodist Church, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had joined two churches to form the United Methodist Church and were now in the position of acquiring property at Wagner Avenue and State College ; Boulevard for this church, and they were proposing to sell their proper- `~ ties and had the property in escrow; that the ro ert in ~ P P y question was ~ .~ new being proposed to be purchased, an3 the property on Broadway was _~ also in the process of being purchased; that they h..d had several buyers ~ ..~ for subject property - however, it was their intent to keep the church ' theme in the area for the neighborhood-type church. However, most of ~ ! the prospective purchasers were desirous of urchasin the ~ ~<t a school onl P 5 property for ~ y, and the prospective buyer now was proposing this to be i '~~ both a church and a Christian &.;;. school; that they did not feel the pro- ~ spective purchaser planned to enlarge the activity since they presently had a five-day-a-week nursery school in cooperation with the neighborhood ' ladies in the area, with 18 enrolled in the school on Tuesday, Wednesday, ;; and Thursday; that thep had a number of Scoutsmeetings in the church, there being 25 Brownies and 25 Boy Scouts; that there were two adult groups ` having 25 to 30 persons each t~at met once a month; that there were a number '`i of la1ies' circles meeting weekly - ther~fore, there presently existed much more activity than was proposed under the new use; and that the property had been sold under good faith to the buyer on the basis that this would be a church function and a school. Chairman Herbst noted that there were many petitions being circulated in the srea regarding the parochial school being planned for 300 students, and this was gcing twrough the entire area - therefore, his reason for stating this :should be set for public heaiing was based on the fact that it was not the intent under the original conditional use permit to allow this to develap into a full-fledged school. Furthermo~e, it was possible to consider this at a public hearing in two weeks, and this would still give the petitioner sufficien:: time wherein the intent of the Commission would be considered since it was his opinion the people in the area were entitled to present their feelings. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that there was adequate material in i,, the file to advertise this for the next public hearing. However, who would bear the cost of aaid advertising; whereupon Chairman Herbst said the applicant should be bearing the cost. ; Reverend F. Diehl, 1616 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that this entire thing was so far out of bounds as to reality; that the building facilities were considerable and they planned to have ~.1 ~ .. . M~ I~A~II~~~q~~ ~~:. _ _ f' r . ~ . . . . . . . . ~' _ . ~~ . ' . . . ~..,r ~ -~ , ~.!~ .` - . i~~ _ . . . . . . . . . . Y . . ~ _ ~ , ~ ~-,' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3, 1971 1, ~ 71-274 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) only 30 students to the classroom, and there were seven classrooms, having a maximum capacity of 210 students, which would be in conformance with the State's requirements. However, he did not even expect 210 students since the odds against that were many, even though they did have seven classrooms. Chairman Herbst noted that when the Com~ission heard the petition at the last public heariag, the statement was made that there would be only 12 to 18 students - however, the new purchaser was planning c~nsiderably more, and this was the reason why he want~ed this set for public hearing - then any misunderstahdings would be aiied at said publ3c hearing. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion ta set for public hearing Conditional Use T.~e;;mit No. 1074, to be heard on May 17, 1971. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ITEM NO. 3 CITY OF BUENA PARK PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION REGARDING SIGNING AT LINCOLN AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVARD. Zoninq Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Commission received copies of a transmittal from the Buena Park City Planning Commission as follows: "Signs. Commissioner Gowa commented that he felt that Anaheim should be asked to reduce the signs permitted in the Lincoln- Beach area and moved that the Planning Commission forward a minute action to the Anaheim Planning Commission pointing out the proliferation of signs in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, and that these signs do not fulfill the purpose ana only cause a blight in the cityscape and are contrary to the country's ecological efforts. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion carried." Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to :recommend to the City Council that the Buena Park City Planning Commission be informed thaE the Anaheim Planning Commission concurred wholek~eartedly with their statement and would attempt to do whatev~r was possible to take care of this situation. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 4 PROPOSED PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that the proposed Planned Community Zone had been submitted to them for their perusal and inquired whether or not they concurred with said propasal. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the Planned Comxnunity (PC) Zone to be considered as part of the development of the City of Anaheim, par:icularly in the Hill and Canyon Area. Commissioner Allred seconded •the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further kusiness to discuss, Commissioner ~ Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Gauer secomdec: the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 P.;±. Respectfully submitted, L~ l~l~C-/ /~~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission i~..^~:[ ~,,.-.-a....,w . ~ - . . . . .. '' ~ ` G ~Y ~ 1 ~:-. ' . ...~.,....7~~ ~ .~ i:,,~ ~ ~~r , ha; .. .. .... . . ._.... . .. . _ . , . .,. , . . .. ~ ~ . ~~ .. ~ ,~ , ~~ ` ~ ; i _~_~ i ~ . I -! ~ ~ ~'~,*~'-~ ~~f3,~7~^rxrt~i..x~''~ ~.-~.1~ ,~- ~~. < f ~;NS~ ~~r ~ - F. Sa~ t~ v. ~r{~ ~. k n .~ ~ 1.~r' R. ~' c . t- `C - f r f ~, ~ ~. ~; t r T -'r m . -t e ~ ~ ` i h~. ~C~ , ~C ~~~ ~ k ~.~ ~ : i ' Y ~ - ,~y ~ :t4. r s~ r} . ~,.. Y t ~ _ ~' Y j t ~ :ti .t ~ t r e.; + f ~ - ~ ,~ x~. M ~ ~t~ Ay ~.: F l ~ h~ ` ( y~ ' ' i ~~'~~ y1 T 1 ) t ,.~ ~ 1 ~ +M4 Y y. •~ l { .. / - . { 7 ~ t '~' n ^~ 4 1 t k . ~~ f ~ ' ;~"r s L ... . ~~`f~ j .4, ', ~. , .. . !X'? f ~' ° ~ : 1 .. ~ ... f ~ . 'C .Y'j- .' " ' ' ',, :. : ~ ;~ _. : : , . r . . . , ~~ ': ~ ry ~ ~ ~.1 ~ ~ • , . „ +IV ..`; . ~ ' , .. 1 ~ i :. ~ ~ 1 ~ t ' - Vi ti 4 , . ~ 1 .. ~S .~. \ ~ i7 . ~; ~;~'.~ i.'.. .. C . _ . 4 :~ ~ Yi 1 h ~ r t ~~~ k r ( ~, b ~ ~ <Xk ° . q b~~~f ~~ 4 S.. \ ,~ 1 V _ V ~~' ~ 4 ~ . ? ~?~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ t • ~ J.. ~ - ~, ~ A ~" ~~ y. ; ,d I f ~ ~ ~S` • t..)? .. . . : ~ , . ' . .. . . . , ,.'., ~ : t~x: - , : . ~ . ~~.. f. ' . . . - },.. ' '`. . ~ . . ' ~~ ~ ~ R i .,~ ; . .. > . ~.. : • ~ ~ - . .;-. .: . :.,. ~ : •,.. :: t ~ - 7 ''~ ~ 3 . . . . . . _ .. . .. . . ._ . . . F . . . . ~ .. P . _ . . . . ...._, ... .. . _.