Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/07/26 (2)City Hall Anaheim, California July 2f,, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. -~'~i PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. 4' ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ~' •`.• J: '~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, itowland. ~~ ~ PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson ;. Y Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowr : ~; Office Engineer: Jay Titus - Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs J.` PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywood led in the Pledqe of Allegiance to the ° .~' ALLEGIANCE Flag. ~., '~'` RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED 2~. .. HEARING. R. SPEHAR, J. I,IBERIO, AND _ NO. 70-71-53 H. BUDLONG, lt,dl West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California, Owners; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 TENTATIVE MAP dF East Lincoln Avenue, ~.•;ent; requesting that property TRAC2 N0. 7419, described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land REVISION NO. 1 consisting of approximatell 45 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,540 feet on the north side of Santa ,', .'.~. TENTATIVE MAP OF Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum de th of a p pproximately r~ '~~~= TRACT NO. 7470 1,340 feet and being located approximately 2,000 feet east ~''t~ ~'•_;,°d of the centerline of Imperial Highway, be reclassified ~.,~ "`"`'~'~` from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT AND ', ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ~,~.. , a_.. ONE-FAMILY, ZONE . ~''•. S .. .' ~. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: RAYMOND SPEHAR AND J. LIBERIO, 1681 r•~c: ':"'~' West Braadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California. ~`:~',~~~ ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East `` Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject `" "'r ro e rt i s ;,,.,~ p p y proposed for subdivision into 143 ';`r R-2-5000 zoned lots (Tract No. 7419) and 96 ?::-„4F•:;;y' R-2-5000 zoned lots (Tract No. 7470) . ~,,;t~ Subject petition and tracts were continued from the May 3 and 17, June 2, 14, ,;~,{ and 28, and July 12, 1971, meetings at the request of the petitioner. ~-,'=;~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, the proposal, the previous continuances, and the request submitted '' by the petitioner for another two weeks in order that the storm drain channel Y° location and general tract design could be coordinated with the adjoining ~~ property to the east. -, . ,:: a l~ ` w'i ;'.~6e ? Commissioner Kaywood noted that the City Planning Commission should establish ~ a policy whereby only one two-week continuance should be granted. This was based upon the fact that Reclassification No. 70-71-53 had requested continu- ances seven times, and a number of others in the past had numerous continuances.~ Discussion was held by the Planning Commission on the proposal by Commissioner Kaywood, and upon its conclusion it was determined that one two-week continu- ance should be granted; however, where revised plans c~ere requested, then two continuances should be granted. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry was of the opinion that the policy of the Commission as proposed undoubtedly would have to be approved by the City Council. 71-477 y, 'y~C'_:1 ~~Y.T ' } `~ ' ~1 ._~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~,=. -> : ~ T, ' : .1~:1:\~ ~5 'Ta ~ ~ ~~ ~.. ~, ,-. . . _y0 R~~LH~~xFZCATION - Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson N0. 70-71-53 advised the Commission that staff would draft several TENTATIVE MP_P OF alternatives for the Commission to consider under ~ TRACT NO. 7419 ~ Reports and Recommendations at the August 9, 1971, REVISION N0. 1 meeting. TENTATIVE M~1P OF ' TRACT NO. 7470 Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the (Continued) would have plans ready by October 9; whereupon MretThompson _ advised the Commission that a two-week continuance was all ` ` that he could see was necessary. ~.' ,~.._~, Com:nissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitiun ;, ' ,:l; ~i~1-}',~ for Reclassification No. 70-71-53 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7419, ;,, ;,~ Revision No. 1, and 7470 to the August 9, 1971, meeting, as requested by the 1,'.;:: ' petitioner. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. `~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF 1: ~ NO. 70-71-56 LATTER DAY SAINTS, 10 South Main, Room 214, Salt Lake = ~ City, Utah, Owner; SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard, CONDITSONAL USE Suite W, Westmi.nster, California, Agent; property described ~:. PERMIT NO. 1244 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of i, " - approximately 4.4 acres having a frontage of approximately } Y: TENTATIVE MAP OF 245 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a ~ n;,:.:;..~~ TRACT NO. 7439 maximum depth of approximately 491 feet, and being located "~~ approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orange- ~;.? wood Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, ` w~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. t s1 ; REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULT'CPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ` ~~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTASLISH A 47-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM ~~ r`~ DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM LOT SI2E, -.~ ~2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT ~ HAVE STREET FRONTAGE, AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED i BUILDING HEIGHT 43ITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A 20NE. ~t';: `:`s'~:. i:'.";.'~'. ~. ~:. ~ '`°''.."~° TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: WM. J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, ~:~ ;...<:;:s,~ ;„,,;~`,; :;~i~{ Suite K, Westminster, California. ENGINEER: ' RAAB & BOYER ENGINEERING COMPANY, 14482 Beach ,C.;,'' :;i:;~ Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. s,';; Subject tract is progosed for subdivision into y~`,;`'.i'h 49 R-3 zoned lots. _~ Subject petition was continued from the June 14 and July 12, 1971, meetings to °; a11ow time for the petitioner to resolve the illegal lot split problem. : ~, '~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ;',,,,:„ pxoperty, previous considerations by the Planning Commission, and the fact 3,,~ that the petitioner had not resolved the illegal lot split problems with the ,~~ owner of the adjoining R-A parcel and was again requesting a four-week ;~ continuance. ,+ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, and ,' ` MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification ; ~ No. 70-71-56 and Conditional Use permit No. 1244, together with Tentative Map x ~ of Tract No. 7439 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, as requested by the ~ `^~ petitioner. i ,,,,, • ~w'. '. t-, :..~' .~: 7 ~.,.. ,.:. ~ ~-:. i' ~~l: ~.:1 E : :" 1 a ~ ~; ;... .:. . ~ ~ 4 . ~~ W .• _ ~ ~~I~ _ ~ . ~' / ~..`.. ~. ~!i ... ! _ , r ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 ~ 71-479 VARIANCE NO. 2257 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ~1D~,pH W. LEMKE, 12522 E1 Roy Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owner; HALL & FOREMAN, INC., ~` TENTATIVE MAP OF P. O. Box 11667, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting TRACT NO. 7426, WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMiJM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH ~ND (2) THE REVISION 1V0. 2 REQUIREMENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS TO PERMIT A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT PROPOSED TO SIDE-ON SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 459 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,054 feet, and being located approximately 900 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue. !2r;"''~' ...r , Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. e„ 1- ; TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: L. A. COUNTY LAND COMPANY, 111 East ~~ ',~ Third Street, San Dimas, California. ENGINEER: HALL & FOREMAN, INC., 2530 North Grand, Santa Ana, "' - California. Subject tract is proposed for sub- '; division into 36 R-1 zoned lots. '`~ Chairman Farano noted that staff had suggested that subject petition and tract ~' be continiied to allow time for the petitioner to revise plans to eliminate the dog-leg in Gerda Drive. Mr. Gerald Kline, representing the developer of the proposed tract, appeared ~Y before the Commission and noted the had ' Y purchased the property from the y; petitioner and had submitted a tract map approximately a month ago; however, k~ because of problems with the school district, they had resubmitted another tract map. '_ ..'r;."f, . $ l~ Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the petitioner wanted a continuance ~w or whether the Commission should consider the petition as it was before them; ~ whereupon Mr. Kline stated he would request consideration of the petition at `;: «f. this date. az ~: ~e ,y ~~~ Mr. Kline then noted that when he had appeared approximately a month ago, the layout of the street was adjacent to the school property, however, upon meeting r"'~ ~{s~ with the school representative, they decided they did not want to contribute ;~.'•:;~»Y~ toward dedicat?on of a portion of the street between subject property and the ~r':' ~ school property. ~ ~~ ~" S~' Fa+ Commissioner Seymour asked that staff clarify the problems regarding the ~ school district; whereupon Assistant Development Services Director Ronald ' Thompson advised tkee Commission that the Zoning Supervisor had discussed with j ~\ ~;~;~ Mr. Plant of the Orange Unified School District the possibility of construction ~t,~~, of a stx2et using a portion of subject property and the school property; that '~~ Mr. Plant had advised Mr. Roberts that normally the school district's ' position ~ was to consider a street adjacent to the school - however, they were not willing to offer land for dedication because of the proximity of the school building to s,t?,,.i;~ the westerly boundary of the property; and that if the street were to be i ,'', adjacent to the school site, it would have to be a 54-foot street with normal ' roadway and a parkway on the west side, together with sidewalks, but if the ~ ~ school district did not want to dedicate their property for a street, then this ~C~.: .:.!~ ~~` street would have to come off of the tract property itself. ~•f ' Commissioner Seymour observed that this appeared to be quite unusual for a ^5, ,,? school district to adopt this attitude since they usually were very cooperative, and this was purportedly a cooperative effort. y`=` , - Mr. Thompson noted that the school did prefer havinq streets along the peri- ~i phery of the school; however, the problem as far as the Interdepartmental ~" ' Committee was concerned on the tract heiore the Commission was the dog-leg in ~ Mt ~: : ~'~ ; Gerda Drive since it was felt the street would carry traffic from this tract se< r and the tracts to the west which could resent some t Y ' P ype of a traffic problem in the future when all the properties had been developed, and a situation with- out this type of a dog-leg would be better for circulation. '~ ~ Chairman Farano then inquired of Mr. Kline whether or not there was any ; indication from the school that they would dedicate any land; whereupon Mr. Kline stated that they had discussed this with the school board and had ~: ';..i~c~.~~' :~ '.:: ! ~a_. - _ . . . : .... ~ . . }'` ~ . . . ~ .. . . - . . . ~ . ,. .. . . . ..... ... ,. , .. ,_. .: . ~ . - . . . ~ _ ~ ~ ^~ i ~c' ' x-s'.w>~-~R,„ .~ __;.Z.~: ._ . ..., .. ,: 1 y r . i <. ~r `:1 ' --=- - "= ' __ ; , . - - ___--._------ - ~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY ?LANNING,COMMISSION, Ju1y 26, 1971 71-480 VARIANCE NO. 2257 - been turned down - they were concerned with children r, TENTATIVE MAP OF crossing the street trying to get there, and he requested *` • TRACT NO. 7426, that these feelings be put on paper, however, the school --_,':,,. REVISION NO. 2 board declined to. (Continued) ~` Commissioner Gauer inquired how the children would be able _ to come from thi~ tract to the school since it appeared there were no openings in the cul-de-sac. _ Mr. Thompson replied that the C~mmission could require pedestrian accessways " at the cul-de-sac if subject tract were approved. u ~ '" ~,?'~~ Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the main concern of the +~ Engineering Division and the Interdepartmental Committee was the sharp reverse curve at the southeast end of the tract; however, earlier in the day, the ~;:^, engineer for the tract and himself had talked with the City Engineer, ,;'`; _ Mr. Maddox, and a slightly revised map had been submitted which modified the - dog-leg somewhat; whereupon Mr. Kline presented the revised plan to the „~'.~ Commission, and this, then, was reviewed by Mr. Thompson, Commissioner Herbst, ~ and Mr. Titus. ,' r Mr. Titus then noted that Citrus View Drive would be closed off and that the -~~ -<, City Engineer had indicated that although the revision was acceptable, it was r ~ not particularly desirable. I ~, y<•• , n « No one appeared in opposition. ~' x~ ~: ~, '' ,LS; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~s- :.;`.. ~"~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-147 and moved for its passage ~M1,,,~,;~ and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2257, subject to conditions. ~ .5~ ;~ `,~ Commissioner Kaywood requested that plans be submitted for approval prior to ~,I.,~. approval of the tract map; whereupon Commissioner Gauer accepted this as a d.;~..;;,;~ condition of approval. (See Resolution Book) ~'~<<-` On.roll call the fore oin resolution was y g ~~~;~ 4 4 passed b the followin vote: 4 3~~ ~ AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. r y1-a~:;:;:", NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,5:~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. ~ I °`~J-. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and ,x,; ~~ MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7426, Revision No. 2, ,;.•,,,,;~„~= subject to the following conditions: ~Y '::.;, (1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7426 Revision No 2 is ~;~_,~; . granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2257. ' ~_' s (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision r~ each , subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for a pproval . =r ~~:~~ (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities ~ ~ ~~ in . , ~ 4.,+. ; ` ~ (4) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to ~,,~ approval of a final tract map. ~ ~ '`'• ,'~~l (5) ~'~ ' That a final tract ma of sub ect P ] property shall be submitted to and ~ r~ ~ approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the ~ ~ „ ~ Orange County Recorder. m;;.~,.1?':~: ~'~ 3°'~ (6} ~~ .,~; That the owners of sub ect y pay to j propert shall the City of Anaheim ~ ~ k.:::-:;~~ ~' the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be ':7, appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the V building permit is issued. ~ + ~ i ' ,,,k (7) That drainage of Tract No. 7426 shall be accompli shed in a manner `<t satisfactory to the City Engineer. ~<`' ~ ,r %.~c '? - ~ ± . ~ ; _ , . ~, ,.. ..., . ... . .. . ' t'; 1... . . . . - . . !~ ~ :°~_~.,~ny~1. 1-1' \ . . . '. _ . . . ' _ . .. - ~ .. - ~ ' ' '^ fj. ~ , ~ . "', _ r `{ ~ {' --------- -._`~. -------~ ;:~ - 0 ~ ~ i, J ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 26, 1971 71-481 VARIANCE N0. 2257 AND TENmAT2VE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7426, REVISION NO. 2(COrit'd.) (8) That a decorative six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the north property line separating Lot Nos. 13 thru 20 and the Riverside Freeway, and on the south property line separating Lot Nos. 1 thru 5 and the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company Canal. (9) That A and C Streets shall be constructed as standard 64-foot ~' collector streets. ~.:- - ~_;;;`;;i;"t~ `~~` (10) That subject property shall be developed in accordance with the standards of the proposed Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone as ',~ follows: ~ ,~. ~i 1) Lots adjacent to the Riverside Freeway shall rear on to said ~` ,; freeway and siia.il have a minimum depth of 150 feet. ~. 2) Lots adjacent to all other classificatior.s of arterial highways '~' or railroad rights-of-way shall have a minimum depth of 120 feet. - 3) The lot depth requirements may be reduced or modified where a specific plan is approved by the City that iradicates all build- ing setbacks on lots adjacent to the Riverside Freewav have a ~; minimum depth of 50 feet and lots adjacent to arterial highways ...~~ have a minimu~n depth of 4~ feet. ' 4) On all lots adjacent to the Riverside Freeway a 6-foot high, `~ `~ landscaped, earthen ber:n ahall be provided adjacent to the fj right~of-way line. ! 5) Where special c.:.rcumstaaces exist for a ~,~ propert; such as limited size, unusual shape, extreme topography, dontinating drainage _ '~~' ~ problems or the impracticability of empYoying 4) above, a '~ decorative masor.ry wall may be required in lieu of the earthen berm. ~+ , ~. ~ ~3,.,, ~~ The decorative masonry wall shall include design variations. ;?~:;..;;°;r: . Variations in the required wall that are designed to include ~ , ~° such decorative materials as wood, stone, or offsets for land- `.~ scaping are encouraged. " 6) On each building site or lot of a subdivision there shall be :°~' 10 trees per gross acre or 2 trees per lot, whichever is the `,~';r,; greater, and shall be spaced at interv:~ls of not more than 40 feet. t ~~~~,~1. ~ t 7) Those lots adjacent to the Riverside Freewray and arterial _ ? highways shall plant trees within 10 feet af the property line ~ nearest the right-of-way line, except where existing trees are ,-,..,! being preserved. ,..~ t (11) That pedestrian accessways shall be provided at the cul-de-sacs of . ;~~ wasatch Drive and "B" Street. I'~.::'" " '.; ~j; ". r :~ ~:~ ' .~f9t .. , CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE E. DICKERSON, 252 South PERMIT NO. 1239 Elder Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT SINGER, 2692 Main Way Drive, Los Alamitos, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL AND A RRSTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 371 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depch of approximately 254 feet, and being located approximately 780 feet west of the centerline of Cliffrose Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the June 2 and 28 and July 12, 1971, meetings to allow time for the submission of revised plans. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the fact that the petition had been continued from previous meetings for the submission of revised plans, and then reviewed the Report to the Commission, noting that the revised plans ~ k,, , ~ ~ •~ ~~ . r~. " -- .E~,: #' ._,. r,+ ~ , ~ i. r .. . . ~ . .. ~... . . . ._ _ . . ~ . ~ . . ~ _y _ ~ ~ ~ - ' \` , . . , . ,I ' ~ . . ' .. . . ... .. . ~ ----------._ - '. _ ~ ~~ ~;) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 197Z 71-482 CONDITIONAL USE - now indicatad 54 motel units in conjunction with a 3000- PERMIT NO. 1239 square foot restaurant; that (Continued) d the plans for the motel were etailed, but the restaurant plans were not complete; that the petitioner proposed 9 units with no kitchen facilities, and the balance w 34 ith kitchen facilities, with of those units being provided with parking in s accordance with parking tandards for one-bedroom apartments, there~ore, parking would be in accord- ance with parking requirements as set forth by the Commission previously; '' and that the primary question before the Commission was one of land use since - ti ,-. ..~.. all undesirable aspects had been resolved. ~:,,;;r; '"' Mr. Louis Miller, 403 East Wardlow Drive, Lon Beach, architect of the proposed ~ g development, appeared before the Commission and stated that the owners of subject property concurred in meeting all conditions as set forth in the Report ~~`' to the Commission. 't ' Commissioner Seymour noted that at the last public hearing there had been some ~` : discussion regarding construction of an 8-foot masonry wall along the south +'~ property line. ~: - Mr. Miller replied that he had discussed the wall with the property owner who was concerned because his property had a different grade than the other homes, ; and he had agreed to increase the height of the existing wall. i' f~' Commissioner Gauer then in uired w~hat was intended for the restaurant after S discussion regarding the s~` ~~O of the bar from the dining room area had been held at the last meeting; whereupon Mr. riiller replied that'they would ~° comply with any requirements of the Commission, however, since they had no 'fi tenant, plans could not be presented. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission ~' that any plans presented for a building permit could be brought to the Commis- ;~ sion for review and approval. ~;~~sfi~: ~;'~?~~~ TH~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~• Commissioner Herbst noted he was not present at the last public hearing, but ,....;,~ upon reading the staff report, it would appear that the Cammission was either lowering their standards for apartments or upping the standards for motels. ~1~ Commissioner Seymour noted that in the past the Planning Commission had set a ;,;~, precedent by allowing up to 25$ of the motel units with kitchen facilities, !, ~; and since the petitioner was still meeting these requirements for a motel while ! still meeting ~~hat the Commission requested regarding parking with almost 100$ of the units proposed to have kitc:i~en facilities, one could not say whether r, these were apartments or motel units - however, the formula agreed upon for .~ parking was met by the petitioner. :r Considerable discussion was held by Commissioners Herbst and Seymour regarding ~;':." the proposal and the requirement of parking standards for R-3; whether or not these should be considered apartment units and whether or not kitchen facilities ,~' should be limited to only 25~ of the motel units, and upon its conclusion, >:j~ Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that approving subject petition would be establishing a precedent for similar requests from existing and future motels that would be undesirable, particularly as it related to the Commercial- Recreation Area. ''~~ Commissioner Seymour noted that both he and Commissioner Herbst had been { tourists in other cities, and it was not uncommon to see kitchen facilities in the units they were in. ` ;: i J ~ _ ~ :~ i ;i; 0 ~,~ i =.klr- p ~~; ,~: ~ _a Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that this would not set a precedent since the use was in the specific area, and each petition would be reviewed, and this would not apply to other areas. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-148 and moved for its pa~sage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1239, subject to conditions as set forth in the Report to the Commission, except that an 8-foot masonry wall be constructed adjacent to the R-1 properties and with a£inding that this action was not intended to establish a precedent by any means as a ,.. . , . ~ ~,....:r. ~ `~ ~~ ~'+a+lh*_ ~,;<, :~~•. ''~~~ . .. '~ , ^~ - _I . . ::3~ . 1'r;: ! •' . ` ~ ,:.' - i' ~ ,f I - V V \J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3uly 26, 1971 71-483 CONDITIONAL USE - parking formula for motels presently existing or to be PERMIT NO. 1239 built in the future, and subject to all stipulations (Continued) by the petitioner regarding the wall and submission of development plans for tne restaurant to the Planning Commission for approval. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS; Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. "''•`•' Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-149 and moved for its , and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No.p1035ge ; on the basis that the petitioner did not intend to exercise the use granted -~ and because the Commission approved a conditional use permit to establish a motel and restaurant. (See Resolution Book) ~ ,;4 -, ~,~~ ,;:n :i °;~ Y t~ ~ ~ ,~ . `!~ I~ ; , ;.~;? . aRc: ?• - ;'~ ` 'r i ~ `. ' i .... e . ,. I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. Ve~RIANCE N0. 2269 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RALPH L. RICKMAN, ET AL, 1740 North Santa Fe Street, Space 20, Compton, California, Owners; HAROLD BUTLER, 120 North McPherson Road, Orange, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT THAT PARCELS OF LAND HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUSLIC STREET, T.O ESTABLISH SIX ~6) ILLEGAL PARCELS AS CONFORMING PARCELS on property descr:.bed as: A rectanau- larly-shaped parcel o£ land having a frontage of approximately 199 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum dept;i of approximately 615 feet, and being located approximately 284 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of June 28 and July 12, 1971, to allow time for the attorney for the petitionezs to resolve problems. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed for the Commission the loca- tion of the property and the request, together with the reason for previous continuances, and then noted that the applicant had submitted a letter request- ing termination of the variance since apparently th~ proposed lessee for a restaurant had withdrawn his proposal, therefore, there was no need to process the variance, and that any subsequent development proposal would require some form of zoning action since the petitioner was fully aware of the legal problems which faced any future development of the property. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Variance No. 2269, as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARI~NCE NO. 2272 - CONTItIUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM KUGEL, c/o Summit Mortgage Investors, 555 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Owner; COLDWELL, BANKER & CO., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND A NONCONFORM- ING, FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue, having frontages of approximately 620 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and approximately 739 feec on the north side of Crescent Avenue, and further described as Euclid-Crescent Square. ~roperty presently classified C-1 and C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIRL, ZONES. Subject petition was continued from the Juae 28 and July 12, 1971, meetings to allow the petitioner sufficient time for the submission of revised plans. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, the request, previous continuances, and the fact that the petitioner had .^,till not resolved the signing problems on the property; therefore, he was requesting a four-week continuance. ~-~', -~ - .; ~, .. . ... : ~ . 4_, ~F~.,ytf,,. :' y~,. . , ...,~~~ ~ C . _ ~.r,.~.. ~ .. . ' . t_ VARIANCE N0. 2272 - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue (Continued) consideration of Petition for variance No. 2272 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2274 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM T. PHILLIPS & DARWIN STANLEY, 246 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT A WAREHOUSE IN THE C-2 ZONE on property de~cribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 54 feet on the northeast side of Manchester Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- ~ ~= mately 187 feet, and bein located a 4 pproximately 500 feet northwest of the , centerline of Lincaln Avenue, and further described as 240 North Manchester ~:; ~~ Avenue. ~i Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject !:`` ~ property, the request, and the reason for the previous continuance, and then noted that the petitioner was requesting an additional continuance to resolve 1 the probSems of development. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion tio continue consideration of Variance No. 2274 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, as requested by the petitioner. - Commissioner Kaywood seconde3 the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONT3NUED PUBLIC HEARING. VIRGINIA HILTS & CORA ROSS, :: NO. 71-72-1 2593 Hillside Avenue, Norco, California, Owners; ?'~ MR. NORMAN E. BRIGGS, c/o Wayne Hanson Company, 3460 ,~~ wilshire Boulevard, Suite 812, Los Anqeles, California, ;~ Agent; requesting that property described as; A rectangularly-shaped parcel <~ of land located at the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Mountain View '1 Avenue, having frontaqes of approximately 131 feet on the south side of ~ Jrangewood Avenue and approximately 286 feet on the east side of Mountain View '`{ Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ 3 Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 12, 1971, to allow `; , ~:;':`~ time for the new owner to submit revised development plans. ' As~istant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish '.;" an 8322-square foot building with a convenience market and other assorted ,~\;;;t shops; that the plans would conform to all requirements o£ the C-1 2one; and ;;~ that the primary consideration before the Commission was the appropriateness ~~•=:~ of the proposed land use in this ar~a and whether or not there was a need for ~,r: the use proposed in this area. ? Mr. Lester Elbert, 11881 Monticito, Los Alamitos, developer of the proposed ; convenience market and shopping center, appeared before the Commission and ;'~~ stated he developed the centers but also retained them; that they maintained ,? their various facilities in first-class condition, therefore, they never had ;;:"''~~F a cacancy in their centers; that this parcel was considered by the Commission ` six years ago, at which time it was denied by both the Commission and the - ? City Council - however, at that time no definite plans of development were s` ~~ presented; that he had considered this property at that time but found there , ~ s~ was no apparent need for the facilities - however, the area had now changed +,,. ,~ because it was developed with many apartments aad they were proposing to ~ t provide a service to these people since the nearest convenience center was f~.., ,f on Katella Way, which had difficult garking and ingress and egress because t Katella Way was a one-way street and a larger facility was located at Chapman , and Haster, almost a mile away; that they presently had all but one store ~: ;' leased; that the proposed development would eliminate an eyesore in this area; Y' ~~ that only one tract of homes abutted to the east which would be affected since most of the development in this area was apartment development; that he had reviewed the plot plan with all the people primarily affected by the proposed ~~l= development, and with the exception of a very few of the single-family home- owners, everyone, particularly managers of the apartment developments, were ] of the opinion this would be a welcomed addition; that they now planned to *, have their trash in a portion of the building where they proposed to provide ;~ - fire walls - therefore, no trash would be seen from the outside, and the trash i;'~ : ;. y:° .... '' - ~~ ; : " - . ~r:':: ~ , .. ; ,- . , . , 5 , . ~_ _ E . , , _a ; :,, _ , , . , ~_ ~ ,. ~ 't:k -. ,' , ~ ~ ----- l~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 71-485 RECLASSIFICATION - pick-up company had agreed to pick up the trash in this NO. 71-72-1 facility; that the (Continued) Problem of noise was also discussed, and because of this, they now proposed to move the build- ing so that it would be located 35 feet from the nearest to Code adjacent to the wallsralongntheteast{propertylline;Pthatethere~would be no rear doors for delivcry purposes, although they were needed for fire protection; that the structure would be 10 to 12 feet high, with an additional 3 feet where buffering woulu be placed to stop any noises from the aircondition- ing on the roof; that the distance between the airconditioning and the single- family homes would be 75 feet; that in their other centers which they had built in other cities they were permitted to build only 10 feet from the property line, therefore, there would be nn problems as it pertained to noise; that people who formerly opposed commercial use for subject property now indicated they were glad to have this center in the proposed location - Mr. Elbert then indicated to the Commission where the trash storage area was proposed to be located - and continued by stating that they planned to have considerable landscaping wh3.ch would be well maintained and the property would be kept clean - therefore, the center would be an asset L-o the community; that they proposed to have a minimum of 30 persons employed in the center; that most of these stores would be closed by 7:00 P.M. except for the convenience market, which would remain opEn until 11:00 P.M.; and that his leases were written so that there would be no twenty-four hour store operations, even the laundry would be closed by 11:00 P.M. Mr. Elbert then reviewed a map of the general area, indicating the perimeter of the surrounding property at 300, 600, and 1200 feet, noting this was the distance people would walk to a shopping area, thus hundreds of people would be within walking distance of the shopping center, which would indicate this was a proper location for a convenience center, and then indicated the loca~- tions of the convenience shopping centers elsewhere. Mr. Elbert concluded by stating that together with the wall and trees, as well as the buffering of the aircon3itioning, these items should all be considered to be in favor of the proposed convenience shopping center. Commissioner Herbst noted that the plot plan indicated an area for 10 parking stalls along the wall adjacent to the R-1 and inquired what these were to be used for; whereupon Mr. Elbert replied these would be employee parking spaces. Commissioner Herbst noted that only the trees and the wall would be blocking noises of vehicles startinq up, and since this parking area was adjacent to the R-1, this would be highly undesiral~le, particularly when these vehicles would be starting up around 11:00 P.M. Mr. Elbert replied that an 8 to 10-foat wall could be erected if the Commission so desired; however, he did not feel there would be any parking by customers in the rear due to the fact that there would be no entrance to the stores from the rear, and the only reason they indicated this for parking was because it was a waste of land if not utilized. Commissioner Herbst noted in the past the Commission had required a 20-foot landscaped buffer ~creen adjacent to a wall where multiple-family residential parking was proposed adjacent to R-1; therefore, he could see no reason why the C-1 proposal should not be required to provide the same type of buffering screening from noise. Furthermore, the petiti.oner had the ability to provide 20 stalls along this particular area. i } Mr. Elbert noted that there would be considerable landscaping on the site; however, they could relocate the parking to the opposite side of the driveway f~ `. immediately adjacent to the building - then some landscaped buffering could be ~;~w worked out with staff, but it would not be the 20 feet since they required a 20-fook driveway area for the tr•1sh pick-up and fire vehicles. However, he did not want to be wasting space :f approximately 35 plus feet. ;~~; Comm3ssioner Herbst noted he was mc.~e concerned with the effect of the noises on the single-family homes; whereupon Mr. Elbert replied that he could see this was the City's intent for requiring trees, but he would b- qlad to provide an 8-foot high wall; that he had moved the building farther forward so that ` they would not be as near the R-1 as originally proposed; and that they would ~' provide a minimum 20-foot driveway together with 5 feet of landscaping. '~k! ?+' f ~ '' ~ ~ . ~._ ~ ': . . ... 4~.~::. ~ ' »~~ , .. . ~.: .,.., . . . . . . - .. ~. ~ f ......_.. ~,. ..,,. ..•: p.'. , , . . ' . ~ ~ . . ' . "i~. ' ~' .. . .:Y~ ~~. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . " ~ . ~ . . .. . . ~ . . _. , _. . ~ . ~ . . ` ' `_s _ 1 ~ .- ..~ _ irt: •:~ '>'r ,;~ -;~: ,^. : ~--:~ 3.:' T, ,. ,' ~; « : R; .' .~ i . , ,, ~ - ~ _ I - ,- ~ ~:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~7uly 26, 1971 ~ ~ .~ 71-486 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Norman Briggs, 1020 North Richman Avenue, Fullerton, ~ NO. 71-72-1 appeared before the Commission and noted there were 39 ' "' (Continued) properties within a 300-foot radius of subject property; i that he personally had contacted owners of 31 of these parcels who were in favor of the proposed convenience ~ shopping center, all of whom signed a petition, and then indicated on a map that the brown shading were ptoperty owners who were indifferent to the proposal; that those lots indicated oa the map in green were in favor of the proposal and those not shaded were in opposition; that he had contacted ' owners of 14 parcels beyond the 300-foot radius and all but one indicated they were in favor of the proposal; that three person~ indicated opposition to the trash area~Iocation and noises; and that where convenience shopping centers were erected by Mr. Elbert, the adjoining property values had increased because he maintained his centers so well. Mr. Tom Voorhees, 323 East Biuebell Place, appeared before the Commission and stated his property was one lot removed from the easterly boundary line of subject property; that the location of his property was not indicative of his need for the shopping center since those centers located at Chapman Avenue and Haster Street and the one located on Katella Way were sufficiently close for his shopping needs; that when subject property was considered previously by the Planning Commission, one of the findings of denial was that the area south of Orangewood Avenue should be retained for low-density residential use, however, the City Council had approved duplexes even after opposition was presented; that single-family homes had been built south of Orangewood to Simmons on the west side of Lewis Street after both the Planning Comm3ssion and City Council had denied R-3 zoninq; that he was concerned abouc depreciation of his property values; that he was also concerned about the lights, signs, and noises which generally emanated from shopping centers; that when the park was developed on Orangewood Avenue, it became necessary for him to build a fence because people kept using his yard as a short-cut to the park; that the proposed 6-foot wall would be inadequate since this would be only a 3-foot wall adjacent to his property, and children could scale a 6-foot grapestake fence very easily - however, his main opposition would be the fact that this would abut single-family residential uses even though duplexes were developed on the west side of Mountain View Avenue. Mrs. Joe IaQuinta, 2123 Vern Street,appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that the previous opposition expressed some of her reasons for opposing this, namely, to retain this for low-density residential uses; that when they purchased their homes, it was with the intention of remaining there for many years while those who rented apartments could move if they found their living quarters undesirable - something which she could not do; that they were involved with vehicles moving over subject property, and there was so much noise coming from said property that the people had to be removed; that since their property was immediately adjacent to the proposed convenience center, they did not appreciate having commercial uses immediately adjacent to their property; that even though the petitioner now proposed to relocate the trash area, it was still an open area which attracted flies; that she had seen many convenience shopping centers, and it was possible that drunks could crash ', through the wall, possibly injuring her grandchildren who might be playing in the rear yard; that she did not relish viewing an 8 to 10-foot wall while enjoying her rear yard; that although the proposed developer indicated he would relocate the cars toward°the building, the noise at 11:00 P.M..would still be quite.noticeable; that the convenience center would not be conv,en- ~ iently located for her or any of the neighbors in the s3.ngle-family subdivision j since they would have to go down to Simmans Street, then northerly on Haster ~ to Orangeo~ood; that they had moved to this area because it was residential, ~ and they hop.ed it would be retained residential since they wanted to spend the .~ rest of their days there, however, int•roduction of commercial uses would not ~ benefit the ad'oinin ' J g properties. ~ Commissioner Gauer inquired what Mrs. IaQuinta thought about the property as it presently existed; whereupon she replied that this property could be devel- oped with one-story apartments which would be far better than commercial uses; and then in response to rurther questioning, stated that all apartments on Mountain View Avenue were there when they purchased their progerty, and they would be directly affected by the proposed commercial center since their entire rear. yard abutLed subject property - however, she would not be opposed to single-story apartments. . ~''~ ~ ~: ;; _ r.'-.::.:._ . . , . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~3 .~. : ~ i _s ,~ - . . r- ~ ~' i i - ` _.. ~ O ~ ~_/ " I MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~'uly 26, 1971 71-487 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Joe IaQuinta, 2123 Vern Street, appeared before the N0. 71-72-1 Commission in opposition and stated that the fumes from _~ • (Continued) vehicles starting in this proposed center would be constantly coming their way since the wind blew in an easterly direction which would affect them as they sat . enjoying their rear yard. ` Commissioner Herbst noted this ~ras one reason why he felt there should be a 20-foot landscape strip. ~-' - Mr. IaQuinta stated that he had trouble from residents in that home who worked ~+,, on their engines, and with people climbing over 'rhe walls. ~ Mr. Gene Johnson, representing the Van der Steen enterprises, owne.rs of ten `r ~'j lots on Mountain View Avenue, appeared before the Commiss ~~~ was also the manager for this apartment enterprise, and as~a realf~estatehe ~' broker would like to rebut the fact that property values of the homes a+ould '•. depreciate, since from his experience, where successful commercial developments ~',,' abutted single-family or apartments, the values of the properties appreciated ~. .~ since conveniences where available in close proximity to a residential use, it ',- was also easier to rent apartments and brought in better tenants - therefore, ' he felt this would be a good thing for the apartment properties, particularly ` h since they owned ten of the duplexes and triplexes, however, they had no ; connection with the proposed facility, .,; ~i Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mr. Johnson meant the values of 11: the apartment complexes would appreciate; whereupon Mr. Johnson stated the ~ ~ values of all properties would appreciate if this were developed for a ~ ~ti convenience shopping complex. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner E~gST noted there was a trend away from supermarkets back to the local, convenience markets for smaller purchases; however, ~he would like to see the plans revised so that a 20-foot buffer strip was provided adjacent to the R-1; that there should be no parking which would affect the single-family residents since this would provide better protection than a higher wall; and that if the petitioner were willing to provide this additional protection, it could be an asset to the area. `j Commissioner Seymour noted that to approve subject petition would be "spot ,:# zoninq" since it would place a commerciaZ use in the middle of residential ~:a uses, both low and low-medium density, and that the plans did not indicate ''';~'~ that the petitioner was providing adequate buffering, something which the .:,~ Commission had required in the past to separate two residential uses where ";'i~ parking was proposed adjacent to R-1, and since this was a more intense use :~ of the property, additional buffering should be provided. Furthermore, if he " owned a home adjacent to sub'ect rt 7 property, he, too, would want to defend his ~ property. ~~ ~ Commissioner Seymour further noted that although the petitioner had indicated „,~ there would be no rear loading or unloading, he found that very difficult to believe since all markets that he had seen loaded and unloaded in the rear. Furthermore, this could not be enforced. ;;~ Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to recommend to the City Council dis- ..I approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-1 on the basis that this ; would be "spot zoning" since the entire area was developed for residential ~:,_ uses, and it was contingent upon th.e Commission to preserve the integiity of '_:;. . the area. ' 's.:,~ . "s. On roll call the foregoing motion lost for a majority of the membership of ~ the Commission, Cammissioners Kayweod, Farano, and Seymour voting "aye" and , Commissioners Gauer and Herbst voting "no". ~~:`% ' Continued discussion was held by the Commission on the proposal and on the ~= possibility of continuance to resolve some of the problems presented by the opposition and the Commission, the landscaping requirements previously required by the Commission where parking was proposed adjacent to single-family resi- *;; dential use, whether or not to require that parking be prohibited in the `' .+kc .~ ~. ~ i i' J ,. .,... , .. _ ,;, . . . . _ . ~ :,' e'.. ~ . , . . ~ . . ~ . . . ' ~. ... i. 9~ R,_~,e.,~~!; " . . , .~ . . . .. . ^~ . `._ ~ . ~' ~ ~ ~ i ~, _ r . I U ~} - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~uly 26, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-1 (Continued) - . :~ '-,: -- ~~ ---.~.... .~ 71-488 ~ - rear, and whether or not the fence should be higher than ' 6 feet if this were approved; and that the hours of ' op,_ration stipulated to by the petitioner should be adhered to. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City r_ouncil that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-1 be approved, subject to providing • a 20-foot landscape area adjacent to the R-1; that the petitioner eliminate any parking to the rear of the building; that no deliveries be made to the ;: rear of the building and the rear door of the market be relocated to the side; a~e'- .;,- and that the petitioner stipulated that there would be no 24-hour operation in r ,' ,,~ th3s facility. ~.`' i~ On roll call the foregoing motion failed to pass for a ma ~~i. `~ membershi jority of the lF. p, with Commissioners Ycaywood and Farano voting "ao" and Commissioners : Gauer, Herbst, and Seymour voting "aye". :1 ~ ! Further discussion was held with the petitioner since it a Commission would be necessary to pass on sub'ect PPeared a full should be continued to the next Planning CommissiontmeetinqtheWhereupont ~ Mr. Elbert stated he would be out of the city for the next month and could not be present to answer any questions the absent Commissioners might have, and, therefore, would suggest a six-weeks' continuance. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue ~= consideration of Pe~ition for Reclassification No. 71-72-1 to the meeting of September 20, 1971, in order that a full Commission might be present and for the developer to also be present to answer questions. Commissioner 's` ';, Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~~: ~. ~ ~'~,':i~ ;?,a VARIANCE NO. 2161 - PUBLIC HEARING (READVERTISED). LUSK CORPORATION, p, p, ~ Box 1217, Whittier, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER I,~ TENTATIVE MAP OF OF REQUIREMENT TiiAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES MUST REAR-ON '` TRACT NO. 5674, ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS, TO PERMIT FOUR SIDE-ON LOTS on property ~ REVISION NO. 3 described as: An irregularly-sha ed '~ ~ consistin of a P Parcel of land west corner of NohlXRanch1and2RoyalSOakcROads,thaving~ath- '` ~ frontage of a pproximately 940 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road and ! ~., approximately 700 feet on the west side of Royal Oak Road. Property presently 3 ~'~ classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. x~ ~ ~ ' p~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, P. O. Box 1217, t~: Whittier, California. ENGINEER: HOPEN, HEDLUND & ,~~ DARBY, INC., 3030 West Main Street, Alhambra, ~.'s California. Subject property is proposed to be ;;~ subdivided into 52 R-H-10,000 zoned lots. ry~ Ss Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, existing zoning, and the fact that a resolution of intent to R-H- ~~ 10,000 existed on subject pro ert P y, and the proposal to subdivide the property -~ into 52 R-H-10,000 lots with a gross area ranging from a minimum of 8000 to ~ 17,424 square feet with an overall avPraye of 10,552 square feet; thst an s~ ~ additional large lot was proposed at the northwest corner of Nohl Rarcch Road and Royal Oak Road for a future church site, and the petitioner indicated that ~_ .","~ plans for the development of this facility were not yet available, and they ;; ;~ would not be filing a conditional use permit until these were available; that 1` the Planning Commission might wish to inquire as to the timing of the ahurch ^~ property, with particular concern regarding possible uses of the property should the church not be built; and thai four of the proposed lots would side ;~ on arterial streets - however, at the time Tentative Map of Tract No. 5674 ~' was approved, these lots would have been permitted, and since that time the ~'~ Code had been amended to require rear-on lots. Furthermore, due to the topo- graphy in this area, it would be difficult to envision any of the four lots `:. being utilized for other than residential purposes in the future; and that in ' view of th~ fact that the City had already approved single-family side-on lots ~~ to the north, in the R-H-10,000 2one, the proposed request would appear to be appropriate in this area. '~~ ' dee . t ;, `. ~~; ~ 1- ~;i - , ~- ....... ~ °- `~ - - •. - a '_,_;~,,,,,,,,_;~ • - _ , ~ _ ~ . '~ _ -` _ I - _ _ ~~ _ = i ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ July 26, 1971 N0. 3 (Continued) Commissioner C:a.uer inquired as to the disposition of the lot propose3 for a future church site; whereupon Mr. Saldivar stated that they had an agreemen~ with the Mormon Church - however, no plans of development had been present~d. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not it was intended to have educational facilities in the church other than Sunday School; whereupon Mr. Saldivar replied he did not know since this had not been discuss~d. ~~ 71-489 VARIANCE NO. 2161 - Mr. Alfred Saldivar, representing Lusk Corporation, then TENTATIVE MAB OF indicated they had read all of the conditi.ons of approval ' TRACT N0. 5074, and agreed to comply with them. ' REVISION ' Commissioner Herbst noted that the City had had problems regarding church sites ~'' _ , ~ requesting educational facilities prior to development of surrounding proper- j ~~ ties, where residents of the subdivision surrounding said church presented !^a opposition when educational facilities were proposed afterwards. ~' Mr. Saldivar noted that this was only a 2.8 acre site and, therefore, would '' not be large enough to accommodate facilities for a school site. However, '~ the conditional use permit would be applied for later on. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the manner in which sitbject petition and tract could be approved with the church site on which no plans of development had been submitted, and upon its conclusion, Assistant Development ~. Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that a finding could be made tt;at this '~,`.; corner was proposed for a church site only and would have to be processed ; through the City in the rormal manner for approval of a church, this being for { informational purposes o~ly. '~ Mr. Saldivar stated that he was sure the Lusk Corporation had definite plans ;`+ for this property as a church site - otherwise, it would mean the s of a revised tract map. ubmission ±~ Chairman Farano was of the opinion that specific plans should be resent :, ,;A the Lusk Corporation. P ed by ~ ,"r ~ Commissioner Seymour noted that the problem the City was faced with prevzously .';~ was because of the interpretation of educational facilities under a conditional *~ use permit, and the Commi~sion was not at this time approving a conditional use ' permit for a church. }~ Mr. Thompson, in res onse to a P question by Chairman Farano, stated that the ~,r,,,,~; wording of the original approval of church sites with educational facilities `~, was somewhat ambiguous as to the type of school or number of students; there- .,•.,~ fore, since this had never been determined, he did not feel the Commission :;~: would be placed in a similar situation because the property did have R-H-10,000 zoning pending on the property, and if not developed for a church, could be ~~ developed with single-family homes. ;~ Mr. Saldivar indicated that although a church site was proposed on this corner .^Y~ parcel, it was sufficiently large to be converted into a single-family tract. _~~ No one appeared in opposition. ~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '~~: `: Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the disposition of the pipeline easement ``` ' as set forth in the Report to the Commission and inquired whether or not this ~,:~,,; could be handled in conjunction with the variance or the tract map. ,i: . :.-- ^~ Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that Lusk Corporation had given an easement ~!~ to the Four Corners Pipeline Company, and since this easement ~ras given to ' them, they could not give an additional, conditional easement. '° Mr. Thompson noted that this could be made a conditional dedication for public '~ hiking and riding trails at such time as the pipeline easement was abandoned; whereupon Commissioner Seymour noted that the applicant could stipulate that if the holder would permit use of the easement for hiking and riding trails, ` this should be done. ,* ~ , akt ;: . ~ .i,:§ti:xrbri , _~. .... ... . . .. ~ , . ... . ~ . . . `C , .. . _ _,~_ ., . ~ ~.. ~X.:4e ..., ._.'~ ~ ^ ~ . . .. .. . . . . . _ . ... .~ . ~ . ~ . i-- ' ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION~ July 26, 1971 U 71-490 _ VARIANCE NQ. 2161 - Mr. Saldivar stipulated they would give their approval TENTATIVE MAP OF as well as obtain approval of the holder.s of the pipeline TRACT NO. 5674, easement to be used for riding and hiking trails at such REVISIOPS NO. 3 time in the future that the use was to be developed. (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-150 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variar.ae No. 2161, subject to conditions and the finding that the petitioner stipulated giving _ approval and to obtaining approval of the holders of the pipeline aasement _ to be used for riding and hiking trails at such time in the future that this use was ro os d t b ~ ~ p p e o e developed, and an additional condition to that in the ; Report to the Commission that the etition ~ p er shall submit their approval and approva~ af the ho].ders of the pipeline eas ;~ ement for use of said easement for riding and hiking trails at such time in the f t - : 'i u ure as this use was proposed to be developed. (See Resolutio:. Book) ~ " `~~ ! On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. 1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. _ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. ' e Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and , MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5674, Revision No 3 . , subject to the followinq finding and conditions: • FINDING - That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5674, Revisi'on No. 3 , in which Lot No. 52 is proposed for a church site, does not ' approve construction of a church on this parcel wxthout approval ~ of a conditional use perm3t. l: ;,j ~ CONDITIONS: :;~ ;~ • 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5674, Revision Na 3 _ ~.~ . is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2161. }~ i ;.I 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than subdivision y j , each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. i~ 4. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to ,' ; •~ ~ ~ approval of a final tract map. < ,>- 5. That the vehicular access rights from Lot Nos. Z and 22 to Royal Oak Road and from I,ot Nos. 23, 43, 44, and 51 to Nohl Ranch Road, except at street and/or alley openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 6. That streets in the tract shall be constructed in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. : +~ 7. .at in accor•dance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall (or ' . ' .n alternative approved by the Development Services Department) shall I -~;,'. be constructed in the east portion of Lot Nos. 1 and 22 adjacent to Royal Oax Road, and in the south portion of Lot Nos. 23. 43, and 51 adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road. Subject walls shall be measured from the highest finished grade level of subject property or adjacent roadway 1 whichever is highest. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation ~ , facilities shall be installed easterly and southerly from said walls ,~ including the street parkways and the Four Corners Pipeline Easement _ . Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the ~^ approval of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent. Following installa- tion and acceptance, the proper owner(s) shall assume responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping to the lot lines, regardless of ' . the location of the masonry walls. The City of Anaheim shall assume ~ the responsibility for such maintenance of landscaping in the Royal Oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road right-of-way. ' 8. Drainage of Tract No. 5674, Revision No. 3 shall be disposed of in a ~ ~, manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. ~~, '. ` ~~ ` ,~ t`: ~. _.. _ ~ . . . ` . ~~' _ -.~~:, , . ~ - _... ~yY.:, :L.~.a::: : 4 ~' .-... _.Y ~~ , C '. ~ _ . . . . . ~ ~ ~ I _ ~ ~l ~ ;" -t:; _ •' ~ 4 r ~~ V V~ ~ / ~ MTNUTES~ CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, .TUly 26, 1971 71-491 VARIANCE NO. 2161 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 5674: ~.VISION NO. 3(Cont'd.) ,, 9. Public utility and sewer easements shail be dedicatecl to the City of Anaheim as required by the Director of Public Utiliti.es and the City Engineer. 10. That the covenants, aonditions, and restrictions shall be submitted `J to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved cov- ,: enants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. Said covenants, conditions, and restrictions ''`~`' J• shall include provision for the ~, ~.; in Tract No. 5674 and the Four CornersuPipelineeEasement.all slope areas ~ !~~ ~ ~'n ~ ~' RECESS - Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to recess the the meeting. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:05 P.M. RFCONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4;15 P.M., all Commissioners except Allred and Rowland beina presen~. - CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. L•A SALLE HOTEL COMPANY, 8730 Wilshire PERMIT NO. 1248 Boulevard, Sui~e 4].0, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; N. P. BARLETTA, National Sierra Pictures Corp., 105 South permission to ESTABLISHSAeMOTIONnPICTUREtSTUDIOlANDrRELATEDeTOUR2STuORIENTED ATTRACTIONS, INCLUDING RFSTAURANT AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE FACILITIES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land c,onsisting of approximately 18 acres, having a frontage of approximately 649 feet on the south side af La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,058 feet, and being located approximately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified COUNTY OF ORANGE 100-M1-20,000. Assistant 2oninq Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning, and the proposal to establish a motion picture studio and related tourist-oriented attractions; to establish a restaurant and cocktail lounge; and waivers of the Sign Ordinance to permit an 83-foot high, multi-f.aced sign of 4941 square feet which would be located witiiin 25 feet of the easterly property line and within the parking- landscaping area of subject property, noting that the property was located within the City of Anaheim Northeast Industrial Area and had a resolution of intent to M-1, although the property was still under the jurisd~ction of the County. Mr. McDaniel then reviewed the detailed proposal as set forth in the Report to the Commission and the evaluation, noting that the use would appear to be more suitable in the Commercial-Recreation Area or withi.n close proximity where "The Orient" was proposed since it had been a long-standing policy of the Planning Commission and City Council to restrict encroachment into a well-defined industrial area with commercial, tourist-oriented uses because of the conflict of traffic patterns; that the use did not appear to have any special features which would warrant unusual consideration different than had tzeen given to commercial uses previously proposed to encroach into the Northeast industrial Area; that the parking requirements for such an unusual use as proposed were very difficult to determine, although staff had evaluated parking on the basis of required parking for those uses for which standards had been established - said uses would require 968 parkin~ spaces, whereas the petitioner was propos- ing only 332 parking spaces - therefore, some justification may be required for the reduction of a portion of the required parking spaces. In conclusion, Mr. McDaniel stated that the major consideration before the Planning Com~nission was whether or not the use itself was appropriate in the Northeast Industrial Area with the myriad of commercial uses proposed, even though a mction picture studio was a permitted use in the M-1 2one, this might lea-? to additional requests for commercial uses in the industrial area. i' : f-:~':t:,+iiiiiRil~~. "'~'~~F`+"t~'s ' ~ ~ •_ _ _ ~ - ~ , '~ f ~ . ~1~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 . 71-492 CONDITIONAL US,E - 2•ir, garletta, agent for the PERMIT NO. 1248 the Commission and noted tha~+..ethelreasonaforathe sitere (Continued) selected, aside from its exposure, was that although they proposed tourist-oriented facilities, the primary use would be motion pictures; that everything was designed in the development to produce motion pic tures, and it was his understanding that a motion picture operatiosi was a permitted use in the M-1 2one - therefore, they had to find an area that was either zoned M-1 or was considered potential M-1; thet they could have located near Knott's Berry Farm or the Wax Museum or Disneyland, but then they would have added to the existing traffic problems of those areas; that they had also considered areas outside of Anaheim, however, it was determined outside locations would have been harmful to the proposed facility since Anaheim was the heart of the tourist industry, even through their primary use would still be considered making motion pictures - then Mr. Barletta inquired whether he was correct in assuming a motion picture studio was a,permitted use in the M-1 Zone; whereupon Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson affirmed this assumption. Mr. Barletta continued by reviewing the staff's comments regarding parking by explaining the concept proposal on a day-to-day basis using maximums of two performances sc2ieduled for one time period; that the needed parking would be as though only one performance of two to three hours and was similar to what one could expect when attending a movie; that all the other attractions were just added features for the visitor; that the actual management of the opera- tion would be by very capable people of that industry; that while ~taff evalu- ated the parking very well, he felt that the proposal as he had presented it might have been misunderstood as to cycles since it was their intent to alert the general public of the features going on every day far enough in advance for them to make plans - both tourists and local residents; and that it was their contention if they ever reached the position of where 900 parking spaces were needed, the amount of traffic would be so great that the 18-acre facility would be too small. Commissioner Gauer noted that the brochure presented indicated 1,000 persons at one time could be present - then it could be assumed that there would be a considerable number of employees, and if it were anything like Disneyland where they had 1,500 employees on each shift, there would be nn place for any of the visitors to pazk given the number of spaces proposed. Mr. Barletta replied that since this was a family-oriented attraction, it could be assumed that three or four persons would be arriving in one automobile; that the brochure presented with the figures indicated were made to find out by research the type of traffic that might be anticipated and was not necessarily intended to be a part of the petition; and that the numbers presented in the projections were representative of a rather optimistic viewpoint - this could mean one to two million persons per year; that it was his understanding that Lion Country Safari had between 850,000 and 900,000 visitors per year and the wax Museum had approximately 750,000, but, of course, one could not compare the proposal or the uses previously mentioned when one considered Disneyland where eight to nine million persons a year attended. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to tiie number of employees this facility would have; whereupon Mr. Barletta stated th.ere would be 45 to 5g persons since this would be a workinq studio. SS Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion there would be considerably more em~loyees when one considered the actors, the "bit" players, the staff to handle the crowds, as well as the office gersonnel, the restaurant empl~~ees, and parking lot attendants. Mr. Barletta noted that there was an additional area for overflow parking or employee parking in one of the stage streets if it was anticipated a large number of visitors would be attending. Continued discussion was held between Commissioner Herbst and Mr. Barletta regarding the number of persons attending and the number of employees that might be anticipated, with Mr. Barletta stating that this could not be compared with Universal Studios in Hollywood, although they also had tourist- oriented operations. r,~ 't:jF:-, ' . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ .-.~-- . .~r ~ ~ .,t, ::.;;.. . . ~. ~, . _ . . . ~. ~ ~ ` ~ . _ ` ~ _ ~ . ' . . _( ; _ ~~ r ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3uly 26, 197], ~~ 71-493 CCNDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not it was intended PERMIT NO. 1248 to have an area sPt aside for busses or have bus tours of (Continued) the facility; whereupon Mr. Barletta stated that they would create zones or areas - areas where considerable lsnlscaping will be planned which could be used as a backdreg f.or motion picture taking, but there was no plsn to have any vehicles or busses riding through the facility - everyone woulci have to walk through. Chairman Farano noted tiiat the petitioners probably were aware of the fact that the City had been processing requests for tourist-oriented attractions which, after having been approved, did not seem to materialize due to financing or r~ other reasons - there£ore, the petitioner realized the Commission's concern in ~ proposing a use such as this even though it might be considered on the periphery "~ of the M-1 areaf that if subject petit`_on were approved, he wou7.d venture to ~`t'~~- ~~ guess that cpnsiderable apprehension by the industrial ro ert o ,', ~! P P y wners in the -~ area would be created, which he did not like to see happen - but if this peti- tion were an exercise in trying to see how far encroachment of possible in- ?' compatible uses would be permitte3 before it was stopped, this was something of grave concern; and that the Commission's past experience was the basis ~;~ of considerable apprehension as to whether or not thia could be a serious problem. Chairman Farano then presented a number of questions as follows, with answers by Mr. Barl~tta: 1. What type of corporate structure did the proposed company have, and did the organization have a funding and how much money was involved in building the pr~ject? Answer: The Nationa] Sierra Pictures Cozp, cor_stituted a number of local busine~s:.:en; that the company was a public corporation held privately with an eleven-person membership; that the work involved in £orming this corpora- tion required more than one and a half years, and during that time $150,000 had been spent - money belonging to the members of the corporation; that the Com:nission could not consider this in the same category as other pe#itions were considered since they did not consider themselves an amuse- ment g~rk; that they would be a manufacturing plant making motion pictures, and a~ an added feature, these taurist-oriented proposals would help in the cost uf operation, however, he wished to assure the Commission that they proposed a legitimate M-1 use for the property with persons operating it who had experience in the field; and that financing would be no problem sin~~•a the quality of the people in the corporation could make three and a half milli~n dollars available. 2. How much had been budgeted for the construction of this facility? Answer: Three and a half million dollars. 3. What percent of the annual gross income would be derived from the tourist- oriented aspect? ~ wnswer: During the first years:, 60 to 70$; however, the majority of the net income would come from the motion piacure operation. 4. When would ccnstruction commence in the event this petition was considered favorably? Answer: An indirect answer was made by stating that they were applying for site approval in which there would be four major structures: 1) administra- tion building with sound stage and the main studio complex, 2) the restau- rant, 3) two or three other structures, but there would be a massive land- scape job with the moving of considerable amounts of dirt, etc., and there would be considerably more money spent for the landscaping and outdoor features than for buildings. 5. Were the plans submitted mechanical drawings, design concepts, or what? Answer: These were design concepts, and the knowledge and exFerience oE the persons operating this use wovld be able to determine the cost because most of tIie lf3-acre cost would be landscaping and moving dirt - there would be a half mile of streets with building fronts, and in order to take care of sita plans and things related to it, working drawings would take three to four montY.s beEore they woula be completed. i - x;~;-~, . - _. _ - :.._._.,, ., ~ .. ~~ ` ,~g~:u~ ...: ` ~ • , _ - . , ~ ~I~ ,~ r • ~~ ~ ' MTNUTES ~ , CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .7u1p 2(~ lg~l ~ 71-494 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1248 (Continued) ~ '~ . ~ 6• How soon was construction anticinated if this were approved by the I Planning Commission and City Council? Answer: Within six months constru.ction would be started and completion I would be approximately six to eight months later. ' • Commissioner Herbst stated he would have no opposition to manufacturing of motion pictures in the industrial area but it a oriented to tourist business, particularly with apsignd4t941 squareafeet$ I ~ which was one thing which should be discussed in detail since the City in the I ~ past did not allow industries to have this size sign built, and if this were ~ ;^:~;'~' not a tourist-oriented operation, then a sign this size would not be necessary the size sign proposed would indicate this was an operation not oriented to the_ ~ ~.~;:~ making of motion pictures but was a tourist attractio Chairman Farano concurred in the statemei; n• ~ further noted that if 60 to 708 of the t made by Commissioner Herbst and ~ tourist-oriented business and 4ross income was to be derived from motion picture business, it would aa~or portion of the net income from the ~~perating either at cost or at a lossear that the tourist business would be Mr. Barletta replied it was their hope that the tourist-oriented facilities would not be operated at a loss, and with the facility as they~yro osed it would not be successful if it were developed with P the main purpose of this facility was to give the ~ust one o two uses; that see motion pictures made and other things associatedbwithat ~pshowunity to business; ~ that the tourist-oriented facilities would be added to the entire picture facilities and were geared to a low-budget development, not as other studios with large facilities and overhead which had been unsuccessfnl; however, Universal Studios, with their sideline of tours through the facility, together with their motion pictures and television programs, found themselves in a better financial position. Chairman Farano noted that a motion picture studio was a permitted use in the M-1 Zone, but this appeared to be a very attractive recreational facility for people coming to Southern California, and then inquired whether or ~ petitioner intended to have any organized tours through this facilitot the ~ did this figure into the theater, etc., operation. Y' how ~ Mr. Barletta stated that they did not intend this to be created for the tourist,! but to use the a.rea for pictorial ~ proposed to have Roman-Grecian columns~sand thattthealagoontwouldnbeuusedng Was ~ primarily for shooting underwater motion pictures, but at the same time this could be enjoyed by the tourists. Then, in response to a question by Chairman Farano, Mr. Barletta stated there would be scheduled ~erformances when the lagoon was not in use for motion pictures. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not there would be an admission charge, or did the base admission fe~ cover all performances, and would the shooting of the motion pictures be indoors or outdoors. Mr. Barletta stated that the one admission fee would cover admission to all performances within the faciiity except ,~ayment for food at the restaurant, etc.; that there would be both indoor and outdoor film shooting; that the administra- tion building was 150 by 150 feet and would hold the main sound stage. Commissioner Kaywood stated that she was more concerned with the~ outdoor film ;,.- shoo*ing because of the proximity of the freeway; whereupon Mr. Barletta ;` repli~'. that there would be consideraAle moving of dirt and sper.ial engineer- '~. in~ so that there would be large buffering areas, and that the s: motio:i pictur~s was a very cold, calculated o zooting of " taki.ng about one and one half hours. Peration with actua] shooting ~: . ~.. Commissioner Kaywood then referred to a comment made by Commissioner Herbst and inquired whether this operation was being pianned primarily for the 1j tourist; whereupon Mr. Barletta stated that the tourist facility was just _ incidental to the operation, and the major operation would be motion pictures. ~ , .f:t , i i I + . i ..^:~: ti ~: D. - . ,,- . . 1; -. . . : ~ , ~ , . ,.. ~ . - . _ ' ~ . _ ;~. t ,,.,,,,,, 4 . ~_ • -' ~ i ~ . ------ _ ~ L~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOi1, ,Tuly 26, 1971 ~ 71-495 ~ i CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer was of t:he opinion that everything PERMIT NO. 1248 presented indicated it was geared toward the tourist ~ (Continued) trade, and maybe the petitioner planned to make some ~ pictures, but the majority of the operation a ~ ppeared to ~ be tourist-oriented. i Commissioner Herbst inquired why the petitioner was proposing this operation ~ in this particular area since this was partially commercial-recreation - why couldn't it be located nearer the C-R Area since the proposed location ~ was far removed from any tourist attractions in Anaheim and surrounding areas, and if this were planned in the vicinity of the stadium or near "The Orient", this would be much more acceptable than placing it in a prime industrial area with two different types of traffic patterns, thus makinG it incompatible to other industries in the area. Furthermore, "The Orient" had killed any indus- ~ trial growth in a portion of the Southeast industrial Area for the past five ~ years, even though nothing had materialized - ther~fore, it was his opinion ~ that this proposal should be located in close proximity to the C-R P.rea, such ! as "The Orient" area or near the stadium. ~ Mr. Barletta stated that they had considered a parcel in the Southeast Indus- trial Area, but because of the high pcwer lines crossing the property, they had to drop this consideration; that they had spent the be~ter part of a year trying to find the proper location; ~:hat they were a small group of business- men, not promoters or financiers; that their application was for the production of motion pictures, but if there was to be any consideration of tourist-oriented uses, this incidental use was necessary for the success of the business so that ' there would be a return for their investment; that they had tried not to give any publicity to the project; and that they were going about this with a reason- ably conservative attitude - however, at the same time had a hardnose approach since they ~lid not go ahead with anything unless there was a 1008 chance this operation would succeed. Commissioner Herbst was of *he opinion that one business should not be success- ful at the expense of o#.her people who had their businesses already established; whereupon Mr. Barletta stated he~did not feel~the success of this business would be at the expense of the people of Anaheim, nor would it affect this particular industrial area; and that he had appeared before the Planning Commission a number of times befor.e and had never presented a petition which had not been ~ carried through to its completion. Commissioner Kaywood, in .reviewinq the plans, noting she was attempting to find ' an area where additional parking could be provided if this proposed facility ~ were to be a success and inquired where the petitioner intended to ~.rovide this additional parking area and how much additional parking spaces could be provided. Mr. Barletta replied that the area marked "workshop and storage area" could be used since there were other areas that could be used for storage of the sets, and that with this additional area there would be space for a total of 400 vehicles. Commissioner Kaywood noted this sti2i was far below the figures calculated by staff for parking needs. Commissioner Seymour noted that staff had different parking requirements, and they admitted they could not come up with the parking requirements; that he was sure the petitioner had checked other facilities for parking, and then inquired whether there were any figures available Erom these other facilities and the number of vehicles per 1,000 attendance. Mr. Barletta replied that he did not have the figures available at this ±~:ime, but he could supply staff with them, but from his recollection, one area indicated there were four to five persons per vehicle. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson inquired whether or not the petitioner had any comments regarding (3) of the waivers requested pertain- ing to the si:e of the signs and regardi.ng the recommendations for a street. w;~F ~ ~~ ~! _ ` 4 ~ ~ ~ i . . .. .. , / _ ~ ~ ! ` :.l `~ j y~ .,-~ ~:} '~~ :i ':% U U ~_J, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~7uly 26, 2971 71-496 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Sarletta replied that he was not aware the sign was PERMIT NO. 1248 that large, nor were they familiar with the manner in (Continued) which Anaheim computed the size of a sign, however, they would conform with the sign which could be agreed upon in any event. • Chairman Farano noted that if the siqn aspects were removed, this might be considered a theme-type sign. Mr. Thompson noted that if the Commission were to consi.der this sign, it m? .c be considered an architectural feature. Mr. Barletta stated they would comply with the City's requirements if subject petition were considered favorably, but i.f approved, he was sure the City would like to see this be successful, and if they could be somewhat flexible as it pertained to signs, since they would like to have some kind of a trade- mark architecturally, possibly limiting the wording. Furthermore, as far as i:he street was concerned, they had attem_~ted to contact the adjoining property owner, however, they had no opposition to dedication of the street but they would prefer that it be only the 32-foot half-width rather than the full street width and also paying for the street impro~~ements while still leaving the adjoining property owner the opportunity to take care of the balance. Office Engineer Jay Titus noted for the Commission and the petitioner that the City had a very firm policy reqarding acceptance of a half-street dedication, and, therefore, the recommendation of the Interdepartmental Committee to require full dedication of the street width with improvements or with a one- foot strip beinq set aside as Lot A, which at the time the property to ttie east was developed, said developer would be required to pay the owner a pro- portionate share of the cost of the land and improvements to reimburse him. Mr. Barletta stated that since it was their intent to xemain at this location, they would attempt to contact the adjoining property owner again, but they would agree to the one-foot strip formula. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether it was the intent of the National Sierra Motion Pictures to praduct "X" rated movies when part of the studio was leased to outside producers to take care of the cosis, since it was his feeling that ~ a young, modern producer would want tc do l~is thinQ, and Anaheim, with its reputation of being a family-orier.teG city, would be opposed to this type of operation. ~ ,'<~~ Mr. Barletta replied that they wou:i.d have control only over what they would produce, but he did not know how they could police or control an independent producer who leased a sound stage. Furthermore, the production of "X" rated pictures and pornography was on the decline. Commissioner Seymour stated he was in favor of retaining the image of the City of Anaheim that had been started with Disneyland, and from his own impressa.on, this type of facility would be used for this type of operation. '~ Mr. Barletta stated that he would not have anything to do with that type of ' - picture. Mrs. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and inquired where the major portion of the parking was proposed and whether or not this would be adjacent to White Star :,venue - whereupon Commissioner Seymour reviewed the plans with Mrs. Coykendall, indicating where ° parking was proposed. ~. % Mrs. Coykendall than stated that they had no apao ion to the proposed motion ~~ picture oompany, but they were concerned abc::.:'r. the rainage since they had ~ water cominq from subject property onto their property, even with only orange trees, and with so much of the property having considerable paving, would the drainage be taken care of because it was their intent to continue growing 1~ oranges for some time, and they did not want excessive amounts of water to affect their grove. *': :~ : _ - } ` i ., : r ~ C~ ~ ~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .7uly 26, 1971 71-497 COt7D2T20NAL USE - Mr. Titus noted that one of the conditions of approval PERMIT NO. 1248 required that the drainage be disposed of in a manner (Continued) acceptable to the City Engineer. Mrs. Coykendall then asked whether or not it was felt the City Engineer and she could agree on the proper drainage, particularly when one considered the amount of paving with parking areas that was proposed for subject property. Chairman Farano advised Mrs. Coykendall that if subject petition were approved by the Planning Comm3ssion and City Council, he would suggest that she main- tain a contact with the City Engineer to deteru~ine how the drainage would be handled since he was sure the City did not intend to channel water onto her property. Furthermore, the Planning Commission would have nothing to do with that phase of the petition - this would be strictly up to the City Engineer. Chairman Farano then inquired whether or-not there was someone representing the industries present who wished to make comments on the proposal. Mr. Ron Lincoln, past president of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce ci.nd un- officially representing them, appeare~l before the Commission and noted that both the Chamber of Commerce and Autonetics, who he represented, had taken the position of being opposed to anythiug that was not compatible with the industrial area, and from the presentation, it would appear this was not a compatible use from just the traffic pattern, which could scare a considerable amount of potential industrial development away from that area; that he was going to recommend to his company that they oppose the proposal, and he knew many industries in the area planned to hear his report since this area had been designated as a prime industrial area, and the proposal would be at the entrance of the industrial area. Chairman Farano noted that the Commission was interested in any remarks and comments of representatives of the industrial area, and he, as a Commissioner, did not want to rule on an application without knowing how the existing indus- tries felt - whether or not they felt this would be an encroachment into the area since there was considerable property that would be affected by the proposed use. Mr. Lincoln advised the Commission that they had no additional information except for the legal notice; however, they had opposed many uses proposed for this area in the past which they felt would be incompatible; that the area was growing with industry, and many o'f the industries presently located there used the intersection of Kraemer Boulevard and La Palma Avenue to enter and exit their properties - therefore, from the standpoint of traffic proposed at this interssction, this would be reason enough for opposition, even though he realized a motion picture studio was a permitted use in the M-1 2one - the ancillary uses praposed could bring many vehicles to the area which would present traffic conflicts. Furthermore, helicopter flights were numerous in this area daily, which could be a disrupting factor to outdoor filming, and that together with Kraemer Bculevard and Jefferson Street intersections with La Pal~ea Avenue, these were main entrances into the indusErial area, and if industry, existing or proposed, felt there would be traffic conflicts as ta ingress and egress to the area, this would discourage further industrial development of the area and could also me,an'existing industries could move out. • Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not industry had any adverse effects from the miniature golf course developed there; whereupon Mr. Lincoln stated that it had just opened, and he could not give a report on traffic count or conflicts that might have occurred. Mr. Lincoln further noted that both Autonetics and the Chamber ~~F Commerce haci wosked toward obtaining more industriz2 develonment for the area, and even though his company was smaller than formerly. they still had considerable land in the area; therefore, they would be opposed to this because he felt it was incompatible. A letter in favor of subject petition was read b}• ;.he Commission Secretary from Mr~. Tillie M. Walker, partner in the orange qrove operation on the west side of White Star Avenue, who also txy.,r.essed concern re•~;arding the drainage problem. T ~•~y„r~._; . . -~ ~ ~t.c ~ . ' a \ ^ ~ ~- - ~. ~> ~) ~ ~ - : MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~G COMMI55ZON~ July 26, 1971 71-498 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Barletta, in rebuttal, stated that comments made i I PERMIT NO. 1248 regarding an increase in traffic - if more industries %.~~~:r~-.~ ~ ' (Continued) were developed in this area, there would be an increase ~ in traffic also; that there had never been as much vacant i • industrial proaerty or buildings as there was now; and ~ that they were aiming for families where one car carrying four to five persons ~ would be coming to the facility: therefore, if this were a regular industrial ~ building on 18 acr2s with hundreds of persons employed, considerably more vehicles would be on the premises because the majority of cars each carried -l,r",:..:, one person. Furthermore, he could see no reason wny there was an o to havin the motion Y PPosition 4 picture studio and tourist-oriented operations since ' any operation wanted to have more business; that whether or not there was ,~ ~ a change to that proposed, there would be no change in the traffic flow; that ~ he wantecl an operation that would give a profit to the stockholders; that the statement that this would be tourist-oriented in the beginning could be ` compared to a supermarket advertising various give-aways to increase the busi- ~: ness by sales of other goods; and that it was his opinion the proposed use would have no effect on the industry in the area, which was on the decline -` rather than on the incline. ~:; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. `= Commissioner Gauer indicated he had mixed feelings since he felt the use was t~ ` a commercial-recreation use, even thou h a g portion was a permitted use in the ~` M-1 Zone and it was located at the peripher-: of the Northeast Industrial Area; that he needed more discussion and guidelines; that he was not in a mental .' frame of mind to vote on this at this time, even though he had heard the ~ comments of both Mr. Barletta and Mr. Lincoln while still having his own ideas ~?~ about the proposal, he could not vote on it at this hearing. ~ '<`~~ Commissioner Seymour .~oted that if subject petition were continued, he would ;~ like to see some data regarding the parking standards, using places like -- Universal Studios, as it pertained to the number of parking spaces required :' for 1,000 persons present on the facility; and that he would also like to see ~ some further resolution as to the street ~ problem presented and further clari- fication on the sign as it pertained to its size. Furthermore, in looking at ~ the entire project, he £elt the same as Commissioner Gauer - that he was not in ~ '~ a position to vote on this petition, and tYee Commission should approach a 1 ~: petition of this serious magnitude with a ful.l Planning Commission being present.; In addition, what further disturbed him was the fact that this would be half I _ tourist and half manufacturing, even though it was on the per.iphery of the r~ industrial area, it had freetiray exposure; that the statement made by Mr. rt Barletta that there was so much vacant land and buildings in this industrial ~` area - Mr. Lincoln stated the Chamber of Commerce and his company had been ~ attempting to induce further industrial growth for this area, and if it could be conceived as a use compatible to the development already in the area, with s a minimum 58 amusement tax, this would mean $50,000 tax, and if industry were on the decline in the City, he did not know whether the Commission should be ~ considering buth sides ar not. ~.~ Commissionez Herbst observed that the "so-called" decline in industrial devel- ~r~ opment in Anaheim may be referring to Autonetics, but in the past few months several major companies had gone into that area, using thousands of feet of ,~.. space and employing several hundreds of persons; that with the de::i.iae in the number of persons employed by Autonetics, this has brought in morE ~~i.versified ~ business, and if a million square feet of building were not used, w;iy ~id ; Anaheim have its greatest growth of ibs industrial areas durir.g the last year; s::,.''.~ that freeway exposure was the prime industrial land requirement; that the °. = Commission was discussing an area which had recently been master-planned to = ''' rovide the r P pr.oper freeway exposure for industries proposed to come into the ~~'` ,, area; that this was proposed at the entrance of the industrial area, and a `~; study of traffic patterns of both commercial and industrial would indicate ~~ that they were not compatible with each other since this proposal had many retail stores and planned to sell visitors to the area - one could even consider this as a shopping.center; th.at Anaheim did have an ideal location, = next to both industrial and commercial areas, and the reason this location was considered for both uses was because the City Council approved the establish- ment of "The Orient", a use which had not been developed - however, it had deterred industry in this area for saven years; that it was an ideal industrial ~ location, beir.7 adjacent to a railroad and the freewa ~";. y; and that the representa- tives o£ the railroad companies stated they had industries turn down their 1 - i ; + :. ~ ~'• , . . ~~- ~~fc~ . _ .,. _ ' ~ ~ . . . , ~ `~ . .- *.. .~ r :4:. ._ . . _.. . . ._ . ,. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ . . . - .. . . .~. ~ . . . `. _ ~- ... 1 ~ ~:. ` ;; i L ;' ~ Z s c~y ..~ -.~'` .~ :' ~~ ~ ~ '~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE ~1-499 - locations in the Southeast Industrial Area because of PERMIT NO. 1248 "The Orient" (Continued) . even though the railroad tracks were needed and the location was ideal, the conflict of traffic patterns was something potential industries Commission to would not accept - therefore, theze was no need for the get in the state of panic because some of the buildings were vacant, by wanting the area to develop with other uses, because this would deter further development for the in@ustrial area. Commissioner Seymour noted that 1) he wanted to clarify his comments in he was not "in a state of panic" and did not want this to become an assumption, rather he was on the that Council or the ChamberooftCommerce~ ana he would hope some agency - the Cit program to, in fact, attract industror someone - could come u Y ings, and develo Y into this area, fill the vacant buildive P the vacant lands in this area; 2) the reason he sta~ted he was dubious about this was primarily because of the direction the City Council gave to the matter of the miniature golf couse, which the Commission viewed with the same concept, holding it up, therefore, he did not know exactly what the City Council's thoughts were when they approved the golf course, but if it was the fact that this was on the periphery and it was a purposeful devel- opment, then this might give the Commission some guidance. Commissioner Herbst noted there was one point to consider, and that was the fact that the owner of the property on which the miniature golf course was proposed was also the owner of considerable property around the therefore, he was in favor of the project and had the blessings of the indus- tries in the area• golf course would like to hear somethat one point Commissioner Gauer brought up that he since this would clarifyhtheirrfeelin Sndustrial people was of utmost importance these statements. 4- Commissioner Seymour concurred in Commissioner Gauer noted there were just two things that would classify this request as an industrial use, namely, making motion pictures and a restaurant - both were permitted uses in the M- regarding the many retail uses andltourist attractionsught constantly came up different situation arose where onl Proposed, therefore, a was the fact that Y one thing offset t".ie situation and that and was not in thetcentersof~theearea the periphery of the industrial area have discussed by the landowners and industrialere things he would like to invested considerable money in industrial developmenteinntheeareaa Who had Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue con- sideration of Petition for Condit:.onal Use Permit No. 1248 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, to allow time Eor the industries and landowners in the area to study~ the propoc.3 project and to make additional comments, with sufficient notice betng given ~,y way of a newspaper report that this was to be cons=ciered by the Planning Commission for their comments. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOT20N CARRiED. CONDTTTONAL VSE - PUBLIC HEARING. DR. IRVING MOSKOWIT2 PERMIT NO. 1249 BouleVard, Suite 208 ~ 4201 :,ong Beach W~lliam F. Mood ~ LOng Beach, California, Owner; (CONDTTTONAL USE y~ 12540 Beatrice Street, Los Angeles, PERMIT NO, 1157 ~ 1~a99fBEDiaONEGSTORYrGENERALnHOSPTTALSFOR CApICERAANDSH SPECIAL ORTHOPEDICS en property described as; A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ~pproximately 4.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 368 fe~` on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 527 feet, and being located approximately 503 feet north of the centerline of Ba11 Road, Property presently classified C••1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE AND P-L, PniiKING-LANDSCAPING, 2pNE. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Planning Commission that a letter was on file directed to the Planning Commission requesting withdrawal of subject petition since it was filed by mistake, however, the petitioner's agent requested consideration by the Commisslon of the plans as revised plans for Conditional Use Permit N~. 1157 encompassing the same property in lieu of consideration of Conditional Use Permit No, 1249, since the City Attorney ruled that any consideration of revi~ed plans would have to be considered at ~, public hearing. ~,~ , ~PSs~':>.,- . . . ~ ~ . _ - ,;1: _~''. ~ ' ' . ..:9C.a._ - ~ .. ~ . ~ ~. . • . ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ .~~ 1 ' r I ~~': ~.:~.~~.; F: •~'. ~ ~ ;! ; e' ~ * ~ ,_. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jult 26, 1971 71-500 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1249 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1157) (Cont'd Mr. William Moody, agent for the petitioner and developer, Drs. Moskowitz and Nilsson, appeared before the Planning Commission and reviewed the revised plans, noting that there would be no change in land usage; that expansion would occur 9.n the hasement increasing it from 8,000 to 16,000 square feet; that the patient wing would not change; that the increased area would be used to increase the surgery space from two to six areas for the various uses proposed; that the laboratory would also be increased to i:rovide for a computor operation; that the original plan had 35,000 squa.re feet; and that the surgery core would be increased by 8,000 square feet. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the unit on Lemon Street was in operation; whereupon Mr. Moody replied that it was completed but not in operation. Mr. Thompson noted that if the Commission considered the revised plans as being appropriate and acceptable, they could then take action by terminating all proceedings of Conditional Use Permit No. 12A9 and approve the revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1157. Mr. Moody noted that the City Attorney had recommended that a public hearing be held to consider the revised plans when these plans had been submitted to the City Council for approval with the Planning Commission making their reCOmmendations, however, a member of his staff had misunderstood and had filed a new petition. Therefore, after having discussed the matter with both the City Attorney and Mr. Thompson, it was determined that the Planning Commission could review these plans at this public hearing since the property, the petitioner, and the use were all still the same; and that the City Council then would consider the revised plans at an advertised public hearing to be held August 10, 1971. Mr. Thompson, in clarifying the purpose of the revised plans, indicated that the City Council had taken the final action on Condit3onal Use 2ermit No. 1157, however, when the revised plans were submitted in conpliance with a condition of approval, it :aas determined they were not s~:~stantially in conformance with the original plans, and the City Attorne.y ruled tliat they must be considered at a public hearing. No one appeared 3n opposztion. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1249 on the basis that the petition was not necessary and the plans could be coasidered as revised plans under the original petition, namely, Conditional Use Permit No. 1157. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve revised plans (originally submitted with Conditional Use Permit No. 1249) of Conditional Use Permit No. 1157, marked Exhibit Nos. l, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Kaywood abstained.) RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. BERNARDO YORBA, 125 South Claudina NO. 71-72.-7 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; LORAND WEST, 8101 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, California, Agent; property CONDITTONAL USE described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land PERMIT NO. 1250 consisting of aporoximately 10.7 acres at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, VARIANCE NO. 2283 having a frontage of approximately 745 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 750 feet on the west side of Imperial Highway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTI~D CLASSIFICrlT20N: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ 20NE (PORTION 2) REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIIIENTIAL 20NE WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIREMEtdT TO LOCATE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIALS AND (2) PERMITTED SIGNS ON PORTION 2. ~. i 0 _~. RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED VARIANCE: NO. 71-72-7 _.r^:. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1250 PERMIT ESTABLISHMENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRE- MENTS OF NO ROOF-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, (2~ PERMITTED SIGNING, (3) SETBACKS, AND (4) MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING ON PORTIONS 1 AND 2. ~ - VARIANCE NC. 2283 (Continued) Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close -,,.,",,:~,;~ proximity, existing zoning and pending zoning on the 1 >;: - „ . ae « li `S- ~ - 4 ~?, ~ `~~ 7 '-~ '~;. ,: •'_~~~:~'i ~: ~ 1:•:'. ~...,' `: ,~ . ~..' .f~c <: property, and the request for C-1 zoning on a portion of the property, permission to establish a service station .not locate3 at the intersection of two arterials, and waiver of *_he number of parking stalls for the proposed commercial shopping center. Mr. McDaniel further noted thas althouqh the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone had not been acted upon by the City Council for the properties in the Santa Ana Canyon of which subject property was a part, it would appear that action would be taken by the City Council prior to the time subject petitions were to be consider=d by that body, and on the premise that the zone would be applied, the Commission might wish to make recommendations regarding the potential waivers sEt forth in the Report to the Commission relative to said SC Zone. The proposal and evaluation were then reviewed by Mr. McDaniel in detail, as set forth in the Report to the Commission. Mr. Bernardo Yorba, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was their intent to develop a beautiful shopping center for Santa Ana Canyon; that after having worked for years with the City, they decided that they wanted to be a part of the City of Anaheim when their property was developed; that they had flown the property to determine the best manner in which to develop the property and had lcoked for a long time for the type of developer for the commercial segment of their properties - having turned down a number of them - and on that basis, they proceeded to plan the center, even having several leases recorded with very fine tenants, and because of commit- ments made with the City of Anaheim and in accordance with an agreement made with Mr. Alex Hagen, the developer, it was his opinion that the final plot plan was substantially in conformance with the Exhibit A filed with Reclassi- fication No. 64-65-64; that an examination of this exhibit would demonstrate they had held up their end of the bargain; and that it was his hope this would be one of the most beautiful shopping centers in Southern Cali2ornia. Mr. Alex Haagen,777 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, appeared before the Commission, noting he was the developer of the proposed shopping center; that as Mr. Yorba had chosen him as a developer, he, too, had chosen this area to develop because he believed in the area; that hc: nad been working on plans for this area for about three years and during that time, Von's Market had signed a lease, and the Bank of America had set up temporary facilities • in anticipation oE their permanent quarters; and that Mr. Stack, his associate, had been working with the City's representatives, as well as Lorand West, the architect, would review these petitions. Mr. Gerald Stack, 777 Silver Syur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, appeared before the Commission and stated he was part of the Orange County area, livinq nea1• E1 Toro; that in accordance with the Report to the Commission prepared by staff, he would attempt to adhere to limiting;his comments according].y; that Mr. Lorand West and he would talk alternately as it pertained to various facets of the proposal; that the reclassification was proposed to C-1, although there presently existed a resolution of ir.tent to the C-O Zone; that the general need for a shopping center at this intersection was seen as far back as 1965 when the City Council approved C-1 uses; that during the ensuinq six years, feaslbility studies indicated a larger C-1 area would be needed over and above that originally approved; that they intended to provide a shopping center which they hoped would be an asset to the area, as well as a beautiful facility; that the architectural aspect would bE rustic with tile roofs and adobe; that the shopping center would be kncwn as "Rancho Yorba"; that because of the irregular shape of the parcel of property, the design presented resulted in landscap~.ng beyond that required by Code; that the waivers requested were _ ~l ` _,. I ~ -' ~ ' ' , ~ '' ,a . ::~ ~~ ~..ll MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMbI2SSION, ~uly 25, 1971 cJ 71-502 RECLASSIFICATION - in accordance with the C-1 Zone except for the reduction NO. 71-72-7 in off-street parkin and CONDITIONAL USE be in accordance with the zoningnandfitserequirementsuld PERMIT NO. 1250 that were granted in 1965 before the SC Zone was estab- VAR=ANCE NO. 2283 lished; that the development would be in conformance with (Continued) the General Plan but not in conformance with the SC Zone; that the conditional use permit was necessary because the service station would not be located at the intersection of two arterials since they were not permitted to establish a service station at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway because a curb break would have been required in the median strip on Imperial Highway, however, the Traffic Engineer stated he would not approve such a curb break; that the site of the service station was 10 feet higher than Santa Ana Canyon Road; that with a wall and planting area having trees of such size which would effectively cut off viewa.ng the station was being provided adjacent to the apartment development - a di5tance of 170 feet between the two uses; that the service station was larger than normal service station sites because this provided more landscaping and easier access to the shopping center; and then presented a colored rendering of the service station site which indicated the rustic appearance proposed, and stated it would be somewhat similar to the Town and Country Shopping Center in Orange; that the idea of incorporating the service station within a shopping center was a real step forward since access arives could be used jointly by the service station and the.customers at the shopping cer.ter; that the service station would be in compliance with the requirements of the C-1 2one on service stations; and ;hat they felt this proposal would contribute to the welfarc of the community by providing a service not now available. Commissionex Gauer noted that although there appeared to be considerable room on Imperial Highway, the plans still did not conform to the 50-foot building setback required for that street as set forth in the SC Zone. Mr. Lorand West, al0t Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, architect for ~he proposed development, appeared before the Commission and stated that the se:-vice station canopy-covered islands were within the 50-foot building setback. Commissioner Gauer was of the cpinion that this development should meet all requiremEnts of the SC Zone since this shopping center would be an example to which t,he City could point with pride as an example that Bernardo Yorba was meeting all Code requirements for development in the canyon. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the SC Zone required a 50-foot building setback, whereas the canopy was n~t .considered a building but a part of a structure which could set out in the setbac7c area to within 14 feet, and which was permitted in the SC Zone; and that the setback waiver i.ndicated in the Report to the Commission referred to the bank ana rest3urant buildings, not the service station. F'urthermore, the restaurant was considered a building, therefore, the setback was necessary as set forth in the report; however, if the canopy of the service station had been attached to the buixding, then that would have been considered part of the building, and a 50-foot setback would have been reauired, and that *.he canopy would be similar to canopies on service stations located in the industrial area where they were within the required 50-foot building setback. Mr. Thompson then inquired of the developers why they couldn't develop their signs similar to signinq they had at Turtle Rock and Yorba Linda where they were not 35 feet high. Mr. West replied }hese signs were an integral part of the building, and the sign spanned from the driveway to the landscaping in the parking area. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the rendering presented was not in accordance with the City ordinance, however, he was in sympathy with all the problems presented - his only concern was that this shopping center be developed in accordance with the ordinance of the City of Anaheim in order that this could be an example of wliat could be done in the Santa Ana Canyon, and if these waivers were permitted, the City could expect similar requests from others proposing to develop in the canyon. Furthermore, since this was ~ ~ I ~ .- , ~-_ ~ ' .. .~;. 1 U ; , i , , ~~ --------__----_.--~-------. C:U ~ _> MINUTES~ CzTY P7aANNING COMMISSION, .7uly 25, 1971 71-503 RECLASSIFICATION - a plan of deva]opnent of a portion of the ranch, thare NO. ?.'.-?2-7 was enough of the property together with the plan that COND'lCTIONAL 'JSE he ~Plt it should be developed in accordance with the PERMZT N0. 1250 City's ordinance as an example. VARI;ANCE N0. 2283 (Continued) Mr. Stack n~ted that he would li~e: to prese,it some I excellent reasons why these wai:+~ars ~rere needed since: ; the Commis~sion had ind:cated boti~ t:.e bank and the I restaurant }.acked the reguired setback, namely, the ground lease for tiie service station was recorded in 1969, over two years agu, and the bank had ~ also execu:.~cl a lease in 1969, further prov~ d?.r.g temporary facilitie:: which ~ were opened in 1969, and '!3@ been staffed and operated at corisiderable ~a expense, but they conti.^~~:d co o,perate this temporary facility because they ha3 a long-term lease ~or a~.arge iacility, and the lease precedeA, tae ~ or.dinance by almczt two yea::s; ~in addition, the lease by Von's Ma~.•ke:t was p~• ~also recorded in 1969, al.taon2 t:rao pears ago, with a~l leasing based on a ,.;~~ plot plar. Iocation -~aas~d on L•h~ premises of these two major tenants, they wera ~'tq~:esking that the set'•:ack p~ovisions be waived to also in~alude th: restaurunt, since these two builc3~r.~qs wouPd seriously di~turb traffic f?•~w if .:Plocated and Frould create par~:ing that would be too _:~r from the =r.ore a:id :;ank, the two ma;ur tenant:,~~ who wanted their parkincr to be a nt~v~mum ~~f 200 feet from their °.acilities - this distance was based on e3rlier stadia:s which indic~•.`.ed people wov.ld drive araund a parking area until they found. a parking s~zcc~ withln 200 feet of the store, even though there might be considerai~ie parking space available elsewhere. Therefore, if the bank were required '.:a be moved f.rther south to meet the required 100-foot setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road, this would disturb two main drives which should be located a reasonable distance from the property line, and that i*_• was ~ important that as many pa::king spaces as pos~ible be made availabl~a at the ~ front entrance of the supermarke+. - to relocate the bank would noc only dis- ~ place parkinq space:s, but traP,Eic flow and would r~lace the additional par.king I~ in an area where they would be <;£ little value. Mr. Barney Sheridan, construction superintendent: with Vc+n's Maskets, ap;:,?ared before the Commiss~.on and stated he had de~veloped a number of the siioppi,n~x cent~rs; that he had worked wltn Von's for twelv: ,~~•ars, durin.g whir.Y. t.i.m~ they had opei,ad 94 stores, and he was manager o.` '•.,:.n construc:tion and maintenance; tnat they presently had 100 store~, many which h+id son~e real mistakes, and it appEared they never quit makiz:g mistakes, ho~uever, they learned from their mistakes, one being developing a shopping i:enter so that it was not all one row of buiidings within a shopping center - this provided tor druble use of the parkir~g stalls, however, if all the buil3ings were joined togethe.r, there vould be one large pasking lot with many parking spaces not easily availahl: to Y.hca main buildings; that prime parking stalls would be obtairced whicY:, were: closely connected with the bank, but if the bank driveway uere relocated too clase to the other driveway ana ti;~ buildings were too r;.osc+ to each other, this canld create a conflict in drives as had been originally presented; that relocation would create enou,~*h parking stalls, but they ~•JOUld be iri an area too far for conaenience for wa2tiing, and ~omen after havii:g shopped in the store purchasing 50 pounds or more nf yrocieries, did not u,•ant to walk over 2Q0 feet to the:r rehiol_: - this was on~a o£ the mis- takes they had made in the past; eir,3 that by shifting the bank, *_his would create parking stalls n~xt to the ban;c, however, the markat was the major traffic generator Eor parking. Then, in response te a question by the Commission, Mr. Sheridan ~±ated ti;at cne customer would have to park his cas at the bank, transact bus~ness theze, and then move his ca: in order to get to the market. Chairman Farano~ was of the apinion that the dev~~lo~ers had iiot done much to resolve thls, nor woul.d moving the bank building create too gr~at a problem. Mr. Thompscan rerrie~~ed the original plan submitted unde- Reclassificatinn No. 64-65-64 with the ~':.anning Commission. Mr. Yorba stated that when the~ had presented their oric,inal plan, it was a concept p1an; however, the new plan w.as st:bstantially in accorft~~nce with the original, at wY~ich time the Commission had commented chat the plan was one of the finest plans the City had ever received. ~ _ ._.. . ... - , r~`~~.~'~.~Y+ _'~~ "~'','_~ . - t . , . . - i ~- -. _...:-- -_ , ~ ; ~ . , ~ C.~ _U ~ I 71-504 ~ MINU('£:; r CI1'° PLANNING COMMISSION, ~7uly 26, 1971 RECLASSIrICATION IdO. 71-72-7 CONDI~IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1250 VARIANCE NO. 2283 (Conti*,ued) - Mr. Thompson inquired of Mr. Sheridan the number of shopping centers in which he had been involved which ~ iiad banks included; whereupon Mr. Sheridan stated he did I nc~t have an accurate figure, but he would estimate ` aF~proximately one-third of the centers. ~ M~:. T'~c~mpson then inquired whether or not relocating the bank building would create any problems if the building wer~*. too clo~~; wherr:upon Mr, ^oheridan stated that sunject property was an unu::ually-s:iaped parcel, and it aa very difficult to compare it since most shoi~ping centers wer~a very rectanS _,~r in shape on relatively flat land, and thi^ was the first time he had had any expesience with a Scenic Corridor 2one, ~nd th,~y were not fighting i.or parking stalls, but the farther away a building wes lucat~;d, t_he better they would feel because of the need for proper exposure. tnr. Thompson then i:~.~;:~.red if the market were the primary user of parking sf?:.Is, how many stal~~ were a~+solucel.y necessary; whereupon Mr. Sheridan replied a minimum of 125 stails was needed within a 200-foot radius of the door of tiie market, and ver; fx:snkly speaking, they did not sign leases where less than 1i.5 spaces were r~vaiJ able. Commissione: Seymour observed tha~ Mr. Sheridan had indicated very negative effect~ regarding t$e se*.:~ack, from his comments, ~.nd inquired whether or not he felt the Scer:ic Corri3nr Zone was a bad policy to have the indicated type of setbacks within a comme.rcial zone. Mr. Sheridan repliec that he did not feel he was qualified to comment on the SC 2one, but in a mar,n~r of speaking, since with a depth similar to this prope;rty, he couZd see considerable areas oP wasted real estate. Commissioner erbst inqu.ired whether or not uny property had been acquired frc n Yor;ia sinae the oriqi nal plan had been submitted. Office Engineer Jay Titus stated that no property had been acquired on Santa Hna Canyon Road. t ' Commissioner Herbst noted that the .:4-foot setback h ,~ proposed on the new plans was not indicated or. the original plan~ where a consider bl ;~ a e distance was inciicated, and t:ie i.mplication made by the petitione e~~ ! r was thac the 14-foot. setback was permi'•:±ed on the original plan - from hi , s obsert~ation it appe.xred to he abeut ,a 75-foot sptback. . ~ f : ~ ;~. ,~~t Mr. Titus stated that the only riaht-of-way that aou,F.s3 be acquired wou2d b~ £or Impezial Highway - none w ~; as required for ~snta Ai:a Canyon Road. ! „~ Com~nissioner Gauer in uired -a~+zt th;- 4 o would do to future developmeret i~ car~yon - if th i th , . ~a ese setbacks we2e approved, since future development would tc this * i _ t ~ po cea. ni .er and statE the Yorba family were granted this waiver - wh••~ c~uldn't the s ~~ ame waiver be granted them - 14 feet was not very much si:~ce his ~ ko:ne was set back 25 feet from th ~ ~, e street, which was not Santa Ana Canyon Road ~~r Imper.ial Hi hwa . ~ g y. . V r Commissione~r Herbst inquirec wheCher.-or not the City had agreed to !:his ty~ ~ of subdivi.,ion of th ~ . e proper ,:y. „ Mr.. xaagen replied that this was a new plan. Mr. Yorba noted that the first plan was presented t-, staff four to five moziths ago. '; ~ Mr. Haagen noted that at that time when these plans had bee %''' n preser~ted, some commitments were perhaps nade in error since the leases si ned b B ' g y Von s and ank of America were based on the layout which they had ' presented th~n ar.d which conformed with the C-1 2one. However, he recognized th Pl ' e annir,q Commission s,position in trying to maintain tha SC Zone and th b !~ e eauty of that area. Furthermore, he wa~ only pointing cut the problem ahich existed this w i ld s ou nce become the City's problem, and since they wan=ed to build this center t , o serve this area, thel• would hupe this would be substantially differ- ent and would be I a erreat service to the area - the ::etbacks in the Palos Verdes area and Rollinq Hi11c Estates a *' rea were cansiderahly less, and they had gone to great pains to build a beautiful .~c . 1° ~. center. ~ i. ~ I ..,_.._ '•. , ---~.~•~~a:~~1C~GCCi/aa,`7~S„•~~! _"t,~~ ~ . . 1- ~~1'~~~~~~~ y f' ~ .. . ^ w r.~ ~ 11-.1'. . ~ . . ' . . ~ . ~ r . G . . . ' ` ' .`} 1 ~,.~ ~ ^ t ~ r '~ `~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26~ 1971 f 71-505 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herk+~t inquired whether or not the petitioner NO. 71-72-7 inferred taat the City of Anaheim was committ.ed to the ' _ , CONDITIONAL USE sptbacks proposed for the bank and the restaurant; where- ~ PERMIT NO. 1250 upon Mr. Yorba stated "no", those were his commitments to ' VARIAN~E N0. 2283 the pecple when tne leases were signed and were base6 on ~ , (Continued) the existing C-1 code requirements, but they were not ` based on the original plans submitted and considered by ~ the City, i ! i Commissioner Gauer reiterated that a 14-foot setback frnm Santa Ana Canyon ~ ;~•..,.'. Road was not sufficient. ~; Mr. Haagen noted that the ~ ~ y planned extensive planting in the planter area ~ adjacent to Santa Ana Canvon Road with rather large plants. ~ ~ ° Mr. West noted ~:hat the rendering indicated the plants to scale of the building. ~ _ ~ Mr. West, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that the ~ ~ drive-in windows would be or. the opposite side of the building from Imperial ~ Highway. _ Mr. West further noted that the restaurant plans would carry out the same ~ ~ building concept as was pZanned for the bank. ~, t ~ Mr. Yorba, in response t:o a question by Commissioner Gauer regarding the ~ amount of commercial development that might occur along Santa Ana Canyon Road, stated this would be controlled because of the Santa Ana Canyon Access Points Study adopted Sy the C9.ky, the County, and the State, and their pr~perty had two of these access poin.ts. Furthermore, he u~derstood ihe Commission's feel- ; ings regarding the propr~sed development; that he had been w~rkinq with the '~ City and he had made commitments based on the fact that the zoning approve3 ; ~ permitted development within the existing ordinance; that t:~c: 20 acres in the ~ canyon and the density req~iired - all these had been quitf painful to them as ~~ had the SC Zone, and they had been called upon to make sscrifices - however, ~ he was vitally interested in what developed in the canyon since he and his ~ ~,~ family intended to continue residing there. F :t Commissioner Seymour observed that on the occasions he had worked with ,j Mr. Yorba in his deveZopments, he knew Mr. Yorba had the canyon at heart, and these feelings were of the highest quality; that he believed Mr. Yerba was '~ very sincere in his efforts, and it a \~ commitments in the PPeared very clear that he had made ;; past based on the projected developments of the property, ~,; however, with all those th~ngs considered, he felt the Commission and the `r1 developers were too far a.°~~ i~i the setbacks, in thc si nin mounted eqiiipmer.t; that it a 9 4. and the roof- ppeared to him because of the commitments made by the City, there must be some "give" on both sides, but he, as an individual Commissioner, could not approve the project as presented, particularly since the restaurant was not even leased - he could see no reason why this could not be relocated; tha.t he was fully aware of the recorded leases with the Bank of America, but the Bank of America could give some since they war.ted that location in the shopping center; that the sign pro~posed was very attrac- - tive, but he could not see any reason for a 35-foot high sign; and that the developer had presented a very wunderful plan, Lut it was still too far away from what he could consider acceptable. Chair.man Farano noted that the plan which the Commissi.on first• approved under the realassification was Mr. Yorba's commitment to the City of Anaheim, and , even though it was not a precise plan, there still were very definite commit- J ments made as to setbacks and types of development. ::. ': Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. Yurba's commitments were made to the City in 1965, and if signing were approved at the time, this still would conflict with the Sign Ordinance approved since that time, and mavbe commitments could be made, but the Planning Commission could not throw the Code book ou~ the window because of these commitments. However, t::a "aive" that cou;3 be made ~' would not be what the petitioner was requesting as it pertained to the SC Zone requirements in order that others would not be requestinq the ~ama "give". _ :i ~ '• ~ ; - ' 1 ~ . _ . - ~f ~ : .-. - ~_~.~....~_:'° t . .. . - 0 ' t _s . i ' i O ~ ~~ `~ MINUTES, CITY PLANPiING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 71-506 RECLASS7FICATION - Mr. Haagen replied that there a1~eared to be a prob~em NO. 71-72-7 regarding the setback of the Bank of America and as to CONDITIONAL USE signing; however, as to the concern of the Commissiol PERMIT NO. 1250 zegarding the restaurant, they would attempt to do w~at VARIANCE NO. 2283 the Commission desired. (Continued) ~ Considerable discussion was then held regar3ing relocating the restaurant by the Commission, the developer, and the architect. ...., .~;, Chairman Farano then inquired whether or not this development could be re~ 'T`''", ~~ arranged in order to make it more feasible and reasonable. 't~ ~ Mr. wes: replied that the plans befc?re the Commission appeared to be the most F feasible from a parking standpoint since considerabie land would be wasted ~ otherwise; that delivery to the small shops would be prior to opening of the shops, which would be written into their leases; that the supermarket had a loading arPa to the south to provide for the deliveries, and Thrifty Drug ~,~ Store made all their deliveries on pallets - therefore, did not require a . ~ special loading dock. C~mmissioner Seymour noted that the developer had done a great job, but there woul.d have to be some way to get closer together in reference to the SC 2one, therefore, he would suggest that subject petitions be continued in order for the developer-architect to meet with the staff to work out some of these problems presented by the Planning Commission. Mr. Haagen noted that there appeared to be one basic problem, although the continuance might be a good idea, and they would try to solve the problems and concerns presented by tk.e Commission, but he would first like to have the various representatives of the companies present in the Council Chamber, those who had leases, to present some of their viewpoints since Vcn's were quite conc.erned about moving the bank further south - this mighk cause Von's to move out. Ms. Stewart, 10150 Lower Azusa Road, E1 Monte, representing Von's Grocery Company, appeared before the Commission and stated he had been working with Messrs. Yorba and Haagen regarding this project for several years - the plan was not develogen in haste; that placement of tha bank and the proposed location was based on the fact that they wanted to make the maximum use of tlie parking as Mr. Sheridan had pointed out - a two-story building in a hole had less visual impact than the proposed shops and bank; that the bank had a very attractive architecture, and they felt very proud of the fact that the bank was so attractive and would be the first building visible - however, if the bank were to be relocated, then Von's would have to .reappraise the project; that he knew the City had ordinances and _r,lans; that they had spent a number of years on this project and he sincerely believed this was the best possible solution to utilizing this odd-shaped parcel; and that it was very good architecturally. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether she unilerstood correctly that if the bank were relocated, Von's would move out - why was that? Mr. Stewart replied that the bank would obstruct the view of their facilities and reduce the number of minimum parking spaces required within a 200-foot periphery of the door of the market; that they hoped tc be there for 25 years or more, and *,his was a very special situation because the property was not a normal, rectanqularly-shaped parcel; that entrance had to be from side streets, and it was felt with t.he location of the bank at ihe corner, this would not impair their visibi.Lity. Commissioner Herbst noted one point that did not seem to be presented was the fact that the development along San`a Ana Canyon Road, as it pertained to the Scenic Corridor, would require that the bu~ldings not be seen from said road; that the development should be such that the buildings would be screened as much as possib'e; that the developer talked about working a long time on this project, but so had the Cc~mission worked a long time on the Scenic Corridor, since many, many mor.ths had been spent b~th in work sessions and at public hearings, and the d;veloper and the petCtioner should have been fully aware of the Scenic Corridor Zone concept; that as soon as the City i .- ~ - --- ----- --- -~---- , _^ ~ ~ ~l ~ , . ' MIAIUTES ~ CSTY' RI+k~NNING COMMISS70N, .TUly 26, 1971 71-507 ;~ y~ .. 1 RECLASSIFICATION - permittec~ a development that would be nonconforming with NO. 71-72-7 the Scenic Corridor Zone the beginning of development for CONDITIONAL USE Santa Ana Canyon Road with this project by starting off PERMIT NO. 1250 on the "left foot", the Commission would be in the same - VARIANCE N0. 2283 position as before where development would have to occur (Continued) with many waivers through the entire canyo,~; that ha had seen commercial projects develop where they were completely screened from the highways, and the developer did not need the type of exposure claimed because of the lir-:i'.ed amount of e ,, commercial center that cou:Ld be permitted in the canyon due °;,~ the limited ~ r;- access points - therefore, this sY.~pping center would have ~.aptive customers . :,~ because of this avai~abilitx. ;~; `.' Mr. Stewart noted that one of the requirements that he had was to have open i ~ , vehicular space within several hundred feet to provide the easiest access to ~ parking and tfie door of the market; that they did not necessarily need a large ~ sign; and that he hoped the Commission would give consideration to the fact ~ _ that they had rlanned this project for a number of years. i~ f, ' ~ Commissioner Seymour indicated he would be willing to work with all concerned ~ t , and they also indicated their willingness to work with the Commission, how- € ever, he would have one question regarding signs and that was, was there any need to have the signs above the roofline; whsreupon Mr. Stewart stipulated ~ that c.here would be na signs above the roofline - however, his primary concern ~ ~ was the relocation or i~ushing the bank farther into the arcel p . ~ Mr. Brad Carlton, director of Calprop Corporation, developers of the planned unit development to the south of subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated that the1 had reviewed the plans of the proposed commercial center and had no opposition to the location of the bank - in fact, they felt the attractiveness of the building, together with all the architec- ture and l:andscaping would be a definite asset there; and that he had been delighted to work again with t4essrs. Yorba and Haagen in a development that would complement each other. ;j~ Mr. Gerald Bock, retail property representatipa of Standard Oil Comgany, i.' jt appeared before the Commission and stated he would like to comment about the sign about wh±ch the Commission was expressing so much concern - they proposed a sign especially for this center, and the reason for the 35-foot high sign -a was because of the fact that the service station was not on a pradominant ,~ corner but was away from the major intersection - being located on a local street and an arteri.al; that they were rather unique since they depended upon •~~• a drive-in type business, and a11 they were asking for was a sign that could be seen indicating they were part of a shopping center, however, they would be willing to work with staff since he did not fe~l they actually needed a 35-foo~c high sign, but they would want to retain their logo - how would one design signs so that it could be seen - however, as Mr. Thompson had requested, why couldn't the signs be sia,ilar to those at Turtle Rock or Yorba Linda - those signs were not 35 feet but were at a reasonable level so that they could still have th~eir Chevron logo in order that people would know they were a 5tandard oil station rather than a Shell, etc., station; that they would be : happy to try to work this out with staff to relate their sign with other signing in the center while srill ret~ining the canopy-mounted lettering for proper identification; and that this was a very unusual site with a very unusual shape and topography with rough terrain and was not similar to regular flat land where visibility would be more or less normal with the station located at an important intersection. ~~` Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the difference in grade between Santa Ana L Canyon Road and the location of ~he service station site; whereupon Mr. West j;;w ' stated there was a change in grade of 10 feet between the intersection of imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road and the location of the service station. Mr. Bock noted that they would be willing to drop the height of their sign j because of this grade difference. Commissioner Herbst noted he had seen che new Standard signs and they were considerably larger than the old signs; that the oil companies were the most *- flagrant violators of the City of Anaheim Sign Ordinance because the operator ~e _; would have a hang-up on the kinds of signs permitted - therefore, the oil ~' o. ... . ~i :. - .,,.~ . . . ~ .. d ^ f - U ~ _--(, _ _~. ~ : MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~TU7,y 26, 1971 ~ RECLASSIFICATION 71-508 NO. 71_72_~ ' companies could do better by controlliiig the t CONDITIONAL USE size of siqn, however, the new logo waas also ayverynlarge PERMIT NO. 1250 °ne. --- VARIANCE NO. 22g3 Mr. Bock in (Continued) • answer to Commissioner Herbst's > stated that the proposed sign was 35 feet highuandlnad a _ ~8-square foot logo, and what Commissioner Herbst stated that they were presentl correct, but he would like to inform the Cc~mmission and that the sign area foratheg d~Wn their large signs, changing the logo, Furthermore, the new sign he proposed sign could be reduced considerably. ~ ProPosed for this center wauld be similar to those they had wher~ a service station was adjacent to residential uses where' the logo was approximately 49 square feet,• while those T ' were a in -' pproximately 150 square feet. proposed along =reeways ~ .~~ ~. •, Commissioner Herbst ~ •~ Mr. then inquired what was wron Thompson; whereupon Mr. Bock stated g with the sign su ~ _ and Turtle Rock ha1 ver the signs referred ggested by comments Y small logos, and havin to at Yorba Linda , they would agree to a smaller size and reducr_ttheCheight1of,the sign, ~ but they still wanr_ed to retain their logo. 1 Commissioner Seymour stated he felt the Commission ar~~i the develo ~ sti.ll too far apart as it pertained to the setbacks a 14-foot setback was pers were ~ proposed from Santa Ana Cany~n Roadicularly since only a considerable problem from the viewpoint of the Commission onlfutureddeveloe- ment in the canyon. P Chairman Farano observed that Commissioner Seymour had su in order for the developers to meet with staff to work out these problems presented and inquired whether the developer had an ggested a continuance length of time a continuance would be needed. . y preference as to the Mr. Haagen replied that he would like to follow through with whatever Mr. Stac had presented, and they would do everything they coui~i to satisf Commission; that as to re k the restaurant, he would quest made by the Commission for the relocation of to the drug store if agree to moving this back 100 feet, conce t necessary, however, he would re uire even adjacent P of where this should be located; q the architect's meeting the sign requirements set forth; that Standard Oil had agreed to canopy would not extend above the rocflinehaand~thaththeytwoulci~completelyeir ~ enclose the airconditioning compre~sor since the living above the level of the commercial center to have todview theserfaidents ~ Mr. West noted that the airconditionin3 on Von's would be affected sincecbothies. Thrifty Druq and the bank had their aircon2litioning facilities located inside the buildings, and wherever this was n:cessary it would be of the same roof composition or a red slag enclosure, and where the airconditionir,g was pro- posed on the small shops, these would be enclosed with metal or wood-louvered ventilators with low profiling. , , Mr. Haagen noted he would like to get a vote from the Commission at this hearin subject to meetinq all the conditions or having a difficult time with their schedulesblems set forth since they were g~ some 3ction this date. - therefore, they would a ppreciate Chairman Farano noted that the Scenic Corri3or Overla ~ average standards for ttiat area, and he Y Zane was arrived at as anything with the statemen~ that the ' for one, did not want to a ' . sion desired Petitioner would do whatever therC:.mmis- ~ ~ this was an areatthatuwasbbeingedevelopedaandrwhich theh~Ptans ' to with reat presented since ~ .' 4 pride but where would the deveZo er feel he couldted to refer ! _ setbacks and channeling around without throwingPthe entire plan 'u 4o with the that he knew the Commission had rationalized this and various Commissioners would not be afraid to do ~his so they could ~ p for grabs"; - aPpYOVe a variance for someone else because it~did not meet theycriteriaot - how far could one go? • ~ .~t : ~ `:~ at -v. _ ~"'~~~~'~ .. .. ~ * ~. .~. . . . ~ f . 'r` _ ;..^.~, : ~ ,i :~ . ~ ~, ~,~ ____ -~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 , 71-509 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Haagen stated that they would move the restaurant to ~ NO. 71-72-7 wherever it could be moved for the best of the community ~ CONDITIONAL USE since they had no commitment. "Y'-' PERMIT NO. 1250 VP.RIANCE N0. 2283 Chairman Farano inquired whether the developers would (Continued) be agreeah].e - if the other problems could ba ironed out - to accepting a conceptual approval subject to the Commission getting toqether with the developer as to the location of the restaurant, and then inquired o£ Dcputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether or not this was possible legally; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated ~„' _ that this was not p~ssible for the Commission to do. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not Lhe bank could be moved back and how '~M1 far without creating another problem. ;i Mr, Tom Kitchen, representing the Bank of America, appeared before the _ Commission and stated that if the bank were moved back, then Von's would not be able to have what they required, and where they were located with four `. other Von's stores, in not one case was the bank located closer than 400 to : 500 feet. , ~: Considerable discussion was then held regarding meeting the 100-foot setback for the bank, reduction of the parking space for the supermarket, and then in response to Comiasion questioning, ,N1r. Stewart stated he would not be in ;, a position to say how many feet they wo~uld accept. ;' Chairman Farano noted ihat it appeared oae problem had been resolved, but ' another one seemed to have appeared sfnce the Commission did not want to be planners - therefore, it was his opiaion these petitions should be continued ~ in order to resolve these problems a~ the staff level. . :a >, 1 Mr. Haagen noted that they would comply with all sign requirements - the only ,;1 problem, it appeared, was the relocation of the bank building - and he requested .-i the Commission to understand their position when they did this they were not -=~ aware of the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one 100-foot setback because they, then, ;{ would not have located the bank building there; that he was bound by the ,; leases that had been made, and if these were not met, they would go elsewhere, ~,~ .~ although he hoped th...~ would not; that he worked many months with these ~. ~a prospectic~e tenants and wanted them as p~art of the center since it would be I: difficult to replace them as tenants - therefore, he would leave the decision ; up to the Commission; and that since they had loan commitments based on leases + ~~ previously mentioned, they were in a very tight position. F,, ~ Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that a two-week continuance might be ~ . sufficient if the developers and their representatives could meet with staff _~ either the next day or the following day, and if the Commission took action at the August 9 meeting, they could arrange with the City Clerk to schedule .~.:, `'`~ these items before the City Council as soon as possible. : Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 71-72-7, Conditional Use Permit No. 1250, and ` Variance No. 2283 to the meeting of August 9, 1971, in order to allow the y, developers time to present revised plans incorporating the suggestions made ~ c;: by the Planning Commission and for a full Commission to be present, and that <? the items be scheduled as the first item on the agenda. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. , REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 :`. RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1127 ?, (Disneyland Hotel) ~, Property located at the northwest corner of West Street and Cerritos Avenue - Request for an extension of time ~"~ to permit outdoor banquet facilities. Y,. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel raviewed the location of subject '-' property, uses established in close proximity, previous time extensions for !~ the use of outdoor banquet facilities on subject property, and the most - recent request for an additional year for said use, said previous extension 'i; to expire ~uly 27, 1971, and that since no complaints had been received .in ` the department regarding these outdoor banquet facilities, staff would ~ recommend said extension of time. :..~C ,. I ! ~,,..: - , .~: , <~.- " - ... . ~ ~ .. . ~ ; ... . . . - . .. . ~ r~ _ . , _.. ..-,..,. ~<'~4..._'.t.{. .t~- .., _. . ... .. ._ , - . . . . ' ~ ^ y . ; . ~ . r .. _ _ ., _ ~ _ - _ . ~ ~ , O ~ ~:~ •. MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 71-510 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to grant a one-year extension af time to allow outdoor banquet facilities qranted undez Conditional Use Perm~.t No. 1127, said time extension to expire July 27, 1972. Commissioner Seymour , seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. - ITEM N0. 2 VARIANCE NO. 1372 - Property located at ''~~ 1829 South Mountain View Avenue - Request ! for an extension of time. ^~: Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, the five previous extensions of time which had been granted, the ,; most recent having expired June 26, 1971; that in the past year three parcels of land immediately adjacent and to the north of subject property had been developed for a bank; that the existi~.g use on subject property was a residen- 1i tial structure being used as an office and outdoor storage and repair of equipment and vehicles; that staff had received no complaints regarding this use; and that in the event the Commission determined the extension should be granted, staff would recommend that it not be for more than one year in order that the Commission might continue to review the use on a year-to-year basis ~.~ to determine its compatibility as adjoining properties develaped. '' Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to qrant a one-year ex•tens~on of time ~ for the use granted under Variance No. 1372, said time extension to expire June 26, 1972. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEA. ;% : ~; ITEM NO. 3 ORANGE COUNTY CASE NO. ZC67-43 - Proposal for a zpne change from R-1 Single-Fami.ly Residence District to the C-1 Local Business District for property located ~,r~ at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and •„~ Woodley Avenue. :-.'.::~:: ~ _~ ::.~ ~ i. ^ Assistant Zoning Sueprvisor pon McDaniel presented Orange County Zone Change No. 67-43 to the Planning Commission and rewiewed the location of subject property together with tne proposal request~ng C-1 Zoning; that the property on the corner was vacant, however, a siny3.e-family residence occupied the westerly portion; that the major frontage of the F~roperty would be facing a local interior residential street; and that the County staff indicated the petitioner proposed to dedicate access r~ghts to Brookhurst Street. Mr. McDaniel further nored that tha County and City would require that park- ing be to the rear of a residential structure proposed to be used for commer- cial purposes, however, in this particular i:;stance it would be physi:ally impossible to do so; therefore, the most preferable method would be the removal of the existing residential structure ar..d redevelopment in conformance with the necessary code requirements; and that staff would recommend some form of residential-professional zonina rather than C-1 be approved in order to provide the least conflict with the existing single-family residences together with the consideration that no waivers be granted for the parking area location. The Commission review.ed the proposal and staff's findings and recommendations ~ regardingg a more restrictive zoning, and concurred that a less intense commer- cial use of the property would be pr.eferable. Commissioner He.rbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION C}1RRIED to, recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged in their deliberations oE Orange Coun?:y Case No. 67-43 to consider residential-professional or commercial-prafessional zoning for subject property, in order that the least conflict to the single- family tract in which subject prcperty was located would result than a more intense commercial use as proposed; and that any waivers requested for the location of the parking area not be granted. L~c: ~, , ~~~.::n~. . - ~~ ^ _ '~,. _ . ... ~ . . ' . ' ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . _.,.... _ ... -' - - ~ ~' - - -~i ._~ ----- ~ --- - .. ~y ._... - -~~.'- -- -- ~-~. . . ~ ._ ~ _~ . . i .., . ~ . ' C~ r~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 26, 1971 71-511 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 4 RECOMMENDATI~NS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1130 (Martin Luther Hospital) - Request for extension of time - Property located an the south side of Romneya Drive, approximately 820 feet west of. the centerline of Euclid Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, the request for a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions, three previous extensions of time having been granted, with the most recent expiring on July 25, 1971. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions in the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1130. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO, 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1130 (Martin Luther Hospital) - Request for modification of parking area lighting. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses in close proximity, noting that the petitioner was requesting a modification of Condition No. 12 of Resolution No. PC69-173 granting the expansion of the Martin Luther Hospital on August 11, 1969; that the peti- tioner's request was based upon the fact that he was proposing to use a type of liqhting fixture that should preclude the light becoming a nuisance to the apartment dwellers across the alley to the south; that an inspection of the area revealed that a 25-foot wi~3e alley was located immediately adjacent to the south boundary of the hospital, this alley providing vehicular access to a row of garages that served the apartment complex, and with one excepticn, there were no apartment units closer than 45 feet to the hospital boundary line and 72 feet to the nearest parking area light standards, with the excep- tion of one apartment which was approximately 50 feet from the light standard; that the proposed parkinq area lights would be on 20-foot standards and would appear to be designed in such a manner that liqht would not reflect directl,y upon the adjoining property; and that baseu upon the development of the adjoining property and the proposed locations for the 20-foot high light standards, it would appear said lighting would not create a problem for the neighboring property. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-151 and moved for its passage ~ and adoption to amend Condition No. 12 of Resolution No. PC69-173 granted on August 11, 1969, to read as follows: "That any parking area lighting propcsed shall be down-lighting of a maximum heiqht of 20 feet, which Iiq}~tinq shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the residential integrity ot the area and shall be substantially in conformance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim." (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CCrIMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. ITEM NO. 6 Chairman Farano noted that there were a number of outstanding projects which the Commission had directed sta£f to prepare, and since they were lengthy, he requested that staff prepare a listinq so that the Commission could determine which should have first priority. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that he would submit this list at the next hearing for the Commission to make a decision. ; i I ~} , .. ,~ • ~.... .. - - . , r ~ .•., . . . , . . ~ , . . . . . „ ~ . .. . "' - .. .... . ~L . . . . . . . . ._~ .. .._: _ ._. . . ;-.,c~s_' ~' ,~ .... . . . . . - - , ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ . . . - . . ~ . ~ \ . .,~ . . _ . ~ i-.e . ~ :~ ? 7. }~~, ~/ , / ~ ~ f ~ : ~ - ~~ ~ C ~ _~ . ~,I ` t ' ~ H ~ ,~~ . J . ~ . ~ ~ ' . ~V ~ ... c ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ .7uly '.>.6 1971 ~ 71-512 ADJOIIRNMENT - There be~.ng np H furthe~ business to discuss Commissio ~„ erbst offered Commissione G a motion to adjourn , ner the meeting. :1,, r auer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. , ,> ;.'; ~ '~ The meezing adjourned at 7:45 P.M. ,:a ~ f ` _.., . Respectfully submitted, :.~~<` ~;~ : ;;~~:+ ` ' ANN KREBS, Secretary ' ;:~~ Anaheim City Planning Commission n~a:~=~avr..-,F- - ~ ~. ti ~~.~~q 1 S t ~ _ ~ -.~::'.`'`J''.\~ _ T t . . . . . .. . Jl., ... . - . ,. . . " .. ~ ~ . ~ , . . ~ . . ~ :~ - i ~` 1 ~ ~r ~ j `o _ 'O' 1 _ zy .; ' ' 1 i . i J ' i: - y ~ P ~ i ~ r ' ~ ) `"~ - ~ 1~ k - 1 , `~ ~~ ~~ ~ ! r E ~ . . _