Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/08/09i ~-. ~ ~ ,~ . , :I ~ l~ I i City Hall Anaheim, California August 9, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Cha:.rman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. . - COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, ~auer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSEIST - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: ~ Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaaieZ Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiaace to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of the meeting of Ju3y 26, 1971, THE MINUTES was deferred to the mee•ting of August 23, 1971. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. BERNARDO YORBA, 325 Souich NO. 71-72-7 Ciaudina Street, Anaheim, California, Ot,rner; LORAND WEST, 8101 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, California, CONDITIONAL USE Agent; property described as: An irregularly-sh~~ped PERMIT NO. 1250 parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.7 ~scres at the southwesi corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and VARIANCE N0. 2283 Imperial Highway, 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. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL CdFIMERCIAL, ZONE (PORTION 2) CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO ESTASLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITH,I•N 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE WITH WAIVERS°OF'(1) REQUIREMENT TO LOCATE AT THE INTERSECTION:-OF TWO ARTERIALS AND (2) PERMITTED SIGNS ON PORTION 2~ AND ESTABLISH A THEATER ON PORTION 1. VhRIANCE REQUEST: PERMIT ESTABLISHMENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER WI'.['H WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIREMENTS OF NO ROGF-MOUI3TED EQUIPMENT, (2) PERMITTED SIGNING, (3) SETBACKS, AND (4) MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING ON PORTIONS 1 AND 2. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of July 2E, 1971, to allow time for the developers to meet with staff to resolve problems and to submit rev.ised plans. Assi::tant Zoi.ing Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established and proposed in close proximity, existing and propo::ed zoning, zoning action still pending on the property, and the request to establish a comm~inity shopping center which included a supermarket:, a drug store, a bank, theater, a restaurant, a service station, and associated shops. In addit:.on, the 'service station, bank, and restaurant would be separate from the main complex of tenants. 71-513 . ~_ ~ - i~l~... _ ~~. * - t ~ ' -- ~C~,::.. r ,..~. ~ . , y d , `. ~ .~ .r ~ ~~ , `•J I MINUTES, CxTY PLANNTNG COMMI53ION, August 9, 1971 71-514 RECLASSI~ICATION - Mz, McDaniel then reviewed the changes in the revised N0. 71-72-7 plans, notin g that 627 parking spaces were required, CONDITIONAL USE and the petitioner was proposing 556 spaces, making a PERMIT NO. 1250 deficit of 71 spaces - however, each space was larger than the required stall; that ~he sign for the service station had been reduced to 20 feet in height and 49 VARIANCE NO. 22g3 square feet in size; that the 100-foot and 50-foot (Continued) building setbacks requirec: in the Scenic Corridor 2one were still not being met, however, these had increased to along Imperial Hi 30-~8 feet along Santa Ana Canyon Road and 20-30 feet ghway instead of the formex 14 feet; that the SC Zone would require a 10-foot landscape setback along the rear of the shoppinq center complex, while the plans indicated a 20-foot paved drive Eor a portion and a"0" setback for the balance, however, it was also proppsed to have a 7- foot wide easemen*_ over the adjacent property foX fire access, which would be recorded. In addition, the petitioner would be responsible for landscap- ing and maintaining the entire slope beY,ind the center; that in addition to the service station sign, there would be wall signs on the shops and for the major tenants; that a 10-foot high readerboard sign was proposed in the event the theater was developed, as well as a theme-type, identification, free- standing sign, however, the number of signs would exceed that permitted in the SC Zone but was considerabl~v less than signs permitted in the C-1 2one; and that it would appear the applicant's revised plans were in accord with most of the Commission's comments at the last public hearing. Mr, McDaniel, in conclusion, stated that the Commission might wish to deter- mine whether or not the schematic plan approved with the prior zoning action and the subsequent lease agreements based on C-1 zoning were sufficient to waive the SC 2one requirements given the fact that the 35-foot and 20-fnot building setbacks were fully landscaped and would not be used for parking - something that could be a factor in considering these waivers. Mr. Alex Haagen, the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that since the last meeting the architect, he and his associate met with staff to try to work out the problems presented at the hearing; and that Mr, Stack and Mr. West would review these changes. Mr. Gerald Stack, 51 Toro, appeared befcre the Commission and stated that he would review some of the statements presented at the last public hearing, however, he would stress the changes that had been made, and then presented photographs of the site, noting exactly how the center would fit in against the contours of the land. Mr. Stack then noted that the~ had attempted to complv in every ,~ay possible; that the architectural concept was extremely important; that thE development would have a rustic appearance similar to Town and Country in Orange; that 'this would provide a shopping center that would be commensurate with the way the Santa Ana Canyon should develop; that the colored rendering stretcY;ed along the east wall £or 17 feet represented the architect's concept of what was propcsed, in which there would be rough, heavy beams, tile, adobe, and considerable landscaping, an3 then presented a sample of the type of timber that was proposed to be used. Mr. Lorand West, the architect, then demonstr.ated how the timber would be attached with a heavy iron fittings to beams, thereby giving the rustic appearance, and then noted that there were many detailed photographs of the Palos Verde~ shopping center in Rolling Hills w:ich indicated how the differ- ent features, such as the treatment of the rear of the center would look, since this area usually did not •receive any consideration; that there would be vine-covered posts in the mo~t important views r~f the store fronts; that they had expended time and thov,ght in the design of the store fronts in order ~o make them very attractive; that the proposal would provide a difEerent ype of treatment for the loading doe?~s; that considerable plantings would be ~~laced in the parking area and the streets and the setbacks; that the pro- posal was not a cuncept in theory but was one which they had experience, having built and operated this concept; and that if there was any way this plan could be improved, they were open to suggestions, however, he felt this was an extremely good co~cept. Furthermore, the C-1 Zone was recognized to - 1~.~ _ . ..~... . . .. . . - . . . . , ,. . . , . . . . . . . . 1 . ~ :. .; .. . .. ~ , . ~ . ' . . . . . . ~.. ..h. i~ - ~~ . '. ~ . . ' . ~. . L . .~. ~ _. r . . . . ., _ , _ ,. _ : . . _. . _ _: _i . _..:~'.::s' ~ ;'1 f V ' .y. ;~, ~ 1 l:J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9,,1971 ~~J 71-515 RECLASSIFICATION - be needed for the area, however, since the original NO. 71-72-7 anproval for C-1, it was determined through feasibility studies that acIditional land would be necessary for the CONDITIONA.L USE type of shopping center the PERMIT NO. 1250 Y Proposed, and this was the reason for requesting C-1 on the portion formerly approved VARIANCE N0. 22g3 consideredAwhichirepresentedha birdesteyehv~ew`lofbwhat the (Continued) center would look like, was then presented to the Commis- sion, Mr. Stack then statin~~ that this center would l~e a credit to the area and to the City of Anaheim. Mr. Stack also noted that a.mong the many problems, from an engineering stand- goint, had to do with the unusual configuration of the property, its topo- graphy, etc., these all presented considerably more problems than a regular flat-land area, and in this connection they proposed to cut into the ;;utti:ig rocks on the slope adjacEnt to the south and the easement, providiny exten- sive landscaping together with irrigation facilities, thus, instead of having an open field effect, the trees and landscapinq would screen the shopping center from view of the residential uses abutting to the south, and at the same time provide a completely landscaped backdrop for the shopping center. Commissioner Seymour noted that the renderings presented did not indicate the roof-mounted equipment; therefore, had the developer planned to have these completely enclosPd as part of the building. Mr. Stack replied that these woLld be completely enclosed with a covered roof similar in composition.,and color as the regular roofing of rough slag, and the residents lookinq down on the facility would view what appeared as part of the roof. Commissioner Rowland inquired what type of internal sign control was proposed and were roof signs proposed sinc2 the photograph indicated there were none; whereupon Mr. West rep'!ied that in the leases there would be complete sign control; that the small store tenants would have their signs under the mansard beam, hohever, in the pictures presented they were permitted to have 708 of the width of the store as part oF the signing; and that the major tenants would have sign~ mounted on tile, but none would be roof-mounted. Commissioner Rowland then inquired about the roof-mounted equipment and whether the "doghouse" was an integral part of the design of the building since the City's ordinance was written that no roof-mounted equipment .~as to be permitted but was to be part of the design of the structure; therefore, did the architect feel this wa~ compatible; whereupon Mr. West replied affirmatively since these platform compressors would now be enclosed, and the color scheme would blend in with the tile roof. Commissioner Rowland noted that the City had a very special problem as it pertained to roof-mounted equipment in the canyon because development would occur on the hills and people would have to look do~~n on2o this unattractive equipment, and then inquired how the architect proposed to handZe venting; whereupon Mr. West stated that the venting wou7.d be through the roof but it would be adequately shielde3. Continued discussion was held by the Commission and the developer's represent- atives regardinq the manner in which the proposed roof-mounted equipment would be shielded from view for the various b;iildings, small shops, restaurant, theater, etc. Chairman Farano then noted that the proposed readerboard was not indicated on the renderings and inquired whether or not there was a picture available of what was proposed, and did the petitioner intend to have the forthcom:Ing attractions for the theater shown, as well as other items of interest. Mr. WesL stated that the readerboard would be be lOx5x7 feet, which would show both coming attractions an3 other items of interest, anu in further response to Chairman Farano's questioning, stated that the top of the reader- board would be 10 feet from the ground and the board itself would have a 5 to 6-foot ground clearance and was designed to have the same architectural features as the shopping center. i <-Y..,.Ya ~ sc . .. . . - - . ._ . . _ . -. ~ :1 i ~J c1~ ~._~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-516 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Stack then noted that the architect had designed a NO. 71-72-7 special Iighting fixture that would be design concept of the center, h~wever, these~lights CONDITIONAL USE would be 20 feet hirc- rather than the 6 feet indicated PERMIT NO. 1250 in the recommended canditions since these lights would be hooded in such a manner sopthatsthey VARIANCE NO. 2283 would not be reflected towasd the residential uses on (Continued) the hill, and then presented photographs of the lightin proposed g and noted that the intent of the ordinance was to keep any lighting from spilling onto the adjacent property - however, their property was 80 feet below the finished grade of the Calprop development, ,~~ well as below grade of the adjacent properties to the west and level with the high schocl property to th~ ea.st, therefore, these proposed lights would in no way affect the adjoining properties or create any problem for the adjoining residential properties. Mr. Stack then reviewed the conditional use permit proposal, noting that since there would be no access permitted to Santa Ana Canyon Road and since the Traffic Enginear would not approve a cut in the median for Imgerial Highway, they had to design a service station as a component part of the shopping center; that its design aould be integrated with thc concept of the other buildings, although it would be somewhat away from the main shopping center complex; that considerable landscape screening was proposed to screen the service station from the residential area; and then presented renderings of the proposed service station site to emphasize his previous statements, indicating that the service station site was 10 feet above grade of Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the size of the parcel was larger than most service stations, and this was proposed so that there would be a better traffic pattern, together with being an integrated part of the center; that the service station would be 160 feet from the proposed carports to the south and 180 feet from any residences; and that the service station would provide a needed service since there was none in the general area. Mr. Stack continuefl by stating that the readerboard had been discussed at length, however, there was still the center's identification sign which was a fountain with wood sculpture and which would be located adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road; and then presented two alternative plans, one indicating an integrated sign whfich had been reduced considerably from that previously reviewed by the Commission and the other with two separate, free-standing signs. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposed signing and upon its conclusion, it was the opinion of the Commission that an integrated sign should be provided. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the theater would have an outdoor marquee lighting; whereupon Mr. Stack stated that there would be a reader- board oriented toward Santa Ana Canyon Road, and some wall signing on the theater building proper, and then continued by stating that in the event the theater became a fact in this shopping center, the required parking would be 627 spaces, whereas they were proposing 556 parking spaces, and this was based upon the possibility t}iat this would be shops instead of a theater;. which would mean the number of parking spaces proposed woulc' be more thun the required, and in the event the t?:~ater did become a fact, there would be a shortage of 69 spaces, however, there would be dual use of th,a bank'S 36 parking spaces, as well as those shops which closed by 6:00 P,M.; i,hat the parkiny stalls were 6 inches wider than required; and that the theater wculd have evening and Sunday hours, with children's matinees on Saturday after- noon wherein no parking would be xequired for said ct;ildren. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the theater oias only projected or a fact, and what would be planned if it did nut beco~e a reality - would there be a shortage of parking if the theater were not developed. Mr. Stack replied by stating it was not a foregone conclusion that a theater would be developed there; however, it had been included in the design of the center - therefore, if a theater were developed, there would be "horse trading" on the parking with the smaller shops and bank since they would not be open ut"Lng the evening, and there would be in excess of 16 spaces if no theater were developed since they would then have additional shops, _ . _ 5,~~~ ~ ,, -~~' ~. r . ~ Q ~ ` ' -'' i r ,~ ~; ~. ~t^ ; . * ' .~t ~ CI) MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 ~j 71-517 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Stack then reviewed the traffic flow through the NO. 71-72-7 center, the reasor. f~r the wider question of setbacks which still hadknot beenlresolved; CONDITIONAL USE but since there had been recognition of the fact that a PERMIT NO. 1250 shopping center was needed in this qeneral vicinity because C-1 zoning had been approved back in 1965 and VARIANCE N0. 2283 the supermarket and bank had recorded leases executed (Continued) on that basis prior to the adoption of the SC Zone, it was hoped that the revised setbacks as now proposed would be acceptable on that basis since the proposed setbacks were the maximum that could be provided witliout creating some detrimental effect on the lease tenants of this center.; that they proposed to have a park-like atmosphere, therefore, •they were not planning to develop parking in the setback areas adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, but to retain them and develop them with very heavy landscaping which would add to the overall picture that the City intended for the canyon; that one of the three primary fea~ures of the SC Zone was the euca- lyptus windbreak, however, their property had none, but he felt in this man-made concept they had captured the natural beauty of the area and they andlthencpresentednrearaviewsuof thetbankaandcthentreatmentnforhthePlandsed, scaping around Santa Ana Canyon Road and Tmperial Highway adjacent to the b ank . Mr. Stack then stated he wanted to emphasize the fact that although some of the renderings submitted to the Commission for review indicated only 14-foot setbacks, he wished to state that these would be 30-38 feet along Santa Ana Canyon Road and 20 feet along Tmperial Highway. Commissioner Seymouz inquired as to the extent of signinq for the bank; whereupon Mr. West replied that at the time they did the rendering, they did not know if roof lettering and pylons were permitted, however, they did plan four signs, two on the roof below the mansard and two on the walls. Mr. Stack, in conclusion, requested that the Commission favorably consider the setbacks proposed, and from some of the concern expressed regardinq view of the balance of the proposal, this could be resolved at staff level; however, he felt that they had designed a very attractive shopping center, and because oE the topography and shape of the property, they had attempted to overcome these problems with the plan presented. Mr, Phillip ~oujon-Roche, 21527 Mohler Drive, president of Santa Ana Home- owners Association, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether or not there was a h~ight limitation on signs; whereupon Comm±.ssianer Rowland indicated no free-standing signs would be permitted in the Santa Ana Canyon. Mr. Joujon-Roche then inquired whether o not there was a size limitation on the signs permitted on the buildings; wh~eupon Mr. McDaniel state•3 that the sign provisions were written in the C-H 2one g~verning this area, wherein wall signs were limited to 15 to 208 of the face of the building and a c~nter identification sign which would be placed on a 42-inch high wall - howeve.r, the C-H Zone's signing requirements were drafted for small shopping centers, not one as large as was proposed, and that these were th~ only signs permitted in an area. Mr. Joujon-Roche then stated it was his opinion that the revised setbacks proposed appeared to be reasonable, even though they did not cenform with the SC standard; however, he was more concerned with the size of the signs and how glaring in appearance they would be. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner I3erbst offered Resolution No. PC71-152 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-7 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resoltuion Book) Prior to roll call, considerable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the proposal, the conditions of approval, setbacks, sign approval, whether the signing should be integrated in one integrated, free-standing sign which identified the shopping center, the landscaping proposed for both ~! ~~'S. . .. . . , . i ~~ -•~---•--- 1, f ~ _ -~---- - ---_ ---- -----.,~ ~,,.. - ~ ~~ U cJ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-518 RECLASSIFICATION - the new setbacks and the hillside along the south NO. 71-72-7 property li~~, the manner in which the roof-mounted _ - equipment was proposed to be made an integral part of ~ CONDITIONAL USE the structure - however, this offered little ::estheti- ~ ; PERN.IT NO. 1250 cally for people viewing the roof from above since the • main purpose of buying roof-mounted equipment was to . VARIANCE NO. 2283 require desiqning of any proposed in a manner that it (Continued) would be part of the building which these "doghouses" or penthouses did not provide; that any changes in ':- ` providing covering for the roof-mounted equipment would b. `~ have to be the design of the architect not a suggestion by the Commission, ;~:,;: ;'; ,~: ._ . an3 the architect would have to work within the framework of the ordinance - that these problems regarding roof-mounted equipment should be resolved at staff level; that other areas within the County near the beach where a `~~ hillside area overlooked the shopping area - these problems of roof-mounted equipment were re~olved by way of making them an integral part of the same s: _~ building; and that the :~asic concept proposed was extremely attractive, however, the identification sign, since it was visible from Santa Ana Canyon Road, did not have to have massiveness or major i.enant identification since ~ most of the interior could be visible from the road. Mr. Haagen then advised the Commission that he, too, woulc~ prefer an inte- grated sign to identify the center, and they had reduced the size of the sign to approximately 1Ox15 feet, but the drugstore and supermarket would be helping to pay for the siqn - therefore, they would prefer that their name :~ be retained as part of the sign. Discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the requirement of ~ ;~ underground utilties, after which Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or ,:~ not the City was placing their power lines underground since it would not be ~ fair to require the private property owner to provide underground utilities ~ ~1 when the public utility wiree were now being proposed to be overhead, i ~ Staff informed the Commission that both the lines to serve these facilities from Imperial Highway and power transmission lines were proposed to be over- head. ~ Chairman Farano noted that the Commission could make a recommendation to the i City Council that consideration be given to placing all City lines in this ~ general area underground. ? i - ~ : Commissicner Herbst then stated his motion for approval should be amended to , r~quire that the parking area lighting be a maximum of 20 feet and in accord- ~~ ance with approved plans submitted, and that any signing proposed as an ~ identification sign be an integrated sign as submitted for a Resolution Book) Pproval. (See On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: r AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. -; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~; , - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-153 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2283 on the basis that the park- ing would be adequate if the theater were not built; however, if built, there would be dual use of the parking provided for the bank and small shops that would not be open during theater :~ours; that waivers of the Scenic Corridor ' Overlay 2one requirements were warranted on the basis that leases had been ?i recorded based on C-1 requirements prior to the establishment of the SC Zone; that the petitioner was providing extensive, fully-grown landscaping in addi- `'„ tion to berming along Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway which would ~: effectively screen portions of the development and reduce the need for any s major deviation from the required setbacks set forth in the SC Zone; that the development plans were far superior and would complement the Santa Ana ~~ Canyon than plans which were generally submitted for shopping centers; and that approval of the waivers should not be construed as setting a precedent since each request should be considered on its own merits to insure that the intent of the zone was maintained; and subject to conditions, together with a:: .~e `:: ?~~ - ~ 1 I =F~~ ~ . , : .. , _ ~ : . . ~ . .::...«... ~ . ~. . _ _ _ ~- ,... . . . .- , ._ .~,. _ s ~z~~; t. - _ . .. . . •. ..1~ - . ~ ' _ _ . .. . - . i . + 4 . . . G ; ~ 1 , ~ - ~ ; - __~------ i , - -- ~~ %; - ~ ---- __-- _,.... ~ ,~ . ~ ; ; ; MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMTSSION~ August 9 1?71 ~ , 71-519 RECLASSIFICATIUN - adding to Condition No. 2 that the plans for a NO. 71-72-7 ~ ny roof- mounted equipment for airconditioning screening sha12 be submitt d ~ , e and approved by the Development Services CONDIT20NAL USE Department to insur ' , e that they are in accordance with PERMIT NO. 1250 the requirements of the SC Z J one; that dense landscaping be provided in the easement area adjacent to the residen- VARIANCE NO. 2283 tial uses on tY.e south th t ; a one integrated sign be (Continued) provided identifying the sho ppin ce t ~ _ :-N~~- q g n er alon Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the petitioner stipulat d th i ~' ° e at land- scaping, as depicted on the renderings, was to scale (Se R . e esolution Book) ~; ,l On roll call the foregoing resoluti.on was passed b the f Y olluwing vote: ;' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Ka wood ~ y NOES: COMMISSIONERS y . Rowland Se mour i , : None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. `'~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-154 and moved for its and adoption to r g passage ant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1250, subject to conditions and the stipulati b on y the petitioner that any plans proposed for signing of the service station and th , , ,; e readerboard be subject to approval of the staff. (See Resolution Book) ± i!' On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ` ~' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbs:, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour NOES : COMMISSIONERS ';{ ;l . : None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ; ~ ~ SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIOr - Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to REGARDING PUBLIC U t .•~ s rongly TILITIES urge the City Council to provide all ~`~ power and utility lines to be placed underground in the ' Santa Ana Canyon area, particularly since it was ~ ; presently proposed to require that the shopping center, approved for the southwest c = ~ orner of Santa Ana Canyon Road an3 Imperial ~ Highway, provide underground utilities and it ' , would a private developers to provide underground utilitie e u r e s when the City was placin ~ sll their utilities overhead. Commissioner G g .i auer seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~~ ~ 't ~~ ~, RECESS ~ - Chairman Farano declared a five-minute r ~ t ecess at j 3:30 P.M. ; ` I RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 3:35 P M ; . ., Commissioner Allred being absent. ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: HARVEY A. BERGER, 3333 West Coast Highway TRACT NOS.7417 Suit _ , , e 200, Newport Beach, California. ENGINEER: Lander 7151, 7458, 7459, Engineering 1782 W _ ` ' ; , est Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, AND 7460, California. Suksject tract located ~ ~ ' , on the north side of REVISION NOS. 2 the future extension of La Palma Avenue s th ~ , ou erly of Esperanza Road and easterly of Imperial Highway being a ~ i ; , port on of a 54.125-acre site, is proposed for aub- ~ division i t ~ n o 66 R-2-5000 zoned lots for Tract No. 7417, i ------------ - 49 lots for Tra t 7 '` -. c No. 151, 75 lots for Tract No. 7458, ~ 72 lots for Tract No. 7459 and 18 ~ I} . ~ ~h^ , lots for Tract No. 7460. Assistant 2oning Supervisor~Don McDeni ~ l r e ro ert g eviewed the location of subject ~ P P y, previous zonin action and th ? ~ e tracts the Commission had previously ~ approved (Tract Nos. 7417 and 7151) en . compassing 246 lots on 46 acres; that an additional 47 acres was later considered fo ~= r subdivision into 256 lots in i Tract Nos. 7458, 7459, and 7460, the latter havin b i g s een denied by the Commis- on on the basis of the flood hazard n l Flood Control District; that the developer unty had withdr ri d a • p awn the latter tracts or to City Council consideration, and the revised t *: i racts for all five were now before the Commission as Revision No. 2, consistin acres f ~ . g o approximately 70 , making a reduction of 23 acres which is intend d e to become a part of " ti i I i , ~_ ~ ra' • {. + 4 . .. .. . - : . ~~ ~ ..,. .. . . . . . . . ~L - ~. . ...7.'. l~`'w[S~~~y~~~ . . ..~ . . ~ . r ' . . ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . . . ~ - , ~, ,: ._ .--.__._------ ,'_.:__ ~. ~ ~ ~ ._.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-520 ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459, AND 7460, REVISION NOS. 2 __ the Yorba Regional Par?~•; that the developer had indicated his discussions ~ with the County had reached an impasse due primarily to not having established an alignment for the extensi~n of La Palma Avenue, but not due to dissatis- faction with the tracts; that staff had also attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain an aiicnment for La Palma Avenue; that the latest revision has allowed for the new alignment of La Palma Avenue and the regional park as shown on a recent plan of the park drawn by the Orange County Parks Department; that in addition to the park area, the developer had also provided an additional 50 :~'~~. ''°= geet along the north side of La Palma Avenue for ark p purposes; and that - ,' immediately preceding the writing of the report, staff had been informed that ~~ the Orange County Board of Supervisors would consider establishing an align- ment for La Palma Avenue on Tuesday, August 10, 1971. :~' ~- 1 Mr. H,arvey Berger, the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated tse had taken the previously-approved tracts, as well as those tracts denied lby the Commission, reviewed them and revised them in accordance with plans for Yorba Regional Park; that they had scaled off the locaLion of La Palma ~ Avenue; that he had held meetings with various County departments in order ~ - to obtain some positive information as to the location of the street, but ~r was unable to obtain anything conerete in writing; that the connection between the easterly end of Tract No. 7137 (Klug development) and the most westerly tract before the Commission appeared feasible; that all departments in the County had ample time to review these tracts, but for reasons of their own, it was in their interest to delay construction of this development; and that he felt he had done everything he could to design these tracts in accordance with his understandinq of the requirements of both the City and the County, even to the extent of ,raviding an additional 50 feet which the County y expressed a d.~sire to have for park purposes. ~ Commissioner Herbst expressed concern that there might be a change in the alignment of La Palma Avenue if the Commission approved these tracts, and ~} inquired how the developer proposed to resolve any problems of change in ~ alignment; whereupon Mr. Berger stated that his engineers had advised him f there would be no problem in the redesign if the alignment of La Palma Avenue ,,~~, were changed, even if the property were not purchased for a park, it could be developed as part of the tract or as a park. ~ :i Office Engineer Jay Titus, in response to a a,uestion by Commissioner Herbst, ~ stated that there would be no problem as to street standards, but as to the ; alignment of said street, it was feasible; however, the City was also at the ' mercy of the County since they must determine the alignment uf La Palma Avenue. ! ~ Commissioner Herbst then stated that approval of the tracks could be only an ! exercise without any County approval of the alignment of La Palma Avenue. Mr. Berger responded by stating that only after the City of Anaheim took some positive action did the County finally r?act and take a more positive position; and he would naturally have to cake his chances that something would happen. , Mr. Titus advised the Ccmmission that approval of the tracts could set the alignment of La Palma Avenue now. ,' Mr. Serger noted that there had been some reference made to the flood hazard, ' and he had a copy of the latest map the City had received from the U. S. Corps of Engineers - and by placing the tracts he proposed to develop over the flood hazard boundaries, there appeared approximately 258 of the tracts that would be within those boundaries. ,' Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that any deter- mination of the flood hazard problems would have to be beyond the tentative tract stage - according to the directive of the judge in judicial procee~.ing in connection with the Klug tracts to the west; and that it would be the responsibility of the City Council to determine that the developer had met '= all the requirements in preventing any flood hazard, as well as to determine that the favorable flood hazard letter from the County met the criteria of the City. *, Commissioner Rowland inquired why it appeared impossible to obtain a favorable ~ , flood hazard letter. ~~ ~ ~-_ .::~-~" , : .., ., . . ~' _ r~ _ -. ~, .`. e:.~.,,:• t _ . , , . ' y5 _ ~ d ~ ~~.~ ;, r O ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 9~ 1971 ~J 71-521 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459, AND 7460, REVISIOIQ NOS. 2 Mr. Thompson responded by stating these flood hazard problems could be resolved in a number of waps - a higher dike, a deeper channel, oz filling the property, but thE engineering solution would have to be determined at the City Council level where it would have to be determined if the developer had satist.'ied the condition of a favorable flood hazard letter. ~` . ~ :c: ;%"~: ~~ ;ri ``';i 7 ~ ;~_~j • ~i ~ ,} :~j i '>:~; ', i r~: ' « ,.;~ ! F: .. . `. . , ~ .~kc : f ~ 3: Mr. Titus noted he had not seen the map prior to this date; however, he knew that the Corps of Engineers had not completed their studies. Commissioner Rowland inquired as to the purpose of the map; whereupon Mr. Thompson replied that the letter and map from the Corps covezed this entire area, and the map was reproduced for the Commission's perusal, but apparently there were certain ways from an engineering standpoint that the factors of the potential flood hazards could be reduced. Furthermore, this decision would have to be made by the Council on the basis of a final tract map on which would be indicated the manner in which the engineer solved the potential flood hazard as it pertained to these properties. Commissioner Seymour inquired why it would be up to the City's engineering staff to solve this, since it was his understanding that they had stated they were not qualified to talk about engineering of water. Furthermore, when a condition was attached that a satisfactory flood hazard letter from the OCFCD would be required, it was his understanding the responsibility would be at the County level - now staff states it would be the Council who would have to make that decision. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that he would call the City Attorney immediately, if Mr. Lowry did not already have the answer, to determine just what steps could be taken. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that Condition No. 11 of Tract No. 7458 did not pertain to a favorable flood hazard letter, but to require that permission be obtained from the OCFCD by the developer to channel water into the river from this development. Mr. Thompson noted that the City Attorney had just advised him that a tentative tract map may be filed even within the channel itself or outside of the channel; however, the City would have to give this information, regarding the potential flood hazard problem as set forth in the Corps of Engineers map, to the devel- oper who would have to overcome these problems since they were engineering problems. Therefore, a condition requiring the submission of a favorable flood hazard letter could be made a part of the approval of the tentative tract map, and when the final tract map was filed, the City Council would then have to determine if this hazard had been resolved through proper engineer- ing procedures. Chairman Farano inquired why these problems could not be done at the tentative stage rather than expending the money prior to final approval of a tract map ~y the Council. Mr. Thompson stated that many developers would not care to resolve the problem by expending money before a tentative map was approved - therefore, they would have to resolve these problems prior to obtaining final tract approval, and that the Commission could approve the tentative tract maps subject to the condition of submittal of a satisfactory flood hazard letter from the OCFCD. Mr. Titus advised the Commission that the letter and map from the U. S. Army 'Corps of Engineers was submitted in response to a request by the City Attorney in relation to the Writ of Man3ate on the property to the west; that the Corps obviously had not completed their studies since no recommendations had been submitted; however, their map and their studies would indicate the boundaries of the 100-year or 300-year flood as it would inundate subject property. Furthermore, prior to thP submission of the current tentative tract maps, all tract maps had indicated that development would occur all the way to the river. In addition, Engineering did not know how much of subject property would be subject to a lOp-year storm; however, from the map submitted by the Corps, it would appear only a small portion of the tracts under consideration would be subject to flooding at the 100-year storm projection, thus the engineering problems would be considerably simpler. . ;:~:.~ - , ~ ~ _ ` .,y ~ ^ ~ ,, r , - _ . ~ ~ ^ ~~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-522 TENTATIVE MAP dI' TRACT NOS. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459. AND 7460, REVISION NOS. 2 ,~ . ti ;~' `°;i;': ,;; ri , i`. . , ~ ,; - , . : ~,!} i ~ ;, ' ~.^~ Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether this was staff's opinion that the maps as presented from the Corps demonstrated to the City's satisfaction the area would not be subject to flooding; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that it would be the City Council who would have to make the final determination. Chairman Farano stated he was not in favor of building homes in the flood plain, but since it was the City Council's decision regarding this, it was plain to him that the Planning Comm$ssion did not have authority to approve a final tract map. The City Council would make the determination that the applicant had overcome these problems of flood hazards. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7417, Revision No. 2, subject to conditions set forth in the Report to the Commission. Prior to a second and vote by the Commission, further discussion was held regarding submission of a flood hazard letter, it being determined that this should be a condition of approval. Mr. Roberts noted that Revision No. 1 had been submitted to the Commission with the report; however, there were a few minor changes to the recommended conditions, namely, pertaining to the Revision Number and instead of referring to La Palma Avenue, since the developer wa:; now proposing a 50-foot strip which would be acquired by the County for park purposes, the condition should refer to Lots "A" and/or "B". Furthermore, there should be a finding to the effect that said 50-foot strip would be acquired by the County for said ~:ark purposes. Commissioner Herbst concurred in the amendments as part of his motion. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Rowland abstained from coting, stating he wanted to reaffirm his previous standing of not voting for development of homes in the flood plain) subject to the following conditions and findings: FINDINGS: 1. That the alignment of La Palma Avenue and the provision of the 50- foot wide park buffer area between La Palma Avenue and the R-2-5000 subdivision, as depicted on the proposed tentative map and requested by the County of Orange, appear to be in conformance with the County's current proposals for Yorba Regional Park. 2. That the developer has indicated that he will dedicate the 50-foot wide park buffer area adjacent to the north side of La Palma Avenue to the City of Anaheim in conformance wi.th the County of Orange's proposal for Yorba Regional Park. 3. That the City of Anaheim would accept dedication of this 50-foot wide park buffer area for the purpose of offering said park buffer area to the County of Orange to be included into the proposed Yorba Regional Park. If the County does not accept the proposed 50-foot wide park buffer area within thirty days after recordation of the final tract map by the developer, said 50-foot park buffer area shall revert to the developer to be included into the abutting lots. CONDITIONS: 1. That the approva7. of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7417, Revision No. 2, is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-25. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for - approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. ~_ ~: . ,~ . ,~R' ~; - r~ , _ __ ;~~ •~' _. . . 1y e _ . , .I ~ , , ~ ~ MTNVTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, l4''/1 ~ ~~ 71-523 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAGT NOS. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459, AND 7460, REVISION NOS. 2 5. That a final txx.M1 c, a,;,;.::.• nf subject property shall be submitted to and approved by thr• G~i.;;.^ ., ;..ca;r;l and then be recorded in the office of the Orange Cou^c+,y r`«~ • ,:r::?~,.••, ,, ~ . .. . . ~:y~ :r: ,,x,: ~~ ~~7 ~ ^ ~~F~ ' `! '1 ..,', ~ ` ~' j`"'1 _;...1 '';~~ ~ ~i `'~'a n ~~ ~ : ~+~ 6. That the owner;~` •'..;.;r;x~r pzoperty shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriatK ; i-^k •r~i>, r,~crestion in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by M,~:-. %; ;.~_;p ',~.~1nci1, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage of Tract No. 7417, Revision No. 2, shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That the vehicular access rights, except at st.reet and/or alley openinqs to La Palma Avenue sb..all be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 9. a. That the developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim an irrevocable offer of dedication for Lots la through 9a abutting La Palma Avenue, said irrevocarle offer shall be accepted by the City of Anaheim within thirty days after recordation of the final tract map. In the event Lots la throuqh 9a are not accepted by the City, said lots shall revert to the developer to be included into the abutting Lots 1 through 9. b. That if Lots la through 9a axp accepted by the City of Anaheim, rhe developer shall install ~~.>foot masonry wall on the south property line separating Lotc, 1 through 9 from Lots la through 9a. c. That if Lots la throuqh 9a are not accepted by the City of Anah.eim, they shall become part of Lots 1 through 9 respectively and the developer shall, in accordance with City Council policy~ construct a 6-foot masonry wall on the south property line, separating Lots 1 throuqh 9 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, includ- ing irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said ~' wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to ~ the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Follow-~ inq installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. d. That the City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption of maintenance in the event Council po7,icy changes. ~ 10. That Tract No. 7458, Revision No. 2, shall be develop;;d prior to ! Tract Nos. 7151, 7417, 7459, and 7460, Revision Nos. 2, and that Tract No. 7151, Revision No. 2, shall be developed prior to Tract No. 7417, Revision No. 2, '~ 3 11. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood haz d . z ar letter acceptable to the City of Anaheim from the Orange County Flood Control District ri '~ , p or to a pproval of a final tract map. __ ^ a Commissioner Herbst offered a motion co a 7151 Revision N i e i M T q p~ , o. 2~ seconded by Commiss oner 5eymour and MOTTON CARRIED. (Commissioner Rowland abstainin ) b ,. g , su ject to the following findings and conditions: "~ ~ FINDINGS: ' f~ ., ' ~ 1. That the alignment of La Palma Avenue and the provision of the 50- foot wid ~^ i e park buffer area between La Palma Avenue and the R-2-5000 subdivision as de picted o th ~ ;; ,, , n e proposed tentative map and requested by the County of Orange a . , ppear to be in conformance with the County's current proposals for Yorba Regional Park. ~~ - ` 2. That the aeveloper has indicated that he will dedicate the 50-foot wide ark b f ;' p u fer area adjacent to the north side of La Palma Avenue to the Cit of A h i y na e m in conformance with the County of Orange's proposal for Y b a:. or a Regional Park. -. . ;_, . ,. :; . . ' ~ .. .,I. . . ~ /- '_' . _l ~ 0 0 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 9, 1971 ~~.~ 71-524 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS..7417 7151, 7458, 7459, AND 7460 REVISION NOS. 2 3. That the City of Anaheim would accept dedication of this 50-foot ~;~c' wide park buffer area for the purpose of offering said park buffer area to the County of Orange to be included into the proposed Yorba Regional Park. If the County does not accept the proposed 50-foot " , wide park buffer area within thirty days after recordat3on of the final tr.act map by the developer, said 50-foot park buffer area shall revert to the developer to be included into the abutting lots. :.'.~;,::..'.~s~'- CONDITIONS: , ':~. ,_ ~,._ i ::. ', :~' ~:,;.` s~ ._ :'_ ~i,;', .$w , . ~: .... ,~ - ~ ;~ ,~ 1. That the approval of Tentative Map.of Tract No. i151, Revisior. No. 2,° is granted subject to the completion o'f Recl~assification No. 70-71-25. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof's}-a11 be submitted in tentative form for agproval. 3. That all lots wi,thin this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That street names shall be approved by the City of A~:aheim oxior to approval of a final tract map. 5. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim ~ the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be f appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the ~ building permit is issued. ~ 7. That drainage of Tract No. 7151, Revision No. 2, shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfcl~'to~y to the City Engineer. 8. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 9. a. That-the developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim an irrevocable offer of dedication for Lots la through 13a abutting La Palma Avenue, said irrevocable offer shall be accepted by the ( City of Anaheim within thirty days after recordation of the final I tract map, in the event Lots la through 13a are not accepted by ' the City, said lots shall revert to the developer to be included into the abutting Lots 1 through 13. b. That if Lots la through 13a are accepted by the City of Anaheim, the devEloper shall install a 6-foot masonry wall on the south property line separating Lots 1 through 13 from Lots la through 13a. c. That if Lots la through 13a are not accepted by the City of Anaheim, they shall become part af I.ots 1 through 13 respectively and the developer shall, in accordance with City Council policy, construct a 6-foot masonry wall on the south property line, separating Lots i 1 through 13 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, includ- ing irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented j portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Follow-'~ ing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. d. That the City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption ~f maintenance in the event Council policy changes. :_.'.::: .. . , ` ! _n ,~~:~ . ' : `, , j , - ~J ~' ~_~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-525 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459, AND 7460, REVISION NOS. 2 10. That Tract No. 7458, Revision *lo. 2, shall be developed prior to ~'~ Tract Nos. 7417, 7151, 7459, and 7460, Revision Nos. 2, and that Tract No. 7151, Revision No. 2, shall be developed prior to Tract No. 7417, Revision No. 2. 11. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter acceptable to the City of Anaheim from the Orange County Flood _ Control District prior to approval of a final tract map. ;~I , ~~ ~ 4'.. : ~::.Y !;~ ~ ~~~ .~ , ~, ~`:``d..,_ . ~ ~:..; __ : ~. C R. ~St :. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7458, Revision No. 2, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Rowland abstaining), subject to the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the alignment of La Palma Avenue and the provision of tl-.e 50- foot wide park buffer area between La Palma Avenue and the R-2-5000 subdivision, as depicted on the proposed tentative map and requested by the County of Orange, appeaz to be in conformance with the County's current proposals for Yorba Regional Park. 2. That L-he developer has indicated that he will dedicate the 50-foot wide park buffer area adjacent to the north side of La Palma Avenue to the City of Anaheim in conformance with the County of Orange's proposal for Yorba Regional Park. ' 3. That the City of Anaheim would accept dedication of this 50-foot wide park buffer area for the purpose of offering said park buffer area to the County of Orange to be included into the proposed Yorba Regional Park. If the County does not accept the proposed 50-foot wide park buffer area within thirty days after recordation of the final tract map by the developer, said 50-foot park buffer area shall revert to the developer to be included into the abutting lots. CONDITIONS: 1. TY;at the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7458, R.evision No. 2, is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-25. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiv?sion, each subdivision thereo£ shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilitiES. 4. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 5. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to t}ie City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage of Tract No. 7458, Revision No. 2, shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include provisions for accepting and transporting runoff from any upstream tributary area. 8. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. i ~a~-=' . - c-" R.1~w~i'«SiC~ . ` _ . . . . . ~ _~. _ ,.'.':_.5~~ ~ f TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459, AND 7460, REVISION NOS. 2 9. a. That the developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim an irrevocable offer of dedication for Lots 7a through 26a abutting La Palma Avenue; said irrevocable of£er shall be accepted by the City of Anaheim within thirty days after recordation of the final tract map. In the event Lots 7a through 26a are not accepted by the City, said lots shall revert to the developer to be included into the abutting Lots 7 through 26. ; ti .`~ ~>~ b. That if Lots 7a through 26a are accepted by the City of Anaheim ; ;" ` .•~r, ` , the developer shall install a 6-foot masonry wall on the south ~ S , `~ property line separating Lots 7 through 26 from Lots 7a throu h g 26a. ,6 , `; c. That if Lots 7a through 26a are not accepted by the City of Anaheim, they shall become part of Lots 7 through 26 respectively '~ , and the developer shall, in accordance with City Council policy, ~ construct a 6-foot masonry wall on the south property line, separat- i ng Lots 7 through 26 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, includin i i i g rr gat on facilities, shall be installed in the un- cemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance ~ of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and > subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway : ' Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of .; '~ Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said + landscaping. ;.w; ~ ~ d. That the City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the - ~,.3 assumptxon of maintenance in the event Council policy changes. ~ S ° ~;~ 10. That Tract No. 7A58, :_ ..sion No. 2, shall be developed prior to the ' ;~ development of Tract :,os. 7151, 7417, 7459, or 7460, Revision Nos. 2; J ~ That Tract No. 7151. Revision No. 2, shall be developed prior to t,;.:: ,.;,,,; Tract No. 7417, Rev sion No. 2; and that the entirs storm drain +~ facilities requireci to accept and transport the runoff from the a?~ '''~ ~ tributary area north of Esperanza Road shall be constructed as part ,'-; . '~:'I of the improvements for this tract. 11. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter acceptable to the City of Anaheim from the Orange County Flood Control District prior to approval of a final tract map. 12. That a permit shall be obtained from the Orange County Flood Control District for any work within the Santa Ana River Channel right-of-way. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7459, Revision No. 2, seconded by Commissfoner Seymour (Commissioner Rowland abstaining), subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7459, Revision No. 2, is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-25. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. .`~:;:, '~'` {N 'w 'Y: it - :~i~ yr;~..,.r. i' 11~ : ~ ~: ~' ~ ~ ~ _ :r. ~ ~ .'~~~ ~ i: ~ , {, 4. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 5. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. .~`~ • - _ ~~ _ ~ e` w)::.i`~ t' _.~P. - ~ y a . . ... . ~ ~ ~~ . ~ '~i . ' ~ ~ ~_~ 71-526 >-~ :4- .~ ~ - i - ' ;- _~ I~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~,) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-527 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7417, 7151, 7458, 7459 AND 7960 ' , ~ , REVISION NOS. 2 ' '~"~ , 6. That the owners of subject pro ert shall the a p y PaY to the City of Anaheim ppropriate park and re creation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council id , sa fees to be g~id at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage of Tract tv'o. 7459, Revision No. 2, shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include provisions for ~ .~ -;=., accepting and transporting runoff from any upstream tributary area. `~: ; 8. That Tract No. 7458, Re.~ision No. 2, shall be develo ed P prior to Tract N ~ ; _ o. 7459, P.evision No. 2, ~ 9. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter acceptable to the Cit of A ti y naheim from the Orange County Flood Control District prior to a pproval of a final tract map. ~, 1 Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7460, Revision No 2 se d d b _ ~; . , con e y Commissioner Seymour (Commissioner Rowland abstaining), subject to the followin ~ F= t g conditions: i '. 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7460, Revision No is grant 2 d ~i . , e subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-25 f< -,t.; ~ . 2- That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division h ~ , eac subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for a pproval. I ~, :~ '; 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~ ''J ~/ ,'~ 4• {~haa street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim rior Y, ~~ ~ p pproval of a final tract map, , ~~~ '' s;z x:t ^a~ ~ 5. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approv d b ,:~'~ .+;,~ e y the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Oran e Cou t y R 1{ Y g n y Recorder. y '\ ~ r: ~ ~`~ ~ . 6. That the owners of subject pro ert shall the a p p y Pay to the City of Anaheim ppro riate k ~ ~~ ~ I par and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council id f `' Z '~ , sa ees to be paid at the time the buildin ' g permit is issued. '~~ ~` ~.~Z ~ 7• That drainage of Tract No. 7460, Revision No. 2, shall be disposed of in a m ~ anner that is satisfactory to the Cit En shall includ r s _ ~ e provisions for accepting and transporting runoff from any upstream t ib r utary area. ; :3 ' ! 8. That Tract No. 7458, Revision No. 2, shall be developed rior t T ,~ p o ract No. 7460, Revision No. 2, b~ 9. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard lett - w ' ~ ~ er acceptable to the City of Anaheim from the Orange County Flood ~ Control District rio t ;, ~: ~ ~}.' '~ .p r o approval of a final tract map. ~ i ~ . :r ' '~,'; ~ .' , ~~ 5':~ `t`'.- : ' e.;-..,; _ . ,"_ ~' , .R< r' ~ _ I i ~ ' s. _ ,~ ,^ _ < ~, s,: t. ,. ,, . ~ ~._,.. •_ "' - - - • , - a; ~" F „`~,1, , ,y , . . .. . ..' ` . ~i ~~.~..~ ~ % 1 _~ I + ~J ~'t- - I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 - DEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California. ENGINEER: Toups Engineering, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. Subject tract, consisting of approximately 38 acres, is located east of Imperial Highway between the future extension of La Palma Avenue and Esgeranza and is proposed for subdivision into 206 R-2-5000 zo:ed lots. Subject tract was continued frnm che meetings of June 28 and July 26, 1971, _ at the request of the petitioner. „ "''! `~' Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that a request : ,;; had been submitted from the develoger requesting an additional two-week continuance to allow time to redesign the tract, incorporating the proposed ,.;;~ alignment of La Palma Avenue and t12e park site by the County of Orange. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7471 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, as requested by the developer. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. AREA DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING_ INITIATED SY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLAN NO. 107 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider circulation and access for an area on the south side of Sroadway, east of Loara Street, to the Southern Pacific Railroad ;:racks. Subject area development plan was continued from tne May 17 and June 14, 1971, meetings to allow time for the property owners in the study area to submit development plans. w ,.. ~ ;I. _ ~., ' '~ ~':'_~:,! k - RECLA£SIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC MOTORS, INC., H. R. NO. 70-71-43 McNeil, President, 325 South Atlantic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; DONALD F. BUHLER AND M. L. BOWER, 4001 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 90 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 644 feet, and being located approximately 991 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of April 15, May 17, and June 14, 1971, to allow time for the preparation of an area development plan that would provide circulation for those praperties located south of Broadway between I,oara Stre~t and the railroad tracks and for development plans to be submitted. Chairman Farano noted that since subject area development plan and reclassi- fication petition had been on the Commission agenda for a number of ineetings and had been continued for four meetings, since April 19, that they be taken off the agenda, and when development plans were submitted, to readvertise them with the developer paying for the readvertising fee. Mr. Hugh McNeil, representing Atlantic Motors, 325 South Atlantic Boulevard, East Los Angeles, California, appeared before the Commission and stated that he would request the continuance since he had just entered escrow with the new buyer, who had done considerable building in Orange Countyj therefore, ~ development plans in accordance with the new buyer would have to be prepared. Chairman Farano inquired what length of continuance the petitioner would prefer, and would he be able to submi.t development plans since this petition had been continued four previous times, and the.Commission was considering establishing a policy granting only one continuance, provided that the Commission did not request re~~ised plans. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that since the petitioner had his property in escrow and it was contingent upon property to the west also being in escrow, the earliest said property could be scheduled on the agenda for reclassification consideration would be September 20, or six weeks from now. ~~ _ . ~ - - - ~_..~ - -.=:~`!~7'YG~~".°~5;.9~~,~~;;Y T `._ ,~.i~ . aJ~~~ ._i _ 1 . 5 . ~"' ~ ~' + ~o~ . ~ H ~ / I I •/;' ~,_~ MINUTES;, O ~ CITY PLANN?:,G COMMISSION, August 9~ 1971 ~ 71-529 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Mr. McNeil then stated that he would request a six-week PLAN N0. 107 continuance for the submission of development glans. RECLASSIFICATION '~' N0. 70-71-43 Comm3ssioner Rowland offered a motion to contine considera- (Continued) tion of Area Development Plan No. 107 and Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-43 to the meeting of September ~r 20, 1971, to allow time for the property owners involved in the study area to submit development plans for the properties. Commissioner - Kaywood seconded the moticn_ MOTION CARRIED. ,;:4,~?~:;~ r~~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-53 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARTNG. R. SPEHAR, J. LIBERIO, AND • H. BUDLONG, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF , California, Owners; ANACAL cNGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincol A TRACT NO. 7419, n venue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described j ? REVISION NO. 2 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistin of a 4 pproximately 45 a .y; TENTATIVE MAP OF cres, having a frontage of approximately 1,540 feet on the north side of ,,~ ~;~~' TRACT NO. 7470, Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 1 340 Eeet d ~< , REVISION NO. 1 , , an being located approximately 2,000 feet east of the centerline of Im erial Hi ~4 p ghway, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL <;; , DISTRICT AND CITY OF Alv*AHEIM R-A, AGRICULTIIRAL ZONE to ~`;;=~!; , the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. ~'i TENTATIVE TRACT RE QUESTS: DEVELOPER: RAYMOND SPEHAR AND J. LIBERIO, .,r 1681.West Sroadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California. ,;;,y ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East ~ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject i property is proposed for subdivision into 141 ' R-2-5000 zoned lots (Tract No. 7419) and 96 Y '~ : ;;, R-2-5000 zoned lots (Tract No. 7470). r~ Subject petition and tracts were continued from the May 3 and 17, June 2 and 14, and July 26, 1971, meetings at the request of the petitioner. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide the property into two separate tracts, one aith 141 R-2-5000 zoned lots and the other with 96 R-2-5000 zoned lots; tk:at the petition and tracts were continued from previous meetings in order to allow the petitioner time to i revise the tract maps to coincide with the proposed subdivision to the east ~ and to resolve the location of the proposed Walnut Canyon storm drainage channel ; abutting both subdivisions; that the General Plan desiqnated this area for i low-density residential land use, and in 1970, the Planning Commission and City Council, in considering General Plan Amendment No. 122, reaffirmed the I low-density residential designation for this area; that the Commission might wish to make a determination on the technical question of setback adjac~nt to Santa Ana Canyon Road since the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation canal ran parallel~ and adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road at this point; and that the Scenic Corridori Overlay 2one would require 150-foat lot depths adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road, therefore, the question was whether or not these lots were adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that subject property was similar in character to that of property north of the river except that in place of the river and a rail- road, this p•roperty was faced with a freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road; that in most instances subject property was 15 feet below grade of the adjacent streets; that it was within close proximity to shopping centers at Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, as well as that proposed for Santa Ana Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon P,oad - therefore, in line with previous actions by the City wherein medium-density residential uses were approved adjacent to commercial uses, this step-down zoning would be appropriate; that the City could exercise architectural control for this area rather than limiting the size of the lot, thereby allowing the developer to build $30,000 homes; that property to the east had been zoned E-4000 by the County, and it was his understanding that the City Council made an informal recommendation that the County consider the R-2-5000 Zone in lieu of the PD-4000 oz E-4Q00 which would permit construction of a mobilehome site; that the SAVI channel was approximately 30 feet wide and could act as a buffer, therefore, the lots ~ . 'S ' d - ., ~ ~~o 1 ~.: .. ,..`- ,:_ 1 :7 ~, ~ '"Y ,, . :i ~ Z ~ ~c .~! .. ~ ~ e;• :. ~ ~ t,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-530 RECLASBIFICATION - adjacent to the south were 125 feet in depth; that this NO. 70-71-53 irrigation channel eventually would be abandoned and TENTATIVE MAP OF would then become a part of the landscaping for this TRACT NO. 7419, tract; and that one of the developers was available to REVISION NO. 2 answer auestions. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7470, Mr. James Liberio 1720 West La Palma Avenue a REVISION NO. 1 before the Commission, noting he was one of thepproperty (Continued) owners, and the only thing the Commission was concerned about would be the flood control or dangers of flood danger area - thereforearthisnwouldtbeham iroperty was in the 300-year flood control channel. P Y protected by the existing flood Mr. Phillip Joujon-Roche, 21527 Mohler Drive, president of the Santa Ana Canyon Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission and inquired if these lots were proposed to be 125 feet deep, what was the width of the lots; whereupon the staff advised Mr. Joujon-Roche these would be 50-foot wide. Mr. Joujon-Roche then stated that his organization was firmly opposed to developing subject property for high-density uses, particularly in this area, and as was pointed out in the Report to the Commission, this area was re- affirmed for low-density residential use by General Plan Amendment No. 122 adopted earlier this year, and in that amendment, both the Planning Commission and the City Council held to the existing low density for the area generally south of the river, up to and including the Peralta Hilis area, extending from Imperial Highway on the west to Eucalyptus Drive on the east - therefore, at that time many things were said that this area was definitely a low-density area because of the hilly terrain of the area, establishing a residential precedent of low density as depicted on the General Plan amendment exhibit; and that there was only one tract having less than 7200 square feet, the Danker property approved for 5000-square foot lots, approved by the Orange County Planning Commission who had recently reviewed an application by Leo Yorba to establish another trailer park adjacent to the Danker property - however, the County had concurred in the density proposals of the City of Anaheim, denying the request; and that although this might be proposed in close proximity to shopping centers, it was hoped that the line could be held for all these properties adjacent to shopping centers to be developed for low density, and that the Commission could recall the density arguments when the Bernardo Yorba property was under consideration for higher density, the residents of the area had requested that the Planning Commission maintain the low-density residentia]. designation for the areas in the Santa Ana Canyon. Mr. Liberio, in rebuttal, stated that there was a need for 5000-square foot lots in this area since almost one-half of the lots were lost on the north side of the river, and with the high cost of development, this was indicative of a need for lower priced homes with smaller lots. Furthermore, this property was relatively flat land and was not in the hillside area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commission:~r Kaywood read from the minutes of the City Council meeting of February 23, 1971, page 71-124, relative to General Plan Amendment No. 122, Exhibit C, in whic2: the City Council had approved that portion to the north of the river for low-medium density and to the south of the river for low density, and since these minutes were approved by the Council, it was very clear that there could be no room for argument relative to placing low-medium density on subject property, which was part of the property south of the river. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-155 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-53 be denied for R-2-5000 zoning on the basis that General Plan Amendment No. 122, passed bj the City Conncil and Planning Commission, designated the area in which subject property was located for low-density residential uses; that although statements were made that subject property was adjacent or in close proximity to a shopping center, the map clearly indicated that the property was almost 2,000 feet £rom any proposed shopping centers. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone be approved for prcperty under Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-53, subject to the conditions set forth in the Report to the Commission. L~_..~''...''~w~+7.-.i ' . ~ . . . . ,. . ~ . . .. . _ _ T -- .' - . .. : , . ~ .~ . . - . . . . ~ ' ~ ' '~ . ~ , ~ 1 I i : ~ - i , -- _ ~ _ / tJ 1,..,/ MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 ~J 71-531 RECLASSIFICATION - Prior to roll call, discussion was held by the Commission NO. 70-71-53 relative to the proposal for R-1 zoning as set forth in TENTATIVE MAP OF Commissioner Seymour's motion, the Commission recalling TRACT N0. 7419, that the petitioner had indicated at the time the density REVISION N0. 2 studies were considered under General Plan Amendment No. TENTATIVE MAP OF 122 that all he was requesting was that they be allowed TRACT N0. 7470, to develop and give them any type of zoning, and less than REVISION NO. 1 six months after this happened, the petitioner was propos- (Continued) ing a more intense use of the property than had been approved under the GeneraJ. Plan amendment. Commissioner Herbst requested that the resolution recommending approval for R-1 ;6~'~':' ~ zoning require thrit this subdivision be subject to all the Scenic Corridor :~~ Overlay Zone requirements; whereupon Commissioner Seymour accepted said ` amendment. (See Resolution Book) ~' ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ i' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. '~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. , ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~`~ Commissioner Rowland, in his abstention, stated that he would not vote for any form of development in the flood plain area. ~ Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract *To. `,•.:; 7419, Revision No. 2, on the basis that the Commission recommended R-1 zoning for subject property, and the tract would not conform with said zoning. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Rowland abstained) Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7470, Revision No. 1, on the basis that the Commission recommended R-1 zoning --~ for subject property, and the tract would not conform with said zoning. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner - Rowland abstained) ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LA PALMA INDUSTRIAL PARK, 4332 East I S`, ~ PERMIT NO. 1251 La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; W. B, pICK, ~,-~~ 4368 East La Pslma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; ~~~ requesting permission ta ESTABLISH A SECRETARIAL SERVICE .,i?~ PRIMARILY SERVIN~ COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY on property described as: An ~ irrfegularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 371 feet ` on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 432 feet and being located approximately 441 feet east of the centerline of Fee Ana Street, and further described as La Palma Industrial Park. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. P `:J Assistant Zoning Supervisor po.^. McDaniel reviewed the location of subject :~ property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize one of the existing industrial units in a complex for a secretarial service that would serve the commerce and industry in the area; that the activities to be conducted at this location would involve a receptionist, shipping and S receiving packages, answering telephones, miscellaneous typing, reproduction "~ ';) services, catalog files, etc., for the small industrial units in this and .~ adjoining tracts; that the applicant had indicated that there were many industrial units that were too small to have permanent office help, yet needed - this type of sexvice due to being absent at certain times of the day; and that a,•" this office would be the business office for several businesses in this complex. ;:" Therefore, a proposal of this nature, serving the industry in the immediate ~" .` area, would appear to be an appropriate use for this industrial area. :~'. Mr. William Pick, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and ` noted that the Report to the Commission stated their reasons for the request, ~. noting there were many "moonlighters" or single-man operators who needed this service, particularly for delivery of parcels and answering of. tQlephones when they were not available; that they proposed to take care of 35 businesses '~~ in this area, serving only the smaller units since the larger industrial * `,~. % .~! . c ' . .s ,~ . : j. ._ .. , ._ ... ; . . -.. . w.,. . . . _ . .. . . .. ~ ... . . . . . ~ f' _ .:., . _ ~ . . . , ~ ~ ~ .. . . . _ ~ , . . . ` ' . , ~R^ . ~~ ~ -~ ., . ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auqust 9~ 1971 71-532 CONDITIONAL USE - facilities were able to afford adequate secretarial help; PERMIT NO. 1251 that the requirement of sidewalks was somewhat difficult to understand since this was almost 100 feet from La Palma Avenue, and the cost would be prohibitive if they were required to comply. ~ Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that this was a standard condition, requiring sidewalks, with the option tor the owner to apply to the City Council for waiver; that this gave the Cit~ control in the future when it appeared side- walks would be needed - then this waiver could be rescinded when the City _ determined sidewalks would be installed. `L ?~ +~;' Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that this was ,' a standard procedure throughout the industrial area, but the requirement had i been waived in the past. ;.: y - ~ Mr. Pick noted that the developer of the tract had indicated he had already received a waiver of the sidewalk requirewient, and then in response to a (1 question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that he would stipulate to serving~ 1~ the industries in this tract and possibly the adjoining industrial tract. <~ No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,:='.,~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-156 and moved for its passage '.;~ and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1251, subject `~ to development substantially in accordance with plans and the stipulation to serving the industrial ±racts. (See Resolution Book) -~~ On roll call the for~.going resolution was passed by the following vote: .;y. AYES: COMMIR3IONERS: Gauer, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ~~ NOES: COMMI;;SIONERS: None. - ABSENT: COMMIS'SIONERS: Allred. ~I:~; `` CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEAkING. DAVID C. BOOMS, 229 South Loara Street, ~ PERMIT NO. 1252 Ar.aheim,•_^•alifornia, Owner; WILLIAM C. SCHMIDT, 241 South Loara Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting ;. permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL ' FACILITY on property described as: A rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land ~{ having a frontage of approximately 195 feet on the west side of Loara Street, ~''~ having a maximum depth of approximately 119 feet and being located approxi- mately 450 feet north of the centerline of Broadway and further described as 229 South Loara Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGR2CULTURAL, 20NE. ~,` Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the previous zoning actions ''~ on the property which established and expanded the speech therapy school on ~;,._ 3 the properties to the south; that the petitioner was proposing to utilize the ~ existing single-family residence on subject property for office space for the ~,-,~z speech therapy school; that the structure would be used for office and filing purposes only, and the applicant had indicated that the expansion to this '`,F building for office purposes wauld not expand the staff, and, consequently, Y~ ~ would not require additional parking; and that since the proposed use was ''~ `~ basicall an ex ansion and u ~ Y P pgrading of the existing use on the adjacent - southerly parcel, this use would appear to be appropriate. However, the ,1;. continuous expansion of this facilitp onto adjacent properties might involve ~ '• increased numbers of students and alterations in the parking layout, there- ' '~` fore, the Commission might wish to determine an appropriate time to require "~~` an overall master plan of the entire speech and language theragy clinic on ~^, all three of the properties involved. ::;;`,. c. Mr. william Schmidt, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ~`` and noted that they were receiving so many enrollments in the school for Z handicapped children that they were unable to accept all of the enrollments unless the offices were used for special classrooms; therefore, they deter- mined that it would be easier to relocate all the office facilities to the ,. . *., ' property to the north. .+~t , i , ; 1' ,.: i '' ~ ,, . . .;, . _.. .~_ ~',~ . _ , • ~f . _"r . _ ~ ' - ~ _ ~ . . . ~ ' t _a . ~ ~~ , __.. . ~ . ~ ~' ~ I L) l~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-53.', CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition. PERMIT NO. 1252 (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-157 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1252, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GIACOMO AND AGOSTINA LUGARO, 420 North PERMIT NO. 1254 Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; FRANK L. CIAMPA, Caruso's Italian Deli, 514 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Aqent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING DELICATESSEN-RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues, having frontages of approximately 1,030 feet on Magnolia Avenue and approximately 218 feet on Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to serve beer ar,d wine in conjunction with an 2talian delicatessen having a restaurant which would serve primarily take-out food - however, the applicant was proposing five tables for on-premises serving purposes; and that the Planning Commission would wish to determine whether this use was appropriate in light of existing similar uses on the proparty. Mr. Frank Ciampa, agent for the petitioner and operator of the Italian Deli, appeared before the Commission and noted that there would be eiqht tables and that he would stipulate to no bar; that the hours of operata.~n would be until 9:00 P.M. except on Fridavs and Saturdays when they closed at 10:U0 P.M., and on Sundays they were not opeu; and that it was his intent to serve beer and wine with spaghetti or ravioli since he ran a family-type operation. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-158 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1254, subject to conditions and stipulations of hours of operation and no bar. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. . h, VARIANCE NO. 2277 - PUBLIC HEARING. CORNELIA CONNELLY SCHOOL OF THE HOLY 'i CHILD, 2323 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, Owner; ~ DONALD O. REES, 999 North West Street, Anaheim, California, '':; Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERM?TTED WALL HEIGHT ~ on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ;« ; approximately 6.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 454 feet on the ~r north side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 621 feet, and '~'' being located approximately 870 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street, ., and further described as 2323 West Broadway. Property presently classified ,~ R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct ` an 8-foot, 8-inch high concrete masonry wall at the terminus of Transit Street, ~` which was a 54-foot street dead-ending into the westerly border of subject ~~ ' property; that the petitioner had indicated the masonry wall was needed to ~'. ' ~ ~ _,. ~ . a . -~~~:..~.. . . ~ . . . ~ . .. . _. , ..~ ~f. ,i' , , . . ' . . ". ~ ,.. ~... . . . . - . ..~. ~ , ` ~ , ^~ , . ^ i , ' + ' : ~ ,. I -- ~ ~ ~~ .~~ I . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9~ 1971 71-534 ; VARIANCE N0. 2277 - prevent neighborhood children from trespassing onto the ! (Continued) school grounds since the existing chainlink feace had ~-°-~ . been unsuccessful in deterring them; and that the Commission miqht wish to consider the photographs sub- mitted by the petitioner which indicated the portions of the existing chain- _ link fence which had been torn zawn, said fence abutted private property rather than the public street, and this would appear to indicate that exten- sion of the masonry wall across only the public street portion would be ineffective in preventing trespassers onto the school grounds. Mr. Don Rees, agent for the petitioner, appeared before.the Commission and ~, ~~;'~`i noted that he felt staff had misunderstood their plan since they proposed ~ to have the wall extend approximately 90 feet; that it would abut the rear ~ ~' yards of the neighboring properti~s in addition to the street; that the area ~`` shown in the picture of the fence torn 3own would be replaced by a masonry +~ wall, that the wall was a matter of security for the nuns who feared for their lives, and the wall was felt as an alternative to providing twenty-four hour, armed guard service; and then expressed opposition to the recommended conditions in the Report to the Commission. ~; Chairman Farano noted that the Commission was also of the opinion that Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3 should not be imposed since these appeared to be somewhat onerous. i• 4 Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not the agent felt the proposed wall would be sufficient an3 whether or not it should be extended farther south and nprth. ~i Mr. Rees replied that the property owners adjacent to their property stated they, too, would like i.o have their wall extended along their property lines, _ but he had told them that if they desired to have the wall, they would have to apply for it under a separate petition. However, he had apprised them of the fact that they could extend thp wall to within 5 feet of the property line, and that the Building Department felt an 8-foot wall would be more desir- able than make-shift walls presently existing around the swimming pools where ` a masonry wall of 6 feet was constructed and plastic additions wQre placed '~ on top of them; and that it was their opinion that in the future this 6-foot height would be amended to permit 8-foot high walls. i ( '?I No one appeared in opposition. 3 ~n ~ ^` THE HEARING WAS CLOS'ED. ! '`=.' ~ ., -;'2;, , ~z,~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-159 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2277, subject to development substantially in accordance with plans, deletinq the three recommended require- ments of the Report to the Commission. (See Resolution Book) '. Prior to roll call, Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson :ti asked the CommiSSion that in order that staff would not have to process addi- tional petitions for a similar w~i.ver adjacent to subject property, would the 'i Commission consider clarifying this. Commissioner Rowland stated that since all people adjacent to subject property ~'~ had been notified, if anyone adjacent to the property wanted to construct the 8-foot wall, he should be permitted the same as was permitted under this variance. _ '?~ ; ~ `~ Mr. Thompson noted that the property had been advertised sufficiently broad ;.; ;;~ enough to allow for flexibility so that staff would not have to process W additional variances to permit 8-foot walls abutting subject property. Ka~ On roll call the foregoing resolution ::as passed by the folluwing vote: / AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. =` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~:" ' .~! , , ' ~~' , . `* 1 ~'~ f ~, _: _. ~ _ ; .: . . , t : ,. . .. 's..::. ~" ' ~i . . _ _ 5 ,r _. . .. _ . ~ - '} _ l . . _ ~ . ~ (~~ (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9~ 1971 I _~ - . ~ ~ 71-535 ! VARIANCE N0. 2286 - PUBLIC HEARING. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COP+IPANY, LAND DIVISION, 5480 Ferguson Drive, Los Angeles, California, Owner; E. A. SILZLE CO., INC., 212 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM INTERIOR SETBACK, AND (3) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT ABUT A PUBLIC STREET on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of•land haviny a frontage of approximately 350 feet on the west side of Atchison Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 125 feet, and being located approxi- mately 290 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. .... ~ Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the proposal to construct a 23,500-square foot warehouse facility with the required 27 parking stalls; that the applicant had indicated that in the near future a parcel map would be filed, splitting off the westerly 93 feet of subject proQerty for the construction of this facility; that the easterly portion would remain in the ownership of the Union F~acific Railroad, and since all of the entrances to the warehousing and parkin~ facilities would be across the Union Pacific property, easements would ,~e required to be recorded and filed with the City, indicating permission f:r ingress and egress to this landlocked parcel; that the existence of a sewer line along the westerly property line of subject property had made it necessary for the City to require a 5-foot easement along this line sin~ce the proposed building was currently s:~own on the property line over the proposed easement and enc.roaching into the ultimate width of the existing alley to the south; and that it would appear that sufficient easements could be obtained to relieve the pr~blem of not having frontage on a public street, nor the requested waiver for maximum permitted height would not appear to be too critical - however, the waiver of the minimum interior s:~tback would appear to have significant impact on the adjacent single-; family residences to the west since no landscaping or landscaped setback had been provided along Atchison Street except in the area of the parking lot at the aortherly end of the property. Therefore, the Commission might wish ~ to continue this item in order that the applicant could revise his plans to ` show adequate alley width and to show the setback for the sewer easement along ~' the westerly property line, or wheth~r the applicant miqht wish to stipulate i that the plans would be revised accordingly. ~ Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Commis- sion that the agent for the petitioner had met with the City Engineer to resolve this sewer easement problem. Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that in the meeting with the City Engineer the applicant had indicated the wall would be deleted, however, the buildi.~g would be abutting the property line. Mr. Rex Coons, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission an~i explained the reason for the height waiver, noting that the entire operation was palletized, and if the building were required to be only 20 feet in height, this would provide for only a 16~-foot height use of the building, and by raising the ceiling height, the required fire wall would be constructed; that they planned to store juice and juice products; that the interior setback in the present ordinance was adopted in 1966, approximately 66 years after the subdivision had been created; that the property had been zoned M-1 for many years, and provisions in the Code which set forth the required setbacks has originally adopted for the development in industrial parks, but not for areas that had been zoned and partially developed for many years with M-1 uses; therefore, it was his feeling that the setback was not intended to apply to this area, and if the setback were required, they would have more than one-half the property unusable since it was only a 92-foot width; that the petitioner had agreed that they would conform to lot split require- ments in providing easement access across the tracks; that he had met with City Engineer Jim Maddox and Assistant City Engineer Ralph Pease regarding the sewer line; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Rowland, stated that they intended to use the sewer line for connection purposes; that they would use the Union Pacific spur line tracks for transportation as well as loading of trucks which would drive over these tracks; that staff had indicated there would be no landscaping on Atchiston Street, however, there was only 8 feet between the railroad tracks and the lot, and this was the minimum required for loading into the railcars; that the railroad company would raise the raiis so that trucks and trains could load onto one loading i~:-_ (;~ 71-536 VARIANCE NO. 2286 - area, and part of the agreement with Union Pacific was (Continued) to permit these t rucks to park on the tracks; that ._:.r~. several years ago a similar building had been constructed by the agent for the petitioner in which the lot area was ` used in the same m anner; and that the agent for the petitioner was present to ,, answer questions. - No one appeared in opposition. . ,. THE HEARING WAS CL OSED. , :' ~.- t: ' ••« Mr. Titus advised the Commission that Condition Nos. 7 and 8 would be deleted ~ , ~ and in their stead the following should replace them: ~~;. 7. That the building shall be designed in such a manner that it would not "~~ ;~ ~ impose any additional load on the existing sewer lines ~: ~ 8. That the developer shall sign a hold harmless agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney to hold the City harmless, if in the future, the sewer . line breaks, causing leaks into the building foundation. ,~.; Mr. Coons then stipulated to storing items in such a manner that there would be no weight over the old sewer line. ~':I Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-160 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2286, subject to ronditions and the amended conditions 7 and 8 as set forth by the Office Engineer, and a ;~S' finding that the petitioner stipulated to storage of items so that no addi- tional weight would be placed on the existinq sewer lines. (See Resolution 4~' Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS'IONERS; Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. :~.~, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ' ~',`, ` ': :~ T; s=;; ~i;: :;j: Y: 1,_` R'.; : : .f:! f ' 3lR,'~;'" .' 7 _;:;:?,y r:. ~ -- ,: ~ i i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARZNG. FRANK R. DUTRO, ET AL, Rt. 1, Sox 159-A, NO. 71-72-9 Corona, California, Owners; BOB MC ADAMS, c/o Forest Olson Realty, 7820 La Palma Avenue, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: Seven rectanqularly-shaped parcels of land havinq a total frontage of approximately 540 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 128 feet, and being located approximately 650 feet north of the center- line of Cerritos Avenue and further described as 1336, 1340, 1350, 1358, 1362, ' 1402 and 1406 South Knott Avenue be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ; Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established i.n close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify ' seven parcels from the R-1 to the C-1 Zone; that development plans had not been submitted on all seven individual parcels, and only one parcel was proposed with development plans - that being at the northeast corner of Brady and Knott Avenues, where the owner proposed to construct a 1000-square foot building for lawnmower sales and service near the Knott Avenue frontage, and the existing single-family residence on the rear of the property would remain as a residence; that the Anaheim General Plan proposed subject property as being appropriate for low-density residential use; that these properties were ' considered inappropriate for commercial redevelopment in "A Study of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Y.ighways"; and that some of the primary concerns in allowing conversion of single-family residential zones to commercial zones along arterial highways was the unchecked spread of strip commercial zoninq which diluted the commercial and office-professional potential of more central- ized locations. Mr. Bob McAdams, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he represented Mr. Dutro; that the area in question had homes that were substandard an@ it was not their intent to convert these existin~,; homes for commercial use since they would not lend themselves to that sort of thing; that generally because of the inability of the owners to obtain financinq for building residences or repairing their existing residences, the lenders felt r~~"~ry`s . .. .. . . . _ . . . .. - . . . - . ~. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. . ." ~ . ~ ~~ y . E \ ~'~;,u-'- ~; . ` . _ I _ - - ;,, --- ( . ~ ~ r ( v ~J I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 9, 1971 71-537 RECLASSIFICATION - the high traffic count of the street would not lend itself , NO. 71-72-9 for development of the property for R-1; that they would ~•-~- (Continued) make loans but it would be at a higher interest or for a lesser amount than requested - therefore, it was not practical for the owners to develop their properties for residential use; and that another benefit from the proposed zoning would be tu provide buffezing between the existing resideiices to the east and the high traffic count on Knott Avenue. '' Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the petitioner proposed to utilize only y'~ °'` one of the lots, the one located at Brady and Beach Boulevard, and received an affirmative reply. ~ ! Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. McAdams stated the difficulty in obtaining :.~, loans on the property, hohever, iiid he realize the adjoining R-1 properties would have the same problem since they would then be abutting commercial uses. :I Mr. McAdams replied that physically they would be much better protected from ~!. traffic noises since there would be a 6-foot masonry wall between the commer- ~ cial and the residential uses. ;~i ;. '-i ';Y !'~ ; ~ : ~~ ;3 ;~: af ~ :f' R` .. .~c t'. ~„ ~ ~ ,:::.•R;~t, Commissioner Seymour then stated he did not feel this was a very good exchange as a buffer. No.one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-161 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-9 be disapproved on the basis that subject property was con- sidered as part of the study of "The Problems of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways", at which time the Commission and City Council determined that these particular lots should remain single-family, and to approve C-1 zoning would provide spot zoning; and that no change in land uses had taken place to warrant consideration of a change in zoning. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: j AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ,r RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ETHEL POTTBERG, c/o Rimel, Harvey & Logan, NO. 71-72-5 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; STANDARD PACIFIC CORP., 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard, VARIANCE NO. 2284 Costa Mesa, California, Agent; property described as: ~ An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 7.5 acres lying southwest of the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately 474 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and 314 feet on the west side of Beach Houlevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE; WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOOR AREA, (2) MAXIMUM HEIGHT ~~ITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE, AND (3) MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A ' 201-UNIT, TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal tc construct a 201-unit, two-story apartment complex with access being gained through three driveways along Orange Avenue and two driveways along Beach Boulevard and two ' drives from the new local street alon the southerl ~ g y property line; that the proposed layout was providing carports in close proximity to the unit which the carport would serve, and the majority of the open parking stalls would be provided along the westerly property line; that the General Plan indicated a portion of subject property along the Beach Boulevard frontage as being ~~ . .. . ... . .. . .. ..~~- , ._ _- .ri :~.'. .~_. , . . ~ . ' . . . ~ . . ' ~ ~ .§ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . Q . . _ . , i , :.~i ~ . ! c~ u ~ " MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-538 RECLASSIFICATION - appropriate for commercial development, with the remainder NO. 71-72-8 being appropriate for medium-density residential use - therefore, the zoning request would implement the medium- VARIANCE NO. 2284 density designation; that the Commission might wish to (Continued) consider the minimum distance between buildings to be a technical waiver since it occurred only in two instances throughout the entire project - however, the maximum height within 150 feet of an R-A Zone may be of more concern since the Anaheim General Plan shows the property to the west presently R-A as being appropriate _ for low-medium density residential devylopment which could theoretically be - implemented with the R-2-5000 Zone as well as the R-2 Zone; that the parcels i?`,'r~~',~ to the south, also vacant R-A parcels, were proposed on the General Plan as ' being appropriate for medium-density residential development ai:~l could be `~:. implemented by either the R-2 or R-3 Zones; that the applicant was proposing approximately 38 of the 201 units for bachelor-type, 500-square foot units, ~ and the Commission might wish to make a determination as to whether or not r• this was an appropriate number of units to wai.ve the mii:imum square footage ~'~ requirement; that it was important to note that unlike most large apartment '-, complexes where "gang" parking was located some 100 to 200 feet from the unit ~`L, that it would serve, this project had included parking stalls adjacent to each unit, in addition to providing large, common open areas for recreational use; and that the applicant should be made aware of a condition the Commission attached in the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1097, that being removal of the billboard presently existing on the property at such time as development ~' occured on the property. ';; 'i Mr. James Jones, representing the petitioner and the developer, 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Commission and noted that the project was basically divided into two sections, one which would ..~ cater to family-oriented residences with families having children and who desired this luxury-type, family-oriented complex since there was a great ;`,{ ' need for this type of development, and the balance being oriented toward adult _~ residential use only; that both types of livir.g accommodations would have ,~ their own recreation faciL±ty; that although a reclassification for R-3 had _~ been granted to the property owners on the southeast corner of Beach Soulevard and Orange Avenue, the land was still vacant; that they had attempted ta comply with all of the City's requirements, however, the three waivers were still r;' necessary and had been granted in the past by the Commission; that the proposed bachelor-type units would be in the adult area; that the only way to meet the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the property to the west was ~ to provide all the parking along the west property line, however, it had been ~~~ their desire and experience to provi3e carports in close proximity to the units they served; that their concept of development would provide a more desirable `'~ manner of living than just a place in which to live; that they would be willing tc dedicate 55 feet along the southerly property line for street purposes, and this represented giving up 34,000 square feet of their total development; that although the General Plan projected the property abutting to the west for low- medium density, in all likelihood this would not develop for single-family uses, which was the intent of the ordinance; and then presented a colored rendering of the type of townhouse units they proposed in this development. `? ~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the rental fees to be charged for these units; whereupon Mr. Jones stated they varied according to the units since they had some townhouses with three bedrooms and two and one-half baths, family rooms and patios, which would rent for approximately $235 a month, and ,;,' two bedrooms, having two baths, two types of floor plans, all the units would have fire p„~ ilt in which could rent for $190, with regulation-type, two-bedroom ^unit~or $175; that the basis for proposing efficiency units in the adult area was because they had found many young couples who had no family `< and could not afford to pay 20C to 21C per foot or approximately $165 f.or a one-bedroom apartment; and that these units would provide luxury facilities similar to the one-bedroom but rent for only $125 per month. Five persons indicated their presence in opposition. _..._. ~ Z Mr. Royal Marten, 811 South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting he had appeared before the Commission some time ago on property that was located southeast of the southeast corner of Western and ~ Orange Avenues and had to oppose his neighbors who he had known for many years; ~`~ that their chief objection was the fact that this area. was one of the better `~ : ~ _ . .. `~ , i k- _ ~~t . . .... . i.. , , ~ . : .~ . '. ' ~ ~ .. ~ ~ . -:~ { . 1 ~ ~ ~.J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 9~ 1971 71-539 RECLASSIFICATION - single-family residential areas in the city, and more and NO. 71-72-8 more it had become impossible to find such an area; that the petitioner was proposing to develop units that were VARIANCE NO. 2284 29$ below the standard and still was calling these luxury (Continued) apartments; that there were many homes backing cnto Hayward Street that were high quality residential homes, and most of Orange Avenue had single-family homes; and then reviewed the various single-family tracts in this area, noting that a park was proposed to the west of subject property. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the location of a City park, noting that the City had proceeded with condemnation proceedings for additional property for the park encompassing property to the east of the existing park site. Mr. Marten noted that within this area there were considerable traffic problems which would directly affect subject property, and to inject traffic from 201 units onto both Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard would be compounding this traffic problem; that the Commission had viewed what had happened to Western Avenue north of Orange Avenue, and it was not his intent to release his property for something that would harm his neighbors; that his home was presently located 145 feet from the road, and the noise was considerable so that one could not rest properly, and the addition of cars from this facility would add hundreds of cars to the traffic. Commissioner Herbst noted that the property presently had C-1 zoning. Mr. Marten noted t'.iat it appeared more and more people found it difficult to move into an area where increased density would not be encroaching onto the single-family homes; that although he did not live within 300 feet of the property, he was vitally concerned about what would develop in this area, and if the Commission committed this property to R-3 uses, then the adjacent properties would have the same right; that he felt that planning a city should be for the people, and in order to get the feel of people in an area, people outside of the 300-foot boundary should be advised also. Mr. Carl Hermann, 3109 Rome Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, noting that he J.ived within 300 feet of the property, and they were concerned with what would happen to the property to the west of subject property - whether it would remain R-2-5000 or R-1, or would be developed for more intense uses; that he did not want to see any further deterioration of the rules and regulations already set down by the City, and it was his feeling that this would be a deterioration and detrimental to the remaining propertit~s if R-3 were approved; and that the people were present to make sure that the commitment made by the Planning Commission and City Council that this area remain single-family be adhered to. Mrs. Louise Marten, 811 South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that the area bounded by Beach Boulevard o~~ the east, Ball Road on the south, and Western Avenue on the west and Orange Avenue on the north was an area that had no apartments but was developed with lovely, single-family homes, and this included the new Ridgecrest homes that were under construction at the so•~itheast corner of Western and Orange Avenues, said homes are proposed to sell fo.r around $30,000 and were built on 5000-square foot lots; that these homes would be affected by any two-story development; that since this entire square indicated previously by the boundaries had no apartments, she would request that this be considered a valid factor; that althou;h Hayward Avenue presently was extended from Ball Road northerly, it was bounded on both sides by very beautiful homes which backed right onto Beach Boulevard - however, these homes were well maintained, and Hayward Street could be con- tinued through subject property to Orange Avenue with beautiful, individual homes being developed; that she often walked in this area, and from the appear- ance of the homes, it would give evidpnce that the people were proud of their homes and proud of their neighborhood; that residents of apartments did not have the same permanency nor the same interest in the community that single- family homeowners did, and schools would be affected with the many children that would be residing in these apartments. creating an overload on the schools in the area since there was an elementary, junior, and a senior high school located in this area, and it was not her desire to have these schools filled up with temporary apartment residents. ~ i ~ " . , ~ ti . . . . ~ . . ~. . . . . ' ~ ` , -_- ' .._.. ...__..__..; ra-,,. . , ~ ~ ~ - , . --- ~^- ~ . ~a U 1 _- ----- - i ~ i . . I . -- --- ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auglst 9, 1971 c~ 71-540 RECLASSIFICATION - A letter of opposition from owners of an apartment NO. 71-72-8 complex to the south of sub'ect the Commission, o osin ~ Property was read to VARIANCE NO. 2284 area since it wasPtheirgfeelinedthis~wouldminimum floor (Continued) class developmenL. g Permit lower- Mr. Jones, in rebuttal, stated that the letter in opposi- tion to the waiver of the minimum floor area was the reaction to a typical apartment complex rather than the proposed develo£•~~nt, and the waiver requested was for just a percentage of the units; Lhat he would like to emphasize that tlie units fronting on Orange Avenue would be townhouse-type units, some as large as 1350 square feet, and he doubt•ed seriously that any- one would object to such a large, luxury-type apartment development; that these luxury units would have large, double doors and would give the appear- ance of single-family residential us~s; that the General Plan indicated this property as being appropriate for R-3 or medium-density uses, and the infer- erence by Mrs. Marten that apartment residents were second-rate citizens was also not the type of residents they would wa:.t in this neighborhood or in this apzrtment complex; that most young people started out in apartments since not everyone in their early twenties could afford a$30,000 home; that the traffic flow and problem referred to wa.s being taken care of by the fact that they were dedicating sufficient land for another street having an exit to Beach Boulevard, and t2:e City would like to see this str.eet extended to Western Avenue in order to cut down on the amount of traffic that would be utilizing Orange Avenue; that there would be two access drives which would serve one- third of the development, three on Orange with two two-way drives to the new street; that they had worked closely with sta£f in order to have a proper traffic flow; that their proposal would represent something competitive to the apartment development who presented their opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the proposed street would affect the property on which the Commission recently approved a miniature golf course; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the miniature golf course would be approximately two parcels south of subject property. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether or not the Commission had requested that dedication of Hayward Street be required; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Commission had approved the miniature golf course for the entire depth, which would also include the portion dedicated for the extension of Hayward Street; that the Commission also had a condition of approval that would require the property owners to obtain an encroachmer,t permit from the City so thc:e the golf cour~e could be built over the street - however, when the City CoLncil considered this, the miniature qolf course was approved only to Hayward Street, and the balance of the property was left for R-3. Commissioner Gauer noted that one of the prope~t:es that had the greatest opposition wa~ that located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Brookhurst Street, wherein single-family residents had indicated many dire things would happen to the value of their properties because this was supposed to be a "swinging singles"~e~~ nt ho v r, they were now developing one of the units, permitting ~ to be in there, and from what he had seen~ in his visits to the area, this would be ideal for someone who was unable to handle yard work anymore, and he could see nothing at all that would inc~~.cate that these homes had depreciated because the apartments developed there~ia~ their parking area bermed and considerably landscaped, therefore, he could see no reason for taking into consideration the arguments presented against this development. Furthermore, since subject property was already C-1 and th> developer wanted to develop it with apartments, regardless of whether commercial or residential use was proposed for the property, there still would b~ considerable traffic. Chairman Farano inquired what change in land use had taken place in this area to justify changing this from C-1 to R-3, particularly the easterly portion; that the General Plan did project the westerly portion for multiple-family uses - however, he could see nothing that would justify consideration of reverting from commercial to multiple-family use alonq the Beach Boulevard frontage. ~ ~s +_:-.-~,~+ '; . 'i :x?. ~ _ - ` ~ ~ ; , -------~..___.- ( :. ~ ~~ ~ <~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-541 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst noted that the lack of development NO. 71-72-8 was one of the prime reasons in Anaheim for the requested change since there was entirely too much property which VARIANCE NO. 2284 had C-1 zoning on it, and that everybody having property (Continued) on Beach Boulevard felt they were entitled to commercial zoning, however, this proved to be a fallacy. j ~,:; s+.. . ', ;;M.:. ~ ,.,..`; ~ ~ ; * ~.~e. , Considerable discussion was held by the Commission regarding the General Plan projection~, the proposal, the fac~ that the Commission should recognize that on many occasions the Commission had racommended land assembly of properties to make a better project in the community - therefore, the Commission should consider this as land assembly, although the General Plan did not indicate that for the Beach Boulevard frontage; that consideration should be given to the fact that over the years the Commission had indicated a need to support strong commercial centers rather than a proliferation of acreage commercial development which would occur if the Beach Boulevard frontage were required to develop for commercial purposes as indicated on the General Plan; and that the Commission should continue to reaognize the need for land assembly. Commissioner Seymour noted his concern was the type of development that would occur on the property to the west if two-story construction were apProved, and where would one draw the line on R-3 along the south side of Orange Avenue with so many vacant parcels; and then inquired of staff, regarding the condem- nation of an additional ten acres for parkirr~ purposes for the Twila Reid Park, as to its distance from subject property; whereupon Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the ten-acre parcel was appro±cimately 300 feet to the west of subject property. Commissioner Seymour continued by stating that he was more concerned with drawing the 'line on R-3 development aince he felt that if, in fact, this was approved for R-3, then the property 330 feet to the west would, in all likeli- hood, be requesting R-3 development which might abut a City park, but if this property were developed for R-2-5000 zoning, what type of buffering would be provided for these sinqle-family homes adjacent to two-story R-3. Commissioner Rowland then noted that if the Commission wanted to maintaii, the integrity of the area, then the height waiver should not be approved. Commissioner Seymour then noted that if this height waiver were not approved within 150 feet of the R-A, then the boundary would effectively take place, even though there was a mix of uses there, and if this were not handled properly, the City could wind up with 900 feet of two-story apartments on the south side of Orange Avenue in this particular quadrant. Commissioner Seymour then inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether he wished to consider a continuance to submit revised plans indicating single- story construction along the westerly boundary within 150 feet of the R-A; whereupon Mr. Jones replied that this would be economically unfeasible, and then in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that if he did not have to dedicate for the street, then he would provide the one-story aPartments, however, because the price of the property was C-1 priced, he could ill afford to reduce the density yield for tlie property, and that this would be forcing him to develop the property in a typical manner of aparttnents, which to his way of thinking would not be as desirable for the creation of luxury-type apartments. Commissioner Seymour offered a moti~n to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-8 be disapproved on the basis that the approval of reclassification of subject property with two-story construc- tion would predetermine the zoning of the proper~y to the west a7hich would be abutting the proposed expansion of Twila Reid Park, said property being pro- jected on the General Plan for low-medium density, a density in which R-2-5000 zoning would be permitted on the property, and these single-family homes would not be afforded any visual protection from the two-story apartments if approved. ~ Furthermore, the developer had indicated that it was not economically feasible to develop the westerly portion with single-story apartments due to the cost of ~ the land. On roll c 1 he foregoing resolution failed for a majori , Com issioners Seymour, , and Farano voting "aye"; Commissioners Herbst voting "no". , Gauer, and ~~ ~ ' y ; _a~. _ . ~. ~ - - - • - 1, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 71-72-8 and Variance No. 2284 to the meeting of August 23, 1971, to resolve the tie vote, however, the meeting should not be reopened, and it w~:s requested that Commissioner Allred, if he were to be present at the meet:ing, carefully read the minutes to obtain background information regard:~ng the proposal. Commissioner Kaywood :aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i .1, ^ ;~ ~ :,-. ; ~. .":',. ;' ':~ ,'~i;:, ~~'. ~~ _. _ _ _ _ -- , U / ~ _ f m ~~) ^ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMSSSION, August 9, 1971 71-542 RECLASSIFICATION - Continued discussion was held by the Commission relative NO. 71-72-8 co the proposal by both Commissioners for and against the development, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Herbst VARIANCE NO. 2284 offered a motion Lo recommend to the City Council that (Continued) Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-8 be approved, subject to conditions, on the basis that the City in the past had allowed people in the same position to develop their property, and to deny the petitioner this right would be denying him a privilege granted others. On roll call the foregoing motion lost by a tie vote, Commissioners ~4r~~~i Gauer, and Herbst voting "aye"; Commissioners Seymour, ~h ' voted "no" , ~~ J~~O( and Farano hir. Jones then inquired of the Commission what their interpretation was as to townhouses since the County of Los Angeles had determined that where split- level dwelling units were pro; ~d, these were considered single-story, and their site plan on the westerly portion of the townhouses indicated this type of development. Chairman Farano noted that even though these were townhouses, they were still considered two-story R-3; whereupon Commissioner Rowland noted that the town- houses had no bearing on the decision made since the Commission was consider- ing land use density not the height of single-family or multiple-family residences. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALAN G. CHAPIN, 2727 Greenfield Avenue, NO. 71-72-10 Los i9ngeles, California, Owner; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, VARIANCE NO. 2285 desoribed as68~Anni.rremulariifornia, Agent; property consistin of a g y'shaped parcel of land 5 pproximately 1.8 acres, having a frontage TENTATIVE MAP OF of approximately 600 feet on the east side of Sunkist Way, TRACT NO. 7488 having a maximum depth of approximately 175 feet, and being located approximately 860 feet north of the center- line of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND (2) FRONT SETBACK IN A PROPOSED 6-LOT SUBDIVISION. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide a freeway remnant which resulted 3n the construction of the Riverside Freeway and the Sunkist-Miraloma overpass; that the petitioner was proposing to rezone the propert•; to R-1 and subdivide the property into six lots; that no develop- ment plans nad been submitted for the single-family structures - however, it was proposed to have lot widths of 50 to 62 feet a.nd a minimum front setback of 20 feet; that because of the very unusual shape of the property, being a long, narrow, triangular parcel, the Commission might wish to give considera- tion to the waivers of the front setback and the minimum lot width; and that a 45-foot wide, Metropolitan Water easement paralleled the easterly property line and restricted the buildable area on the site, especially on the two southerly lots, although the minimum lot width had been reduced, the overall area of all six lots would exceed 7200 square feet in area as required by Code. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that seldom had a parcel he had presented had more justification for the waivers requested than subject property; that this was formerly a portion of the mobilehome park site now :.ocated on the east side i , n ., ...., _ .. i. _ , . . . .. , .. . . : - .~-.-~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ .,._ ~.~.: . ~.~.........,~ '!~ . . ^ ~ yi .~-~ ~-~"'' , ~-' . , . .. . . .....~_ _ . .s. . _ ---- .. ~ f ~ : ~ - U MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ _ _ ~~ . isugust 9, 1971 c~ 71-543 RECLASSIFICATION - of Miraloma Avenue; that when Miraloma Avenue was realigned, NO. 71-72-10 this portion was left over; that the proposed homes would face the side-on homes on Sunkist Way; that a 20-foot set- VARIANCE NO. 2285 back was proposed for Lot 6; and that he thcught the Code permitted a 25$ depth of the lot to provide for a setback, TENTATIVE MAP OF which would mean 12 feet. TRACT NO. 7488 (Continued) Mr. McDaniel noted that there were very few single-family zones that the City oE Anaheim had wherein the lot depth calculated the setback requirement. Commissioner Kaywood noted that every reason set forth by the agent for the petitioner as being a reason far granti.ng the waivers were also reasons for not granting the waivers, since this would be a dreadful environment for any residential use, particvlarly being wedged in between a freeway and an over- pass, and to deliberately build samething on property that was excess freeway property, such as was proposed, was a criminal action; that although there were homes abutting the freeway, these homes were there prior to the develop- ment of the freeway and the overpass, and that petitioner was attempting to place homes in an area that was in a less than desirable position for resi- dences and their purchasers. Mr. Queyrel then reviewed the reasons, as set forth in a letter submitted with the petition, for developing these homes, and then in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that he would not purchase a lot for a home in this area. Mr. Alan Chapin, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that living next to a freeway was not exactly desirable since he also lived next to the Santa Monica Freeway, and if he could afford it, he would move elsewhere; however, the State had these extra pieces of land left over for development, and if one went along the Riverside Freeway, one could see many residential homes abuttinq the freeway, a12 homes being maintained, and this was true of most freeways, and he couldn't name any instance where people left their homes because of the freeway. Commissioner Kaywood noted that property owners of these homes had too great an investment, and many would leave if they could afford it also. Mr. Chapin noted that he was an appraiser, and the price of homes adjacent to freeways was no different than elsewhere. Commissioner Kaywood noted that from previous public hearings which the ~ Commission held regarding a proposed freeway, all residents in2'.cated at those ~ public hearings that having homes adjacent to a freeway was less than desirable, and what the petitioner was proposing was deliberately planning to develop property for single-family homes; however, no one had forced the petitioner to purchase this land, the=efore, there was no hardship that would be considered. Mr. Ken Martin, 2428 Romneya Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was in a somewhat difficult position since he did not come in to oppose the zoning but came in to see to it that the waiver of the minimum lot requirement as set forth, in the Code not be granted, and since the waiver would crowd this small parcel of land, although he realized it should be developed for something, he would request that the minimum size of the home be as the Code set forth; that the minimum required parking area be provided; and that after having lived there for a number o£ years, he would rather see R-1 than more intense zoning, as stated by Mr. Queyrel, therefore, he would request that the Commission require that any development of the property for single-family homes be in accordance with Code requirements. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour left the Council Chamber at 6:03 P.M. Commissioner Rowland noted he would agree with Commissioner Kaywood's state- ment that this was a dismal piece of property to develop; that the State of California in selling these remnants and others of this size and shape were creating an environment detrimental to all the communities, and in the best interest of the community that would be served was when these parcels were ~y~, . , i ' . ~,-_ - -- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-544 RECLASSIFICATION - left over, they should be made a part of the off or on- NO. 71-72-10 ramp and be landscaped and maintained by the cities in which they were located instead of having the cities VARIANCE NO. 2285 fall heir to these odd parcels - therefore, in order to create the least disruption of the people in this neigh- TENTATIVE MAP OF borhood, the Commission should require as little density TRACT NO. 7488 as possiblej even though single-family homes might be (Continued) developed on the property, the less residents of the homes proposed, the fewer people would be subjected to this environment. Commissioner Herbst concurred in Commissioner Rowland's ':;~? statements, stating that if one lot were deleted from the tract map, then ~i waivers Erom Code should not be permitted since this would provide for ample 'y space to develop homes; however, said homes should meet Code requirements. Commissioner Seymour returned to the Council Chamber at 6:05 P.M. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-162 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Counail that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-10 be approved, provided, however, that no waivers from Code requirements were granted, and subject to conditiuns. On roll call the foregoing resolution failed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. After further discussion with the City Attorney's representative by Commissioner Seymour regarding his right to vote since he was absent for such a short time, Commissioner Rowland restated his motion to approve subject petition, subject to conditions, provided, however, that no waivers were granted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~ I Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-163 and moved for its passage I and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2285, on the basis that no hardship had been proven and it was important that the fewest possible people be placed on the site in the best interests of the new residents, as well as those presently residing in the area, since the property was environmentally incompatible for residential use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. An„~`?T: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7488 on the basis that the variance petition was not approved; therefore, the tract d.esign would not comply witn Code requirements. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PELTZER, SPRAGUE, SKELTON, PELTZER, NO. 71-72-11 ROSSETTO & PELTZER, c/o Mrs. Urban C. Peltzer, 5138 Serrano Street, Orange, California, Owner; R. T. INVESTMENT, VARIANCE NO. 2287 c/o Lynn Thomsen, 710 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly- CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.3 acres, PERMIT NO. 1253 having a frontage of approximately 575 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 552 feet, and being located approximately 136 feet west of the centerline of Westmont Drive. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~x ~ ~" ._.73: . 1 . . - . . .. . ~ ~ _ - . . . . _ ~ !1. ~ _ .~ror . . _ . . . . . ~'•• . ~ '. .. . _., ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ .. . ~ . . . . ' . . ` ' '.`A ~ ' t ' i , ~J ~ ~ __~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August Q, 1971 71-545 RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION 1- R-3, MULTIPLE- N0. 71-72-11 FAMILY Rf;StDENTIAL, ZONE; PORTION 2- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. VARIANCE NO. 2287 REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION 1- WASVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM CONDITIONAL USE HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY PERMIT NO. 1253 RESIDENTIAL AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED DISTANCE (Continued) BETWEEN BLI7LDINGS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 98-UNIT, TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PORTION 2- PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FE~T OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct a 98-unit, two-story apartment complex, including all recreational and parking facilities required by Code on Portion 1 and a service station on Portion 2, to be located at the northwest corner of the property; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated this area as being appropriate for medium-density residential use, and the R-3 Zone would be one of those zones that would implement this designation, therefore, except for the service station, this proposed use would appear appropriate on the property. Mr. McDaniel noted that the waiver of the maximum height within 150 feet of single-family residential zoned property was necessary because one unit would be located within 141 feet of the residential zone, and the remaining units would be farther than 150 feet from the R-1 Zone to the east; that the waiver of the distance between buildings appeared to be a technical one since it occurred only in a few, isolated instances., however, the proposed service station would be within 75 feet of the proposed muli:iple-family complex, with access to the service station being gained only from Crescent Avenue since the freeway was on one side and the freeway off-ramp surrounded the property on the west; that future plans indicate a Crescent Avenue overcrossinq at this point on the Santa Ana Freeway, and in addition, the off-remp would be closed; that an elevated overcrossing would severely limit access to the proposed service station and since the current abundance of vacant and abandoned service stations was prevalent in Anaheim, this might be cause for the Commission to become concerned about locating a service station having limited access and not at the intersection of two arterial hiqhways. Furthermore, although the plans for the service station did not indicate a sign, it could be anticipated that a large, free-standing sign would be requested in order to expose the service station to the freeway travels - therefore, in liqnt of the above mentioned facts, the Commission might wish to have the applicant consider the feasibility of having the entire property classified for multiple-family residential development as designated on the General Plan. Hr. John 2elstra, 710 North Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and noted he was partner of Lynn Thomsen, t}:e proposed developer and agent for the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst noted that per.naps the Commission could save the petitioner some time if he had read the Re~,ort to the Commission in regard to the service station site, since he and several of the other Commissioners were in con- currence with the statement that the entire parcel be developed for multiple- family residential use rather than proposing a service station on the basis that 15 to 25~ of the service stations in Anaheim were vacant, and the pro- posed site was a very poor location; that the plot plans presented for the multiple-family residential use were very good since they gave the R-1 properties a 20-foot buff_r, however, he would like to see the entire parcel be developed for R-3. Mr. Zelstra stated that the service station would be similar to the one that was located at Wilshire Avenue and Loara Street and would serve both freeway vehicles and local traffic; that he had discussed the overpass with the representatives of the City and State - however, he could get no definite date or plans as to the proposed overpass, just a tentative idea, and one of the plans indicated a change in the on and off-ramps which would bisect subject property, and this, according to the State, was six to eight years . . ~~ __ ,'C'~,: , ; _ i --_ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 71-546 RECLASSIFICATION - off, therefore, he felt they should not be denied the NO. 71-72-11 right of the use of their property for the next six to eight years; that ~ince this was a problem site as an VARIANCE NO. 2287 off-ramp from the freeway, they had engineered the units in such a manner that they would ba~k onto the freeway, COND2TIONAL USE and the walls were sound-engineered without any openings, PERMIT NO. 1253 and in addition to that, it was proposed to have closets (Continued) and the kitchen on the westerly wall, thus providing a second wall between the living units and the outside wall; that this entire complex would act as a buffer to the balance of the project from the freeway, buffering the noise; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Rowland, stated that they were propos- ing structured concrete for the 20-foot wall. Commissioner Rowland stated that this was one instance in which he felt the y~: City should exercise some ar.chitectural control by requiring some form of landscaping or architectural treatment to min±mize this long expanse of ` concrete extending almost ~'i51 feet. ~ Commissioner Seymour concurred in statements made by Commissioner Herbst .~, regarding considering the entire parcel for R-3 instead of holding out the small parcel for a service station; that the developer was proposing a worth- ~' while buffering treatment for the R-1 properties to the east - therefore, he might like to consider a continuance in order to include the C-1 portion into ;r~ the R-3 development. Commissioner Herbst noted that they had denied a similar request on the property to the northwest of subject property, on Chippewa Street. Mr. Royal Humphrey, 1830 Westmont Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted he was not really in opposition to the R-3 Zone, but he was in opposi- tion to the service station proposed since there was no need for a service station because there were two of them within one-half mile of subject property, and eight within one mile; that he would agree that a stark appearance of a blank wall could be helped with some landscaping, but he would like to make a recommendation regarding the second-story units facing the R-1 where patios were proposed to extend 10 feet from the building, since these would be very small, and since this would represent 208 of that area, there would be consider- able outdoor living, therefore, he would suggest that the patios be partially enclosed and so oriented if used for storage that they would not be viewed from the single-family homes to the east. Commissioner Rowland noted that with the line-of-sight and intervening build- ings, these balconies would not be visible. _~ : ':' '":~ :;.^ : 4:: ;;~ ~-:: ;~ ; i .,:~» ~'~ e...~. ~. . . Mr. Humphrey noted that his property was raised 3 feet above the level of the adjoining property. Commissioner Seymour noted that it would depend upon the size of the trees that were proposed to be planted in the 20-foot buffer strip whether or not this balcony would be visible; therefore, if the trees were high enough, this would give the single-family homes more privacy. Mr. Humphrey stated that he felt this would be an advantage to their homes, but would also be more attractive. Commissioner Seymour then noted that perhaps the applicant could advise the Commission as to the type of trees that he planned. Mr. 2elstra stated that as to the balconies, these would be two-bedroom apartments and would be more than the minimum required by the City oE Anaheim, and they would be glad to make this enclosure-type railing instead of open- grill type; however, as to planting, they intended to berm the area with contour-type berming, and no specific la.^.3scaping plans were available, but they would make the size of the trees adequate. Commissioner Rowland noted that if subject petitior. were continued, since the "straw vote" indicated the Commission was of the opinion that the C-1 would. not be approved, that when development plans were presented, the petitioner should redesign in order to eliminate the 9-foot encroachment into the 150- foot required setback from the R-1 Zone. _ . __. _.._.___._. .__ _.,...,. _. .. ~ -~ i. - --- -- ~r' ' ` _ `'"~,,'t;Y~ E '•''x , ~ ~i , ~ . ; . ; ~ , -. ~ t~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 9, 1971 ~ ~ 71-547 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Zelstra noted that only one unit was affected, and N0. 71-72-11 just one-third of that unit, and they proposed to have no windows ii; Lhe upper area of the unit - therefore, VARIANCE NO. 2287 there would be no visual intrusion from this apartment development. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 7.253 Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue considera- tion of Petitions Reclassification No. 71-72-11, Variance No. 2287, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1253 to the meeting of Segtember 8, 1971, in order to allow time for readvertisement of Portion 2 to incorporate it into the R-3 2one and for the developer to submit development plans for that portion of the property for R-3 zoning, and to further indicate the type of landscaping proposed along the 632-foot, 20-foot high wall proposed along the freeway frontage. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 830 (Lynn E. Thomsen) - Request for approval of revised plans - Property located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, west of Euclid Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action estab- lishing a private elementary school in a residential structure originally having 30 students and increased to 50 students on February 14, 1968; that the applicant had submitted a revision of plans to allow a 912-square foot office building to the rear of the existing residential structure which was now being used for the private school; that the proposed structure would meet the requirements of the R-A Zone as far as building loaation was concerned; that the applicant stated the office addition to the school would be used to accommodate office space formerly within the main structure - howeved, there would be no additional students because the existing office space was much smaller than the proposed addition; that the applicant did not indicate nor were there any provisions on the property for parking spaces for staff inembers of the school; therefore, if the revised plans were approved, they should be subject to the requirement that parking spaces be provided at the rate of one space for each employee, and that no increase in the number of students be permitted beyond ±he maximum number of 50 already approved. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve revised plans, provided, however, ~ that parking be in accordance with one space per each employee, and that no increase in the number of students beyond that already approved of 50 be permitted. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 VARIANCE NO. 1912 {Fredrick Development Corporation ) Request to permit increase in sign height - Property located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, known as Granada Square. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the loc;ation of subject property and the request of the petitioner to increase the sign fram 25 to 35 feet as per sign approved in Variance No. 1912, wherein waiver of the minimum distance between two free-standing signs was approved to erect an additional free-standing sign; that there was a total of three free-standing signs on the property; and that since the Sign Ordinance permitted a maximum of 35 feet in height for this sign, it would appear the request was reason- able. Furthermore, the applicant stated the reason for requesting the addi- tional height was because the landscaping planted at the time the shopping center opened had encroached into the readerboard area of the sign, and the applicant stated that it was their feeling-it would be more zppropriate to increase the sign height, especially since it was within the permitted height, rather than removing sone of the landscaping along the street front- age and within the parking area of the shopping center. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve the request for an increase in sign height t~ 35 feet since the Sig~ G~,rdinance would permit this. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~„ . . .,, . , _:. , . _ - , . .. ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . ~ ~ . . .. i~ ~ . . - -._ , ~c.: t.xr='' '.t~. .,. _. ~ ~ . .. . ~ - . ' ~~. ~ ~ ~^~ . . ~ ~ _ ' '. ~ . . . ` _ . . _ ._ .. i. ; , __. . ~ ..., ~ i f' : ~i..~ `~.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A~lqust 9, 1971 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 3 i'. RECOMMENDATIONS POLICY OF THE PLANNIN6 COMMISSION RELATI (Continued) PERMITTED NOI9BER OF CONTINUANCES. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the Report to the Commission _ relative to the maximum number of continuances and the suggested wording of a ~ policy. _~ Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and '., .;~ ': ' ;;,;' ~.~ " :~;,. ~ ~';~ ~ ~C! ''~ MOTION CARRIED, sub~ect to the approval of the City Council, to establish a policy as follows: IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF THE FLANNING COMMISSTON to rant one continuance on zoning applications at the request of the applicant, and the Commission may grant two continuances at their own request in order to consider revised plans. Subsequent requests for continuances beyond that time MAY result in the item being taken off the agenda and readverti.sed later at the acnlicant's ex ense. ITEM NO. 4 Work Session regarding establi$hing priorities for projects reques'ted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Discussion was held by the Planning Commission and staff regarding the list of projects submitted by staff that were being processed in the Planning Division regarding the priorities each project should have, and upon its conclusion, Chairman Farano stated that since it was so late in the day and the Commission should review the projects in depth, perhaps a work session should be scheduled. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that staff could further elaborate on the projects prior to a work session in order that the Commission could be fully apprised of the importance of each project. Chairman Farano, after discussion with staff and members of the Commission, set up a work session for the Planning Commission to be held September 15, 1971, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ANiv KREBS, Secr tary ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION r , i ~ ~}•'- ~ , . -'y: ~~;:~:~ Q _. ~ ,~ ~i ~.- -,~,. i,:5 ~; r'' ~ { 4' ~t ~ ~ ~~ _ i ' ~ i i ., . .. .~. ,~f. . .._.. . ., .:,r t _,..,.._ .. ~-4 , i ~ ~~~ ~ :,f( r f; ~ I ~ ~ ,.. J ~ ~ . , ~ i: F i~a~ y r;~ ~t ;~~ r i r t 3~ ` ` , ~- ; ; c i ~ r .' t f ' ~s - - ,r ' li - f ~" r ~ _ ~ L _ ~~ ~ :i;_ i ~~'.;' t : '' ~ : - . ,. . . . ,.. _ t.. _ ' x ~~ ~ } t }r x ~ _ ~ ~ ~ . ~?~~ i.~..~ :-.~, i_ Lc_., F : ~.~. ~. ... . .c.,: f..'. .,. '..... , K t ~, y, 1 J ~~ a .:~F_ r . , _ . ._.__ . P