Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/10/04ro~ c~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ w 0 x w ~ o.. A I : F+ _ N \ N ~O. J ' . . . , t. ; ,.. . _ .. .i. . .. . ..... . . . ~ } ~ , . .. .. ~~ .• . . ~. . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . , ~ ~ r ~: .-... .~~ .. y . . ... . . .•.:' ~ ~ ~ . ~ .. ..' . ~ ~ . .. . ~ . . .: . ' ' '. .: ~•' ~.i .. .. . . . . ~. . ~ .. ~ ~ - . . :: . .. .: : . ~ _ , ~ ~ .. . . :. . . . . . . . . - . .. . . ~ .. . , ~ . . . . . ., , ., .. . ' . . ' ~ ' ' . ~ . . , . . . . . ~ .. , . . . . ... . ~ . .(.,. .. .. ... ' . ~,:~~ . '." ' ~ '..,' ' .. . . - .. . ..~ ... ~~ ~ . . . . :~.. .. . .. ~~ ". . . . .. . . ' ~ 1 . . r • ~ ~ . . . . ~ . . . . . . .. ~ . ~~ . .. ...~ . ... .:.. ... ..-:... ~. ~ ~ : . ~. ; . . .. .. .. . . ,~ ~. n~-...~.~- j ' . . . . . .. . .... . ' . . ~ . . . '.. ' . - . _ ~ . f - _. . .. _..w- - ~., - ` - ~ d i ~ ~ ~t ~ , V ~~:/ ~ ~ City Hal.l Anaheim, California October 4, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being.present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN; Farano. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTES of the September 8, 1971, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: Pg. 71-572, para. 9, line 5- word should be "proposal" not "proposed". last line - add word "station" to end of page. Pg. 71-574, para. 3, lines 2 and 3 should read: "with the Sign Ordinance requirements. Whereupon Mr. Jamison replied that it was their i te to c 1~ t ~ O rd' nance. a Pg. 71-575, para. 3, s.ne I- ele •e ' a~ i~e £~lso't'Y Pg. 71-582, para. 3, line 1- should be "Mrs.". Pg. 71-5~8, para. 4, line 1- Commissioner Herbst, not Rowlaiid. Pg. 71-593, para. ~, line 12 - should be "bona fide" not "fona fide" . Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes of the September 20, 1971, meeting subject to the following corrections, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED: Pg. 71-603, para. 7, line 2- delete "would some" and insert "did any", Pg. 71-604, para. 9- Commissioner Gauer voted "nc:", '3. 71-615, para. 10, line 2- delete "since" and insert "if". line 3 - transposition of "hospital"; delete word "too". TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport TRACT NO. 7471 Beach, California. ENGINEER: Toups Engineering, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. Subject property, comprising approximately 35 acres located on the north side of the future extension of La Palma Ave*~ue, south of Esperanza Road and easterly of Imperial Highway, is proposed for subdivision into 184 R-2-5000 zoned lots. 71-625 ; i 7 ,~~ ~ ~ ~.' :...~... . ~_ i ~} ~ .^ 1 ~ i _.- . .:;. ,~,,.: ;~ ~ '' ;~~ : ~. 1 : . ;':; ' i ' / ~ ~/ t~ MINUTES, CITY Pi,ANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7471 (Continued) 71-626 Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDar.i21 reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the reason why subject tract was continued numerous times, and the fact that staff had received an exhibit from the County which delineated the alignment of La Palma and established the boundaries of the proposed Yorba Regional Park. Said exhibit has not been acted upon by the Board of Supervisors but has been favorably recommended by the County Department of Parks, Highways and Flood Control. Mr. McDaniel concluded by stating that although the applicant-developer was aware of this recent exhibit, he was interested in having his proposal conform to already-approved tentative tract maps on adjacent properties. Therefore, the tract map before the Commission conformed to the patterns established through approval of tentative tract maps in this area, even though it did not conform to the County's current proposal for La Palma Avenue and Yorba Regional Park. Mr. Larry Matzick, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission noting he was available to answer questions; and that the Report to the Commzs- sion reflected his feelings regarding consideration of subject tract map. The Commission inquired what tl:e developer planned to do if the alignment of La Palma Avenue was different than proposed on the tentative tract map. Whereupon Mr. Matzick replied that he wanted the tract map approved in a similar manner as other maps had been approved in this area; that the Planning Comonission's consideration of the tract map had been continued numerous times because the County continuously ealled him to advise him of a new alignment; and that he decided that the only way the alignment would be adopted in final form was for some positive action to be taken by the City of Anaheim. Ccmmissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not this wouldn't be wasting money, time, and work on the part of the developer if the southerly end of this tract were to be included in the Yorba Regional Park. Mr. Matzick replied that when the alignment of La Palma Avenue is adopted, and when other developers presented revised tract maps to conform with this align- ment, then he, too, would submit a revised tract map. Further.more, current proposals are to design La Palma Avenue to be approximately 2 feet above the Flood Control levee. La Palma would then act as a buffer and would minimize flooding problems which the Flood Control District have indicated would affect subject property. Therefore, he would like some action on the tract map so that he could have some direction; and that he did not feel having this action taken would be a waste of time. The Commission noted that stu>ject tract had been on the Planning Commission agenda seven times already; therefore, they felt some action shauld be taken since it appeared that the alignment for La Palma Avenue would be resolved, anrl the develope•r would then have to conform to this new alignment. Further- more, this ~aas only a tentative tract map, and conditions would have to be met for final approval. ~ Commissioner A12red offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. ?471, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Kaywood voting "no" on the basis that the new alignment of La Palma Avenue ~ and the boundaries of the Yorba Regional Park would be established shortly; therefore approval would only mean the developer would have to present a ; revised tract map before development could occur), subject to the following ; conditions: , (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7471 is gra.nted subject to the completion of Rec].assification 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. '~~ F : _ , f . ~ ~ -) ;~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 7,971 71-627 TENTATSVF7 MAP OF TRACT NO. 7471 (Cont?nued) (4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitt~ed ~o and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the of~ice of the Orange County Recorder. (5) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (6) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determ~ned to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (7) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openinys, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (8) ~hat drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include provisions for accepting and transporting runoff through the tract from any upstream tributary area. ; `, ', ~ - :i '. -: . .-: . t > ;;;'. , ..~ .~ ,, _ *~ ~c . (9) 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. (lU) That final disposition of the well site adjacent to Lot 76 shall be provided for in a manner that is satis£actoxy to the City of Anaheim. (11) That any application for an encroachment permit for the irrigation line across "J" Street shall be filed concurrently with the submittal of the final tract map. (12) That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, accept- able to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control District. (13) a. That the developer shall submit to the City of Anaheim an irrevocable offer of dedication for Lots 1a, 2a and 169a through 184a abutting La ~alma Avenue, said irrevocable offer shall be accepted by the City of Anaheim within thirty days after recordation of the final tract map. In the event Lots la, 2a and 169a through 184a are not accepltc~d by the City, said lots shall revert to the developer to be fncluded into the abutting Lots 1, 2 and 169 through 184. b. ~'hat if Lots r:~, 2a and 169a through 184a are accepted by the City of Anaheim, tiie developer shall install a 6-foot masonry wall on the south property line separating Lots 1, 2 and 169 through 184 .from Lots la, 2a and 169a through 184a. c. That if Lots la, 2a and 169a through 184a are not accepted by the City of Anaheim, they shall become part of Lots 1, 2 and 169 throi~gh 184 respectively and zhe developer shall, in accordance with City Council policy, construct a 6-foot masonry wall on the south property lir_e, separating Lots 1, 2 and 159 through 184 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable lanclscaping, includi.ng irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway tYie full distarxce 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 landscapinq. d. That the City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption of maintenance in the event Council policy changes. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r Tl ~ -- ------.. `+ f9 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONA~IISSION, October 4, 1971 71-628 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, PERMIT N0. 1257 445 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California, Owner; HR^~TAGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, 227 North Magnolia to ESTABLISH A PRIVATEeriFOUR-~XEAR, LIBE1RAL ARTS~COLLEGE onqpropertyPdescribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Muller Street, having frontages of approximately 660 feet on Crescent Avenue and approximately 764 feet on Muller Street, and further described as 1900 West Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONES. Subject petition was continued from the September 8, 1971, meeting to allow time for the petitioner/agent to meet with staff to develop an alternate traffic pattern. " Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of ~aubject -_ property, uses established i:, close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal, noting that subject petition had been continued ; from the September 8, 1971, meeting to allow time for the petiticner to meet ~ with staff to determine an alternate circulation pattern for the establish- ~' ment of a four-year liberal arts college having an initial enrollment of 750 . ~ students and a projected maximum enrollment by 1980 of 5,000 students. ' I Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation of the proposal, noted that there ~ was a virtual void of both east-west and north-south circulation for the quadrant baunded by Brookhurst Street, Crescent Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue; that at s~u,ch time as Crescent Avenue was to be extended over the Santa Ana Freeway, it was proposed to have a one-way link from Crescent Avenue to Muller street bordering subject property, which could severely limit access ; to the proposed parking areas on Crescent Avenue; and that subsequent to the last public hearing on subject petition, the petitioner's architect had . ! revised the plans with an alternate solution to the circulation problem which met with the approval of the Traffic Engineer. Furthermore, four ten-story -1 dormitory towers would be located within 80 to 100 feet of R-3 property to .~ th~ southeast, whereas Code would limit this height to one-half the setback distance, or approximately 50 feet; however, the towers would be well within ~~,s Code when related only to the single-family homes to the south. Mr. Paul Liefeld, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~¢niss~on and stated that the traffic circulation problem had been worked out to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; therefore, he was !:I ~ available to answer questions which the Planning Commission might have. Commissioner Herbst inquired how much parking would be needed for the ten- story dormitories that were being proposed; whereupon Mr. Liefeld stated that the dormitory building proposed near the athletic field would be placed on stilts so that additiona3 parking cuuld be provided for that portion of the dormitory proposed. ;; Mr. Liefeld, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the towers were relocated so that traffic could flow more easily to Muller Street, and s the parking requirements for the approximately 2,000 students - less than "j half of the projected student enrollment - would be residing in the dormitories, and that the parking would be in compliance with Code requirements, however, there was an excess of parking to the classroom requirement. Furthermore, a college student body could not be compared with the student body of an i elementary or high school where tlie entire body would b~ in classrooms from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., since the classes in college would be in operation from 7:30 A.M, to 8:00 P.M., and seldom, if ever, would the entire 5,000 students be on campus at any one time because of a staggered class schedule. Commissioner Gauer noted that the qymnasiw;: was a considerable distance from the athletic field and inquired why this couldn't be moved closer; whereupon Mr. Liefeld repliec7 that it was more important to move the parking. Further- more, the gym was no greater distance from the field tlnan others he had noted in other colleges or universities. ; Coimnissioner Kaywood observed that it was possible many students living on + campus would be needing transportation to and from their jobs which they, in all likelihood, would have to have; therefore, there would be a need for ~ more parking. Whereupon Mr. Liefeld stated that a considerable amount of ~ _ - = '°°~L-:~.-~ -_ `_ •'...._.,.. ~ ~ f ~~ V ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1257 (Continued) 71-629 employment of students would be on campus in food serving, maintenance, office work, etc., therefore, students would be primarily located on campus. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not the representa.tives of the school anticipated having more than 5,000 students. Whereupon Mr. Liefeld stated he could not envision more than 5,000 students at this location. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not the petitioner/agent would stipulate to a maximum of 5,000 students since other private schools appeared to be coming back to the Commission requesting the Commission to approve an increased enrollment. Whereupon Mr. Liefeld stipulated to a maximum of 5,000 students. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-192 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1257, subject to conditions and the stipulation by the petitioner/agent that there would be a maximum of 5,000 students in the proposed college. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farzno, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: None. ABSENT: CONIlKISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WARREN J. TER BEEST AND PERMIT NO. 1262 ELWOOD D. TER BEEST, 12132 Blackme^: Street, Garden Grove, California, Owners; THOMAS E. SHELTON, Alpine Civil Engineers, Inc., 17612 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 242-SPACE TRAVEL TRAILER PARK FOR RECR~ATIONAL VEHICLES WITH A MANAGER'S APARTMENT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 8 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Ball Road and West Street, having frontages of approximately 405 feet on Ball Road and approximately 397 feet on West Street. F~roperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZON~. Subject petition was continued from the Sepfember 8, 1971, meeting to allow ; the petitioner time to revise plans. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon MeDaniel reviewed the location of subject ; property, uses established in cJ.ose'proximity, the proposal, and the reason for continuance of subject petition, noting that the revised plans indicated all spaces would be 20 feet wide rather than a portion being only 16 feet wide; that 14 spaces were also pr~posed for extra long trailers; that 110 camper spaces were still proposed having only 600 to 620 square feet rather than the 800 square feet as proposed in the Travel Trailer Park Ordinance; and that a landscape median at the entrance was not being provided as required by said proposed ordinance. ' Mr. Thomas Shelton, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the Report to the Commission summarized their amended proposal, and that ;;hey now had 221 spaces compared with the original 242 spaces. Commissioner Allred observed that he was an owner of a trailer and had ' occasion to park the vehicle in var~~us parks, therefore, he felt the ~ proposal should have spaces where the-re would be easier ingre~ss and egress, rather than backing in or out of a space, and inquired why th?~ could not ' also be provided in the proposed tr~,iler park. ! Mr. Shelton replied that this was the decision a developer must make in the I beginning, and the reason they did not propose this was because with the exception of the travel trailers parked around the perimeter, which would be pulled in or backed in, all otl:ar pads s,ere pull-through; that it was their feeling there would be adequate maneuvering area, and to provide pull-through ~ 'k^,.= ~F..:..~,.... . . ,.. ~ , . . .. -. . ~x _ ~... .J..t~~ ~ _. • t-.. ' _ . ' .~: . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . , . . ~ ~ ' ~ , `~-~' ~~ M~NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 CONt~ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1262 (Continued) 71-630 for all pads would reduce the number of spaces considerably, and there would ~ be more than one space Fer row lost; and that they had pursaed this sugges- tion when mobilehome parks designiiig were considered eight to ten years ago, ,~ pertaining to 90-degree parking. , Commissioner Kaywood inquired how the proposed layout would affect the land- scaping if drivers of these vehicles required more space for maneuvering. Mr. Shelton replied that accorcling to their plan, between each trailer space 25~ of the site was landscaped, and that there was a minimum of 25 feet at each end for maneuvering purposes. Chairman Farano indicated that 25 feet was not very much if one had evar tried to park a trailer into a space; that he had been driving this equipment for some time, and it was always v~ry di£ficult to get into a space wher~ or.?..y a small maneuvering area was provided, and at times he had some trepidation as to whether he could park the vehicle in the allotted maneuvering area - therefore, if he had his choice between a straight pull-in and angle parking, he would prefer the angle parking because it would save him thirty minutes plus c~nsiderable exasperation. Mr. Shelton noted that the patio area could also be use~l for a maneuvering area, and that they had considered the pull-through ?ngle in the first stage of planning but had discarded it. Then, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that approximately 15$ of the spaces would be lost if there were angle parking spaces. F'urther discussion was held between the Commission and the developer regard- ing the method of layout to reduce the maneuvering problem, even though there would be spaces lost. THE iiEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution N0. PC71-193 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1262, subject to conditions. Prior to roll call, Commissioner Kaywood asked whether the petitioner woulc~ ; stipulate to the replacement of any trees or shrubbery damaged or knocked ! down by trailers trying to maneuver into and out of a space. Whereupon ? Mr. Shelton stipulated to permanent maintenance of all landscaping and replace- ~ ment of any damaged lanclscaping. Commissioner Kaywood then requested this be a finding and a condition of the motion just offered by Commissioner Allred; whereupon Commissioner Allred accepted the additional condition. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: :.OMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - pUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. DOUGLAS BLACKBURN, 317 PERMIT N0. 1265 North Philadelphia Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; LOUISE BARTELT, 241 Sherwood Place, Cos~ta Mesa, California, t~` Agent; requesting permissior_ to ESTABL7SH A BOARDING HOUSE ~~ FOR THE AGED FOR SIX GUESTS IN AN EXISTING DWELLING on - pro~erty described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 90 ~~ feet on the west side of Philadelphia Street, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 13b feet, and being located approximately 155 feet south of the center- ' ? line of Adele Street, and further described as 317 North Philadelghia Street. ~1 - Property presently cla~sified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed tne location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal as set forth ' in the Report to the Commission. R'; .+L`! , '. ., , • - - - ..y . . - _ ..~ , ... ~. , ~ ~ ` • ' _ : b,.x-: e ~ _ - . . ' ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ MINZJTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONj October 4, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1265 (Continued) ~~ 71-631 Mr. McDaniel further noted that based on statements made by the agent for the petitioner, the proposed use would appear not to be detrimental to the surrounding area. However, the Commi.ssion might wish to consider the long- term effects of this kind of resid~ntial conve.rsio:i in the 3owntown area since this could be the beginning of a trend that coi~ld stall any possible re- development of the downtown core area for higner density residentisl or commercial uses. Fur.thermore, the applicant should be advise3 that the Building Code would not permit occ~apancy of the second floor of the existing residence if converted to a boarding house, whether used by the guests or the operators, unless a second exit were provided. rilr. Allan Bartelt, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Conanission and stated he was available to answer qLes~ions, since the petitioners~,_v~ e unable to be present, and the agent for the petitioner was his sister~ ho w uld be operating the proposed guest home, together with his wife, one or the other being there all of the time. Commissi.oner Kaywood inquired what would happen to a guest who was in apparent good health at the time the guest became a resident and later became ill - would this guest have to leave the facility? Mr. Bartelt replied that the guest would have. t~ go to a convalescent home since they would have only ambulatory person~ as residents there. Chairman Farano inquired how these persons would spend their time if none had automobiles. Mr. Bartelt rep].ied that they would either be indoors, on the porch,.,.in the yard, or walking around the block. _. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that he would like to make Mr. Bartelt fully aware of the fact that na one could live on the second floor unless a second exit were provided. Whereupon Mr. Bartelt stated that since this was a requirement, they, of course, would have to provide this outside staircase, and he would so stipulate. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not a time limit should be established for the use. Whereugon Commissioner Herbst stated that this would be one of the quietest use~ for this residential area; that there woulc: be no auto- mobiles, and the guests would be ambulatory but would not be going anywhere; and that there was a definite need for this type of facility in the city - therefore, he r.ould see no reason for establishing a time limit. Commiss~oner Herbst offe,red Resolution No. PC71-194 and moved for its passage and adoptiori to.:g'r.ant'~~Petitiori.~for Conditional Use Permit No. 1265, subject to condi:tians,' and'~the'stipulatiori by the•petitioner and a condition that if the second floor of this residence were prbpose.d.to be utilized either for guests or the operators, that an addizional outside entrance would have to be provided. (See Resolution Book) ., ' On ro].1 call the foregming resolution ~:as passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CONIlKISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. . ., ~ ....--~......~ . _ ~i ~~ ` ~Q a ~ _ i ~ ~ ~ , :t~2?'Lr'I'y~, CTTF PLANNTNG COMMTSSION, October 4, 1971 71-632 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SAMUEL MAGID, P. O. Box 5032, Beverly PERMIT NO. 1266 Hills, California, Owner; F. R. MECKES, dba OUR HERO SANDWICH SHOP, 1711 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to have ON-SALE BEER IN ~ AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property uascribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel ~f land consisting of approximately 8 acres geaerally located at the , northwest corner of Euclid Street and Ball Road, having approximate frontages of 750 feet on the west side of Euc~id Street and a20 feet on the north side of Ba11 Road. Froperty presently classified C-1, GENERAL CONa2ERCIAL, ZONE. _ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the ;.,, <~ property for a similar use, ar_d the proposai to serve beer in conjunction ~ _'' ' with the serving of food in an existing restaurant which was a separate building from the main shopping center complex; and that although the two ~~' ; previous conditional use permits were denied by the Planning Commission this was because they proposed on-sale liquor within the main shopping complex, _ and the petitioner was proposing to serve beer in a separate building within ~ this shopping complex. Therefore, the Commission might wish to consider ', whether or not this request was justified in this location. ? ~ _~ Mr. Sam Ma id the ~ g, petitioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated the present use of ~he property was a sar.,dwich shop. ; Chairman Farano inquired whe•ther or not a bar was planned. Whereupon Mr. Magid ~ state t~h~ t there would be no bar; chat the operator of the restaurant served ~ ~ hoth e~ef~'and pastrami. sandwiches, and it was natural for customers to want to have a glass of beer with these types of sandwiches; that the operator of this ~ facility was a very good restaurant man, and even without beer, he had a very ; good operation; that there would be no bar or any stools, but the beer would -~ be sold in conjunction with the sale of food; that there was no place for a ~ bar or any ~emblance of a bar in this facility; that the waitress would serve the beer at one of the tables at the time the sandwich was served; and that a he would stipulate to no bar or stools. :i ~:~ Mr. Magid, in response to a question by Commissioner Herbst, stated that in ~ "•' the past when he was approached to have a beer bar. in the shopping center, he r' had turned down any proposals during the six years that he was the owner, but ~ r_'~ perhaps the previous owner had made requests for a beer bar or on-sale liquor; 3 .°-~~ and that there would be no sale of beer only, since the beer could only be + '~ ~• ~`~~ ~~, served together with food . s ~ !-~? i~ Commissioner Gauer noted that several similar type operations were boarded up, ' ;:~ ;~ and this could be a trend for similar requests from other sandwich operations. ~-~' ~' Mr. Magid replied that this had always been a successful operation and was ;,~ located in a building where Dinah's Chicken was formerly located; however, ~, that operation was not successful because of the competition with Kentucky Colnnel Chicken, and the restaurant was successful without the sale of beer, however, they wanted to accommodate their customers who had requested beer ~ with their food. ~ Chairman Farano noted that the reason why the Commission was as;cing so many ~''~ questions was because this use went with the land, and i8 the present operation closed down, the use would still be permitted. ,o ~' Mr. MagiB replied that in the past.he.had a number of •requests for beer bars, ' and he had never permitted them. Therefore, he would~so stipulate or have _ I •it written into the lease. ~°• - Chairman Herbst inquired whether there was a way in which the CQmmission could '•^ be assured that this would not turn into a beer bar by requiring a stipulation :;;, that the serving of beer was incidental to the serving of food. Deputy City Attorney ~rank Lowry statied this could be a condition and stipula- tion by the petitioner, Dut he could not see how they could be enforced. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Commission, in the past, had made it a requirement of similar operations, that the serving of beer be only , incidental to the serving of food. ~,' , .f~ "~-•---_--...-----__.._....__...__~__ ___ _. _ ., . .. --__. .. . . _ _-- -__ ___ - .- _'r:;.-' , ~_ - ,,. , . ~~ ._ °-_ ~~ ,~ _~t . . , ' _ ^5 d ^ / ` , --- _ _ -----.~._ _ --.._. . _ _ _.- ------ , ~ _ _ _ __~ {~ ~ ~ . , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 71-633 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1266 ~;Continued) ~ Mr. Magid then stipulated to serving of beer only with the serving of food. Mr, Robert Meckes, agent for the petitioner and operator of Our Hero Sandwich Shop, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in ag~eement with the conditions set forth in the Report to the Commission, as well as the require- ment that the serving of beer was incidental to the serving of food. Further- more, he had gone through a similar request when he operated the Cafe Carrousel located on East Street several years ago, and it would be very difficult to • change this facility into a beer bar because its size was too small, being `~ "'" " only 20 by 60 feet. r1Y !: No one appeared in opposition. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLO _ SED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-195 and moved for its passage , and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1266, subject to conditions and the requirement that the serving of beer shall be incidental -~ to the serving of food, and findings that the petitioner had stipulated to no bar or stools and that on-sale beer would be incidental to the serving of food. (See Resolution Book) : On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ku , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; Allred. ~; ABSENT: CONII~SISSIONERS; Rowland, Seymour. >y r,~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLI C HE ' PERMIT NO. 1267 A~NG. THE OWEN CON~ANy~ 700 Wilshire Boulevard, - 1~ Suite 530, Los Angeles, California, Owner; VICTOR K. HARDIN,; : 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; ~ requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY WITH WAIVER OF THE biIN2MUM RE(~UIRED LANDSCAPING on + ( property described as: =~ An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a ,i maximum depth of approximately 329 feet, and being located a pproximately 670 # ~~ feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as being ! immediately north of and adjoining 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property ~( presently classified M-l, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. + aI ~ `~ ; Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ' ,,, property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the _ ; properties in the area in which subject property was located, and the proposal { to expand an existing automobiZe sales and service facility on the adjacent ~ property, as set forth in the Report to the Commission, noting that the proposal indicated the required 50-foot building setback as well as more than ; the minimum required landscaping in the front setback was being provided. ~ Mr. McDaniel, in evaluatin the of an established use in this area~along~Anaheim Boulevarda thatctheeMplnZone '~ ~ required the planting of one tree ner„10,000 s u visible within 200 feet of an arterial highwayq ho.wevert other~automobile dealerships along Anaheim Boulevard in the M-1 Zone had not been req.uired to meet this standard, therefore, this waiver might be considered techriical. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the proposed body shop would be visilile ,;. from Anaheim Boulevard and adjacent property, the Commission might wish to ,; ' consider requiring a masonry wall along the north boundary lines as well as :.s the westerly boundary which was within 200 feet within Anaheim Boulevard. ,~~ Chairman Farano requested verification tliat other automobile dealerships were not required to meet the tree requirement as set forth in the M-1 Zone; ~~ whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that these dealerships pre-dated the area development plan and/or the M-1 ordinance. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the requirement for M-1 storage ,; or parking area prior to 1966 required 2~ of the interior area to be land- `;; scaped, however, it was felt that in most instances only low-growing shrubs at` ~~ i. ; ' ~.~ __...._..... _ . j':F"~' . . .~: :, . , ,..._ ... . . _. . . . ._ .. . .. 1 : ... .. . . . . . _ . ; ~ . ' ~ ~ ~. . ~ .. . ~ .. . . - ~~ ~ ~'. -:a3.t~' l~ .. . ... ~ -- . , _ .. .. . . _ ~ ' .. . . ~ _a ~ ^ ~ ~.. .ya . - . _ ___" . ._ ._. _ _. _.. "_' " ' _"'".__'".~. ~.._ . . ... _ _ ~~ ,l ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 7~.~634 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1267 (Continued) : were planted, which did not provide an effective treatment or reduce the asphalt appearance as the Commission and City Council had intended - there- fore, this requirement was amended to require one tree per 10,000 square ,.- feet of storage or parking area. ~ Mr. McDaniel noted that many of the other dealerships were in the C-2 and ' C-3 Zones. Mr. Vic Hardin, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer ' , ~ questions. ,i j ?T :.'.i:'z-•, . 1 The Commission inquired of Mr. Hardin his reason for not wanting to plant ~ ,; trees; whereupon Mr. Hardin stated that trees would shed their leaves on the ~! ~~:. new cars that were parked, as well as create a generally untidy appearance I , for these new cars. ~ ~. Co~nissioner Gauer noted that he could see very little landscaping in the ~ - plans, and in the past when properties in this general area were being con- 2 ~~i sidered, Buzza-Cardozo Company - who had one of the most attractive M-1 i ~~ landscaped areas in the city - requested that the City require more land- scaping for these automobile facilities. ! ; Mr. Hardin noted he met the requirements of the area development plan by providing 10 feet and wanted it to be harmonious with the existing facility '~' to the south wherein 6 feet of landscaping was provided in the front setback, while 2$ of the balance of the area had trees planted. '~~ The Commission then inquired whether or not the agent would be opposed to ;f~ providing a masonry wall where the storage of other than new vehicles would be viewed from Anaheim Boulevard. .;~ Mr. xardin replied he would be opposed to a wall where e~: osure would be ~~ along Anaheim Boulevard since the building they proposed would be 350 feet '~ from the street, and he could see no reason to fence this building in. Commissioner Herbst noted that adjoining M-1 property was undeveloped; '~ ;~ therefore, subject property would be viewed from the street, which was undesirable. , `~ , Mr. Hardin, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the first 100 feet would be devoted to the pa~:king of new automobiles. ` :'~,, ,~ Coimnissioner Herbst , in reviewing the plans, noted that approximately 300 feet would be exposed to vie~a from Anaheim Boulevard. :4., i! Mr. Hardin then stated he wo~uld not be oppose3 to providing a wall along one u S1C1@. ~: ~: Discussion was then held by the Commission as to the amount of wall which ,.~~ should be provided, whether or not a chainlink fence with slats could be - provided for a portion of the property not exposed to Anaheim Boulevard, - and whether or not the wall should be stepped down to 30 inches in more than _ the front setback of the property. ':i: No one appeared in ogposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~' Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-196 and moved for its passage T and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1267, provided, },,~- however, that a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along the westerly line of the northernmost portion of subject property directly south to the southern- most portion, then directly west to Anaheim Boulevard, stepping down from 50 feet from the easterly boundary of the wall to 25 feet from the front ` property line, said wall gradually stepped down trom the 6-foot height to t.' 30 inches in the front setback. t :' .~c ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;_ ,. • .~~ • ~ , 1 s - _.. - _ ~ , ' ~ ~. .. ..., . _ ~._, ~y:-. : ~, ' , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1267 (Continued) Prior to roll call, Commissioner Kaywood inquired of the petitioner's agent whether or not he would agree to providing a chainlink fence with redwood slats along the northerly portion adjacent to the bank; whereupon Mr. Hardin stipulated to providing said chainlink fence with slats. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not Commissioner Gauer would accept an addition to his motion and require the chainlink fence with slats along the northerly portion of subject property; whereupon Commissioner Gauer concurred in said amendment to the motion. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. VARIANCE NO. 2293 - P?7BLIC HEARING. A.S.A.W.A. CORPORATION, 806 South Beach noulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permis- sion to ESTABLISH A MOBILEHOME SALES LOT WITH WAIVER OF THE R~QUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL AND PERMIT THE USE OF A MOBILEHOME AS AN OFFICE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre, having a frontage of approximately 175 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 270 feet, and being located approximately 150 feet north of the center- line of Rome Avenue, and furiher described as 806 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CONIl~RCIAL, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established ir~ close proximity, pr~vious zoning action on the property, and the proposal to utilize a portion of subject property for mobilehome sales, noting that the portion behind the existing residence would be graded and surfaced with gravel for the storage and display of new mobile- homes, and a mobilehome would be used as an office and would be located near the Beach Boulevard frontage in conjunction with an asphalt parking lot for six cars. ._~ Mr. McAaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that previously-approved plans for an impound yard indicated the area for automobile stor,age to be asphalted and landscaped, however, the current plan submitted for the mobilehome sales indicated a graveled surface with no landscaping for the sales area, and in ~ecent requests for similar uses, the Commission had required them to provide landscaping adjacent to abutting streets, in addition to landscaping the interior of the sales area - therefore, a similar requirement would appear ap~ropriate in this application; that due to the nature of the use and the surrounding land uses, the waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall adjacent to residential uses would appear to be very critical; that the wairer of the requirement that all uses shall be conducted within a building was being requested because a building was defined as a permanently-located structure having a roof, and all forms of vehicles, even if immobilized, were excluded, to utillze a mobilehome as an office should warrant special attention by the Canani~sion,since this also had been a consideration in previous applications for mobilehome sales lots, ttie most recent in which the Con¢nission had imposed a one-year time limitation. However, the Commission should be aware of the possibility of establishsng an undesirable precedent for other uses in other zones by allowing mobilehomes as permanent office structures;:and that the appllcant should be advised that the wiring in the mobilehome office wouZd be required to meet the Building Code relative to commercial structure wiring standards. Mr. Bi11 Asawa, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that under a previous variance they had requested permission to establish an impound yard, however, after making a thorough investigation, this use was determined not to be practical; that the school that had been proposed in the existing building was in operation; that he had a client presently 1o~ated in Santa Ana interested in establishing a mobilehome sales facility on an interim basis until the petitioner was able to construct a commercial building; and that the property was preszntly vacant, therefore, he would like to utilize the property for the time being. ~. ~~ -. ...,,..... . -- - _ ~, - _ .. -_ '" - - , ti .. _ . , - , +~ . ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ W MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 '~~1RTANCE N0.' 2293 (Continued) ~ 71-636 Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the c~titioner would landscape the property in accordance with the previous variance approved; wherei,~pon Ntz'. As~wa stated he Would do whatever the Commission required. - Commissioner Kaywood noted that nothizig had been done as to l~ndscaping which was a requirem~nt of the zoning; whereupon Mr. Asawa stated the zoning for thosebconditionstsetaf~,arthtthat were~notdneededWtoebeucomnlete obtaining zoning on the property. Providing P d prior to Chairman Farano noted that part of the granting of the variance was proof that the petitioner ~,r~as not enjoyinq the same rights as adjoining properties and other showings set forth in the variance section of the Anaheim Municipal Code; therefore, ~e would like to know how the petitioner propc,sed to prove the variance was needed. Mr. Asawa stated there was no proof that he would be deprived of a use of vacantoperty, such as adjoining properties, however the property would remain Chairman Farano noted that this had nothing to do with the required showings; whereupon Mr. Asawa stated it was a request to utilize the land until the use proposed took place, and that he could not prove there was a hardship. Chairman garano then inquired whether the petiti.oner proposed the mobilehome sales as an interim use; whereupon Mr, Asawa stated that it took some time for commercial land to develop, however, he did n~,t plan the mobilehome sales as a permanent type of use, only as an iziterim use. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the manner of landscaping which the pro- spective tenant had in Santa Ana; whereupon Mr. Asawa statea this property in Santa ,'a,na Was an existing commercial lot and the use was permitted, however, he was aware that some lands~aping would have to be provided to meet Code, and that they had the entire Beach Boulevard frontage landscaped. Commissioner Kaywood again reiterated that there was no landscaping as of the time of her visit to the property the previous day, and that when the impound yard was granted, the petitioner had also stated a thorough investi- gation had been made to determine the feasibility of the use. However, now he was stating that the impound yard was impractical. Co~nissioner Gauer inquired whether the petitioner praposed to landscape thz mobilehome sales lot in a manner similar to the exhibits Mr. P,sawa replied in the affirmative as it pertained to theefrontaoftthehlot. Coitm~issioner Gauer further inquired whether these mobilehomes would be moved on and off the lot, or would all models remain; whereupon Mr, Asawa replied that a11 those mobilehomes in the rear of the property would be moved. Commissioner Gauer theu stated that the request might not be tao objectionable if a good landscaping plan had been submitted, but to consider the request as proposed would be something the Commission could not tolerate since these mobilehomes would be movefl in and out, with the unitsrnotuhaving any skirting or landsca in , P~ g, which would be a definite detriment to the area. Mr. Asawa stated that the models would be skirted, as well as some landscap- ing along the Beach Boulevard frontage where the mobilehome office was planned to be located, and the rear portion wculd not be visible from the street. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the petitioner had no landscaping presently on the property, even though zoning was granted, and the proposed use would be an v~ndesir~le encxoachment into a highly desirable residential ar~a. Discussion was conta,nued by the ~etitioner and Commissioner Kaywood regarding '~e ty~e of deve7,opment in the area and the various proposals by the petitioner. No one a~peax+ed ~ks~ o~pos~t:lon, THE HEP~RTNG WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ . i ~ .. . .. / ~ . ' . .. , ~ ,- .. / ~ -'___ __.._.... ..___'._...1... .. _.. .._. _____ ~~ V~ ._'.__-_'"____"__'_.__-_.'__ "'_'_"_...._ .... ~~ -Yc~c:'a, ,~,~ ;~,_;.„ ;r; ... 1 .~ ~ ~ , ~~kc a MINUTES, CTTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 71-637 VARIANCE N0. 2293 (Continued) Coimnissioner Kaywood offere~ Resolution No. PC71-197 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2293 on the basis that the use was not permitted in the zone and would be detrimental to the residential environment of very attractive homes immediately adjacent to subject property, particularly since the petitioner propoced not to provide the required masonry wall; that even witY. a wall, the view of the mobilehomes would not be blocked from view of the residents of these homes; that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed; that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances applicable to the property as stated by the petitioner or to the zntended use of the property that did not apply generally to the property or class of use in ~khe same vicinity and zone; and that the requested variance was not necessar~ for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Rowl.and, Seymour. V?~RIANCE N~• 2294 - PUBLIC HEARING. BENJAMIN NIEWINSKI, 623 North East Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; CHARLES M. BOLANDER, 1705 permission to WAIVE THEWMINIMUMtLOT WIDTH ANDCMINIMUM1LOTAAREA~TOePERMITng SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the west side of East Street, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 112 feet, and being located approximately 429 feet north of the center- line of Sycamore Street, and further described as 609-611 North East Street. Prope.rty presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to divide an existing parcel into two lots and move on two single-£amily residential structures with detached garages; that the homes would conform to the minimum ' floor area and setback requirements in the R-1 Zone; that access to the ~ would be provided from an alley to the rear of the property; that the Anaheimes : General Plan indicated this area as being appropriate for commercial- professional uses, however, the majority of the existing uses in this area along East Street were single-family residential units; and that the existing lots in the vicinity of the proposal ranged in size from 5170 square feet to 8030 square feet, with frontages of from 47 feet to 73 feet, and, therefore, it would appear the requested waivers were appropriate in this area alony East Street. Mr. Charles Bolander, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Allred inquired whether the pictures presented of homes in the file wera to be relocated onto these two lots; whereupon Mr. Bolander replied in the affirmative. Chairman Farano noted that the Planning Commission did not approve house- moving permits, this being the prerogative of the City Council. Zoning Supervisor Charles R:.berts advised the Commission that the petitioner already had a request before the City Counci]. for said house moving. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-198 and moved for its ~assage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2294, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~,~~ ...~ ~.,~, ` f _• ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,- MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 71-638 ~ VARIANCE NO. 2294 (•Con.tinued) ~ : On roll call the fo~egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: • AYES: CONIIKISSION~RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. , NOES: COMt~iISSTOIv1~,RS: None. ABSENT: COMidISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CARL M. BERG, ET AL, 5523 North Burton _-. .:. NO. 71-72-17 Avenue, San Gabriel, California, (Mvners; BUTLER HOUSTNG :~-`~. ..,,;: CORP., DOUGLAS HOON, 2263 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ?' ~ California, Agent; requesting that property described as: '~ A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres ~~ ; generally located at the southeast corner of Kraemer Boulevard and Orange- ~~ thorpe Avenue, having approximate frontages of 1,250 feet on the south side 1 of Orangethorpe Avenue and 150 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard ~ be reclassified from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. _ 1 Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to establish a 68-unit, multiple-family apartment ~ complex comprised of 17 fourplex units; that the plans indicated a 21-foot '~ alley along the flood control channel, which would provide access to the ''~ garages proposed to be located on the south side of each lot; that a tentative ~ map had not been submitted with this request, however, one would be required ~ for the propasal; that the Anaheim General Plan projected the area under !~ conside3_ation as being appropriate for industrial development as part of the "~ D~ortheast industrial Area; that because of the unusual shape and size of this ~~ parce.l, this could tend to discourage a major industrial tenant on the property and could encourage a form of strip industrial wherein only smali industrial :j compl~xes would fr~nt onto Orangethorpe Avenue, and together witti the fact that N the Orange County Flood Control channel was located on the southerly boundary ._~ of the property, this could be considered an effective buffer between indus- trial uses to the south and the proposal. Therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether the long-standing policy of not encroaching into the :~ industrial area and preservation of the integrity of the industrial area should •:~ be upheld. ~ , [ Mr. Merrill Butler, representing the agent for the etitioner a P , ppeared before '~ the Commission, noting that he had the property in escrow pending zoning with the Berg family; that under Butler-Harbour Company he had built several thousands of homes in Anaheim; that the proposal would establish an inter- mediate-type dEVelopment between the single-family homes on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and the industrial area to the south of the flood control channel; that they were proposing 17 fourplexes; axid trat the colored render- ings being presented would give the elevations and plot plan. Furthermore, only one three-bedroom unit was proposed for each fourplex, which would be the single-story portion of each fourplex with two-story units in the rear; that there would be no windows facing Orangethorpe Avenue, therefore, no invasion of privacy would be experienced by the residents on the north side ' of Orangethorpe Avenue; that they planned to sell these fourplexes, and usually - the owner would live in the three-bedroom unit while renting out the other units; that normally he would agree that the integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area should be maintained, but in this instance where property had `' a street and single-family homes on the north, a street on the west, and a ! flood control channel on the south, it would appear that the proposed use ~ would be more appropriate; and that they had made a marketing study which ~ indicated there would be successful sales for this type of facility. ~ ~; Commissioner Herbst inquired what type of treatment was proposed to screen '' the Orange County Flood Control channel since he was concerned primarily with protecting the industrial integrity of the area, not the residential properties. Mr. Butler replied that a chainlink fence existed, but they would consider i constructing a 6-foot masonry wall, although in the past the Orange County Flood Control District had expressed opposition to such a wall. ~ ,` ~ ,. ~ ._. . _. ~. _ 4_, _ - ~~ - ~, A , • 4~ r;~::-, ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ • NlTNUTES, CTTY PL,ANNING CON~iISSION, October 4, 1971 71-639 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-17 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst observed that the City recognizec," ±*;~.c::, - was the best buffer between residential and industrial uses, and ':. ~" ~.;~r: :,.~~; ~, ~~,Qner proposed to back up to the channel, he would expect the devew;.xx:r-~ ~•,~ , ~; ;3~ the neces- sary protection to the industrial property rather th~::~ rh. -,:~:.:~~,-~se., since this would be an encroachment into the industrial ar.:::, ;~::~*,.~: y`~ *:~c~ the developer proposed to sell these fourplexes, this would be a di~~`•~s ~~.~~.;~:; 4~;...~ situation than normally experienced because this would be someone's home for at least ..-:,,,_ one miit - therefore, a 6-foot masonry wall would be necessary, and in addi- '"~'- tion to that, a landscaping treatment of trees and other high shrubbery ;1 ~ , should be provided. `~ ' kir. Butler inquired whether Commissioner Herbst was suggesting a line of trees ,{. along the rear as well as the tree they proposed to plant for each ]~t in the ~_ E; front. ~ Commissioner Herbst stated-he hazl always considered this entire area as prime , industrial property; however, since the area already had encroachment of ~' single-family homes on 5000-•square foot lots and in order to maintain space ; as an adequate buffer between residential anGt in3ustrial uses, perhaps the i Comnission should consider the Orange County Flood Contr~l channel as the ~ buffer line, and since the proposal was an enaroachment into the industrial ~ area, the developer of the R-3 property then should be required to provide , the necessary screening techniques if subject petition were approved. ,~ Mr. William Phelps, the designer of the project, appeared before the C:::tanission ~ and reviewed the proposal, noting that the proposal would have five~car garages :._~ for each fourplex; that courtyard areas were grovided internally, both for the second floor and the first floor; and that because of the depth of the -~ property, it was possible to request waiver of the required front yard setback in order ~o provide more buffering in the rear, as suggested by the Commission. -i -i Commissioner Herbst noted that because it was just as important to provide •the proper living environment, since this development had a balcony overlooking the flood control channel and the prospect of industrial plants to the south of the channel, it was his opinion that it would be advantageous to the people living in these units to be able to look at the trees and shrubbery rather `i than a ditch and industrial plants. 'E Discu$sion was held by the Commission and the designer regarding the possible `'~'~ reduction of the front setback to provide additi.onal space for the landscaping along the south property line. „ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Cammission that according to the ' - plans there was a 25-foot setback, whereas Code permitted a 20-foot setback; therefpre, there would be no need for a variance, and the second story proposed ~ was 153 feet from the single-family homes to the north, therefore, their build- ings could be shifted 3 feet farther. to the north, which would be adequate ~ : space for landscaping proposed along the south side by the Commission. '.:~i Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that there would be trouble ~vith the maintenance of the property between the alley and the flood control channel, and the City did not want to assume the responsibility of maintenance of the landscaping. Therefore, he would suggest that this be a private alley, and mutual easements could be recorded which, then, would place the responsi- bility of maintaining the landscaping on the individual owners of the four- plexes. Mr. Butler commented that it would be a problem to keep the alley clean if it were a private alley, but this was not an insurmountable problem. Mr. Titus noted that the City did not normally maintain alleys throughout the city; therefore, it would be assumed this alley, too, would not be maintained. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not it was proposed to have windows from the second story facing south; whereupon Mr. Phelps replied there would be only kitchen windows since the bedroom windows would face the courtyard, and then reviewed the plans of the second-floor units for the Commission, noting further that t~e courtyards would have 50 feet between buildings, and the ~ { ~a .,._.,;., , _ ,t,,,. ,..._. , .......r~ ,..:_:--- . . , ... -..:. • . ., .. .., : . . _-. „! Yii~ '~- ~~;ti. { ` _ . ~ ~ ~ ~ -- _..__-----.: __._ _L.__ ~.! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMT_SSION, October 4, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-17 (Continued) staircase would be into the larger courtyard. ~ 71-640 A letter of oppositon from North American Autonetics opposing any further encroachment into the industrial area was read to the Commission. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. - Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted for the Commission that the City Attorney's office did not accept public alleys where said alleys would have ,;, :'~ walls and landscaping on the opposite side, particularly where maintenance ~ of the landscaping would be required. Therefore, he would suggest that the ;~; ;~. property line be continued to and through the wall, and that mutual access easements for ingress and egress be entered into by the owners. : ~ - Mr. Butler indicated this would be agreeable with him. Co~nissioner Allred reguested that the Commission discuss this proposal before '` any action was taken by the Commission; that he would agree with the state- ments made by Autonetics that this wo~:ld be further encroachment into the industrial area; that sev~~al years ago the industrial area was extended all the way to Crowther Avenue, but after a request for R-3 zoning h~ad been denied ~ by ~he Planning Commis~ion and approved by the City Council, the statement was ~ ma~7-e by the Council thnt the M-1 boundaries should be held at Orangethorpe ~ Avenu~ - now it appeared the Commission was considering moving this boundary to ilie flood control channel - even though there was vacant industrial property to the south, the City would now be jumping across Orangethorpe Avenue. Therefore, would there be any reason to deny any future requests from the proper~ies to the south of the flood control channel for residential uses. ~:~ Furthermore, since Commissioner Herbst had always requested that the City maintain the integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area and subject property ' tou7d be developed for M-1 with many small units that he had seen develop j before off major streets, there would be no more traffic problems presented than if this property were developed for R-3; that as long as the City had ~ gone ttsis 1on~ in maintaining the integrity of the industrial area and its i `' boundary at Orangethorpe Avenu~, he could see no reason for permitting any ~~ further encroa~ahment to the south. ~ ; ~ Chairman Farana observed that usually when properties had been separated into ' ,,~ two individual par~els by way of the flood control channel, in all likelihood .,~ the property owner having given up his gr~perty to the Orange County Flood ';;~ Control District I~ad received ample compensation, and because of this sub- divison, there was very limited use for this property, and there might be problems in developing it for M-1 uses. Commissioner Herbst then stated that if he thought the integrity of the industrial area was being violated, he would be against this, but as he looked at this property, he could not eiivision this as industrial property since the City Council deemed the property to the north for residential uses, said _ action had affected the types of uses that could be placed on subject property. Furthermore, the R-3 could provide additional buffering for the single-family . homes, and he could not think of any other parcel in the Northeast Industrial Area which had the same type of problems. In addition, there would be no additional traffic from either this use or M-1 use, and since the developer ~ had indicated he would plant trees in addition to constructing a wall, this . f would provide additional buffer~ng for the residents of these units. ;. ; ~! Mr. Titus, in response to a question by the Commission rec~ardinq eminent ± ~' domain for the flood control channel, stated he did not kiiow whether this method of acquiring the property had been used by the Flood Control District, but he could assure the Commission that the owners had been amply compensated for the land accordingly, Chairman Farano then observed that maybe the property owr~er to the south ~ would state he would provide the 60-foot buffer strip if g•ranted R-3 - this, then, would mean further encroachment into the M-1 area, a:~3 where would it all end. R : .~ ~l'~ ;C .,. ~. ~ .•I .:. ~:.,;~ .f '; ' •~' _, ~ 1 ~ ~ `1 ~ ' ~ I , .,, ~ ={ '' . .1 . . . . ~ ~ /:._.. ..,.. _: .- ..._.`_. __.... . ~ ~ ~' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 4, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-17 (Cont~nued) 71-641 Commissioner Herbst advised Chairman Farano that this was not likely since economics would dictate how the developer could use the property. Further- more, in the past he had been very adamantly opposed to any encroachment into the industrial areas of Anaheim, ar_~? the proposal could be similar to that considered by the Planning Commission and City Council for the property an the south side of Ball Road, east of State College Boulevard. Commissioner Allred stated that if the developer had proposed this as a planned unit development and retained ownership in the property rather than proposing to have 17 different property owners, then he might give this more favorable consideration, but he had seen so many of these types of four to eight-unit complexes sold off - for instance, those on Jefferson Street - which became an eyesore to the residents and visitors in Anaheim, and he would not vote for any similar type of development in Anaheim any more, and that since the City for several years had retained Orangethorpe Avenue as a boundary to provide the necessary buffering between the residential and industrial uses, it should remain that way. Commissioner Herbst noted that his only concern in considering R-3 for subject property was the fact that the plans originally presented and considered acceptable by the Planning Commission were never developed, even though Mr. Butler indicated he would be the developer. Commissioner Allred offere3 Resolution No. PC71-199 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-17 on the basis that this would be further resi- dential encroachment into an area designated and set aside for industrial development; that the City Council in the past had designated Orangethorpe Avenue as the logical boundary between the industrial and non-industrial uses, therefore, this should be maintained in order that the existing industrial complexes and future industrial developers might be assured that no incompatible land uses would be mixed with the industrial development, since noise, odors, dust, hours of operation and traffic problems inherent with industrial develop- ments made them incompatible with residential uses; and that the area should be retained for industrial development. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was gassed by the following vote: AYES: ~COMMiSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Itaywood. NOES: i~OMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: ~ODiMISSIONERS: Ro~~land, Seymour. WORK SESSION - Chairman Farano inquired of Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson haw staff was progressing with ' material which the Commission had discussed at their last work session, so that another work session could be scheduled prior to meeting with the City Council. Mr. Thompson stated that because of a shortage of staff, not too much progress had been made. However, if the Chairman wanted another work session ir. the very near future, he would try to rush these projects along. i Chairman Farano, after di~cussion with the other Commissioners, set a wnrk ' session for November 3, 1971, at 7:30 P.M. I SPECIAL REPORT - Deput~• City Attorney Frank Lowry noted for the Commission ,I that the special report requested by Commissioner Seymour ~ ; was available, but since Commissioner Seymour was not ~ pres~nt, he would de£er presenting the report until the i next meeting. j ~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. ~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ` The meeting acljourned at 4:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~. ~ ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary ~: Anaheim City Planning Commission ' ~__, ._.,~. ~ _ _ .. . r " ~ . . . - • :.aty;- _ i . , y i - , ~ - i ~ ~~ ~ .,,:~~ ,~ ..~ :-.--~ _ _~.,.... ~ ~ ~