Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/11/29_ ` - , ~~ ~ ~ J ~~ City HalJ. Anaheim, California November 29, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 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. k 'J '~~ } ~ ; ' ~ COMMISSIONERS: Allre~, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowlattd, ~ fi ~j f ~ Seym'our. _j I , ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. ' PRESENT - Assistant City Attorney: • John Dawson 1~' ~. ' 2oning Supervisor: . Charles Roberts • ' Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry ;~. : ~ Office Engineer: ~ay Titus -. ~ r Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel ~~ Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ~'r ^ ~ . PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to th ~ . ;;. ? ALLEGIANCE Flag. e ~s, y; ~ APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Approval of the minutes of the d f November 15, 1971, meeting was , e erred to December 13, 1971. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY AND LOUISE BOISSERANC, +t' ~: NO. 71-72-20 7372 South Dale Street Buena Park California, Owners; . Y`~ JAMES E. RODGERS, Westfield-Urban Company, 6151 West ~p,~~,,,~° CONDITIONAL USE Century Boulevard, Suite 928, Los Angeles, California, ~"~ ~ PERM2T NO. 1277 Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped 2•..:'~~ parcel of land consisting of approximately 17.6 acres ~r ~4-~ TENTATIVE MAP OF located at the southeast corner of the Artesia l'reeway ~ P ~ TRACT NOS. 7657, and Dale Street and having frontages of a ~ pproximately i ;~;3 7658, AND 7659 1,300 feet on the Artesia Freeway and 651 feet on Dale '~ Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, I _~'>;,I~ AND M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONES. I +.;: REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. , J4 ~ _ j REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A 186-UNIT CONDOMINIUM ~ DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM SITE AREA, ~, ~ (2) MINIMUM SITE WIDTH, (3) REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS ~ < ` ~~ HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET, (4) MINIMUM ~ ,~ DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (,ri) MAXIMUM HEIGHT ~~k WITHIN 150 FEF.T OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I ZONE, AND (6) REQUIREMENT TO ENCLOSE STORAGE AREAS. I ~~ 'a TENTATTVE TRACT PROPOSALS: No. 7657 - 62 R-2 zoned lots; ! No. 7658 - 66 R-2 zoned lots; and ;;.-''~ No. 7659 - 61 R-2 zoned lots. ~ ' +.ti ;r Subject petitions and tracts were continued from the meeting of November 15, ; : 1971, to allow time for the developer to meet with City of Buena Park officials ~°' ` regarding the proposal. ,~' ; ~ ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the developer had requested an additional two weeks' time to revise his plans after having met +' with representatives of the City of Buena Park. ,' ; t. ~ 71-726 w, ;'.I~t %i. >. `. I~. ~~ ~..:- , y . -r.... . . ~ . . . . . . ' . ~ ~f. ~~^ .~. -..~ :':~ ~ M1 C . ... ...' ~~ ~., .i ,I ;, ~ a r -. i - ~ . -_ i- = _ ~ ~. . .., ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-727 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7657, 7658, AND 7659 (Continued) r. '` Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to r_ontinue consideration of Petitions ~ for keclassification No. 71-72-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1277, an3 Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7657, 7658, and 7659 to the meeting of December 13, 1971, to allow time for the developer to revise plans. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. DSOTION CARRIED. :s~~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORP., 1665 +:;:r; NO. 70-71-64 South Brookhurst Street, :~naheim, California, Owner; :;:`"% property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of k:;. ; CONDITIONAL USE land consisting of approximately 15.2 acres, having a ~ BERMIT N0..1247 frontage of approximately 1,526 feet on the north side :_ _ ••of Walnut Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approxi- ~, •" TENTATIVE MAP OF inately 600 feet,•and•being located approximately 6,000 ~ a TRACT N0. 7444 feet southeast of Santa~Ana Canyon Road. Property i• ~ presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, ,r; YI `~ DISTRICT. i~.;```.=~ REQ~JESTED CLASSIFICATSON: PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, 20NE. r; ~ v ;~' REQUESTED COTIDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A PLANNED RE32DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. + ' ;-~ . r";' :..~E °' TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 25 + at ~',r':=::;'rj S?NGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND 51 CONDOMINIUM LOTS. Subject petitions and tract were continued from the meetings of June 28, July 12, September 8, and October 18, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner and staff to present alternate plans for the realignment of Walnut Canyon Road and for the submission of revised pxans. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that Anaheim Hills, the owners-developers, had submitted a letter requesting withdra•wal of subject petitions and tract, ~~, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant the petitioner permission to I ithd M1, ~V w raw Reclassification No. 70-71-64, Conditional Uise Permit No. 1247 and i , Tentative Map of Tract No. 7444, thereby ter.minating ~311 action on the ~ ~ ;..~. petitions and tract. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i,~;~ ~;~. STREET SEC~ION STANDARD PLAN NO. 122 ' ;' 'ti FOR EQUESTRIAN ESTATES ~ ~_ " Zoniag Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that an item that was scheduled to be ~` • ` ; considered later in the day might be considered by the Planning Commission ts '~ .'j ;. prior to other public hearing items since representatives of Anaheim Hills `:; were present. : r i , ;~ Chairman Farano then stated the Commission would consider Standard Plan No ? " .,~' . 122, establishing street section standards for equestrian estates and requested th t a Office Engineer Jay Titus review this. Mr. Titus then reviewed the street standard layout for equestrian estates ` ^:~ , noting that the Engineering Department had met with the City of Orange repre- ser..tatives to develop a street section which would be used by both cities and ' ~, ,` would include a 10-foot riding and hi.king area adjacent to the street; and ~ ' that the exhibit submitted to the Planning Commission was that whi h staff . , " _% would recommend be adopted, and then in respcnse to a statement m.- by ~ z Chairman Farano, stated that the Engineerzng Department recomm~nd~ this f;::: street standard to be used solely for equestrian estates. I Mr. :~r•lson Fr y, representing Anaheim Hills, appeared before the Commission and Ij stated that they were in concurrence with the recommended street standard aft h er aving reviewed this with the City Engir.eer and other staff inembers. .~. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not four off-street parking spaces for ' R: . each residence was proposed to be provided with this street standard ' .~c q~ . ~ ~ ~ i i I ~`s' ~ ~ . ... . u. .... , ..._..., . :. ,. _ -.: . . .~ .. . ..- , - .. , . .. ,, ~ ,.. , ~ . . . ~ ... ~ ~~ . , .,, . . . . ... ,. . ..- ~ - i . ~ . . . . ~ . . . .. _.. ,. . ~..; `. .....- ~. ~..~e ~ .. . " ~ _... ~ u .. ,. _.. . -_._....a. . . . _ :. r ' .. ~ . .. ~ , " . ~ . ~L . ',. ~ . . ~-~ 4 . \ ... . _ ,,; ; ~ ; . . , -. _ ' , ~ - . ~ _ _ - ~~ ---~.~_----------- --------- v `" ~._~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, No~ember 29, 1971 71-728 STREET SECTIOP7 STANDARD PLAN NO. 122 FOR EQUESTRIAN ESTATES (Continued) Mr. Roberts noted that at a meeting held with representatives of Anaheim Hills and the Engineering Division, this requirement of four parking spaces had been discussed, which would be in addition to the required parking, and that staff had recommended this be a requirement wherever this type of street standard • wa:s being proposed. Mr. Fry repliad that it was his understanding that the street standard included : the four additiona.l off-street parking spaces, and that he had agreed to it at - said meeting. '::f:.•,. . ~ :fi-e ., . .t~. ~ ~~`:Y. ~_ , ~ ~: '.~c ; ;i ~ ~ Commissioner Seymour noted that he assumed these parking spaces would be paved; that he was not in favor of paving sinc2 he did not want to see a"sea of asphalt", and then inquired what Anaheim Hills proposed regarding these park- ing spaces, particularly where ther~ was a minimum of one-half acre estates, there might be a limitation as to the availability due to topography - homes could be built on stilts, ther.efore, he could see the front yards of these homes completely filled with parked automobiles in certain instances. Mr. Fry replied that this, too, had been discussed at *he meeting, and in any case, where rossible, there would be a circular drive or a side r_ntry to the garage. Therefore, there would be parking adjacent to the garage as well as having sufficient accessway to the off-street parking. However, tnis would be part of the CC&Rs, and even though they would not be building these homes, the builders wovld have to meet this criteria prior to final building inspection. Commissioner Seymour stated that as far as he was concerned, the additional parking alongside the garage need not be paved; whereupon Mr. Fry stated that it was possible the tapography would not permit it, however, un some lots Paxking might be provided behind the garage. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve Street Standard Plan No. 122 soiely for use in equestrian estates, with the added requirement that off- street parking be provided for four additional vehicles in addition to the required two covered parking spaces, and that two of the additional spaces ~ need not necessarily be paved, all conditions permitting. Commissioner Herbst, ~ in seconding the motion, noted that the proposed street cross-section did not i permit on-street parking because it was too narrow, therefore, off-street parking had to be provided. MOTION CARRIED. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. KOLL INCOME PROPERTIES, P, p, PERMIT NO. 1273 Box DK, Irvine, California, Owner; COLDWELL BANKER & CO., P• O. Box 655, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting INCLUbING TREATMENT,PTRAININGn RESEARCHTAND DEVELOPMENTKINNAN EXISTING~ BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue and having approximate frontages of 630 feet on the east side of State Co11ea~ Boulevard and 590 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, and further described as 2051 East Cerritos Avenue, Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the November 1 and 15, 1971, meetings to allow time for a report to be presented by the Orange County Comprehensive Health Planning Council (OCCHPC). Chairman Farano noted that subject petition had been continued to this meeting, however, the hearing was closed and the only information needed was the . recommendation of the Orange County Comprehensive Health Planning Council. Zoning 5upervisor Chsrles Roberts read a letter from the oCCHPC which stated the Health Facilities Review Committee had reviewed anc; arproved the application of Neophron, Inc., on November 23, 1971, to establish an out-of-hospital dialysis unit for the renal handicapped in Orange County conditioned upon the facility being in operation within six months, or their endorsement would be rescinded. ~ ... ~ ~~`: ; /~ , -,» ;~,: i~ . .,\ I ~ " ,t';; . - r~~~ ~? .~ ~ i• , :i , . ; i , ~~ -------___~__.. - ~ ~ --~----- ~.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C02~IMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-729 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1273 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-228 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1273, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst Seymour. . Kaywood, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DQNALD R. AND BEVERLY A. TAYLOR, NO. 71-72-6 6161 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; request:inq that property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parccl of land consisting of three lots and having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxiniately 27S feet and being located approximately 550 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 850 South Western Avenue, be rerlassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE TO THE R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 26 and November 1, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit development pla._;. Assis~ant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject Praperty, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify subject property to the R-3 Zone, noting that the petitioner was proposing to develop three duplex units on the property, and the proposal, as submitted, contained no tiraivers from the Anaheim Muni~ipal Code; that the area was indi- cated on the 1~naheim General Plan as being appropriate for medium-densi,ty residential development, and the R-3 Zone proposed would implement this desig- nation; that this request would appear to be the first in a series of zoning applicati.~~ns in this area to rezone medium to large-size parcels to R-3 in accordance with the Anaheim General Plan; and that since this praperty was divided into three individual parcels, the Commission might be interested to note that the proposed development would require development of the entire ~iroperty rather than each individual parcel being developed. However, the Commission would wish to determine whether or not this reclassification was appropriate in this area of relatively high-quality, single-family residential structures on large R-A parcels, although in accor~ance with the General Plan desig:;ation. The petition~:r indicated his presence to answer questions. Mr. Mel McGaughey, 97,p ~outh Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and state.d that his family had been residents at this location for fifteen years, and they were opposed to any zoning that would permit apart- ments on subject prope:rty since subject property was surrounded by single-family homes, and it would be. out uf keeping with existing development; and that if anyone would be harmed by this proposal, it would be his property since he owned a very large home on a one and one-half acre parcel of land immediately south of subject property. Letters from twelve persons in opposition were read to the Commission, as well as a peti*_ion signed by 49 persons in opposition, , Mr. Taylor, in rebkttal, stated that the opposition to a rcad on the north side ! appeared to have little merit since a road was originally approved when three homes were proposed for subject propert;•, and that the adjoining property owners wexe using his property as a dumping ground for the.ir gra.ss clippings. The Commission ~,iquired whether or not the petitioner would be amenable to devploping single-family homES on each existing lot and had the subdivision of the prop?rty into three lots occurred prior to the petitioner having purchased this property, Mr. Taylor replie3 that when they had purchased the property they had intended to construct a 3600-square foot home on the property, but the lenders had advised him it was was their opinion the property was being overdeveloped; ~~ ~T'~ .~. i ~-~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Novemb,::r 29, 1971 ~:~ 71-730 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-6 (Continued) ~- and that the subdivision of the property had been granted to a previous owner .,_~;,, : since they owned this property for about four years. ~ ' Commissioner Seymour noted that at the first public hearing the Commission `~ requested plans for the property, such as single-family homes - did the ' petitioner feel this was untenuble? Whereupon Mr. Taylor replied that with ' the value of the land, they felt it would be better to have the proposed ,~;w ~__ development. ~"~'r:`?; Commissioner Seymour then noted that the petitioner had originally planned a :~. " single-family home on the property but was unable to obtain financing, and ~~.` ~~'s that the Commission had recommended that plans for single-family homes be ~,<' developed. Therefore, he was anticipating seeing such plans. e:; +~^ y Mr. Taylor stated that it was his wife's understanding the Commission would prefer R-2. ~`'-'~', Commissioner Seymour noted that they had suggested homes on 5000-square foot `a,' lots because the price of land was so high many developments were being anproved in such a manner. Therefore, would the petitioner be agreeable to ~ ; considering redesigning of this with single-family homes, and would the '' ` petitioner like additional time to work out these plans for smaller lots; ~; ;f,.,_i,. whereupon Mr. Taylor replied that this would be agreeable with him. Commissioner Gauer stated he did not agree to permitting 5000-square foot ,;,,}:,..^,,;li lots since all the other homes in this area were on very large lots. ` ~ Commissioner Herbst stated that if the petitioner would develop single-family homes on 7200-square foot lots, all he would have to do was present plans to I `;~ the Building Division since the existing resolution of intent and variance 1 would permit this. I i~ I Commissioner Seymour noted that at the most four homes could be developed; I :.'}`. whereupon Commissioner Herbst noted that if a cul-de-sac were required at ,~ the end of the private drive, this would reduce the number to three, which i -i the petitioner already had permission to construct. ; _ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a parcel map had been approved for three single-family lots, and the waiver approved was '!;,:~; to permit waiver of the required lots to front on a public street. However, < in lieu thereof, a 28-foot drive was proposed to serve each lot from Western `.,'~~~ Avenue . ° Discussion was held by the Commission on whether or not the petition should be ` denied, withdrawn, or continued, and at its conclusion, Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that allowing the continuance would give the petitioner l. time to determine exactly what direction he wanted to take, and the Commission ~+<::"~ could then take subsequent action. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-6 to the meeting of December 29, 1971, to allow the petitioner time to submit .revised plans or determine the manner in which he ; ?: would prefer to develop subject property. Commissioner Seymour seconded the ;~ -'' motion. MOTION CARRIED. `. ;' ', ~ ; '; : , ~ I ~=` ~k! . j ~ ~. , r :m.. , _ - . ... .. , , ,. , . +,_s. ,...~ . r' :. . r;;~:: _~..,...~,,.-t , ~ - ~. _ ''~ : . , ^ f ~ ~ _ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF ~1-731 TRACT NOS. 7449~ - DEVELOPEFt: ,7, W. KLDG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. REVISION NO. 1~ Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CaliEornia, ~ 4540 7450 Millet, King and Associates, 1335 West ENGINEER: . REVIS=ON Fullerton, California. Valencia Drive, N0. 1; 7666; AND approximately 65 acres ofulandtlocated~aconsisting of 7137, REVIgION 2,750 feet east of the centerline of ImperialiHighway NO. 5 south of Esneranza Road and north of the Santa Ana River channel, are proposed for subdivision into: No. 7¢4g - 7g R_2_5000 zoned lots; No. 7450 - 77 R-2-5000 zoned lots; No. 7666 - 70 R-2-5000 zoned lots; and No. 7137 _ g7 g_2_5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, previous zoning action, land uses surrounding the property, and the proposal to subdivide subject property into 312 R-2-5000 Zoned lots. Mr. McDaniel then reviewed the evaluation of the Report to th~ Commission regarding the 50-foot landscape strip provided by the developer of five tracts in this immediate vicinity located on the north side of I,a Palma Avenue for inclusion into the regiona7. park, and the conditions imposed regarding this strip as to acceptance and maintenance of the landscaping, In addition, since great sums cif money were proposed to be spent on the regional park, it would appear that consideration should be given to creating other than a typical urban scene with a masonry wall adjacent to the right-of-way line with single-family homes only a few feet to the rear of the wall; and that staff had discussed this matter with the Orange County Planning, and Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Departments who had expressed concern over how that treatment would relate to the ment in the area. park a.nviron- Mr. John Klug, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that tract maps had been approved previously on the but there were 100 lots more tY~an was presently pro osed brought about b Property, y increased p , and this was of Anaheim to establish YorbaeRegional~Pa~ke thattthey l~iadnbeennworkingity for the past several months in an attempt to devise a plan that would allow the County to have this park, and the maps now presented mation the propose to subdivide the remainder of 65 acres into 300+ lots based on the best infor- y had after working with the County's Park District and meeting~ with the City's representatives; that the redesign of the tract maps was done on the basis that the park would be a qood'thing, but there was no assurance this would be an actuality since the County had been designing and talking about it for many years; that the County and City were hopeful that funds would be available to develop the park, but there still was no assurance this would happen; that the land owner and the developer were willing to assume the park was a reai thing and were willing to based upon that assumption; and that if the County could not qO ahead within the next year, in all likelihood the land owner would fund this park request subdivision of that portion originall be back to y proposed for the park. Mr. Klug then reviewed the second portion of the evaluation where staff indicated that a 50-foot landscape strip had been provided b tracts in this area, and which he felt was completely unreasonable to require this of sub' Y five other g La Palma Avenue by 50 feet would createtlotsnthat~wouldcnothmeettCode~n Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the developer was stating he intended to provide the 50-foot building setback; whereupon Mr. iclug stated he would be complying with whatever the SC 2one indicated. Considerable discussion w:ls held between the Commission, staff, and the developer as C.o the requirements as set forth in the SC Zone and the inter- pretation being that if a 120-foot lot depth was indicated, then the under- lying zone setbacks would be applicable which could mean that the developer could have 5-foot building setbacks, however, the tract map did not indicate the buildi.ng setback being proposed. ~;'~irc,sx = , . _ ~S . ~ ~ ~ - •~ ~~',~,.:ai~:'-~i_., , ~ . . ' 4 5 C .~ -. , . ' . _ ~ ~ . _ . ~ ~ _ f ~,Y - , i .. .. ~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ . ., ' ..~ . ~ ~ .. . / ` ~~ky • -- ~ `-' ~~ - . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-732 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7449~ REVISION NO. 1; 7450, REVISION NO. 1; 7666; AND 7137, REVISION N0. 5(Continued) Mr. Klug stated that it was their intent to have the 50-foot building set- _ back as this was his understa ding of the Code. • Commissioner Rowland noted that tiis may have been Mr. Klug's understanding, however, that was not the way the Code was written, and it was his hope that the Planning Commission could in some way implement the 50-foot building _ setback, and then inquired whether the developer was proposing to implement the required 50-foot buildinq setback in the CC&RS so that the setback would ~ ,,~' be maintained in perpetuity; whereupon Mr. Klug replied that it was his understanding tl:at the zoning wo,ald provide for this in the scenic corridor. '~: ~,j Mr. Klug then noted that if the 50-foot b ;~ uffer strip was to be required ;- •~ adjacent to the proposed masonry wall along La Palma Avenue, one way this i;•~ - could be accomplished was to relocate La Palma Avenue 50 feet further south - this might accomplish the concern of the City as to who would be maintaining ~.• the strip of land between La Palma Avenue and their property as presently ~~ proposed. Another way wouln be to dedicate 20 feet of the 50-foot building setback,'and with the existing ]3 feet of property between the present lot line and the curb, this would make a?3-foot park area buffer which could ~ = be adequate for the County's purposes. R~ k y~ Commissioner Gauer expressed concern as to who would have the responsibility of maintaining this buffer strip since under the existing 50-foot setback ; the area would be within private property and maintenance would be by the j~) property owner - could this setback be bermed to provide for a less stereo- ~ typed wall adjacen;: to the park? i t ~~ Mr. Klug stated they had intended to landscape along major arterials as :F, .:,;,~~ required by the SC Zone as provided for in their plan. a ;j 7.oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that there was an option available ) to the developer when the SC Gone was finally adopted in that either a ~ ~"-~ 120-foot lot depth was provided adjacent to an arterial, or by City Council ~~ 1 policy the developer could have lots oE less than 120 feet in depth provided I ;~ that the houses were located a minimum of 40 feet from the highway; other- ~ ..i wise, the underlying zone, namely the R-2-5000 Zone, would apply and said ~ ;; zone permitted a 5-foot building setback. ~ ~i ~ Mr. Klug again noted that if the City and the County wanted the buffer strip, ; they still could relocate La Palma Avenue 50 feet southerly and make the ,~~ 50 feet a part of the park buffer strip presently desired - this being a part of the park, thus they wouJ.d be taking care of the maintenance which _ the City was so concerned about. - Commissioner Rowland noted that maintenance of the landscaping was the ' prerogative of the City Council and not the Planning Commission. Further- _ '~ more, the City was not particularly interested in the CCSRs except to ,,, determine that they would be correct. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the City wanted the CC&Rs to be able to stand by themselves if anyone withdrew something then maintenance would still be available thr.ough these CC&Rs. ;i ^':. Commissioner Rowland inquired whexe 3eed restrictions wit.hin the CC&Rs indicate a given setback on the properties for a given purpose, what was ; ':' the City's position since they did not normally en£orce the CC&Rs except `.~'' f to pick up the loose ends. :,^~ Mr. Dawson stated that this would be taken care of under normal conditions, ~` but that maintenance would be provided by means of a maintenance district in which the City would maintain it and billing the cost on the individual ; lots - how far the City could go, he was not certain, but the City had not ` ~~. established a policy along those lines, and as to incorporating maintenance into the CC&RS, this could be done by the land owner, but to dedicate land and let the City take care of property that was normally taken care of by the private property owners was something else. 1.' -` .~kc ' ; i s. - :,i. ? ~ ~ ..a 1 ~ s'.« .' _ .'_;,•,_ .., ,',; . '.q i .~ u ~ r. , ~i..~'~~~ -z ~; h ; '` ~ .i3c _ i _ ' ~. i -----! -----_-~_-~_. -- ___._.. _ _ ~ ~~ t.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMxSSION, November 29, 1971 71-733 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS, 7449, ~~,VISION N0. 1; 7450 AND 7137, REVISION NO. 5(Continued) , REVISION NO. 1; 7666; Commissioner Herbst noted that the City employees would not have access to the rear portion of these lots because of the wall. i;ommissioner Seymour was of the opi:ion that if the area was not within the walled area, he donbted very much that the individual property owners would maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Herbst noted that part of the SC Zone required a minimum of two trees along the lot and wall, while street trees would be at 40-foot intervals - this would appear to provide adequate screening and landscaping if the types of trees suggested in the SC Zone were planted, Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission w:ss attempting to impose on the developer~the 50-foot setback originally proposed in the SC Zone rather than be fac2d with 'the•possibi.litg of the develooer reverting to the under- lying zone'wher.e lots were 120 feet in depth and inquired how this could be accomplished 'legally, Mr. Dawson noted that this could be a condition of approval of the tract map to require all lots adjacent to arterials to set back the homes a minimum of 50 feet. Furthermore, once that setback was established, nothing could be built on it. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the manner in which the County wanted some other treatment for the property and wall facing the proposed park; whereupon Mr. Roberts noted that the County wanted something different than the masonrg wall at the property line and parkway trees at 40-foot spacing - something that would add to the environment of the park, not the typical urban scene - they wanted additional landscaping treatment. Commissioner Gauer again inquired whether or not this setback could be bermed instead of having the wall; whereupon Mr. Robarts replied that within the 13-foot parkway 4~ £e~t was needed for a sidewalk and the balance of 7~ feet was insufficient for berming if a 6-foot berm was proposed; and that the requirement of addit~onaJ. trees to the inside of the wall was a special requirement of the SC Zone, howeverD nothing was required for landscaping on the outside of the wall, and the normal parkway treatment was one tree for each 40 feet. 21r. Roberts, in reaponse to a statement by Commissioner Seymour, stated that the 50-£oot strip suggested in the evaluation was provided on tracts previously approved ar~d was provided by and agreed to by the developer of five tracts in thi,s general area, maki.ng the total footage between the right-of-way and the struct~res 90 feet - said additional 50 feet being indicated on the tract maps after considerable discus:ion between said developer and the County regarding the landscape treatment along the north side of La Palma Avenue - this 50 fee~ ~ras in addition to the 40-foot build- ing setback that would be required if the developer took the option of having I.ots less than 120 ~eet in depth. Commissioner Seymour then inquired what the SC Zone normally required; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the basic intent of the Commission in the beginning was to locate the homes as far away from arterial traffic as possible, but the way the ordinance was finally written, it did not turn out that way. Commissioner Seymour then observed that what was not being provided on these tracts now was the additional landscaping area; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the lots that abut La Palma Avenue in the Berger tracts were 110 feet deep and the 50-foot landscape strip would be outside of these lots, but the concerr. of the Council was who would maintain this strip. Both Commissioners Herbst and Seymour were of the opinion that the pro~,erty owner/developer of these tracts should not be penalized anymore, and if the park district of the County wanted this landscape strip, they should pay for it or else move La Palma Avenue down the additional footage desired as a landscape buffer to blend in with the park. ~ 5 ~ 0 _ r, ._ - ~~= i * I ----- -- -~ - ~ --- -- ---- - _ t:_~ ~ ~ _) " MiNUTES, CZTl^ PLANNZNG CQI~MxSS~ON~ Noyeml~~r 29, ],971 71-734 TENTATIVE MAP OF TIZACT NOS. 7~14y, REVISION NO. 1; 7450, REVISION NO. 1; 7666; AND 7137, REVISION NO. 5(Continuedj Commissioner Herbst noted that Mr.. Liberio, owner of the property proposed to be developed by Mr. Berger, had just informed him that the revised tractF wcZ].d be submitted indicatinq th~a revised alignment of La Palma Avenue, - howevrer, this 50-foot strip previously .i:.dicated ,~ould not be ~Yi~wn on ~he . revised tracts. After furLher discuss:ion by the Commissi_on regarding additional landscaping ,.; ~~ .f. on the outside of the required wall, it was determined that the required - ' ~ trees on the lots, a~ ~ve:.l as the trees in the park.way. w_re sufficient i+°°= '" ~!~ , i since if additional landscaping wer.c required, the ~County would be the ~ ~ ' ''`? benefir.iary and the property owne+~ sltauld .nat be penalized £or this land- s : scaping su45astion made by the Cour.ty. ;a' - Commissioner Seymour offered a moti.or. to approve Tentative Ma•o of Tract No. 7137, Revision :'vo. 5; seconded bs ^omn~issioner A11red and MOTION ~ARRIED ~Comniissic~~~ers Kaywood and R.wtanc al~staining) , subject to the ~` reaommen;le3 conditions and the additior,31 cundition of a 50-fooi building sei:back £rom c?~e property lane, as follow~: ~ (1) That the approval of Ter:ative Map of Tract No. 7137~ Revision ' ' ' No. 5, is grante;i sub;ect to the approval of Reciassi.fication ' ' No. 69-70-25. ~°, ~' ~. (2) That should t:~is subdivisi n be developed as more than one ' ~;~ subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted _.. , in '.entative for~n for approval. t ':,;Tti > (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry ? wall shall be constructed on the sauth property line t~eparat- ' ~' ~ ~ng lot Nos. 69 through 87 snd La PaZma Avenue. REac•~,nable r landscaping, including irrigation facilities, sha'l1 be installed ti ~ in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway rarkway th~ *' full distance of said wall, plans for said lanctscapi.~g to b~ ~;;,.:; ,,,,,, submitted to and subject to the approval of the ~upe i-~ ...ndent ~~~ ,~; of Earkway Mainte,zance. Following installation and ~•~ce~tance, ~: ~ - . the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility xor main- -- ~~ '-' tenance of said Iandsca in p' 4 :, ~~ , . a - ~~ r' ir i4) That all lots within this tract snall be served by un~erground µ~ ~ utili~ies. f ~~ a ~ (5) That the vehicular access rig:its, except at stre~et and/or alley z^:. ~:~ ,..;,~, opez~ings, Y.o La Pa.1ma ,A,venue shall be dedicated to the City of - Anah,~i.m. ~ (6; Thut a final tract ma,-~ of subject property shali be submitted ;:,t. to and ap~~roved by t1~e City Council and then be recorde~ in =Y the officc of the Orange County Recorder. ~ ~ .. (7) That street names shall be approved by tlie Ci'~y oE Anaheim -' c•, ~` '~', prior to approval of a final tract ma~. (8) That drainage of Tract No. 713' shall b? disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. ~`' (9) That the owner(s) of subjact rxoperty shal.l pay to the :i~y of ~ ' Anaheim the appropriate park arnd recrea.tion in-lieu ~~e~ as !: `% determined to b~~ o; propriate by the C£ty Council, said fee:, to ' i" be paid at the i:ime the buildi,ig permit is issued . ~>:; (10) That "P" Street shall be developed as a full width stre.:t to provide circulation to La Palm>_! Avenue. j (11) That the developer of Tract No. 7137 shal] obtain a favorable flood hazard letter acceptable to the City of ~,naheim from the Orange County Flood Control District. ~';'~;", : .~e .' i ~~ ;~ , } : - ~ - , , - -~ • . . _ . ~ . ~ . . . . . . ~~i~ . . _ . 1, it ,+ . . . , -.. :. . i~:d'~-a~ ( , _ . . . . ~ . ~... . _ ~ , ~ _ . ` _ . . . . .. . ~ . -. 4 '.~~F' . ..... .,. . , .. * ,; ~ , , . _ ~~ ~ ~:.~ MINUTES, CITY .Fi,t,~NY2N,C: COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-735 TENTATIVE MP.? OF TRACT NOS. 7449, REVISION N0. 1; 7450, REVISION N0. 1; 7666; A~a~D 7137, FtEVISION NO 5(Co;~tinued) (1Z) The City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption cf landscape maiintenance in the event Council policy changes. (13) That a].1 buildings propo~,ed shall have a minimum 50-foot setback from th= property iine adjacent te La valma Avenue. Commissioner Seymour offered a u~otion, secoi...~d by Commissioner Allred, anrl b10TION CAR~IF:1? (Com~nissioners Kaywoo~~ arn Rowland abstaininq) to approve Tentrti~e Ms~p of Tra;T. No. 7995, Revi:;ion No. i, siibject to the following condi.ti :•ns: (li That. th~ approval of Te::i:at:ivE Map of Tr.act No. 7449, Revision No. 1, ~~s granted subject co {:he ar~roval and completion of Reclassitication No. 69-70-25, no;,r nending. (2) :~hit should this s+ibdivision be developed as more than ane sub- d3vision, eacit sub•.tvision the~ c.of sha11 be submitted in tenta- t3.ve £orm for apnrovo.l. (3) Tha•t in accordance hith ~.ity Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on ;the south pruperty line separating lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, and G3 thru ',~ and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including ~~rr.i.gation facilities, shall be installed in the u~~cemented porhior of the arteriai highway parkway the full distance of sazd wall, glans for said landsr,aping tn be sub- ,,.itt9d t.o and subject to the approval of the Scoerintende~it o£ Par,kway Maintena ~e, Folluwing installation and acceptance, the :.ity o_ Anaheim shall assume ':he responsibility for mai:~tenance of <+aiu landscaping. t4) 'rhat all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (5) That a final tract map •of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and t:hen be recorded in the office oE the Orange County Recorder. (5) That street names shall be approved by t.he City of Anaheim. prior to approval o£ a f3na1 tra;:t map. :7) That the owners of subject property shall p?1 to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park ani! r~~ « aLiott in-lieu fees as deLermined to be appropriate by the City Counci?, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (8) i~hat 'ch~ vehiculxr access ri.yhts except at street and/or alley openings, t~ La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (9) That drainage ~; Tract No. 74~49, Revision No. 1, shall be dis- posed of in a a~anner *_hat is ~atisfactory to the City Engineer. (10? That the develoger ~hall obtain a favorable flood hazard .letter, acceptable to th~ City of Anahei~n from the Orange Coun?;y F1ood Control District. (11) That the City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. (12) That all buildings proposed shall have a minimum 50-foot setbacy from the property line adjacent to La Palma Avenue. ~ V ~ t _< _,~ ~ ..._. ~ ~ `s: ~ ~ ,~ ~,,,~~ ', . - :~:' y._ _r.._ ~„ ,~., 's~ ,, `, :o '~ ~, ~ " ~ ~;'-.i r; ;~ ;j ~i ;l ~ .`I '~ '.~i :i ,., , , ~-,1~-~ -. :: i ~... ~ I' ...r s;- ~,: ~_' ~~. `. ai~! > ~ U ~.1 MItvUTS~S, CITY PLANNIN , COMMISSIQ*:: Noa~ember 29, 1971 ~.~ 71-736 _ ,I TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7449, REVISION N0. 1; 7450, REJ7StON NO. 1; 76G6; I AND 7137, REVISION NO. 5(Continued) ' Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissicner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Kaywood and Rowland abstaining) to approve Tex~tative Map of Tract No. 7450, Revision No. 1, subject to the following con2litions : (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7450, Revision No. 1, is granted subj.:ct to the completion of Reclassification No. 69-70-25, now pending. (2) rhat should this subdivisian b~ developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta- tive form f~r aF~~roval. (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property lin~ separating lot Nos. 1 thru 9 and 7'l thru 77 and La Palma Avenue, and the east property line (toe of the slope) separating lot Nos. 63 thru 71 and Fairmont Bouleva:d. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arteria.l highway parkway the full distance of said wall, ;:plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the ~proval of the Superintandent of Parkway Maintenance. Following ''installation and ac~eptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the ~_responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (4) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground `ut~i~t~es. '(5) >That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to ~`asd approve~3 by the City Council and then be recorded in the office .;o,f the Orange County Recorder. (6) ~That street names shal]. be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tr,sct map. (7) '•That the vehicular access rights except at street and/or ailey openings to La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard shall ]~e ' dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (8) 'That the o~vners of subject property shall pay :o the City of ~naheim 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 permi.t is issued. -(9) That drainage of Tract No. 7450, Revision tio. l, shall be dis- posed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. (10) ..That the tota]. right-of-way for Fairmont Boulevard shall be included in Tract No. 7450, Revision No. 1, and the tract developer sha11 place th~ u1L•imate embankment tor Fairmont Boulevazd and install reaso~.able landscaping including irriqation facilities, in a.ccordance with the requirements of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptan~e, the City of Anaheim shall assump the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (11) That the City Council reserves ::he right to delete or amPnd the assumption ef landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. (12) That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim from the Orange County Flood Control District. (13) That all buildings proposed shall have a minimum 50-foot setback from the property line adja~ent to La Palma Avenue. I ~~ ~ : ,: <,,. . t .. ... . .... a .~_._._ .:_ ~.:., .- • _ f _ _~ _ ~~: i . .. . ~. _ _a ~ _ ~ ~ , ; / / ---- - ~ ~.~ ~~ ---- ---- ~:: ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-737 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7449, REVISION NO. 1; 7450, REVISION NO. 1; 7666; AND 7137, REVISION N0. 5(Continued) Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Kaywood and Rowland abstaining) to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7666, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7666 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-70-25, (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof sha11 be s~~bmitted in tentative form for approval. (~) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 58 through 70 and La Palma Avenue and on the west property line (toe of slope) separating lot Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 through 13 and Fairmont Boulevard. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said s•~all, 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 main- tenance of said landscaping. (4) That~all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (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 ~f the Orange County Recorder. (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a finaJ, tract map. (71 That drainage of Tract No. 7666 shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. (8) That vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Bou2evard shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (9) That the owner(s; of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the apnropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to b•+. appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at •~.he time the building permit is issued. (10) That the develope:- of Tract No. 7666 shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control Distriat. (11) The City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. (12) That all buildings proposed shall have a minimum 50-foot setback from the property line adjacent tc La Palma Avenue. _g^'.~'::~g,~ . _ . - . ~~. L,~~,'~1 . _ .. e. . .:; i; C ~ _ ~ _.. _ . . ~ ~ _ - ~ _ . ! • ~ -. ~s,~. .~ k~~. ~ ~; :r,~: `~C ,`.r:~ . ..::'~'. yl ~~ .~ ~j 7' tl ';;j ,~ ; j`~~; .-: 1{i ~t -j ~ ..i ;~. +` ` s' . ,.~ k,~ _ I!j ~i; `~ f!e , : ~ ; " :i~ '~ , ,. ~' i S . . . .. . ~ I ~ ~ 1 . . . '.. ~ . .-. . .' ' . . ` ~ , . . / ~ 1 . ~ ~ . . i~ -~_ i . . ~~~ . ~ ~ ~..1/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 ~ 71-738 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: PONgEROSA IiOMES, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport TRACT N0. 7471, Beach, California. ENGINEER: To.ups Engineering, 17291 REVISION NO. 1. Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. Subject tract, consisting of approximately 15.2 acrps, is located ~outh of. Esp~ranza Road, east of Imperial Highway and is proposed for subdivision into 78 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, land usc~s proposed and existing in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide approximately 15 acres into 78 R-2-5000 zoned lots; that subject tract had been continued numerous ti.mes to allow time for further. study in coordination with the County Parks and Road Departnients fo:• the location of the regional park; and that the same evaluati~n regarding the 50-foot land- scape strip was anplicable to subject property as had been reviewed previously, Mr. Douglas Clemens, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission and stated that they werP agrEeable ta the recommended conditions, however, they would have similar feelings as were stated by the developer in the pre- viously considered tracts regarding the SO-foot landscape strip dedication on La Palma Avenue; however, he would assure the Commission that the lot depths on La Palma Avenue would be 120 feet, and that they would maintain the 50-foot building setback from the right-of-way line o£ La Palma Avenue. The Commission was of the opinion that the same conditions were applicable to subject property as had been applied to the foar tracts just considered, and that since the engineer's representative had stipulated to a 50-foot building setback, this should be made an additional condition. Commissi.oner Seymour offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7471, A.evision No, 1, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARR2ED (Commis.sioners Kaywood and Rowland abstaining), subject to the following conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. i471, Revision No. 1, is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-25, now pending. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submittEd in tenta- tive form for approval. (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos. 1 thru 11 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submit- ted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Paxkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for main- tenance of said landscaping. (4) That all lots within ~:his tract shall be served by underground utilities. (5) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (7) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (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. rw~k~ rs - . , 4~ _. . . _ _ . ~ ~ r-r , L_ . i,:, `* ! ~ ~ V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMI~lISSION, November 29, 1971 - TENTATIVE MAP OF TFtACT NO. 7471, REVISION NO. 1 (Contia~ted) (9) That drainage of Tract No. 7471, Revision No. 1 shall be dis- ~ posed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. ' ~ (io) •rhd± the develoner of Tract No. 7471, Revision No. 1 shall obtain a favorable flood ha~ard letter acceptable to the City of Anaheim from the Orange County Flood Control District. ~i (11) That Street "A" shall be developed as a full width street :.a °=° °°; provide circulation to La Palma Avenue. "'s` (12) That the City Council reserves the r.ight to delete or amend the assumption of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. ..;~ (13) That all buildings proposed shall have a minimum 50-foot setback from the property line adjacent to La Palma Avenue. 1: i TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: BUTLER HCJUSING CORPO ;; TRACT N0. 7684 Avenue, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER; 2283 West Lincoln `~" ing. 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin Toups Engineer- ° tract, consisting of a . CaliFornia. Subject pproximately 4.62 acres located at ~ the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer '= Boulevard is ~"~~i ~ Proposed for subdfvision into 17 R-3 zoned '?~ lo ts . ~, i ,~:, Assistar.t Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, land uses in close proximity, previous zoninq action on the property by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, noting that since R-3 zoning had been approved, the proposed subdivision appeared to be appropriate; that the lot sizes were approximately 70 x 144 feet, or ;0,800 square feet; and that the property lines extended from Orangethorpe Avenue on the north to the Orange County Flood Control District channel on the south, thus making the alley proposed along the southerly property line a private alley. Mr. A1 Uman, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission and noted they concurred with the recommended conditions, as well as those imposed at the time the City Council approved reclassification of the property, ~ Commissioner Rowland inquired whether these structures would be fourplexes and received an affirmative reply, The Commission then reviewed the tract map to determine whether there was adequate parking being provided and expressed concern that no trash storage areas had bEen indicated. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commissior, that one of the conditions of approval by the Council required that trash storage areas be provided as required by the Dir~ctor of Public Works. Mr. H. D. Hoon, representing tb,P developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that trash storage areas .;~cre being provided for each building, and they would be located adjacent to the garaRes, and that these areas were inflicated on the architectural plans, and that the garages faced the alley, however, a gate was provided to shield the trash storage area. The Commission observed that if one of the stalls was used for trash storage purposes, there would be a shortage of the reYUired parking, Mr. Hocn stated that there would be adequate parking since the lots were in excess of the minimum required; that th~.y would stipulate to prcviding p.3rking in accordance with Code, and no variance would be requested. Furthermore, xn response to questioning by the Commission, Mr. Hoon stated that three units of each fourplex would be two-bedrocm, a~d the fourth unit would have three bedrooms. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that seven ~ conformance with Code requirement for two and threenbedrooms would be in ; proposed for each fourplex. apartments as ! , ,.~. ,~ _. - .. ~ , , ' . :. _ ~. . ~' :.., ..., . ' ..-. . ~: . . ' ~ .. .. _ ~:~r~ ~T] •{;' ~d` 1';c.a'.A, '~~;t''~ i ' .. : !'; \ ~+~(+w ` ..~ir~o~ ~y -~. _ 1 ~ ~.J i~_.... I 71-739 _ ~ , ~ ' - ~ I : =-- ----- ~------__._` ~ ~) ~.~1 ~ ~r'.+. I >: F'v} ;., ~ : i~r l , '.r '~ _ ;: ~ i~ `' ~~.' ' " ~ = I ~'~: .ke ; ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-740 TENTATIVE MAp OF TRACT N0. 7684 (Continued) Commissioner Allred observed that since the developer had stipulated to provid- ing adequate storage areas and parking without benefit of a variance, there should be no problem. Commissioner Herbst stated that the tract map did not indicate where trash storage areas were to be located, and if one of the garages or uncovered parking spaces was used for trash storage, there would not be adequate parking, Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission was in an awkward situation. Tb.e Commission was faced with considering the land use approved by the City Cnuncil after the Commission had recommended denial - if one could remember the problems the Commission had faced with the property at Rio Vista and Frontera where Tancredi came in w:tn a McY,eoun type development, however, the Commission encouraged him to comnletely revise his type of approach to provide a living environment that made some sense for the people living there - now the Commission was again faced with a standard McKeoun type development which he found particularly difficult to live with. Maybe it did fit the property, but the proposal was not providing the proper living environment, which was something less than desirable. Perhaps the property had R-3 zoning approved, but the Comm9,ssion had worked consistently against this type of development. The structures that were later developed at Rio Vista and Frontera turned out to be quite acceptable, but he would not vote for this proposal because it was a step backward in planning and time. Commissioner Seymour noted that the statements made by Commissioner Rowland were the same that were presented at the time the Commission recomaaended denial, however, the City Council saw fit to approve the zoning; therefore, the Commission would have to live with this. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that he would like to see a tract map that th.e Commission could live with and not one to which they would have to tie conditions, such as trash storage areas, since this was very important to apartment complexes. Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether the alley extended through the R-A property to the east; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that it returned to Oranye- thorpe Avenue at the easterly boundary of the property, and that there was an additional return to Orangethorpe Avenue approximately in the centeY~ of the development. Commissiorer Rowland offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No, 7684 on the basis that the intensity of the use proposed for the land was too great to provide a suitable living environment for the tenants of this proposed development. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Seymour voted "no") VARIANCE NO. 2308 - PUBLIC HEARING. ROY AND ELEANOR GiANTZER, 1008 North Roanne Place, Anaheim, California; requesting WAIVER OF {1) MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETgACK AND (2) MAXIMUM REAR YARD COVERAGE TO PERMIT AN EXISTING ^OOM ADDITION on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the east side of Roanne Place, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 100 feet, and being located approximately 145 feet north of the center- line of Rainbow Avenue, and further described as 1008 North Roanne Place. Property presently classiPied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a 13 x 32-foot room addition in t:~e required year yard as conforming, said room addition being within 5 feet of the rear property line and having approxi- mately 46$ of the rear yard coveren; that the existing dwelling was originally constructed within only 18 feet of the rear property line and occupied approxi- mately 188 of the required rear yard area; therefore, the existing room addition covered approximately 288 of the existing rear yard, and if it were allowed to remain, the room addition would preclude the possibility of any usable rear yard for recreation area, however, a~her open area was provided elsewhere on the lot in the form of large side and front yards. --4--- ,~ ..~~_- „ ~ .. _ r _~ . . ,_ _ .. : ;; _ , i ~ c_n ~\r, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-741 VARIANCE NO. 2308 {Continued) Mr. Roy Glantzer, the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions. Tne Commission inquired of the petitiotter whether or not he had had any complaints from neighbors because of the close proximity of the addition; whereupon Mr. Glantzer replied that there were signatures on the petition wherein neighbors indicated their approval of the existing setback. The Commission then inquired whether the petitioner had built this addition himself and whether he was aware of the fact that this was illegal; whereupon Mr. Glantzer replied that when he had purchased the home there was an open patio to within 5 feet of the property line, and that he had enclosed the walls after having discussed this with the Development Services staff inember who had advised him that the patio was illegal. However, since it was already there, he could see no reason why this could not be enclosed; and that to obtain approval of the addition from the building inspector, he would have to have both approval of the variance and make two minor changes pointed out by sai,d inspector. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson noted for the Commission that when the week-F:~d builders constructed these patios, they ignored the City setback requixements, but then later when they came in for a building permit to enclose these patios, then thep found out the patio was illegal to begin with, and adjoining neighbors accepted this, many having done the same, too, although this was a violation of the ordinance. Mr. Glantzer noted that one home in the area had a patio within l~s feet of the property line; that the original construction of the homes placed them farther back on the lot line than present code permitted, and some homes were so close that there was only about 26 inches between the peaks of the adjoin- ing garaqes; that in order to meet code, he would have had to construct an 8-foot wide addition, which would have been totally inadequate; and that since there was a glass sliding door there, it appeared logical to construct the addition accordingly. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood noted that when the Commission considered items 5 and 6 of the agenda, considerable discussion had been held about maintaining the 50-foot setback - how did the City enforce it when everyone went ahead and built in the 50-foot setback and then came back to the Planning Commission for approval of a variance - what would happen? Commissioner Seymour noted that the problem arose because no one knew when to start enforcing this since it should have been enforced years ago; that this was not an unusual request since it was not unusual to "bootleg" additions of this type when a week-end builder decided he wanted to add this. Therefore, the only way to resolve these "bootleg" additions was to make sure they were safe, however, as to a future policy for this enforcement, it would take considerable work and personnel - therefore, the City would have to determine whether they were in a position to fully enforce code requirements. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-229 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2308, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSiONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMxSSIONERS: None. : ~ ~ ' ....~-_._ ;.~.' ~ _ . _y '... ~ ~s.- ~~i.~ :~ ~ W;~:. ;. ::._;.., ~. ~. . . ~ ~ `r` ~,.J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-742 VARIAN~E NO. 2274 - READVERTISED PUBI,IC HEARING. WILLIAM T. PHILLIPS AND DARWIN STANLEY, 246 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Ownersj requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO CONSTRUCT A WAREHOIISE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of appxoximately 54 feet on the northeast side of Manchester Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 187 feet, and beiag located approximately 550 feet northwest of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 240 North Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject proper+.y, uses established in cl.ose proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to construct a 5675-square foot warehouse to serve as an addition to an existing power tool and supply company which was adjacent to subject property, ! Mr. McDaniel, izi evaluating the proposal, noted that the primary concern of the Commission would be the potential reuse of the building with the existing zoning since the parking proposed under this petition would not meet the 1 requirements of the C-2 2one. which required 66-2/3$ of the area to be devoted _ to parking, No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ~:. t ~- . . ~~: : . ,' - ~i~ r..': :'_ ~.~: ; J~e `; r ' ~ ;:. i . Zoninq Supervisor Charles Roberts inc~uired whether or not the Commission desired to delay their deliberation until later in the meeting, and in the meantime he would try to contact the getitioner. It was noted by the Commission that this had been considered several times and was again readvertised; whereupon Commissioner Herbst requested that the Commission consider this since he was quite familiar with the area - the Commission then directed Mr. Roberts to contact the petitioner. (See Paqe No. 71-744) VARIANCE N0. 2309 - PUBLIC HEARING. ELWOOD F. JOHNSON, 1605 Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; Realty Services, 1605 Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OE' (],) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AREA OF SIGNS, (2) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, AND (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING AND ROOF SIGNS TO PERMIT ERECTION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land located south and east of a service station site located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Westchestex Drive, with frontages of approximately 136 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 187 feet on Westchester Drive and further described as 3240-3268 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZON£, ~ 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 erect an additional free-standing sign on the property which was proposed to be located on the Westchester Drive frontage; and that the pecitioner indicated one of the r~asons for this sign was to provide area lights on the top of the sign which would illuminate the entire center and parking lot. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, stated that the waivers requested were from three primary aspects of the Sign Ordinance as it applied to the C-1 2one; tha4: if the sign were relocated farther than 300 feet from the existinq sign, there would not be any need for waiver of the maximum number of free-standing signs; and that the minimum distance between the proposed free-standing sign and roof signs was necessary because of existing roof signs on the various individual shops, therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether or not there was sufficient justification to waive the ' three pr:tmary sections of the Sign Ordinance in the C-1 Zone. Mr~ Elwood sohnson, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that he and an out-of-town resident had a vested interest in this shopping center since its inception, when the broker put together tenants for this ~ center seven years ago; that since then a free-standing sign was erected with ! a bulletin-type board identi£ying the tenants of the center and represented ' the only sign that the owners of the property had erected on the property; ~ - _ _ .>- `- ...~ - _ - . ~ ~.I .-• L' ~-~1R. . . . .. ' ~ , `. , . .,, .. .. _ : . ... ,_, . " ~ .• ~ ~/ ." "__ . ~ . ~ ".l_ 1 ^ ,} ~ ~ ~ -- - ~} ..~_ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Novembes 29, 19'71 71-743 VARIANr~E NO. 2309 (Continued) that some of the tenants were able to obtain additional signing, wath Goodwil.l Industries having a roof sign approximately 251 feet from the proPosed sign, as well zs Tastee Freez having a sign, and since then, however, the meat company erected a nonconforming sign without the owner's knowledge and ronsent, and since they did not like the sign, they would be hap~y if the City would require that it be removed; that the aggreyate amount o£ sa.gns was less than permitted; that the service station at the intersection was pexmxtted to erect a sign which very effectively blocked out their existing szgn, which made it a very ineffective sign insofar as the tenants were con~erned, and the tenants were requesting some relief; that the Tastee Preez pole sign was also a negative sign, therefore, the City perml~tal them to place a roof sign on top of their building in order that the servic^ station sign would not obstruct oncomers' view of the free-standing sign on Lincoln Avenue, but the one on Westchester Drive would be a different sign which would face Westchester Drive in order to alert the residents of the 1,000 apartments south, east, and west of the center; that they were not asking for anything more than would be permitted if the facility were located on the corner; that the tenants had been placing their own sandwich signs on the Westchester Drive frontage, but they "boot- legged" them at one time or another and begged the owners of the property to permit them to leave these signs because they attracted business from the vast apartment complexes, and the tenants thought these sandwich signs were valuable to them in alerting drivers going down Westchester Drive that. there was a shopping facility. Furthermore, since the tenants advised hi that from time to time the customers remarked that they were unaware of a shopping center being located there, if this sign were approved, this would do away with the "bootleg" sandwich signs now placed there by the tenants. The Commission inquire(1 whether or not the topmost sign above the center sign was a combination grocery and 13quor sign; whereupon Mr. Johnson stated that this sign belonged to the tenant, therefore, they had no interest in that portion of the sign. Commissioner Kaywood inquired why all the letters in said signs were "shot out"; whereupon Mr. ~ohnson stated tha~ due to the high winds the signs were damaged, however, they intended to repair the signs very shortly. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that before the Commission considered approving any additional signing, something should be done to improve the appearance of the shopping center by the removal of the n~nconforming signs. Mr. ?chnson replied that he would be glad to get rid of them, but most of the signs were the tenants' signs, and he had no jurisdiction over them. Commissioner Seymour observed that these were only tenants of the shopping ~ center, and as a property owner, Mr. Johnson had a right to tell them what signs could be erected on the property. Mr. Johnson replied that the leases of the tenants required that everything be in accordance with City standards, and the only sign not in conformance or which did not have special approval by the City was the meat company sign. Commissioner Seymour then stated that it wonld appear all the signing avail- able via the Sign Ordinance had been used, but now they were requesting addi- tional signing for this small center, and that the petitioner's tenants had asked for this signing prior to the time the Sign Ordinance had been adopted. Mr. Johnson stated it was his attempt with the proposed sign to accommodate the tenants as a whole and not individually. :;: Commissioner Seymour then stated that he would agree with removal of the non- F^ conforming signs beEore an additional sign should be a an additional sign would be compounding the situation ofrthedsigningtonathisVe ~ property, whi;h was completely out of hand, and it would appear the petitioner was attempting to make the Commission and the City the "bad guys" so that these i~ nonconforming signs could be removed. Considerable discussion was held between the Commission and the petitioner regarding.the nonconforming signs and the request, together with the reason ~~ why the petitioner was proposing additioning signing. ~6t ;; ~ i ~, ~ . ~,~ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ ~_ .~~ '•$ . , . . _.. .. _ _ ` ' '~ 1 . , . '. . ., ~ -'. .'li.. . ~'- ~. . - ~ . *+.. ~<' -_~_ ~_...~. _ ~ . . ~ ~ .f__ ~~ ~~ . ~ ~' J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-744 VARIANCE NO. 2309 (Continued) _:.:~,, No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion by the Commission was then held, it being the Commission's opinion that the petitioner's statement that the service station sign blocked the view of existing free-standing signs along Lincoln Avenue appeared to have little merit, and that there was a conglomeration of signs that were all non- '.- ~ conforming, and to approve an additional nonconforming sign, particularly ,~'"< since the Commission had under study the amortization of existing, nonconform- '~ ing signs, would be establishing an additional reason for claim of hardship 'a due to having spent considerable money for the sign. 4 .r Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-231 and moved for its passage : and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2309 on the basis that approval ~ of subject petition would create another nonconforming sign to add to five already existing, nonconforming signs; that if the existing roof signs were 1~ eliminated, there might be some validity to allowing a free-standing sign on each street, even though they would be closer than 300 feet to each other; and that the Planning Commission was presently studying the possibility of i-emoval of all nonconforming signs by way of an amortization period, and to allow the _ =!, petitioner to spend money for the creation of another nonconforming sign could ~ be grounds for claiming hardship when said amortization period affected the ~. i proposed new sign. (See Resolution Book) x; s~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ..~ -AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, - ~° Seymour. _ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2274 (Continued) ~;'. ; :~ ~ 7 :: ,: ~~ ~. ; .~e '' Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that one of the ~ petitioners was present under subject petition to answer questions. Mr. William Phillips, one of the petitioners and part owner of the proposed ~ warehouse, appeared before the Commission ar.d noted that the entire block was a f.orm of a warehouse, and all they intended to do was to conform with the balance of development in the area. Commissioner Herbst noted that one of the questions before the Commission today , was that since this was a C-2 use, other uses than the warehouse proposed could be allowed by right, and the amount of parking proposed under this petition would b~ inadequate to provi3e for the required parking if subject property were converted to C-2 uses. Chairman Farano noted that the Commission could limit the use under this variance to the warehouse only. Mr. Phillips advised the Commission that he had an option to purchase the remaining 54 feet to the east of this property, planning to convert it to warehouse uses; that the restaurant and bar east of subject property had not been in operation for more than five or six months at a time since no one was able to operate a successful facility; and that they had purchased 54 `of the 109 feet immediately to the east of them. ~ Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that these pr•o~erties along the freeway had the wrong zoning and should be C-3 zoned to allow warehousing by right. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the ~ommission should permit a warehouse use for subject property, and if the use weze changed, then the parking would have to be upgraded; whereupon Mr. Phillips stipulated to provid- ing additional parking in the event the property wa~ converted into other C-2 uses. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . . . . ..... .. ~...i" ~ .,.., . . . ~ . .. ' . ~ ... ..-': ~ ~ i i.,~ J,, . ~~ , - . ~ • ~... ,'Y?,t:'. ~~'._ - ~ . 4 C ... . . ' . . . . ~ . ~ . ~ . _ - ...~ ~ . . ~ i ::_. ,:..r - , ~j ,_ ` _ i ~. ,~. ~ ~ ~ 71-745 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 s VARIANCE NO. 2274 (Continued) ~ '- -~-„ i; Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-230 and moved for its and adoption to r ~ `• g passage ant Petition for Variance No. 2274 for a warehouse only, subject to conditions and a fu th F r er condition to re uire t nt tee use of subject property s:~s converted to h n , a regular C-2 use, that the p titioner provide the r.equired off-street ~ ~ parking in accordance with Code, as stipulated to by the petitioner (Se R u ~,. . e esol tion Book) ( L y ~.: .fK•.:,',F On roll ca12 the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin t ,,w `~' ' g vo e: AYES: COMMISSTONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood R l ~ ~ , ow and, Seymour. NOES: COMMISS IONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ t ~ RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to rece : ~~ ss the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Seymour ' - seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meetinq rec d ~ esse at 4:10 P,M, ~ ` ~' 9:. 3 RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:21 P M all C i ~~ ~ . ., omm ssioners being present. VARIANCE N0. 2306 - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL J. KNAAK, 1751 Southeast Skylitte Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owner; RONALD A. MC LEOD, 9833 Zinnia Street, Fountain Valley, California, p;gent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RECREATIONAL VEHSCLE SALES CENTEtt WiTH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING, (2) PERMITTED USES, ~6ND (3) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue, having frontages of approximately 154 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and 105 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2181 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to utilize an existing service station to sell new and used recreational vehicles and used automobiles, which was not a permitted use in the C-1 ZoneJ that the petitioner was proposing to have outdoor storage, also not permitted i,n the C-1 2otte, and landscaping was not proposed as required. Mr. McDaniel further noted that the existing service station on the property did not presently meet the service station site development standards of the C-1 Zone, and although the applicant was proposing to convert the use from a ser~ice station facility to a recreational vehicle and other used vehicles sales facility, there was ne indication that he intended to upgrade the site bY providing the site development standards, such as landscaping and building setbacks; that the proposed use was oae that would not be permitted in the C-1 Zone but would typically be permitted in the C-3 2one; that the apulicant was proposing to use the entire site_for the sale of vehicles without benefit of an enclosed building; that there was no indication at this time as to how the petitioner was proposing.to, display or locate the vehicles on the site, and, consequently, it was• conceivable that the vehicles could be displayed in such a manner as to preclude the possibilit5~ of using the driveways for access. Therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whethar or not this location was appropriate to waive the permitted uses and to waive the long-standing requirement that all uses be conducted wholly within an enclosed building in the C-1 Zone. { ? ,; Mr. Ronald McLeod, agent for the petitioner, noted that the lan the Commission a r p ~, Y w esented to P s not what they intended to do; that the the service station• th o remov t l ~;' ` e a the had suk+mitted a lan in which landsca proposed, and when these ori ping was inal l „4 g p ans were revieaed, he was informed that the zone on the propert; permitted this i ' s - use n the County, however, the City did not permit it, and since they planned somethin e ti th ~` g n rely different from at presented to the Commission, he would ~? request a sixty-day continuance in order to bring this variance into its '~ ~ proper perspective; and that he planned to submit plans, however, he wished to assure the Commission that there was no intention of having the service station ~ on the site. • ir ~ ~•' ~ r: Y -- ~ .. . ' - , . , . ~~i ~ /. - ..' , r,~x. ~ a: r ~r.u, `. . _ ~ . ~ . . ~ i . . +.,~ . ' ' ' ~ ' .. ~ . . _ . .. ~ ~ . . . .. ... _ . . : . . . ., ~ . . t . . ."a' i.. . . . . P' ~ ,. ./ I . . . ~..J ~:U ~~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSIpN~ November 29, 1971 71-746 VARIANCE NO. 2306 (Continued) The Commission inquired of Assistant City Attorney John Dawson whether or not the petitioner had permission to operate on this property since he was rp ing a sixty-$ap continuance. quest- . Mr. MeLeod noted that they had paid for their business license, and when he had discussed this proposal with the Development Services Director, Alan Orsborn, he had advised him to submit the plans now before the Commission since he had advised Mr. Orsborn he was not financially able to develop the - property in accordance with the original plan submitted. However, he had ;.•,. now received approval from a motor home manufacturer to represent them as a franchise. Therefore, they would like to o erate on the f.,. next sixty days until such time as the plansPwere Property for the ~`. ` furmulated. ~; Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that the petitioner was operating on the property at his own risk, and if subject petition were not a ~~~ use would have to be terminated; and that the reason for the tem orar a <.: was to allow him time to secure a franchise. PProved, then the ` P Y pproval : 1. The Commission noted that the petitioner was presentl the property and inquired whether or not Y selling used cars on :, addition to motor homes. it Was his intent to sell cars in ~: ~ Mr. McLeod replied that they were basically motor home-car deal !J ers; however, 2 during the off season, since motor homes were only a three-month, seasonal 'zf: t sale, thny planned to specialize in sports cars. ;; ~r The Commission further in uired whether the a: , property was adequate forqthe Petitioner felt the size of the t provide for the setback ; requirements; whereupon Mr. McLeodoreplied thatsthey were negotiating with the ~,'. ~ laundry and the nursery school located northerly of subject r purchase the property since the nursery and the laundry werePforesalet~ a `~ ~g~ r_;,.,.,~:~ The Commission then inquired of Mr. McLeod whether or not he felt he coul ~~ meet the C-1 site developmer.t standards; whereupon Mr. McLeod stated that `~ : ~`~ the zonin re d ;, 5 quired for the proposed use would have to be C-3. ~ Y~ ~ r' °~ Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not th p ~~~ these vehicles; whereupon Mr. McLeod stated that thisiwouldi?~eeadvery~liqhtice '~'" ~~' service since the manufacturer was in this area, and any major servicing would a` r~ be done at the manufactnring headquarters. ~~~ K~, ' Commissioner Kaywood noted that in visitin property on field inspection, it was her opinion there was insufficient roomefor vehicles to enter on S~resk_ a ~ ~_r..o-~-~-:~~Q~'i's`'~µ-~,c/ V~ ^ ~ ~ . 2 ~ ~'.; Zoning Supervisor ' , Charles Roberts inquired whether it was the Commission's intent to allow the petitioner to display and sell automobiles on the property +,~ during the time of the continuance while the , since from his discussion with Mr. Orsborn asptoithenusewas drawing plans ~ understanding that Mr. Orsborn had told the Permitted, it wae his ;4 processing a petition to Petitioner that so long as he was ~'`~~ motor home sales would bePermit motor home sales on the property, then the i cars on the lot was not a Permitbed. However, the selling and displaying of pproved by Mr. Orsborn, who told him these would have to be removed from,the lot. Considerable discussion was held between the Commission and the petitioner t~. 5 regarding permission to sell used cars the ft. that they took in cars in tr;-_e for the mot;Petitioner advising the Commissi~n ~" ,. °% reason for having used cars on the lot, which hadeto behresolge~ this was the Commissioner. Allred offered a motion to continue consideratio:i of Petition w for Variance No. 2306 to the meetin of 4 FPbruary 23, 1972, to allow time for ~ the petitioner to submit development plans. :~ _ ` After considerable discussi~n, said motion lost for want of a second. Commissioner Seymour offered ~i motion to continue consideration of Petition •~;' for Variance No. 2306 to the meeting of Januar petitioner time to submit development plans since4iflthe~ to allow the '~ ' seriovsly conaidering develo ~ ~ pin the Petitioner was y 3 property, this could be done within ~ ~~~~ ~. ~, _ • _ ~.~:y: ....,.~~:+.~ ' ~_ • y _ _ . ~~ _ .~ F .. _. ~ F i . . . _ . , _ ~ ~ "" _ t _ . . . . .. . ... / I . ~ ~~ ~ j~ ______'_......._._._ % ~ ~'_" . ~ ~ ~ MZNUTES, CxxY ~I,ANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 ~,~ 71-747 YATi~~{NCE NO~ 2306 (Continued) sixty days, although he likra--e~e~ that because of the size and shape oi the lot, it would be inadvisab].e. 1 ;, ,,'\ ,e-.-.~ ~~:~.'~'.t ;'i `: ;a ~_: ~ a Commissioner Allred, in seconding the motion, stated that if the pecitioncr had permission from the Development Services D~rector to sell us•:d cars, then this permission should be extended. However, it would appear ro him that the permission given was £or the sale of recreational vehicles onl;~, and that the petitioner should obtaiz ~his permission in writing. MOTION CAR7IED. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the Development Services i'.irecto.r would be back in the department on Monday, an/ staEf would check ~aith him regarding this. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM VISSER, 701 West Lincoln Avenue, PERMIT NO. 1278 Anaheim, ~alifornia, Owner; ROBERT F. HAMMOND, 14i1`5 West Frances Drive, Anaheim, California, Agent; request!ing permission to OPERATE A PRIVATELY OWNED BUMPER CAR.RIDE WITH WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING AREA on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Citron Street and Lincoln Avenue, having frontages of approximately 77 feet on the east side of ~itron Street and 107 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 719 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classi- fied C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject: property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a privately owned bumper ca,r. riae with waiver of the required parkin3 area with 6,985 square feet reguired and 1,304 square feet proposed; that the plan submitted indicated an 80 x 50-foot operational floor and a 15 x 55-foot car storage area in addition to a seven-stall parking area with a throuqh drive extending from Lincoln Avenue to the alley on the northerly boundary of th'e property; that plans indicated the existing garage on the property wculd remain; that no provision had been made for restroom facilities on the site, either for employees or the public; that a 4-foot hiqh chainlink fence would surround.the operational floor, while an 8-foot high chainlink fence would surround the car storage area; and that plans also indicated light standards 10 feet in haight to light the area for night use. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that with the severe shortage of parking area in this proposal, this would tend to indicate that the site was being overdeveloped, and the Commission might wish to determine that thi~ type of use r:ould require considerably more land area to provide adequate access and parking for the participants in the activities of the use. Furthermore „' prime consideration should be given to the long-range effects of allowing this kind of an amusement ride in the periphery oi the down~town area; that although the adverse effects of this type of use were not easily measured, it could be reasoned that granting of this kind of use in the downtown area would inhibit redevelopment of some of the less desirable businesses in the area; and that the Commission might wish to determine whether or not this use, with its serious deficiency in parking and land area, was an appropriate use at this time and in this location, since there were residential uses to the north, it might k+e anticipated there would be complaints similar to those complaints from residential nei,qhbors of a similar facility on La Palma Avenue eas± of Magnolia Street.. ','; A showing of hands indicated eight persons present in opposition. * Mr. Robert Hammond, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission >; noting he and his wife would be the owners-operators of this facility; that `~ they had a letter from the owner granting permission for the employees of this facility to use the restroom facilities of *he commercial shop to the east; and that th~.y had contacted some of the busii:~cses, as well as residents in the immediate vicinity, three letters being submitted in favor of the proposed 't use. Mr. Hammond then noted that many people viewed this tyoe of recreational ~' facility as a carnival-type atmosphere, and they did not like that connotation; that they had been residents of Anaheim for six years, therefore, were not '~ "fly-by-night operators"; that they had attempted to make an attractive type _. ~ i ~ i~.-; ' y' "~°:~ ~ ~ ~ i , 1 ~ . ~ ~ _.- _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ; a;. , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMHIISSION, November 29, 1971 71-748 i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1278 (Continued) i b _,_~, of aperation; that this wou13 be a family-type amusement center; that refer- ~ ence was made by staff regarding the parking deficiency, however, they had found that most of their business would be walk-up type traffic from teenagezs ~ to twenty-year-olds, even though a~~ariety of ages enjoyed this type of recreational ride; that there were five schools within this area, and they hoped that 95~ to 98$ af their business would be from the school child ren in ' . the area, thus the parkinq they proposed would be adequate for the use proposed; _ that the rides were five minutes long, and most children stayed on for an .; , additional three to four rides; and that he doubted seriously that the students ~'~ ? ` . wonld drive over from the schnol to use their facility, and since his wife had ~ ~ ~ done most of the research on this proposal, he would defer to her for addi- ; ~ _ tional comments. ~~ Mrs. Robert Hammond appeared before the Commission and noted rhat she ad .~, contacted the high school regarding this proposal, and the ~e, Mr. Carlson, indicated that the school would be happy with this proposal, and - he had n o os,iti to the operation; that when she had visited the high -~, ~ ' school e she had been directed to Mr. Dale Blank, the assistant superintendent of schools, who stated he was in favor of the proposal but could give no letter since that would mean a public facility was approving a private facility, however, he would in no way be opposed to this, nor would the principal of the school. "i.; Mrs. Hammond, in response to questioning by the Commission, stated that their bumper cars had three horsepower engines, but they had set the bolts to convert ': the power to only one-half horsepower, a~d_wj.th 15 cars it vould be no noisier , than one automobile, particularly where ~e~automobile had ~-mufEler~, or ' a motorcycle; that the facility at Magnolia and La Palma Avenue was established in conjunction with the miniature golf course and was there long before the apartments, which were recently developed, however, it ~ was one thing to contain the noise from side to side, but it was another matter '= to contain the noise in an upward direction, which that operation had problems '~ with, particularly at the second story level; and that these two-story apart- ments magnified the noise, however, there were no two-story buildings immedi- ately adjacent to subject property, thus, with more open space there would be _ less noise. Furthermore, the noise from their vehicles would meet the maximum •:';;;.'.;:;; 60 decibets limitation of the City, after having spoken to engineers at Cal ~.,;,~~''.c;~ State, Fullerton, and that the. noise of their engines fell within the noise ';:'?:`•:?c~~ decibel requirement of the City of Santa Ana. ,-.a ~:,.;,:t~r~;~ Mr. Hammond then advised the Commission that they were in the process of moving ~~~ ,'~` their facility from its location at 3030 South Harbor in Santa Ana, where they _~ had subleased the property; that these vehicles had mufflers, and while there "~~~_=~.~; was no one located close enough to them to be affected by the noise, they did :~~;:~_; take the precaution to contain the noise; that there was a residence located immediately to the north, however, it was in the C-2 2one; that while subject property was being graded, he had talked to the tenant of this residence - immediately to the north,-wh;, stated that if ttie noise heard indoors was no greater than the nbise from ther graders - which were considerably noisier than their machines - he would have no opposition. _~ Mr. Hammond, in response to qi:estioning by the Commission, stated that the property they pre~ently leased was about 40 x 70 feet and was part of the parking area lot, and that they now had more area in~which to operate than that in Santa Ana. " Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not the petitioner was presently operating; whereupon Mr. Hammond stated that they had been issued a 14-day speci~l events permit. Commissioner Rowland then inquired who the sponsoring firm or organ~zation wa.s that would sponsor this as a special event; whereupon Mr. Hammond replied that the owner, a florist, was the sponsor. ~ Commissioner Rowland then i.nquired of staff, who had written the special events ordinance and who administered it - was it Planning or the I,icense Department? *; Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the special events were permitted as a special advertising event with small carnivals i.n '~ ' small shopping centers as a means of increasing business for the small shop owners. §'~; =- ,: y ,. ,•: : ' .. _ o ~~:aw~3. .r;........ . . . ~ .. - _. . . .. . . . . . ~ .. . f .... ~__ .. . .,..,. -. ~~~: . ~ .. . ~ ~ r . _ .. :;q..6 ~. . ~ i,...,._ ,~,.. _. ~ . . ~ . - . . . . ~ ~ ~. . ~ ' .. ' . .. ... /~ v (~ <.) ~ ; MINUTES, CITX PLAI~NING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-749 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1278 (Continued) ,T 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts, in response to questioning by the Commission, - read the documentation as ~et forth in the special events section of the ~ ~~~~~ Anaheim Municipal Code, which required the request to be made in writing to the City Manager, who had designated this to be handled by the Development Services Department because of zoning requirements on the property involved. Mr. Roberts then noted that since this was a business-sponsored event, the special events permit was granted, however, this was one of the few that were _ not normally a special event with flags and banners, such as was requested by service stations approximately once a year. ~ ~~,' Mr. Hammond then noted tha+, they anticipated considerab7.e opposition, primarily because of the noise and traffic problems, however, they expected almost 80$ ?r j of their business to be walk-in traffic, and that they would stipulate to meet- '4~ ing the maximum decibel level permitted. Furthermore, they did not intend to be open late at night since most of their business would be between 2:00 P.M. ^~ and 8:00 P.M., with hours on week ends to be 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. if there ; was sufficient business to warrant remaining oQen until those hours. Then, in ~ response to Commission questioning, Mr. Hammor,d stated it would cost SOC per _ five-minute ride, and that they had operated a similar facility in Santa Ana which they planned to move to Anaheim. - Chairman Farano inquired as to the vclume of business that the petitioner ; anticipated each day; whereupon Mr. Hammond stated tha~ this varied, but ~!.. optimistically it would range between 200 and 250 per day in a six-hour period. ~J w y, Chairman Farano then noted this could mean 40 ersons P per hour, and if the .,;~ operation remained open ten hours, this would mean upward of 400 persons, or 4ys~c ' possibly 400 cars. ~; Mrs. Hammond noted that she had made a survey of the area, and the prime time ,; would be from 2:30 P.ri. to 4:30 P.M., and once the children left the area to go home, there might be a few later on, but after watching the traffic flow ,.~ at that intersection, the peak hours would be 2:30 to 4:30 P.M., and she would kv imagine the students would prefer to walk across the street rather than try =' : to move their vehicles into the traffic pattern at that „ntersection. a-'~ ,` t'"a. c; ~ i~ ' Chairman Farano then noted that on week ends there could be problems since ~ there were fifteen cars being ridden five minutes each - this would mean ;;i eight rides per hour, or 120 car hours. ~ ~;: Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not there were any special require- '••=; ments for this type of use; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that the C-2 Zone `;^~ required 66-2/38 of the property to be developed to parking area, but there "•:*1 was no use specifically set forth in the Code. ~ Mr. Hammond noted that their experience had shown that almost one-half of the ~ , people who rode were repeat riders, and that many times there were hours on _ ~. end when there were no riders, most of business would fall within a two-hour ;~ period, at which time there would be several hundred riders. ~ ':,~ Mrs. Hammond noted that from previous experience, people would arrive with ' '~; more than one person to a car - usually this was four persons to a car. ~' ~'r:~ Mr. Theodore TarBia, 112 South Citron Street a he had lived in this area for twent ' PPeared in opposition, noting y years and was opposed to this use; that ~i: there was considerable trouble now with all the school children attending school ;, and congregating.at the Tastee Freez, with many automobiles speeding through '~.. } the area and accidents occurring every week; that there was too much traffic on ~^-;.-.:.: this street now to consider adding any more with this use; and that it was ~ '~ enough to have the children five days a week without extending it to seven days r" a week. i, Mr. RoberL Dickey, 610 North Citron Street, appeared in opposition, noting he >~ had 2ived in this area also for twenty years and found the proposed use to be ~~ an attractive neisance that wo+~3d not be a year-around business; that he had always been worried that a tattoo parlor or a pool hall would be proposed for ` that corner, however, it was his opinion that the proposed use should not be `~ ~ approved because of this nuisance. 1'. . : ~! :' t` _ . ~ --- . ' _ 1. . .,__ ~-~,r.~.~ ~ `~ ~ . j.,,. -. ,._.:,.. , . ..., . . . .. . . . _ ,.,,. . ... ~.. .... ,.,. . ... . . h . .. ~ .. . . . . . r' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~cw.~'i',l`? ~ ~'... .. ^s ~ . -' .. , ' . . . . . . . , . ~ . . . .. .; I '~ ' ' e.-~~ __ ' ~_'- _ .`ii " ' -_-1.~_- ' _-_ _ .1 ~ , ~ i~ 1 , '.~ 71-750 ~ _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 COIIDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 1278 (Continued) Mr. Jack Leatherby, 702 West Lincoln Avenue, realtor, appeared before the Commission and stated that all the business in that area was so limited in parking that this use would add to an already difficult situation; tliat from 2:30 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. in this area daily, with so many children all over the place, the noise factor in itself would be extreme, and the noise was already bad - therefore, this would add to an untenable situation, particularly when student drivers squealed their tires turning corners, which frightened them so much that they did not even look any more when these noises were heard, and the proposed use would add to this situation, particularly later in the day when other businesses le£t out. Therefore, this type of use was not very desirable to the other businesses in this area. Mr. Robert Loomis, 426 North Resh Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he did not feel the proposed use should be permitted because 1) it was not a compatible use and was not the highest and best use of commercial land in the downtown area; 2) it would be detrimental to the residential uses established in the area; 3) that there were three private and two public schools in this area, and this was not the kind of use that was conducive to providing an educational atmosphere that parents wanted around a school; 4) that there was presently a very serious traffic problem in this area - when one drove this area during the time classes were dismissed, it was extremely hazardous to those customers who had business in this general area because all the students were all on wheels, therefore, they would be driving their cars to this facility; and that he did not feel even providing two-thirds of the area for parking would be adequate to handle this serious traffic and parking problem which could create a very serious problem for the business interests located in this area. Mrs. Noe le LeMarinal, 1950 Glen Oaks Drive, appeared in opposition and stated she had five children who had attended both the junior and senior high schools, therefore, she knew the problems of the children; that thce school did not provide any after-school activity, and she could see tne children takinq their lunch money to ride these cars instead of eating; that she was also speaking for the P.T.A., and she did not know how Mr. Carlson or Mr. Blank could have given their approval of this facility. Commissioner Gauer noted that as a former school man himself, he had tried to talk with Mr. Carlson also, and from his experience as a school superintendent, he ~as not in favor of this proposed facility; that he had several persons call him regarding the proposed facility, and after they had called, he had then expressed his opposition to Mr. Carlson's secretary; that Fremont School was under his jurisdiction as a superintendent of schools, therefore, from that standpoint he would not be in favor of the proposed use in that area; that he had watched this entire area for a number of years, havinq had his office on Citron Str:eet, therefore, he had first-hand knowledge of the problems in that area, and he could not see how a special events permit could have been granted, even though they were applying for a conditional use permit since the approval of a conditional use permit went with the land - therefore, he would be opposed to the use. A letter and a petition signed by 21 persons in opposition were read to the Commission. Also, three letters were received and read in favor of subject petition. Mr. Hammond, in rebu.ttal, stated that considerable oppasition was expressed regarding accidents that occurred at that intersection, but he could not see where that related to the proposed operation since they expected between 95$ and 988 of their business to be students that would probably ride the bumper cars rather than "hit the road" with their cars, thereby redistribut- ing the number of vehicles entering the traffic lanes, and also reducing the traffic accident potentiai in this area; that one of the opposition indi- cated the street noise was disturbing enough already, but the amount of noise from this use would add little more than already experience3; that the fear expressed by one of the opposition that children would spend the=r lunch money on this facility was unlikely from observation of his son who attended Fremont Junior Hign School, to whom food was more important than anything e1se; and that it was his understanding that opposition from anyone more than 300 feet away would not be considered, therefore, the petition of opposi- tion from the parents and teachers of the parochial school should be discounted. Furthermore, Mr. Carlson stated he was not in opposition so long as it was not a pool hall or a beer bar. ' ` - : ~4.::..:;i~:f.- ~'-~```.__::......,.-• ' ti • , ~ ` . 'S f ___ _ _ . _._---- f L~ ~ ~ ~1/ ' .~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-751 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P10, 1278 (Continuedj Mr. Dawson, in response to Commission questioning regarding the special events permit as it pertained to the permitted noise level, stated that the Anaheim Municipal Code permitted a maximum of 60 decibels at the property line. There- fore, it would be beneficial to the persons having the special events permit to have the noise level checked at the property line with all fifteen vehicles in operation, as well as single car operation, Mr. Hammond replied that the ruilding Department would check the noise level for them. r-.::" Mr. Dawson advised the Hammonds that the check af noise had better be made ~_ =. so that they would know whether or not they could open and operate. +' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. -` -> ; ; ;;;.'_ _ ~:i ,, y , ''S ~i°" '~ -~ :;' . l } ~ _ ~..I aNt ~ ~ I ; .~ i: f... ' . Commissioner Seymour stated he appreciated the Hammond's effort to provide activities for both the young and old, which was better than the X-rated movies and book stores in the downtown area, however, this was the wrong place for this type of facility because of its e£fect on both the residential and com- mercial uses in the area, and it also created a problem by inhibiting redevyl- opment of the downtown area; that the petitioner was not providing adequate restroom facilities oa the premises, even though Mr. Visser submitted a letter stating he would permit employees of this facility to use his restroom facili- ties, there sti21 was none provided for customers; that although the agent for the petitioner stated that 958 to 988 of the business would be walk-up business, i he found it difficult to accept - maybe they might be during the school hours, but this could not be considered germane for the summer ~ centage attending being walk-u months as to the ~ for recreational facilities inPthesciters; and that although there was a demand ~ downtown area. Y. these should not be located i» the ? Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-232 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1278 on the basis that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located; that the size and shape of the site proposed for the use was not adequate to allow full develcpment of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of tiie City of Anaheim; thaE: the petitioner was not providing sanitary facilxties for prospective customers, which could create a health hazard; that the area in which the proposed use would be located had many traffic problems and in- adequate parkinq to permit waiver of the required parking, even though the petitioner stated he anticipated 95~ of the customers to be school children or walk-in business; and that the approval of the proposed use would act as a deterrent to any possible rejuvenation of the downtown area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano . Gauer, Herbst, Kapwood, Rowland, NOES: Seymour. COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: None. SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT ORDINANCE Assistant Zoning Supevisor pon McDaniel noted that as a point of information, the special events permit allowed two two-week events as Code presently set forth. Chairman Farano inquired what would prevent a business requesting these two two-week operations continuously. Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that if they started to abuse the privilege, they would be denied their next request for renewal. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts n~~ted that based on commen±s made by the Commission, the Development Services Departm~nt would not issue a special events permit even after the first two weeks expired on this particular use. O i .~} : ~ ,~ ; ~ i , ----_. i _ ~._-.--- ------__ __ ~ ~~ ~~~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISo20N, November 29, 1971 71-752 SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT ORDINANCE (Continued) Chairman Farino requested ~taff to explain now a special events permit was _ granted; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the app?icant either went to the _ License Department and/or the 2oning Division, usually coming to the Zoning Division first because oE the various aspects each property had as it pertained to parking, etc. Chairman Farara~ inquired what procedure would have to be started in order to __ ` delete certain special events from being permitted as were presently permitted; .6.~; whereupon Mr. Dawson stated that the ordinance would have to be amended. %~ ; Commissioner Seymour noted he would agree with the effect the Commission was trying to reach - what the Cem^~isaion was saying was they did not like what ;1' happened, and they despised what had happened. However, after viewing the i ~ application for a s ecial ev~ents P permit, there was nothing on the form that _ indicated what specifically was being proposed, and if the form provided space for the applicant to denote what was proposed and the event that was to be ~ ~ scheduled, inen the Development Services Department would be in a more intelli- ~ gent position to say as to whether or not they would be able to approve this - then the Commission could recommend to the City Council that anything beyond the two weeks should bE presented to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gauer noted that a circus was held at Pearson Park with people living in trailers having their slop buckets underneath, and this was approved without the residents of the area being notified to exercise their opposition to it; that approval of a special events permit where no residents or parks ! were involved was one thing, but where residents would be involved, as well as ,_'~~ a park, then a public hearinq should be scheduled for expression from residents who would be affected. Continued discussion was held by the Commission relative to the manner in which a special events permit should be granted by the Development Services Depart- ment and when it should be presented to the Planning Commission for review - whether areas should be delineated as to whether or not a special event should ttt ; be permitted without being presented to the Commission. ~ i Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that with the exception of one or two others,~ all the special events permits were in shopping centers or service stations, and the request before the Commission under the conditional use permit was the first one ever requested on an individual parcel sponsored by an adjacent business. - Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that he would have Xerox copies made of the special events section of the Anahcim Dfunicipal Code for the Commission to :° peruse and perhaps make definite rec.ommendations and suggestions at the next `' public hearinq. ~' ~ HOUSING ELEMENT i, Zoning :;upervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Housing Element goals had . ,? been submitted to the Planning Commission and inquired whether or not the Commission had an opportunity to review these goals and whether any comments -_ could be made before the evening session, which would be helpful for the staff member preparing this element. ;~ Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the concept and principle were no great problem, but the specifs`.c wording needed some changing to reflect Anaheim's community values rather than a broad, Federal vaZue. Assistant Planner Annika Santalahti indicated to the Commission that all that ,' ; wa:; necessary was an endorsemer.t by the Commission, and any changes to the - wording would be a simple matter. - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to endCrse the Housing Element presented by staff, subject to minor verbiage amendments suggested. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ` ADJOURNMENT FOR DINNER - Chairman Farano declared a temporary adjournment for dinner at 5:50 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman pro tem Seymour recor.vened the meeting at * 7:30 P.M., Commissioner Farano beinq absent. '; ; .+kc ,''~~ ? ~,- , , ,. . . _ , ~ . . . _. . . , . , . . ~~ . ~ . ' . . . .. ~ ' !~ .. ~ : .'! _ 1~ 4 , . _ . .. . ' . .. ~ - . ' . . ' ' 4 ' ~ . r ~ ` , ;S - i f ~ ;, . , _ _. _ : . . -+ __ f ---- ------ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-753 Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that the first two items on the agenda had requested continuances. '~~ • RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION~ P, p, N0. 71-72-21 Box 2218, Anaheim, California, Owner; as: An irregularly-sha ed Pr~Perty described '; VARIANCE NO. 2310 a P parcel of land consisting of pproximately 15.8 acres being the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyun Road and Imperial Highway, with frontages of approximately 1,035 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road and _ approximately 544 feet on Imperial Highway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~''S REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZON~. a ~1 ~ar REQUESTED VAR3ANCE: WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED SIGNS, (2) TIME LIMITATION ON LIGHTED SIGNS, (3) LOCATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIALS, (4) MINIMLTiN FREEWAY SETBACK, (5) MINIMUM ~ ~ LOCAL LOT SETBACK. !6) SETBACK AREA LANLSCAPING, (7) i, MINIMUM INTERIOR SETBACK, (8) MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA •'-; DIMENSION, AND (9) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING -: STALLS TO PERMIT TAE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER '~ AND AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION. °~_ 3, ~; Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of fetitions ;" ~ for Reclassification No, 71-72-21 and Variance No. 2310 to the meeting of ~: December 13, 1971, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Allred ~~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSTFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES D. AND LONEAL A. HORTON, 604 East NO. 71-72-22 Oakmont Avenue, Oranqe, California, Owners; TED MORIARTY, Shell Oil Compan:~, 1136 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, VA~2IANCE NO. 2311 California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land being the southeast corner of Lakeviewj 184 feet on McKinnonADrive and 133ifeet oniLakeviewnAvenuetagPro~ertPProximately, cZassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. P Y Presently , REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. 12EQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT OF LOCATION AT THE INTER- SECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS, (2) REQUIREMENT TO BE INTEGRATED WITH A SHOPPING CENTER, (3) MINIMUM FREEWAY SETBACK, (4) MINIMUM ARTERIAL YIGHWAY SETBACK, (S) MINIMUM INTERIOR SETBACK, (6) PERMITTED SIGNS, AND (7) TIME LIMITATION ON LIGHTED SIGNS TO ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOB'I.LE SERVICE STATION. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts note.d that the agent for the petitioner and attorney had requested a continuance. Mr. Harry Knisely, representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and not~d that he had been apprised of the fact that the application was to be considered approximately three weeks previously; however, it was his under- standing that the petitions would be considered on December 13, and he ha~ hoped to reach staff prior to the puvlication of the Report to the Commission, but since he had not had a chance to review the proposal and since the Report to the Commission was rather lengthy, he would request a continuance until some time in the middle or latter part of January, 1972. Mr. Robert McQueen, representing the Santa Ana Canyon Homeowners P.:>sociation, appeared before the Commission and stated there were a number of persons present' in opposition, however, they would withhold their comments until subject petitions were considered b th ; y e Planning Commissior.. '~ .t , ~ A,howing of hands indicated ten ~ g_rsons present in opposition. ~,., j Commissioner Allred offered a Reclassificati N motion to c~ntinue consideration of Petitions f ~.- ' ` * : on o. 71-72-22 1971, as requested by the a or and Variance No. 2311 to the meeting of January 24 t _ , '{~,.,Y ge seconded the motion, MOTION „ n for the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst CARRIED. ;.. . I : ~ : ~ ~ . , _~._ . t 2. - ~ ..: ~. ... ..., .a;_: - .= . .. >.:. . , . . ' : , ~ - ..lT ."- .. ~^ I . . . . :- ,~.. . "• ,. y -. ' .~Y ~ . ~ ~ . . ' . . . ' . . ~ . ~ ~h eC :'., . ^ f ,~ : _ .r.. ~ ~ ~ i MINUT£S, CITX PLANNI NG COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-754 ~ VARIANCE NO. 2302 - PUBLIC HEARING. SHAPELL INDUSTRIES, Attention: Thomas C ' TENTATIVE MAP OF . Sifferman, 8857 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California Owner ro t d TRACT NO. 7003, , ; p per y escribed as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consistin of i REVISION NO. 2 g approx mately 29 acres, having a frontage of approximately n40 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, ha~~i,ng a maximum depth of • 570 feet west of the approximately 2,000 feet, and beinc located approximately centerlin f classifie d R-A, AGRI e o Walnut Canyon Road. Property presently CULTURAL, 20NE. _ - REQUESTED VARIANCE: PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A 136-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH W?fIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LO"f WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM LOT a'-'~ ~: ~ AREA, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. ~ ; , ' ,i ~;:, £ 1~! ; 1 f f s.:` ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DE'vSLOPER: S& S CONSTRUCTION CGMPANY, 8857 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into 136 R-1 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoaing action approving R-1 zoning and a variar.ce to permit 60-foot wide lots; that the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was applied to subject property in 1971; that the petitioner was proposing to subdivide the pro~perty into 136 lots rather than the 118 lots previously proposed; that the proposed increase in the number of lots resulted in a waiver for not only the lot width but for the lot area as well, and the vast majority of the lots were less than 7200 square feet and had less than 70 feet of frontaqe; that the internal street system for the proposed tract connected with the existing or proposed local streets in the existing and ~roposed tracts located east and west of subject property; and that no access points to Santa Ana Canyon Road were indicated since this property was located between two of the approved access points as proposed in the Access Points Study for Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. McDaniel, in eva].ualing the proposal, noted that the waiver of the minimum front setback was being requested for four lots along Santa Ana Canyon Road, with setbacks ranging from 15 te 22 fept; that the 50-foot setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road as required in the SC Zone would place the structures closer than the required 25-foot setback from the local streets due to the fact that ~ the configuratinn of the street alignments for subject property could not accommodate botk~ ~he setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road and the front setback, therefore, this waiver would appear to be justifiable in light of the existing circumstances. However, the other two waivers would not appear to have logical justification, even though previous approval for waiver of the minimum lot width reduced :he majority of the lots to 62-65 feet, however, no lots were less than 7200 square feet in area, wheress the proposal would reduce a majorzty of the lot widths to 50-55 feet and would provide lots rar.ging in size from 6000 to 7000 square feet; and that there appeared to be no apparent hardship ' as this property was not unique in size, shape, or topography and would appear to be readily developable for a standard R-1, 7200-square foot, single-family subdivision. Mr. Thomas Sifferman, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commis- sion and presented a summazy sheet of what was proposed and noted that the standard subdivision approved by the City Council compared to the more recent request would mean only an additional 18 lots over 29 acres, ar less than .6 of a lot per acre, or four persons per home, adding up to 72 additional persons that would be generated by the proposed variance; that the lots ranged in size from 6000 to 16,000 square feet, or an average of 7061 square feet, or 139 square feet less than the minimum of 7200 square feet. However, the entire map had been approved in 1969 with 60-foot lot widths, and they proposed average lot widths of 56.2 feet, having planned variable lot widths; that 40-foot wide homes were planned, and they also planned side lot widths of 16 feet to accommodate boat and trailer storage which was not readily accom- modated by most developers with the standard homes; that the existing street pattern necessitated the front setback waivers in order that the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one setback would not be violated; that the tracts to the east had been developed prior to the adoption of the SC 2one, and said lots protruded into the SC Zone setback; that there had been attempt to develop subject property in the past, however, the previous plans did not go forward; that their development plans were far superior ta the plan submitted previously, ~~K' . . - .. . . . . - - . . . . . . . . - _; . \ _ ~ ~~ : ' ~,'sli_:-.x. ^~ . . .. . . . . _ . ' . . . .J . ~ % -__ _. :~s.~~~.e,.~„~,.or~rw~s.:.~.r.~.~.a.~v....~ . . ~ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CzTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 ~ 71-755 VARIANCE N0. 2302 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7003, REVISION NO. 2(Cont'd) and that perhaps the previous develo er did n~' t•;:._; extensive and expensive off-site improvement3 ~f,i~ rS.,`~~~it_because of the very off-site improvements could be considered a i.s;;;~~;,;.,f;,. the City; that tk:ese and the difficult draina e r ."'"~•'°•'.Ltse of the topography g problem since sut `z~: •r. : :-ti,:,: :•: :~yad to handle drain- age from the property to the south of Santa F...: :'.,.r.;; i~:j. mately $136,000 to be spent for their own drr;';.~~;1^~ : ~~'~ with approxi- lot in this subdivision, and he felt this was :- ;~,,r;r;~,.,*r~g`s, or $1,000 per other developers who presented plans which did not materializenlitewasntheir intent to develop the proposed tract if the variance was aX~proved; and that the Commission was fully cognizant of the typES of develogmpnt their company had•with the developments in the city in the past - the latest being cn old Santa Ana Canyon Road west of Imperial Highway, Pictures and floor plans of fln~t models of that tract were ~hen displayed by Mr. Sifferman, who noted there were twelve different house types in a 52- lot subdivision, with plans ranging in size from 1400 square feet for a three- bedroom home - their leading house plan - to 2350-square foot, two-story homes; that they liked to consider their homes as being quality homes with wall-to-wall carpeting being planned, and to say their homes were well received was an understatement, having sold eleven homes during the sixteen days they had been offered for sale to the public. These homes ranged in price from $28,900 to $36,450. However, with some options, the eleven homes' selling price was $29,206 to $38,275, or an average of $33,400; that he could not state what the price of the proposed homes would be, but it woulci be more than those just quoted, primarily because of the expensive off~-z.:ie improve- ments; and that since these homes, in their opinion, would be ouality homes, they would blend in with the existing homes, which the residents of the city would be proud of since they were no strangers tu the City of Anaheim, having several other developments completed. Furthermo~e, it was their intent to provide for the landscaping as required on Santa Ana Canyon Road, and their intent to meet any other requirements the City might have. Mr. Sifferman, :~n conclusion, stated that they had done considerable soul- searching to decide whether or not to request R-2-5000 zoning, which would have increased the number of lots by 50; however, they undexstood the Commis- sion's goals for this property and felt they could get them in the quality- type homes they proposed. Furthermore, they also felt there was a definite hardship regarding the improvements and in consideration of quality-type homes, the waiver requested would be considered appropriate. Commissicner Seymour requested that Office Engineer Jay Titus explain the engineering requirements in Condition No. 12 of the recommended r,onditions. Mr. Titus stated that it was the general policy of the City for any develu~,ment in the canyon to require the developer to provide drainage for the canyon and take the water to the proper disposal. The proposal was to establish a drain- age district where an assessment would be made based on the cost of the drain- age facility and the drainage involved; that the first developer would be required to put up the front money to construct this stage, and the subsequent developers would have to pay the fee per acre determined by the City tl~.at would be paid to the original developer to reimburse him over and above his fair share' of the construction of the drainage facility. Mr. Sifferman then sLaLeu ;e ;;nderstood the logic, however, the dollar amount had never been determined as yet, but they did know the amount of drainage cost to handle drainage from their property, but not the overall scope. Commissioner Herbst noted that in reviewing the recap sheet submitted by and the statement made by Mr. Sifferman regar3ing the fact that lots ranged in size from 6000 to 16,000 square feet, he could see that at least 124 of these lots were less than 7000 square feet, therefore, he would like to know exactly how many lots were over 7000 square feet; whereupon Mr. Sifferman stated it would take him a little time to compute that. Commissioner Herbst then stated he would like to know the number of lots under 7200 square feet within this 1?5-lot subdivision since there were two or three very large lots which could change the concept considerably on the lot size. Mr. Sifferman stated he would compute that and have the answer available during the rebuttal. ; - - ~.:5~~ 'w .V, t _ ~ ! ' ~y ~; ~. ~ I . ,, -._ ~..~.u.... .~4c _ ~ *_"'~ ; , i I ~ _ ~ ~ ~ MII3UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-756 VARIANCE NO. 2302 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7003, 1tEVISION NO. 2(Cont'd Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition signed by 85 persaas representing over 808 of the adjoining property owners in opposition to the waiver of lot size. Mr. Lee R. Bly, 5929 Hadrians Crescent, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating his property was immediately adjacent to subject property, and noting that the petitioner had stated there was a hardship in developing his properLy, he felt there was a hardship being imposed on the adjacent home- owners to the west where a 6-foot property easement on each propert~ existed to provide access to the property to the south of subject property,.anci the height of that property rose to 12 feet from his property line; that if a wall were constructed adjacent ta this access road, the water would run like a river on its way to Constantine Avenue, and this would also be adjacent to his property, therefore, would this mean this wall would prevent drainage onto subject property - then what happened to the water that would run on their property since if the wall were built to the property line, residents on the opposite side could thxow trash over the wall into this roadway easement, creating debris that could deter drainage. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson noted that insofar as there appeared to be a drainage problem, all the property east of Imperial Highway would.be incor- porated into a drainage district, and the entire water shed of this district would be taken into consideration - this would include all the engineering necessary in having drainage to Santa Ana River, thus the first developer would have to take not only drainage from his property but drainage from all property that would be draining toward his property; that the City Attorney was currently working on an agreement for reimbursement of this drainage, establishing the amount per acre for drainage; and that since Mr. Bly's property was in a tract that was already developed, there would be no drainage Pee to be paid, but any tract develo,per would have to take care of drainage to the river. Mr. Bly then inquired who would take care of the drainage from the property he owned if subject petition were approved. Mr. xitus advised the Commission that Mr. Bly's concern had nothing to do with the dr,~inage district which the City was proposing to set up since this was a local pr~blem along the east boundary of the existing tract where homes were built on raised pads above th~ natural ground level and which sloped on their rear property lines to the natural ground level; that there was a 12-foot easement of which the adjoining ~ingle-family lots owned 6 feet of this ease- ment m thexefore, if the developer of subject property were to develop to the property 2ine, there still would be 6 feet between the easterly property line and the exi~ting wa~.l built on the tract to the west. Mr. Bly noted that sinoe there was a paved road already there and a wall on the opposite side, this street would erode if drainage were not channeled properly. Chairman pro tem Seymour advised Mr. Bly that the Commission understood his problem and would take this into consideration as they deliberated on the proposal. Mr. Joe LaGrone, 5930 Tiber Drive, appeared before the Commiss;.on in opposition, noting his property was also adjacent to the proposed tr.act except that the property was on the south side of the street and it was at the rear of the tract; that his property would be affected in a similar manner as Mr. Bly's property except that the property was 15 feet above ground; that the paved access was part of the previous approval of the traat, however, another require- ment was to have the homes adjacent to Tiber Drive placed north-south where they were adjacent to the tract to tne west so that the rear yards of these homes would not face the front yards of the tract in whiah he resided; and then inquired whether or not the developer planned to cut away this 12-foot incline when the tract was developed, leavzng the balance of the 12-foot road standing - if so, this would create a serious problem; and that if the homes were not required to face Tiber Drzve, this could mean some homes would have portions of at least three rear yards abutcing their rear yards or front yards. Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, representing the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that his opposition would be on general aspects, nut specifics, as was just 0 ! ' ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAPdNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 ~ 71-757 VARIANCE NO. 2302 AND TENTATIi~~ MAP OF TRACT NO. 7003, REVISION NO. 2(Cont'd presented; that the Planning Commission, City Council Development Services Department, landowners and residents of the canyon for many months had worked on the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one to arrive at a format for the canyon, limiting development to a minimum of 7200-square foot lots, however, constant deviations were being presented, asking waivers from these standards and the standards set forth were arrived at so that owners of large parcels, residents of the area, and developers would know what to do, but it appeared that the developers did not want to recognize the goals of the City, even though these were only guidelines for the developer. Therefore, he wanted the Planning Commission to take this into consideration, the main deviations from the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone which would mean many months of study, public hearings, and work by the City lost if the density and type of development approved in General Plan Amendment No. 122 r:ere not adhered to. Mr. Stewart Moss, 21463 Mohler Place, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion and stated he was pleased to follow Mr. McQueen since Mr. McQueen had expressed the feelings of their organization regarding the retention of the Scenic Corridor plan for their area which was scill quite rural in many respects, and thep would like to see it remain that way, however, progress would eventually change this, but one of the problems was the fact that indi- vidual planning as was proposed for the canyon by each developer presenting his own ideas for developing in the canyon might appear acceptable individually, but when all tracts were developed, there was no cohesiveness which the area deserved, and he wanted the Commission to take note of the fact that GeneraJ Plan Amendment No. 122 would supply that cohesiveness which the area deserved to retain the natural beauty, however, if the densit.y proposed were allowed to continue as was pErmitted on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, this beautiful wildlife preserve would vanish with the animals driven out, and it would be a shame to lose this - therefore, they were efi itel in opposition to the higher density and deviation from Code, """ the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Seymour requested that Mr. Titus elaborate on the problem as presented by Messrs. Bly and LaGrone. Mr. Titus stated that the holder of the easement was willing to abandon his riqhts to the easement if the developer of subject tract providcd access through th~ tract, however, nothing was planned for the westerly 6-foot ease- ment, and he had no idea of what would happen to it. Mr. Sifferman, in rebuttal, stated that the property easement was a roadway, and subject property went to the middle of said easement; that a portion of this easement was flat, and they were obligated to provide drainage in accord- ance with what the City Engineer required, however, this particular problem had no relevancy to the granting of the variance since the easement problem would still be there because there was no possible solution; that they had a conversation and agreement with Mr. Budlong on the easement in which he stated he was willing to abandon the easment if the tract developer would provide access from the southerly terminus of the easement - therefore, there would be a 6-foot strip that could be filled in by the owners of the property since this was no problem of theirs - however, the developer of the tract where the complaints of opposition were received had built the fence short of the property line in order to avoid building a retaining wall - this was to save the cost of building said retaining wall, and if the retaining wall had been built, there would not have been a slope; that an additional so2ution would be in the event the easement was abandoned, the developer could attempt to acquire the additional 6 feet and push the tract boundary to what would be the toe of the slope, thereby working out some agreement with the adjoining property owners - however, this would be a long, laborious task, although they had done this in the past when they had received the cooperation of the City in the past - this was not only the property owners' problem but a City problem, as well; and that they supported the Scenic Corridor concept and planned land- scaping to whatever was required except that the four lots which would have protruded into the Scenic Corridor setback if the waiver were not granted. Mr. Sifferman then nolted that the Commission had expressed concern relative to the degrees and sizes of the lots. Therefore, he would like to state that 35 of the lots were over 7200 square feet, 37 were between 6500 an3 7200 square feet, and 101 lots were under 7200 square feet. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~; _ ~ _- . ;~ . :;:: ' ~-~:~.-~...." ~' F .. . I d ~ ~ ~~:~ ~ ;,i i ~: _ ..":;.:.3 s _;i %'w 1'2 ` , . ,' ,.; ~ ~ ~ ,a~:t '.I ~ ~, i ~: 1 I ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-758 VARIANCE NO. 2302 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7003, REVISION NO. 2(Cont'd Commissioner Gauer noted that tne reason so many of the people were present in opposition was the fact that the developer was attempting to develop a project with less than 7200-square foot lots; that the drainage problem would remain regardless of the size of the lots, and the only problem he could see was the four lots which would protrude into the required setback along Santa Ana Canyon Road if not approved; that the Planning Commission had gone on record through public hearings for this area in which the 72q0 square foot size of lot was the minimum that would be approvec~ for this area, so there was no reason to change this now, and if the developer would develop in accordance with the 7200 square foot lots, waiver of the four lots as to setback would be granted by him. Commissioner Herbst noted }ie would agree with the statements made by Commis- sioner Gauer, and he felt that the property owners in the canyon who had 7200 square foot lots should enjoy the right to require 7200 square foot lots adjoining their property; that the Commission had been desirous of maintaining a lower density in the canyon, although many developers had been presenting variances reducing the size of the lots, and in some instances the City Council had approved them, however, the Planning Commission had always retained the 7200-square foot lot requirement. Commissioner Gauer further commented that after their tract was redesigned, the lots backing up to those homes to the west adjacent to Tiber Drive could be reversed, thereby solving the problem presented by the opposition. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-233 and moved for its passage and adoption, to grant Petition for Variance No. 23n2 in part, denying waiver for the minimum lot width and minimum lot area on ;:he basis that no hardship had been proven, and the Planning Comission was opp:,sPd to any -•duction of lot sizes and widths for those properties proposed to be deve' :d south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and granting waiver for the minimum front setback for those lots along the northerly tract boundary on the basis that a hardship was demonstrated in the fact that. the existing street patterns v~uld have prevented the creation of lots large enou~h to comply with both the minimum 50-foot building setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road and the required front setback; and that a low-density residential environment should be maintained south of Santa Ana Canyon Road as expressed in General Plan Amendment No. 122, subject to conditions, adding to Condi::ion No. 2 that all lots shall have a minimum of 7200 square feet of area and shall be 70 feet in width. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Seymour.noted that as a matter of clarification regarding the Commission's position on retaining low density south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, it was the Commission's intent to hold the required low density south of the Santa Ana River, however, that boundary was now being pushed down to south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and it cvas paramount that the Commission hold the line. However, his other concern was the drainage problem presented and re- quested that the staff advise the Commission how to recommend specific recom- mendations as to the responsibility for resolving the drainage through this special easement since he could not approve a tract map knowing that a drainage problem existed. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Commission would be unable to approve ~he tract map since the lot width and lot size had not been approved, and the tract map then was not in accordance with the requirements or site d:velopment standards of the R-1 Zone. Commissioner Allred noted that it was his opinion either the developer who had developed the tract of homes to the west or the developer of subject property should be required to present a drainage solution to protect the adjacEnt property owners since there woulc: be additional development up the hili, with more water draining down tc this easement. ~"~i7,~'i ' ' . C _y ` , ~ ;.;{.-~ ; . ~ . : h: ,f. . ~ ,. .,. rr . ;'j, ~ I;` ?I ~tii (,'• . •~:~c~ : `, ' ;. ;i;; ; ~ `i ~ t ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ _ _____~_ Ar. ,~ ~ ,~ ~ 71-759 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2302 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7003, REVISION NO. 2(Cont'd.) Commissioner Rowland noted that this was an engineering problem, and the Commission was made aware of it since it was brought to their attention; therefore, the Commission could give it some consideration, however, private engineers and staff engineers could resolve this problem in some way. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7003, Revision No. 2, on the basis that the variance was approved in part, and the lot w.idths and lot sizes did not conform with the site development standards of the R-1 Zone. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Farano was absent) VARIANCE NO. 2307 - PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner;,requesting WAIVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT THAT A SERVICE STATION SE INTEGRATED WITHIN A SHOPPING CENTER, (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPED SETBACK, (3) PERMITTED IDENTIFICATION SIGN, AND (4) HOURS OF OPERATION LIMITATION IN ORDER T~ ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, having frontages of approximately 150 feet on the east side of Imperial Highway and 160 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified C-1(SC), GENERAL COMMERCIAL (SCENIC CORRIDOR), 20NE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in c2ase proximity, previous zoninq acL•ion on the property, and the proposal to estab2ish an automobile service station with two drive approaches on La Palma Avenue, having pump islands projecting in a north- south manner to ~a Palma Avenue; that no access was proposed to Imperial High- way; and that two free-standing signs were proposed, one oriented to traffic at La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway while the other, a 200-square foot, 55-foot high sign located at the southeast corner of the property, would be oriented toward freeway traffic. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the existing zoning and ! the location of a service station at the intersection of two arterials, as ~ well as in close proximity to a freeway where substancial traffic would be ~ generated, would appear to be the logical location for a service station; I that the waiver of the requirement that a service station be integrated with- in a shopping center was being requested because there was no additional ~ development proposed in conjunction with the development of the service station, ~ although the adjacent property owner had indicated that it was his intent to develop a restaurant and/or a motel on the remaining C-1 property located on the south side of La Palma Avenue. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that at the time the property was being negotiated for by the oil company, the City Attorney's office had not made a determination as to the definition of the word "integrated", and it was not until after this determination by the City Attorney's office that it was decided that "integrated" required development ~ to occur simultaneously or prior to the development of the service station; that the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one would prohibit free-standing signs al- together; that although the shopping center approved at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway was in the Scenic Corridor, it was permitted to have free-standing signs because the property owner had been working on the center for several years and had already negotiated leases with many of the tenants, thus, due to special circumstances, these signs were permitted. However, the Commission Pmphasized that their action on the request was not to be considered as setting a precedent for similar approval through- out the canyon area. Therefore, the Commission might wish to determine that three of the requested waivers were appropriate, however, the request for a 55-foot high, 200-square foot sign would appear to be unreasonable in light of the recent concern by the Commission regarding the scenic corridor and the development within the canyon. Mr. P. D. Lippert, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that when they were negotiating the purchase of the property, they were unaware of the SC Zone requirements and the interpretation by the City Attorney regarding the service station being integrated within a shopping center site and built either in conjunction or subseq~~ent to the construction of a shopping center; that the property owner with whom they had negotiated the sale of the serv_ce station property indicated that he had obligated the C-1 property for model homes being developed farther east on La Palma Avenue, therefore, the commercial center for which plans had been submitted when the zoning was requested would not be developed at this time; and that their ~=. • ~~ .. _ _. ~ 'y f _. _ . . . . . ~_ ~ ~s, `~.. ~,~. _ . . . . _ ; ~ 11. / _ _ K. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY kLF~NNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 71-760 VARIANCE NO. 2307 (Continued) reason for requesting permissio: to attach a canopy was so that there would not be 3 5-foot open space between the service stztion building and the canopy, and attaching it would be for aesthetic reasons as well as providing an area where customers could stand in the shade during the summer months and out of the rain in the winter montlxs. Commissioner Allred interrrupted Mr. Lippert by stating that if the petitioner ~,. had integrated this service station as part of a shopping center by flopping the plan over, there would be no need for some of the waivers requested. ...~...-- ~ ~ e_ 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission tha•t the C-1 Zone with the SC Zone ovexlay would require the service ~station to be oriented toward the interior of the project, and the opinion of the Citp Attorney's ~- office was that a service station must be part of a sho adjacent to a center, and that the service station wouldphavectotbe developed - concurrently with or after the shopping center was developed, not prior to ~ construction of the shopping center. ~; Commissioner Allred noted his interpretation was to have the service station ? part of the shopping renter with acaess to the service station by way of ~ entry to the shopping center, making the service station a part of the center. i~ ~ Mr. Lippert continued by noting that Orange County had an ordinance that ,~~ permitted two driveways within 200 feet with access being on one street; that :"~ two stations in the County had these accessways, one being very successful ?~' while the other was very poor; that having two accessways to one street was ,, a new concept to the customers, and it was very difficult to change the people i, overnight; and that with dividers in the streets, this compounded their r;c :`~s'A. problem. ; ; _.~;. .~ ~~ Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the oil companies had not made ^'_, ~,~ much of an effort to change their service stations in Anaheim; that the City ~~~ had between 15$ and 258 of their serv~ ;?F~ therefore, it might be better to have theSService stationrascan~integrated ~•°'r„ part of a shopping center so that it would be more successful. .l~' z;;~ I~•" y.~l Mr• ~,ippert r_oted that Richfield oil had no closed although they were smaller in numberpandlmore1selectivestthatnthereng ~}r~~ was only one street available at this site to serve the ; 7~ their station because the State had obtained access rightsntoa2mperial Highway; "~` :~.1 that Orange County requirements did not require that the service station be ~',~ ~ integrated with a shopping center, only that the statioa have one driveway ~: r on each street; that they were requesting two signs, one oriented to the free- ~:•' way because of their close proximity to the freeway and thus could serve free- 5'~~ way traffic, and that the other sign would be similar to the service station ,' they had on Santa Ana Canyon Road since this would be only a 20-foot high, 46-square foot sign; that the waiver of the time limitation for lighting ~' was necessary since they would be operating 24-hours-a-day in order to provide :~ service to the freeway traffic and lightinq was necessary between midnight ;~ and 6:30 A.M.; and that the property had industrial zoning to the west, and <~`. ° the service station would be quite far removed from any residential uses. Furthermore, with the amount of traffic presently qoing thx•ough the canyon, it was hoped their first service station on the Riverside Freeway west of Riverside would be approved. i(i Commissioner Gauer observed that Anaheim was one of the few cities that had , made errors in approving the number of service stations since each service K;' ~~ station should be capable of serving 3,500 cars - Anaheim had one service ;,. ; station per 270 cars - t,ier~fore, he would hope that the Commission would be more selective as to the'number and location of service stations now that development was bea.ng proposed in a relatively new area. Therefore, he did not want to see any more service stations in the canyon until further evidence was seen of what was to he deveToped in the canyon. = Mr. Lippert noted that when they were negotiating the purchase of the property, there was no requirement to have a shopping center built prior to or in con- junction with a service station, and after the deal had been consummated, he had been informed of this requirement. Furthermore, he would like to state ~~ that Richfield stations had never been closed either in Anaheim or Orange `. ~ '. County . ,'. •~ ..... ......... _~ ~ -.. .. ~~ .. .. • : ~ . . - - . ~ . . . . . . . .~A .. ~ . . .. . . \ , , ~ . ~ '. ~ ~ , ~, ~_~ MINUTES, CZTY BLANNING COMb1ISSI0N, November 29, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2307 (Continued) ~ ~ 71-761 Mrs. Marcia Raczek, 5917 Hadrians Crescent, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating there appeared to be more l:han enough service stations already built in this general area, and the thought of looking out her bedroom window at this high sign would be sufficient argument for the retention of the scenic corridor concept. Therefore, ~he was opposed to the service station at this location. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer inquired of staff when did the Planning Commission approve a service station at this location. Whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the representative of the oil company had asked staff if a service station was permitted, and staff informed him that a service station was permitted at the intersection of two arterials, however, this was prior to the City Attorney's interpretation of an integrated shopping center; and that unless the service station was indicated on the concept plans at the time zoning was requested, this would be the £irst request for a service station. Commissioner Seymour noted that the rendering on the wall ~s to the type of service station and signing that was proposed was exactly what the Commission did not want for the City of Anaheim, much less what sho~;ld be developed in the Scenic Carridor, with the sign protruding into the sky in order to attract freeway business, particularly when he had seen some very a•ttractive signs set in rock closer to the ground; that by proposing this sign it would appear the petitioner was testing the ignorance of the Commission since it openly violated the Co~mission's concept for the Scenic Corridor. Maybe the petitioner was applyinq in good faith regarding being integrated within a shopping center, but the petitioner was openly requesting waivers or violations of the setbacks and height and number of signs since not one iota of evidence was submitted that a hardship existed other than integrated within a shopping center, which, by no means, was strong enough to approve a variance. Commissioner Rowland noted that the concept plans submitted in ].969 did propose a service station. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Commission in approving the service station sign at Imperial Highway south of Santa Ana Canyon Road had stated agproval should not be considered as setting a precedent sincethis station was inte- grated into the shopping center, and the sign was several hundred feet from Santa Ana Canyon Road - thus, there would be no effort to encourage business from Santa Ana Canyon Road or the freeway. Commissioner Rowland noted there was no intent on the parr. of the Commission to permit high signs, and the sign permitted at the service station on Imperial Highway south of Santa Ana Canyon Road was constructed in a hole. Furthermore, each petition should stand on its own merits and evidence submitted as to proof of hardship; and that he did not feel the previous sign approved by the Commission in the canyon violated the SC Zone intent. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-234 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2307 on the basis that the petitioner did not prove hardship to warrant waiver of the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone; that the proposed signing would be contrary to the desires of the City to retain the scenic atmosphere of the canyon area; that although the petitioner stated that negotiations had been completed for purchase of the property prior to the City Attorney's interpretation of an integrated shopping center, the intent of the SC Zone was to have the service station integrated with a shopping center; and that in order to encourage and maintain the amenities of the Scenic Corridor, it was necessary that flagrant waiver, requests from the standards of the SC Zone be carefully analyzed and either modified or denied. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resulution was passed by the followir.g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~ 1~ ~~_~ ' '"' _'`~~_ .~ y _k. ~•. ,~ ~ \ ~ + 5 ~'~ ~ 0 ~. _ 1 , _ ; ; 1 ~, - ---- ; ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 29, 1971 ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1268 (Lynn Thomsen) - . Request to waive the condition requiring street lighting installation. '71-762 , Assistant Zonin~ Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject , property, uses established in close proximity, previous approval by the Planning Commission with a requirement to install street lights or a bond be posted to guarantee the installatian of this requirement, and the _ Electrical Division's report regarding the requested waiver of the street - lights, in which it was stated that although the requested waiver indicated street liqht fees would amount to $1,200, this was aot quite accurate as ~ t~~ conditional use permit stated requiring the installation of the atreet light units, and he saw no reason for waiving this condition at this time; ~ that there were existing street lights on the south side of La Palma Avenue ; in this area, however, these were inadequate for the standards oF illumina- tion for major arterials, such as La Palma Avenue, therefore, it was neces- 'I ~ sary for street lights also to be installed on the north side of the street, ;; and the Electrical Division would recommend disapproval of the request. ~ _ C~mmissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny the request for waiver of Condition No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 1268, requiring street lights - to be installed or a bond posted to guarantee the installation of this ; requirement, on the basis that the Electrical Division had advised the -',; `~ Commission that the street lights presently existing on the south side of ~1 La Palma Avenue were inadequate to light the area, and ~hat there would }- appear to be no reason nor hardship presented to favorably consider the ; request for waiver of the street lights. Commissioner Kaywood seconded ,; ;;~j the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i t. ...i~ ITEM NO, 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1072 (Clarence McNees - ~,~ Greyhound Bus Depot) - Request for extension of ' time on rrorerty l~cated at the southeast corner of c~ 3~~ Haster Street and Manchester Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request for a one- year extension of time to permit the continued use of the property for a bus depot, noting that two previous one-year extensions of time had been qranted by the Planning Commission, and staff had reviewed the use to determine that the use had no deleterious effect on the area; that parking appeared to be adequate; that the Engineering Division had indicated no dedication for Haster Street would be required at this time since the ultimate alignment of Haster Street had not, as yet, been determined; and that these extensions are subject to review by the Development Services Department at the end of each period of time to determine whether the criteria established under the ori~~inal Planning Commission resolution had been adhered to. Therefore, staff would recommend that the one-year extension of time be granted, to expire November 4, 1972, again subject to review by the Development Services Department for a report as to whether or not the property was still conforming with the criteria established under the original Planning Commission resolution. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for the use established under Conditional Use Permit No. 1072, said time extension to expire November 4, 1972. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 3 Field trip to view hillside developments. , ~= ~[. `:. 5: ~- 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the Commission had expressed a desire to view samples of hillside development, particularly as it related to the Anaheim Hills project; that staff had contacted a number of agencies in the southern part of the State and Orange County, however, there appeared to be no good examples in close proximity exce~t for that at Laguna Niguel and Pacific Island Village, but the County planninq staff had stated t.his was not as good an example as the Commission might like; and that , ~~ ~ •t.~ i~~}.; .,'~~,~„` ~t ~ '~ . . ~ . . . - ~~ .L... . _ . . . _ . f .. :, , ?~;~' : . r~ •>,"";r =., , t~> :-:, '. ~. . . :;'. f~`, .:~.' ', ~~~"~~~~~.-.. .~~.~' ,. -:. : :: sza=x wouta arrange for a field trip to be scheduled Decembe~ 11, 1971. 'scu sion s held the Co 'ssion re rding 's field rip, w th Co miss'oner mour s ting per s with holida eason d so of the ommi sion b'ng busy ith thei own busin s, staf ight able t take ictu s of t's. Howe r, if th was not asible. en a the Commis oner should e advise f the ti and date a fiel rip ich would ta e place. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meetinq. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRZED. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C~~~~~.~ ANPe KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~ t r rS~ M ~ -L' " a ~~ ~"^` . `. `; . _ 5 ' . _ . ' . . ~~ ~ . . . _ , , . ~ ' _a ~ ~ ' "-~-~ ~.. . __.~._~...~. t E