Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/12/13r ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ City Hall Anaheim, California December 13, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by ~hairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. , ~ •S I ~ _ , ='1 4,'. , ;: , ~: ` ,~ .- , ; a~c ';. ~ ~ '~ ~ +:~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. - COMMISStONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus P.ssistant 2oning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MiNUTES of the November 15, 1971, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: Pg. 71-707, last line: should be "2 million cubic yards". Pg. 71-712, para. 9, line 3: should be "November 1 meetin~". Pg. 71-712, para. 7, line 2: "would take_" (delete "place"). Pg. 71-723, para. 4, line 4: "Adele Street" instead nf "Dale". Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes of the November 29, 1971, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Rowland an3 MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: Pg. 71-726, para. 5, line 2: Ronald Thompson not present. Pg. 71-746, para. 9, lines 2 and 3: "Lincoln Avenue" instead of "Brookhurst Street". Pg. 71-747, para. 1, line 1: he "felt" instead of "had doubts". Pg. 71-748, para. 2, lines 2 and 5: "principal" instead of "representative". para. 3, lines 4 and 5: should read: "one auto- mobile without a muffler, or a motorcycle;" Pg. 71-757, para. 2, line 16: "Code, and in favor of the" instead of "as well as the". Pg. 71-763, para. 2: delete. R~CLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY AND LOUISE HOISSERANC, NO. 71-72-2p 7372 South Dale Street, Buena Park, California, Owners; JAMES E. RODGERS, Westfield-Urban Company, 6151 West CONDITIONAL USE Century Boulevard, Suite 928, Los Angeles, California, PERMIT NO. 1277 Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 17.6 acres TENTATIVE MAP OF located at the southeast corner of the Artesia Freeway TRACT NOS. 7657, and Dale Street and having frontages of approximately 7658, AND 7659 1,300 feet on the Artesia Freeway and 651 feet on Dale Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONES. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. 71-764 i~~i...~~" , ; ~ . , ' , ' ~ . ~ ~ . /S ~ .. .,. - ~~: ~ ~ ....~+~."~.'-'~ ~ .C . _s ~ ~ ~ . , .~ '. . . • . ~ _a i , ~ 0 ~ MINUTES, CxTX PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 ~\ ~ i ~ 71-765 ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20, CONDITIONAL JSE PERMIT NO. 1277, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7657, 7658, AND 7659 (Continued) REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A 179-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM SITE AREA, ~2) MINIMUM SITE [+1IDTH, (3) REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET, (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (5) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FSET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20NE, AND (6) REQUIREMENT TO ENCLOSE STORAGE AREAS. TENTATIVE TRACT PROPOSALS: No. 7657 - 59 R-2 zoned lots; No. 7658 - 61 R-2 zoned lots; and No. 7659 - 62 R-2 :,oned lots. Subject petitions and tracts were continued from Ehe meetings of November 15 and 29, 1971, to allow time for the developer to meet with City of Buena Park officials regarding the proposal and to submit revised plans. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject Property, uses established in close proximity, reason for previous continuances, and the proposal to establish a 179-unit condominium development as set forth in the Repos•t to the Commission. Mr. James Rodgers, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting he would be the developer of the proposal, and then reviewed the proposal, noting that the revised plan was the first which the Commission would consider formally since the previous plan had been discussed informally, and he had attempted to incorporate the suqgestions made by the Commission into the revised glans, as well as those suggestions made by the City of Buena Park; that subject property was rather an unusual parcel since it was surrounded by several different types of uses, a freeway on the north, manufacturinq tn the east, a park to the south, and single-family residences to the west, across Dale Street, a secondary highway; that prior to purchasing the property it was their feeling the property had some outstanding qualities with commercial uses established to the south, which the residents of this development would use, Dale Street being used for access purposes; that the traffic count for Dale Street at this location was the traffic count of less than a local street, not a secondary highway, the classification for Dale Street, therefore, the addi- tional traffic from the proposed 179 units would not be an intrusion or dis- j rupt the residential uses on the west side of Da:e Street; that the plan before the Commission was the result of many months of study, and as a result, the townhouses they proposed would sell in the same price range as the homes in this area were being sold; that 40$ of the units would be single story and the balance, 60$, would be two story, and this was important to retain the resi- dential character of the area; that private yards were being provided as well as two-car garages; that these private yards were important in a planned resi- dential development where a large amount of common area did not allow people ~ to have their own private barbecue, whereas these private yards would provide this; that the units were oriented to three different vistas - the common green area; the public park to the south; and the recreational facility under the Edison easement to the east; that they had attempted to eliminate the row-type apartment development by recessed units; that a tremendous amount of land was being proposed for recreation, with a 120-foot strip on the east- erly boundary wherein outdoor activities and facilities were proposed; that the front portion would hsve a very attractive pool and recreation area with facilities for meetings in the recreation room, restrooms and change rooms; that it was his hope that Dale Street provided good access to the property, i and the traffic count was very low, which wz.s also extremely important to con- sider in a project of this type; that the density proposed was 10.5 units per 3 acre, while the General Plan projected densities up to 7 and 8 units, therefore, i this proposal would be in the low range of the low-medium density; that the units would be selling in the $24,000 to $26,000 price range, this price being ~ comparable to the presEnt market value of the homes being sold in this area; that it was his feeling there was a need for this type of facility both in Anaheim and Buena Park for people who would like this type of living environ- ment; that the project would be financed through FHA 203B standards for single- family homesJ that the homeowners association would be set up and CC&Rs estab- lished which would be very closely watched by not only FHA but the City of Anaheim, who had very stringent requirements; that parking nroposed was 2.57 parking spaces per unit, witn two completely enclosed spaces in garages for I I ~;~,:~. ' _ , r~ ~^;ea~.p. ~w , . . . . . .. ~:: ~~C. ... _ _ , : ~ ~ . ^ C ~ .I .. . r __. _ ~ - - / . C7 ~~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-766 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7657, 7658, AND 7659 (Continued) °"' each unit and the balance being open parking spaces for guests, which were dispersed throughout the development; and that the amount of recreation area ', proposed ;aas considerably higher than required by FHA or the City since 2.7 acres of the 17.46-acre site would be utilized. Mr. Rodgers then reviewed the waivers being requested, noting that of the six being requested, four were very common tc glanned residential developments; '..~.~ that although the R-2 Zone required a locked storage area, it was felt that more than 300 cubic feet was being provided in the garage, which would have a .+"`r-r') , door that could be locked; that the one-story height limitation waiver request ' ' was for those few units along Dale Street which were really not two-story ',~: ~~; apartments since only bedrooms and baths were on the second floor and would have the same use as a two-story, single-family home; that while the City of ' Anaheim had a 150-foot setback requirement, the City of Ba-eiia Park required ?' only 50 feet; and that, in conclusion, after very careful planning and exten- sive study, the plan before the Commission was considered the most desirable and would provide residents of Anaheim and Buena Park an ogyoitunity to 1 purchase a home in the middle $20,000 range. Mr. Bill Young, seni~r. planner for the City of Buena Park, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that the Buena Park C.ity Council had expressed opposition to the previous plan submitted with the density originally j proposed, however, the Buena Park City Council had not had an opportunity to ,9 review the revised plans, but based on the revised plans, the Buena Park City ,;_~ Manager had requested him to reiterate the City Council's previous stand on ;i this project because the density proposed exceerled the density projected on ~` the Anaheim General Plan wherein low densit was ;, y projected, or apgroximately ~~. 5 units per acre, and the City Council was not desirous of having a density ;~ greater than 8 units per acre, or about 40 to 60 units less than was being proposed so that the traffic impact on Dale Street with the proposed increase ~ in vehicles would not be so great. Furthermore, the City of Buena Park was also opposed to any waivers of the site development standards, therefore, they would request that the Anaheim Planning Commission deny suuject petitions 3ue to the density and impact this increase in traffic would have on Dale Street. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not it would be impossible for the ;_,~~ City of Anaheim t~ serve this property with public utilities, and would the ' `~} City of Buena Park refuse to serve the property. `. •'~ R Mr. Young replied that this was one of the major considerations before the f~ Buena Park City Council, and it might be possible that Buena Park might refuse ~~ to serve this property if the density remained as was originally submitted, „;~ as well as the restricted access and narrow private streets proposed to the Buena Park City Council. Mr. Rodgers, in rebuttal, stated that he was not surprised at the statements made by Mr. Young since he had had a number of very friendly meetings during ~ the past few months, even though they had some basic philosophical differences ~ as to this property; that comments made as to sewer and water were of little concern since there were facilities in the street, and the Orange County Sanitary District facilities sold sewer services to the various cities; that they were willing to pay twice the cost for water hook-up and twice the rate 'b~ for water service from the City of Buena Park, therefore, he expected this sewer and water aspect would carry its own weight without any problem to the ':.t City; that having discussed the fire and police protection problems with the " proper o£ficials, it was determined that on a Code 3 call, a police car could ? `~ arrive within three minutes since it was part of the route for a patrol car; f' ''! that access to the property from La Palma Avenue and Dale Street under normal :~... speed limitation could bring fire trucks from that intersection within one ~ and one-half minutes, therefore, with the general traffic pattern it would not be difficult to serve this property with fire and police protection; that a franchise contractor would serve the trash pick-up for this property; that the proposed development would not create any problem for either city, and the Z, water revenue could be a benefit to the City of Buena Park; that tliey had placed traffic counters on Dale Street, and while Dale Street was considered ~ a secondary highway, which should handle up to 18,000 vehicular trips at .* ~ saturation, their counter indicated a local or residential street count with y.. . ~ ! - ; .`-.1:' . i ~ ~_.__... ~ ~ . .... . . _ ~ !~ . ... ~ _ .Jd- ._....~ ~.~.. H. { ,.. . '~ .. . . , -- .. .' . . . . ~ ~ :~ ~; ' ,;, ~ > .i ,_ _ _ ~ O ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 ~ 71-767 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 7~-72-20~ CpNDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 1277, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7657, 7658, AND 7659 !Continued) about 3,100 vehicles on Dale Street a~_ ,'1 hours of the day and night, as well as week ends; that it was one of the widest streets with the least amonnt of traffic; that the traffic department statistics indicated that amount was less than one-fourth the normal secondary highway traffic count and only one-half a local street, therefore, traffic from this project could not be considered a problem; that if the City of Buena Park did not serve this property with sewer and water, this service could be obtained from Magnolia or La Palma Avenues in the City of Anaheim, however, it was his understanding that the two cities had reciprocal agreements where one city would serve another city's residents if it was not convenient for the parent city to do so, and 67 acres of Buena Park were now served by Anaheim. - Commissioner Kaywood observed that although it appeared to be a very small _ traffic count for Dale Street, since there was only a dead orange grove~and a park on one side of the street, thete would be a complete change in the picture with an increase in the number of units for this area since Dale Street dead-ended at the freeway. ~ ,I Mr. Rodgers indicated that the street was so designed prior to being cut off by the freeway, however, before the construction of the freeway, there had - been a great deal more traffic un Dale Street than presently existed. i: ~+.' Commissioner Kaywood observed that the problem would not occur on Dale Street 2i but at the intersection of Dale Street and La Palma Avenue, the latter street havinq extremely heavy traffic due to the numerous commercial facilities in ;; this general area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 'c? f; ;. , .: :s~ ` ~;; ~ !.. ~ t~ : `' .~e . ~~: i' , - ;`: ti '.- - Commissioner Seymour observed that there were a n~imber of itesns to consider that would be basic to the consideration of this complex; 1) the uses on the boundaries of subject property, namely, manufacturing, a freeway, and a public park, which made this a very unique parcel - if the Commission were to con- ', sider this for other than R-1 uses, then this parcel would be very appropriate i for the proposed use; 2) the plan itself in discussinq the peripheral public street pattern in comparison to the private street pattern; 3) the density as indicated by the petitioner as being 10.5 units per acre was comparable to other comdoniniums approved by the Planning Commission in the past - for ~ instance, the one on Frontera and Rio Vista Streets which had 12 units per acre; 4) the request by the City of Buena Park to maintain a maximum of 8 units per acre - however, the petitioner had provided a reasonable approach to the recreational areas, therefore, the waivers requested were not unreasonable. Furthermore, he felt the project was a good one, but he did have some reserva- tion as was pointed out by Commissioner Rowland as to the layout, such as the peripheral streets, and if this could be resolved, this would then be a very good project. : Commissioner Gauer indicated that the petitioner should maintain the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-1, whether within the City of Anaheim ' or the City of Buena Park, in order that a precedent would not be established. Furthermore, the proposed development as an R-2 condominium at this location was considered acceptable, and that as to who would serve this project would be a problem which the developer would have to resolve, but he could see no reason why the City of Anaheim coul~ not serve this project. Commissioner Allred concurred with the requirement of one-story within 150 feet of the R-1 to the west. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the developer had made special arrangements to soundproof the units adjacent to the freeway, Whereapon Mr. Rodgers stated that they were also concerned about the soundproof.ing when they considered purchasing this property and had a sound engineer check this because of the elevation of the freeway at this location, an3 as a result, separate walls for each unit with sound-deadening material in the center one- half inch thick was planned, however, more sound would come through the windows and patios than from the walls, but there would be more sound reduction because oi this treatment. ~~`~ ' - - : , ~~ , .: .. }.~~ , ; g _ f , ~ _y ~ . .,. _ :.. L . i~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ MINUTES, CzTX PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-768 * •~@c ' RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT h0. 1277, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7657, 7658, AND 7659 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood then inquired about the "not a part" and the treatment proposed for this area. Whereupon Mr. Rodgers stated that the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Boisseranc, planned to remain on this property; that access to and from the property was Being provided; that a masonry wall, as well as land- scaping around the wall, was also being provided; that they had calculated at a future date the method in which this property would be used, tying it into the existing streets and structures, which would add two more buildings. however, the density projection of 10.5 units per acre did not include this property; and that the change in density would not be significant when the "not a part" was developed. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner was agreeable to meeting the City's requirement of one-story within 150 feet of the R-1 property and would he so stipulate. Whereupon Mr. Rodgers stated that this could be done by eliminating those units along Dale Street proposed for two-story, and if the Commission so desira;:, he would so stipulate. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-235 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 71-72-20, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing r~asolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. 1 Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-236 and moved for its passage ~ and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1277, in part, denying waiver of the one-story height limitation since the petitioner stipu- ~ lated to one-story within 150 feet of the R-1 pr~perties in the City of Buena Park, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) S i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioners Farano, Kaywood, and Rowland voting "no"), to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7657, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7657 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1227. ' 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiv- ision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That 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. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council ' approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concur- rently with the final tract map. ,Yt~ ~ l . ~ '~ r : i : : ~.~ ~. ~ (~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decemter 13, 1971 71-769 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277, AND TENTATIVE MaP OF TRACT NOS. 7657. 7658 AND 7659 (Continued) 6. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate paxk and recreation in-lieu fees as deter- mined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Eagineer. 8. That Tentative Map of Tract No. 7657 and No. 7659 shall not both be developed prior to Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658. 9. That full dedication and improvements for Dale Street adjacent to Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 shall be accomplished with the first phase of development. 10. That a document granting to the owners of Tract Nos. 7658 and 7659 the right of access to and over any and all private accessways within Tract No. 7657, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that said document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Farano, Kaywood, and Rowland voting "na"), to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1227. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as moxe than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underqround utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitte3 to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, cor.ditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and agproved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concur- rently with the final tract map. 6. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as deter- mined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 shall not both be developed prior to Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658. 9. That a document granting to the owners of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 the right of access to anfl over any and all private accessways within Tract No. 7658, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that said document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. a r e~i':.Z"C""'~9'~ _ r~ _ - _ :~.:«fii~: _ , t . ~~ ~ ... ~ . .. . . .. . .. ~ t . . ' _w . . ... t ~ ,~= ~,. : t~:':: . ,.- ::~n; ~';~ ` , i;;; _, ~'i ':E ;_` l+ ;; ~ .` '.:' ~r:~, .~! ,7 . . '~`_ ' , : ~ ~_ , _ , ~ .~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-770 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF_TRACT NOS. 7657 7658 AND 7659 (Continued) Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and • MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners~Farano, Kaywood, and Rowland voting "no"), to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7659, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7659 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1227. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiv- ision, each subdivision thereof shall ~e submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. 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. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concur- rently with the final tract map. 6. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropria.te park and recreation in-lieu fees as deter- mined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 shall not both be developed prior to Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658, 9. That a document granting to the owners of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7658 the right of access to and over any and all private accassways within Tract No. 7659, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that said document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 10. That provision shall be made whereby satisfactory access rights shall be provided to Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 7659 for sewer and vehicular access to Dale Street over both private driveways abutting said Lot No. 62. These provisions shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. ^ ~ a;,,~,.,.~.o.=._~.. . ~_ - ~ i ~ , ~ : I ~ ~ i f:. r.r y ~;~';,.t ;: ~' ~. Y; '= i ~; .~. ; MI.tUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS70N, December 13, 19?1 ~.._~ 71-771 VARIANCE NO. 2312 - PUBLIC HEART*`G. ANAIiEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, TENTATIVE MAP OF Owners; WILLIAM J. STAF.K, President Anaheim Hills, Inc., TRACT NO. 7558 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, Cali£ornia, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 31 acres located approxi- mately 3/4 mile southwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir,2 miles south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 1/4 mile,south uf the terminus of Walnut Canyon Road at Orange Park. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A ~ 22-LOT EQUESTRIAN AND OPEN SPACE ORIENTED SUBDIVISION. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: Willdan Engineering, 125 South Claudina Street,: Anaheim, California; proposing to subdivide subject property into 22 R-A zoned lots. Chairman Farano noted that a request by the petitioner was submitted for a two-weeks' continuance and inquired whether there was anyone present in the Council Chamber regardinq subject petition. No one present indicated his interest in the proposal. Commissioner Kay.wood was of the opinion that more than a two-weeks' continuance should be considered since it was her feeling the Planning Commission should hold a work session with Anaheim Hills in order to be updated as to what was proposed in the Anaheim Hills area, formerly known as Nohl Ranch, as it per- tained to the General Plan amendment approved in the spring. Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the work session and length of time subject petition should be continued. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2312 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7558 to the meeting of ~Tanuary 24, 1972, in order to allow time for the Commission to meet with the owners-developers in a work session to be updated on the most recent proposals as they pertained to the General Plan amendment. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NO. 71-72-21 P. O. Box 2218, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of lznd con- VARIANCE NO. 2310 sisting of approximately 15.8 acres being the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, with frontages of approximately 1,035 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 544 feet on 7mperial Highway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GEIJERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED SIGNS, (2) TIME LIMITATION ON LTGHTED SIGNS, (3) LOCATION AT TAE INTERSECTI023 OF' TWO ARTERIALS, (4) MINIMUM FREEWAY SETBACK, (5) MINIMUM LOCAL LOT SETBACK, (6) SETBACK AREA LANDSCAPING, (7) MINZMUM INTERIOR SETBACK, (8) MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA DIMENSION, AND (9) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS TO PERMIT. THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER AND AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION. Subject petii:ions were continued fror.: the November 29, 1971, meeting at the request of the retit:ioner in order to allow time to resolve access problems. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal as set forth in the Report to the Commission, noting there were nine waivers from the Anaheim Municipal Co3e; that sevan of the waivers were for the site develop- ment standards of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone; and that the petitioner ~ ~ :~...~ - - ' __ i. ~1 11c-~~.I p . ~!':~~~~ ~~s.L i~.'-„ . ~ ~ ~L ~ -~~ ~ I ~by;~, ' ~ T .a,~- ~ ~. s ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71_~72 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued) proposed a community shopping center to include a supermarket, a builder's supply store, a drug store, a junior department store, a bank, a restaurant, a service station, and other assorted shops. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the Anaheim General Plan indicated a community shopping center symbol in the vicinity of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, and the zoning requested could sa.•tisfy this designa- tion, however, the Commission recently approved a similar pr-oject on the south- -+; west corner of Imperial Highway'and Santa Ana Canyon Road which was also felt A; ",~;i'i •'„'; to be adeq.uate to implement the Gen.eral Plan designation for a community center, ,, therefore, in this regard the Commission might consider this reclassification r •a• and proposal to be inappropriate. rurthermore, the applicant's revised plans i.~_ ;:y~ had eliminated four of the nine advertised waivers, namely, the time limit on ~ lighted signs, the setback along the proposed local street, the setback along f the adjacent property to the east, and the inadequate number of parking stalls. Mr. McDaniel, in conclusion, staced that it would appear that in light of the 1;; unknown factors as set forth in the Report to the Commission, namely, the two State properties that had no determinable future and the questiori of access ' to the property, in additio:i to the recently-approved community center at the ~ ,~ southwest corner of these two highways, the Commission might wish to consider ~ this proposal inappropriate at this time. ! S~, Mr. Harry Rinker, re resentin the ~ P g petitioner, appeared before the Commission ~;i~ and stated he would remark on the merits to justify the location of this ~, commercial shopping center because if any piece of property of the many which ~ :~ his company had developed shouted for the proposed zoning, subject property _ .~~ did qualify due to its location; that the residents of Santa Ana Canyon had been opposed to spot zoning in the canyon in an effort to retain the area for its rural, residential appearance, therefore, by proposing this shopping " - center, it would forestall any justification for other small shopping centers q ! ~ in the canyon and concentrate the shopping facilities at one location; that ! =: there was no question that the General Plan indicated subject property for ~ ° '' a commercial center; that the residents who would be going to Anaheim Hills j ,;r~:;;.,;:;~4: would be stopping off at this center for their rneeds; that he had instructed ~ tir his architects and designers to develop a high-quality center, and he did not ; know of any other center that would be more attractive in Orange County other ! Y` sj~. than the Irvine center where they had a bottomless checkbook; that they proposed ' - considerable landscaping which would meet the SC Zone requirements; and that '`:`,~ their traffic circulation pattern throughout the center would be adequate, ;I liowever, they would need two access points to and from Santa Ana Canyon Road '~~:~:`;~ for the center. =~•' Mr. Rinker then described the manner in which the structures would be developed both as to design and materials and noted that the sign proposed would be simiiar to that approved for the shopping center at the southwest corner of - ~i this intersection. 3 ~ 'a Mr. Rinker, in conclusion, stated that he did not feel there was any question ' ~: as to the propriety of the proposed shopping center location nor the aesthetic ' ~ quality of the structures; that there were several qnestions he wanted to ask `'_ -',,;,;` ; to clarify the recommendations made by staff. ' _ Commissioner Rowland noted that in reviewing the sketches presented, how did the petitioner propose to handle the roof-mounted equipment with the mansards ' "~ proposed, particularly when one considered the special requirements of the SC ; 2one since the Commission was more concerned with the view down onto the ` structures than the view from the ground up to the mansard or over. Therefore, ~.`.; _ this should be incorporated in the str.ucture itself, not necessarily enclosed. 's:,; ` ; ~~,.. , , ~~^ "` Mr. Harold Hempree of Rinker Corporat~on, appeared before the Commission and advised them that in this instance there would be a parapet wall that would '; _ hide the equipment, and if the Commission required this to be covered, they • would do so, however, the parapet wall would create a deep well that would ' `t hide this equipment from view. Commissioners Seymour and Herbst both noted that the Commission was concerned ~ with the view £rom atop Peralta Hills, not necessarily from the freeway or ~~~ Santa Ana Canyon Road. Whereupon Mr. Hempree indicated with the equipment ~~'' enclosed it would not be seen. - ~:~.- i i:: '~=. . . . . ~ ~ . ~ . • ~ . ~. ~r~ , .. _.. _.L._ y,..~~i: ~E _,,. ..~. . . - , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~C ' ' ~ . . ~ . . . .. .. . ..' ~ . . . ~ . . ~ ~'y . 1 ~ _ -~ i C ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-773 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO 2310 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland again reiterated he wanted the petitioner to understand the City's requirement as it pertained to enclosing the roof-mounted equipment since an enclosure did not satisfy this requirement, but it should be part of the main structure. Mr. Rinker then replied that they had no opposition to meeting this require- ment. Mr. Rinker then reviewed the waivers requested as to setbacks required and proposed, as well as the service station proposal, and then in response to quest~oning by the Commission, stated that the service station was not planned for the Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection because they did not have access to Imperial Hiqhway and Santa Ana Canyon Road such as the Code would require for the lacation of a service stat - that they had been having a difficult time tryin~ to get two accesses to Santa Ana Canynn Road since they were unable to obtain one to Imperial Highway; that they presently backed up to the freeway wherein some landscaping was already planted, ai~d they proposed to provide additional landscaping and were planning to landscape the SAVI channel as part of their landscaping program for the setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road. Chairman Farano inquired of staff whether or not this would be permitted; whereupon Mr, McDaniel stated that he could see no reason whg the developer could not provide this landscaping unless his agreement with SAVI did not permit it. Mr. Rinker noted that the landscaping of the SAVI channel would improve the area, however, if SAVI did not permit this, then they would have to relocate the buildings. Commissioner Herbst inquired how could the Commission be assured that the landscaping would remain or be maintained with proper watering, etc.; whereupon Mr. Rinker replied that this would be a requirement o£ the ordinance, and the Commission would have to rely on the integrity of the owners of the property. However, he would assure the Commission that they would obtain permission from SAVi to landscape the channel. i Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the petitioner would have to obtain ; the necessary information and agreement before he would consider voting on the proposal before the Commission, particularly since the petitioner did not own ' the land, and as a Commissioner, he would want to have the assurance that the landscaping would be in accordance with the SC 2one. Mr. McDaniel noted that the channel was presently open, and in order to land- scape this, the pipe would have to be undergrcund. Therefore, it would have to be an agreement with SAVI regarding the underground installation, as well as landscaping, Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson inquired of Mr. Rinker whether or not it was his intent to remove the existinq concrete channel and replace it with a pipe; whereupon Mr. Rinker stated it was their plan to re- place the present channel with a concrete culvert in order to meet the City's requirements, however, they would also have to obtain the approval of SAVI as to landscaping their property which could be torn up when they were servicing the pipeline, similar to the way a street was torn up and repaired when pipes were installed. Chairman Farano noted that the Commission would expect the property owner to maintain the landscaping if it were on his property. However, this landscaping ' was proposed on property not owned by the petitioner, therefore, to whom cou~d the Commission look for maintenance of this strip of landscapinq as a require-• ' ment in approvinq the petition? Mr. Rinker noted that if their company had an agreement with SAVI, then the ' responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping would be the same as though it were on their own property, and he would so stipulate to maintaining this landscaping. :t . I ; ~---.,..--- _____ _ __ _ _ ~ ~. M::: ~ .+s_u... . . . . . , . . , , ' . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ' . . ~ • . . . . ~ . --..__ __ _ ._. ~:-, ' ~ - ~ '7_'1.•:,-~Wi _•fv~M: . ....... ~ \ ' ' ~ at~.s. ~ ~. , . . ~ ~ 1 _~ ~ '~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-774 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO 2310 (Continued) Mr. Rinker also noted that it was their intent to develop tnis center in two phases, indicating on the displ.ay on the wall the different facilities that would be included in each phase. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the length of time it would take to reach an agreement with the State regarding the property included in the second phase. Mr. Rinker replied that their agreement with the State was pending, and it would go through at such time as they would be able to develop the second phase. Furthermore, a commercial development of this size generally was dPVeloped in phases similar to that of the Sears sho~ping center. Chairman Farano inquired what the length of time elapsed would be before the second phase was proposed to be developed; whereupon Mr. Rinker replied approximately three years. Commissioner Gauer reflected on two shopping centers in east Anaheim wherein= one at East Street and Lincoln Avenue had a service station already removed and a large portion of the land was still undeveloped. However, anotli`er center at State College and Lincoln Avenue now operated by Forest Lawn appeared to be not only a large center but also a successful center, but what concerned him was the proposal to have two very large shopping centers at one intersection; that the developer was only presenting conceptual plans, and there appeared to be no reason why detail plans could not be presented; that there were too many unanswered questions; that the developer should comply with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone requirements since the developer had presented no evidence that a hardship exisi:ed; and that although the developer indicated the General Plan projected a shopping center symbol, there was no reason to assume it should be subject property. Mr. Rinker replied that he was attempting to present a very honest picture of i what he proposed since h~ wanted to make a conservative approach instead of ~ presenting a grand proposal such as others may have presented but which never ~ materialized; that there really were only five waivers being requested, and he felt sufficient evidence was presented to justify granting them. , Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Rinker to clarify his statement that the State property would not be acquired until or unless a need was indicated - when would the landscaping be installed on Imperial Highway, because the petitioner would not be meeting the SC 7one landscaping requirements, and the City would have to wait several years before any improvement along Imperial Highway and a portion of Santa Ana Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Rinker replied that they could not landscape pw;perty which they did not own, and then inquired whether or not the SC Zone required landscaping between two commercial properties, and if so, he would be willing to meet that require- ~ ment. Commissioner Herbst expressed further concern regarding the landscaped parcel since no access could be given to the westerly portion now proposed to be Phase II, and then reviewed staff's paragraph 20 of the Raport to the Commission. Mr. Rinker replied that it was nis intention to obtai approval for the first phase, and he would be granting an easement in writing to the owner - the State - of the westerly portion, now known as Phase 2I. Therefore, this property would not be landlocked, but this would necessitate obtaining two accessways to Santa Ana Canyon Road so that both parcels could be served. Furthermore, if improve- ments were constructed, they would pay for their proportionate share, however, if it was not in, then he would be responsible for adequate drainage which would be paid proportionately by adjoini.ng property owners at some later date. Mr. Rinker then questioned Condition No. 9 of the recommended conditions and inquired why the median strip had to be landscaped since this was the first time in all their developments throughout the State that such a requirement was made. ~ . i " ~. .,.. . ~ ~ , ,. ,.,;_., .. ~ ~:':c+riii ~.'~.~_, ...~- ~ , , -- , ~y . i ~y=~ , .. ~~.:s", '! ~ , ~ V ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 ~.J 71-775 , RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO 2310 (Continued) Mr. McDaniel advised the Commission that one of the considerations of the ~i; Zone was landscaping the median where no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks were required aleng Santa Ana Canyon Road; the cost for landscaping would oFfset the normal cost of requiring curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along al]. streets within the city. The Commission then discussed the first phase of development with the developer, who stated that the 50 feet of landscaping would exceed the requirements of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. _ Mr. McDaniel noted that the requirement af 50 feet of landscaping indicated by Mr. Rinker was, in fact, only 20 feet required, although the developer was proposing to landscape 50 feet due to tha SAVI easement. Mr. Rinker then reviewed Condition No. 12 of the recommended conditions regard- ing recordation of mutual ingress and egress agreement, as well as a reciprocal parking agreement, and stated that since it was not known what would be devel- oped on the westerly portion, there might be a theater proposed, and he would not like to agree to providing parking in the shopping center for this type of use. However, he would be glad to give them ingress and egress easements. The Commission expressed concern that the petitioner-developer was now stating i this was to be two separate developments instead of one as originally stated ~.- in the application by the petitioner, and it would appear two separate devel- ; - opments were now being proposed. Mr. Rinker replied his statements were presented clearly enough for the I Commission to understand his proposal. Commissioner Seymour stated that Mr. Rinker had made it clear in his mind i that he would be the only owner if and when he wanted to develop - however, now Mr. Rinker was suggesting that he might not develop the westerly portion. Mr. Rinker replied that there was no guarantee there would be just one owner. ' Commissioner Seymour then observed that the only thing tha Commission could then count on was the first phase. Commissioner Allred noted his ~rea map indicated that the entire parcel had been advertised for consideration at this public hearing, and if the westerly portion was now proposed to be d~veloped by someone else, the Commission had spent the better part of an hour with no evidence presented that would convince him the petitioner had anythin3 the Commission could consider valid. Mr. Rinker indicated that he had no opposition to developing this as one parcel. However, the Commission had a right to delete any portion of the property with- out having the property readvertised. Mr. Rinker then noted that Conditioa No. 13 required completion within 180 days, however, he would request that one year be the more logical time limitation since thexe were so many engineering problems to resolve. Mrs. Hazel Maag, 5865 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission, noting that her property adjoined subject property, however, she had not received a notice from the City regarding this p.roposal, and it was not until Mrs. Yorba had advised her about this development that she became aware of it. Mrs. Maag then inquired where the developer was planr.ing a masonry wall on the easterly property line, and if the developer were being provided street access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, would she, in turn, be permitted to have access to Santa Ana Canyon Road when she decided to develop her property; that if the developer were to enclose the SAVI channel, would she also be required to enclose that portion alonq her front property line; that from the appearance of the plan, the petitioner had taken a portion of her trees from her property; and that she was not in opposition to this shopping center. r ~~ +,:.: ~;~ ~.:. . , ~. v _ .,~ . k ::. .tifiits . ' ^y I (,~.} ~. : , / . ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITX PI,ANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-776 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued) Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 East McKinnon Drave, representing the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, appeared before the Commission, stating they were opposed to all commercial proposals in the canyon, although they realized there would be a need for commercial facilities in the future; that there presently was a very large center being developed on the southwest corner of this intersection whici-. was proposed to be open next fall that would be adequate to serve the people for the present and maybe in five years there might be a need for this facility; that from the comments made by the Commis- sion he would like to discuss the appearanae of subject property from the freeway as well as the landlocked parcel along imperial Highway; that when the SC Zone was approved it was his understanding this was to let the developer know what he could do in the canyon and what could not be done, but it appeared developers were coming in continuously with waiver requests after this was law and an ordinance, therefore, he would suggest that the waiver only be granted where there were very special circumstances that would be harmful to a develop- ment if not allowed; that the SAVI channel was a health hazard and a danger to children; that a portion of this channel was located at the entrance of Maude Lane, and when the residents of the Celestial Homes Tract wanted some landscaping at the entrance of the tract, they were informed by SAVT that this could not be done because if it r:ere landscaped, the adjoining residents might claim ownership, and if it were covered over, who would own it; that the shopping; center was for residents living in the canyon and was not to be freeway-oriented,~ therefore, there was no need for any large signs because the residents of the canyon would know the location of the shopping center; that Santa Ana Canyon 1 Road had very limited access with only eleven access points between the Newport ~ Freeway and Eucalyptus Drive, therefore, if any consideration was being given to additional access points, the City should consider providing a left-turn ~ pocket for residents coming from the west; that Santa Ana Canyon Road might have been widened to take care of these traffic patterns, and although he did ~ not want any further commercial uses developed in the canyon, if additional ~3 commercial uses were to be considered, the residents of the canyon would prefer ; that it be kept in one location, and all the little red dots indicated on the F Hill and Canyon General Plan should be removed by a General Plan amendment '~ with special wording in the text of the Plan that would permit additional ± commercial uses if and when the need was indicated or desired by residents of the community, but the way the Plan indicated presently, all these red dots - commercial uses - developers decided they wanted to develop all these little red dots simply because the General Plan indicated them. Mr. Rinker, in rebuttal, stated that Mr. McQueen stated something which he felt was the main argument fox the proposal, namely, if a commercial center was to be granted, it should be at this location. Chairman Farano inquired of Mr. McQueen whether those•were his exact words, or was his statement meant to mean something else; wherehpon Mr. McQueen stated that they were not particularly desirous of having shopping centers or commer- cial uses in the canyon, but if the City felt one should be granted, then it should be at this location rather than elsewhere in the canyon. Commissioner Rowland left the Co•uncil Chamber at 4:00 P,M, Mr. Rinker further noted that this would be a quality development, and he would be glad to take any representative for a visit to other attractive centers in the County to present examples of what could be accomplished; that he would have to develop someth.~:g on this land since he had held it for eight years awaitinq the completion of the Riverside Freeway; that the Commission could require development of single-family homes on this property, however, that would be up to the Commission as to whether commercial should be developed, but it would appear that if a market was spending $500,000, a drug store spend- ing over $400,000, and other stores willing to spend their money, it would appear they felt this would be a good shopping center location. Commissioner He-bst inquired how the developer had arrived at the location of the proposed access to the center for a street; whereupon Mr. Rinker stated that this was arrived at after having met with representatives of the Engineer- ing Department regardinq where left-turn pockets could be located, as well as signalizing and access, since it would line up with Solomon Drive to the south. I i 2~ ~ , i ~ ~sk - - ~,,, ~ ~ r ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued) ~ 71-777 Commissioner. Herbs± noted he was more concerned with the property to the east since the petitioner was requesting two additional acces.sways to Santa Ana Canyon Road - if these were approved, what would happen to the properties to the east since local streets would mean the only access for those properties. to the east when they were developed, therefore, would this proposed road be detrimental to the properties to the east at this point in time. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer of the project, appeared before the Commission and noted that the property to the east was Mrs. Maag's property, who would be given access through this development to facilitate development of her property. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the street location would bisect the Maag property in such a manner that the street would be of little value to the property owner. Mr. Queyrel replied that the location was sufficiently removed from Santa Ana Canyon Road so that development could occur in an orderly manner. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the developer had permission to develop these two additional access points, and if not, then the zoning action was an exercise in futility. Mr. Rinker replied that access to Santa Ana Canyon Road would be under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim when the State returned authority to the City, which should be done very shortly. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that it was possible the authority would be returned to Anaheim if all data could be prepared in time to present it to the Commission in January, 1972, or within the next six months, since the Commission that handled this met once every six months, and the next meeting would then be in July, 1972. Mr. Queyrel stated that he had the concurrence of the State Division of Highways and the County of Orange for one access that would be the easternmost, while the ~ une on the westerly end would be up to the City of Anaheim since a limited ~ access for Santa Ana Canyon Roact was only on an interim agreement between the ~ three governmental agencies. ~ Mr. Titus noted that this was being referred to the City of Anaheim for both access points, therefore, it would be the City's responsibility to determine ' whether or not these should be granted. However, the City was not in favor of granting the two accesses to Sar.ta Ana Canyoa Road. Commissioner Herbst noted that if the City was planning to allow access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, this would affect all properties easterly to Solomon Drive, and the City would have to have an amendment to the Arterial Streets and Highways Map of the Anaheim General Plan at a public hearing in order that all people could present their views. Commissioner Kaywood noted that since Mr. Rinker was proposing two phases for this development, she would prefer seeing plans for the first phase since the westerly portion would ae three years off - then one could see "the sea of asphalt" which represented the parking lot - this, then, would be in two sections and might be more attractive from every point of view. Mr. Rinker stated that if the State portion was eliminated, the proposal still would be the same except that one building would be eliminated. Commissioner Kaywood noted that since the plan before the Commission indicated I development as one plan instead ~f two phases and since Mr. Rinker indicated there was a possibility the second phase might not materialize, the Commission was extremely concerned with what happened with the entire canyon in its desire to maintain the virgin quality of the canyon - the plans indicated all build- ings backing to the freeway, which would be very visible with the loading ramps and metal doors that would be an eyesore and most unattractive and should not be permitted. _. __ _ - - ~a r +cw . : . . . . 1 . . t . y ." _... ~ . .. . , c: .~.~.. ,. n• ' _ ~ i v- '~ t : , ~ ; ' •, ` • _r ~ ~ i y ~. .~.~~.n...._.,.~~ - _ 4 ~ ~ MINUTES, CzTY PLANNING COMMISSION, Deceniper 13, 1971 ~1-77g RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310 (Continued) Mr. Rinker replied that they planned fast-growing trees along the freeway exposui:e that would grow to a height of 25 feet within two lears, which should be ample screening of the use £rom the freeway. Mr. Thompson then inquired whether Mr. R.inker felt the shopping center without the State property would still fall within the requirei~ient of a community center; whereupon Mr. Rinker stated that he felt this would be of sufficient size to qualify it as such, and that they would grant an easement over their property from the State property, thereby removing the designation of a land- ~ locked parcel. However, they could not develop property until it was purchased. Mr. Thompson noted that the plans before the Commission did not indicate any elevations on the north side where the buildings would be viewed from the freeway and inquired whether it was intended to have mansard roofs along the rear as was proposed along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Rinker stated that they did not plan mansard type roofs along the rear since this would be the area for truck service delivery, and it would appear obvious ~t should face the Riverside Freeway since they proposed to plant fa~t-growing trees to hide these rear walls. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the Commission should require this development provide the ~ame type of treatment of the roof-mounted equipment that was requir.ed of the Yorba property to the southwest, which would mean they should be completely hidden from view. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 71-72-21 and Variance No. 2310 to the meeting of January 24, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to submit development plans proposed for Phase ij for the petitioner to submit signed agreements from representatives of SAVI to allow planting landscaping and concreting the channel; that some solution as to access points proposed be presented as to whether or not the City or some other governmental body would allow these proposed access points since the Commission could not approve these access points; that the plaas indicate some form of circulation that would allow circulation for the properties to the east toward Solomon Drive if these accessways were granted; for the petitioner to submit development plans for the type of landscaping that was proposed as treatment facing the Riverside Freeway and for a possible change in the treatment for the north elevations facing the freeway that would be more compatible than presently proposed; and that the plans also indicate the type of screening for the roof-mounted equipment which would meet the requirements of the SC Zone. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Rowland absent) RECESS - Commissioner Herbst moved for a ten-minute recess at 4:20 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:35 P.M., Commissioner Rowland being absent. TENTATIVE MAP OF - OWNERS/DEVELOPERS: ESPERAN2A INVESTMENTS c/o J. LIBERIO TRACT NO. 7417 & R. SPEHAR, 1:20 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Calif. REVISION NO. 3 ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company 222 Ea~st Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim Calif. Subject tract, comprising approxi- mately 18 acres of land, is located on the north side of the future extension of La Palma Avenue, easterly of Imperial Highway and southerly of Esperanza Road and the A.T.&S.F.RR. and is proposed for subdivision into 90 R-2- 5000 Zoned lo~s. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject tract, uses established in close proximity, previous zening action on the property, and the proposal as set forth in the Report to the Commission. Nir. James Liberio, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated ' that subject tract had been considered by the Planning Commission twice before. The proposal originally presented for 246 lots on 46 acres has now been reduced to 18 acres and 90 lots, due to the proposed Yorba Regional Park. Furthermore, they were in aareement with the recommended conditions of approval. I y: . ~ ~, a : .; , _. .. - - - , , ,... . ,. , - . ~ ~i~-:: _':....:....:: . . . ~.: _.. . .. .. ry. ' . . _ . . ~ . ~ . ~ -_ _ . . ~ .. . ..... - ~ . • ~ ~ ~~ . ~ '.. .! ~ ~ ~ ---- ~ ~ ~ J~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71_~~g TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7417, REVISION NO. 3(Continued) Commissioner Kaywood inquired why the 50-foot wide landscape buffer was elim- inated from this proposal, since the developer had indicated said strip on the previous tentative tract maps. • Mr. Liberio replied that the previous developer, Mr. Berger, had made an agreement with the County of Orange regarding this strip, however, when the additional 10 acres was taken from the previous proposal for the park, the ,, 50-foot strip was no longer feasi e. Furthermore, the Commission, at the last public hearing had approved ~ tracts to the west wherein the 50-foot "~` strip was not required, therefore, it was felt that it should not be required f-~' '~• ° of this tract. F. ., Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, anc~ ~~ ` MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Ka ~~ ~~ ' ywood voting no and Commissioner Rowland -c being absent) to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7417, Revision No. 3, - subject to the following conditions: 1. That t?ie approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7417, Revision No: 3, is yranted 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 ten*.ative form for approval. ' 3. That in accordance with Cit Council y policy, a 6-foot masonry wall sha11 be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos. 70 thru 90 and La Falma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the unce- mented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance ~~ of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and ~ subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Mainten- i ance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim ~~ shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. ;~ 4. That a11 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 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 ttxe owners of subject property s3~a11 pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as deter- •. mined 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 to La Palma Av.~nue shall be dedi- -~' cated to the City of Anaheim. 9. Tha.t drainage of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7417, Revision No. 3, shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. `-,~ 10. That ':he developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, ° acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood ~~,~ Control District. ~: 1.1. That the City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the = assumption of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy `'' changes. ,.: - - 12. That grading, excavation and all other con~truction activities ;~ shall be conducted in such a manner as t.o minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water runoff originating from or flowing through this project. ~~ 13. That all buildings proposed shall have a minimum 50-foot setback from the property line adjacent to La Palma Avenue. ~_. ~e . _ ~~ . + ..... ~~ . _ .. `~;:~r;. -~ ~ :.+ . . ' ^~ ~ ~ ~ , s a_~ '."`i , ' ~ Y. ~ r I i~ ~ "~,+- . . . - ~` ~ - -_ - - „~~e ---- - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i " ~ ~ ,- MINUTES~ CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, Deaember 13, 1971 71-780 ~ ' VARIANCE NO. 2315 - PUBLIC HEARING. LOYD C. AND GEORGIA DRAKE, 2656 East ~.' ; Sycamore Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting ~ • WAIVER OF (1) •THE USF, OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE FOR AN OFFICE, (2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKTNG SPACES, AND (3) NUMBER AND TYPE OF SIGNS . PERMITTED on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land , having a frontage of approximately 62 feet ~a the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximatelp 98 feet, and being located approxi- mately 340 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further described as 2107 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, + ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. - :.;. •.,. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ~ ~ property, uses established in close proximity, the proposal, and the waivers requested as set forth in the Report to the Commission, noting that the primary ~ ~' j waiver under consideration was the use of a residential str _ ucture in the C 0 ~ i Zone for office purposes since the C-O Zone precluded the commercial use of j _ structures originally designed or intended for resident3al purposes as set 1 ` _ forth in the ordinance adopted in 1964, however, that a conditional use permit g , at that time was required to permit use of the residential structure, said ~ r 1 use of residential structures having expired January 1, 1969; that the City r _ Council concurred with the requirements of the C-O Zone as recommended by the ~ ~ Planning Commission; that in addition tio the action on this request, the ; [ Commission might also wish to consider a recommendation concerning this section ~ of the C-O Zone in view of the fact that the expiration of the time period had expired, it might be appropriate to recommend one of three alternatives to the ~ City Council, namely, enforcement of the ordinance as presently written; i amendment to the ordinar.ce to extend the time period for removal; or delete ~ ~ any time limit for removal. However, if the Commission considered the last ? : alternative, staff would wish to caution the Commission since this might deprive t ;'~ the Commission and the City Council of the ability to re-enact an effective ~ `? time limit jf, in the future, such a limit was found desirable. Therefore, i I;' staff would recommend an exte.sion of time provision to January 1, 1977, or ,`~ som~ later date as found appropriate. ~ '1 i n+ Mr. Loyd Drake, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and ~ ~ indicated he was available to answer questions. ~ r, ~ 4~ Commissioner Herbst inquired what type of access the petitioner had to his ~ :j property since the type of business he propused generally required entrance 1 from the front. .j Mr. Drake replied that he would prefer a circular access fr.om the front of the property, however, he had been advised this would be rather difficult to obtain, and, therefore, he had not requested it in his petition. Commissioner Kaywood indicated that she had driven by subject property the previous day, and if anyone had parked on the street, he would not have had a vehicle because of the fast traffic on that street. No one appeared in opposition. Tl': „ARING WAS CLOSED. ' Disuussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposal, particularly as it pertained to free-standing signs since none were permitted in the C-O `;.~ Zone, and inquired of the petitioner whether or not he wouid increase his facia sign if the request for a pole sign was denied; whexeupon Mr. Drake ~,I replied that he would prefer having the pole sign to the facia sign. Chairman Farano inquired of the petitioner what length of time he had owned -. the property; whereupon Mr. Drake stated that he had owned the property for ,, . two months. Chairman Farano indicated that one of the reasons for granting a variance was that the petitioner had submitted proof of hardship that he was not enjoying the use of ~he property a~ others enjoyed their property in the same vicinity and zone, and since the petitioner had owned the property such a short time, he must have been aware of the limitations the property had; that the peti- tioner was asking for waiver of the site development standards of the approved C-O Zone, therefore, in order for the Commission to favorably consider these 1 ~i ~ d _w <~ . ~ ~ ~ f~ MINUTES~ Cx~X RLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 ~ 71-781 VARIANCE NO. 2315 (Continued) waivers, the petitioner must submit some proof that he was unable to meet the Code requirements since all indication presently existing was the hard- ship was self-imposed. Mr. Drake replied that to operate a business without sufficient signing would be a hardship, and that removal of the existing building instead of using the building would also be a hardship. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission had spent considerable time in making a study of homes fronting on arterials, and by allowing the use of a residence for the use was a sufficient advantage without granting any other waivers, particularly with so much good office space being available i~~ regulation commercial structures, and th~t all the signing that should be granted would be the facia sign, to which the petitioner was entitled under the C-O Zone. Furthermore, an example oE how remodeling homes for commercial purposes, together with no free-standing signs, could be observed by looking at the homes on the east side of State College Boulevard which now were converted into commercial uses. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-237 and moved for its passage and adoption to 3eny Petition for Variance No. 2315 on the basis that the petitioner proposed to use the residential structure for office purposes, however, the petitioner would be unable to provide adequate off-street parking; that the petitioner would be using an alley to the rear of the property jointly shared with single-family residents to the north to serve the parking area; that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; and that the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation aiid enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and de,nied to the property in question. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreguing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMSSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. AMENDMENT TO THE C-O - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to ZONE RECOMMENDATION the City Council that consideration be given to amend- ing Title 18, Chapter 18.38, Section 18.38.040, Conditional Uses (3) to amend the expiration date for the use of residential structures for office rurposes to January 1, 1977. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2313 - PUBLIC HEARING. LE CHATEAU MAJORCA AND TAX ADVISORS FUND, 410 South Euclid Street, Suite 5, Anaheim, California, CONDITIONAL USE Owners; BLANCHE STRAND, Secretary-Treasurer, Le Chateau PERMIT NO. 1280 Majorca and Tax Advisors Fund, 410 South Euclid Street, Suite 5, Anaheim, California, Agent; pronerty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel consisting of approximately 14 acres having a frontage of approximately 600 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,200 feet, and beikng located approximately 870 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESID~NTSAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIV*;R OF PERMITTED USES IN THE R-3 20NE TO ESTABLISH A BEAUTY SHOP IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT A CHTLn BAY C~:E CENTER FOR 40 CHILDREN IN AN EXISTING APARTMENT HOUSE. '~,~ .. ~.:;' - .. . .. ~ . ~~ ~~~ ~ . -. . . .. _. ... .~1. .. _. ~%'.6° ~~'~._ . ~ • ... . . ~ ~ ~ . .. . , . ' ~ _ ~ . . . . ~ ~ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-782 VARIANCE N0. 2313 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1280 (Continued) Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the first proposal to establish a beauty shop in an existing one-bedroom apartment on the ground floor of one of the buildings of the complex; that the building was located near the northwest corner of the project adjacent to the parking area along the westerly boundary of the property; that the unit proposed to be used for the beauty shop was located near the entrance of the building, and the appli- cant had stated that the beauty shop would serve only those people living in the complex and no outside t_rade was anticipated; that in evaluating the proposal it would appear that this beauty shop, in the heart of an R-3 project, could cause various problems, and although the applicant had indicated the shop would serve only the tenants or residents of the complex, it would be difficult to enforce or limit this kind of operation; that there was nothing to preclude the possibility of people not living in the project using this beauty shop, and the resulting traffic and parking situation could become a major problem, primarily due to the location of the proposed shop in the heart of an apartment complex; and that although it was not uncommon for multiple- family residential and commercial uses to be integrated if adequate ingress and egress for vehicular traffic was provided, and as lony as the commercial use was located in a portion of the complex where it would do the least amount of damage to the residential character and atmosphere of ~he multiple-family complex, but in light of these considerations, the Commission•might wish to consider this an inappropriate location for the beauty shop proposed. Mr. McDaniel noted that the conditional use permit was to establish a child care center for 40 children in conjunction with the existing apartment complex; that the child care center would occupy the existing recreation room, a one- bedroom apartment, and a two-bedroom apartment in addition to utilizing the outdoor recreation area for each of the apartments and the recreation room; that the child care center would be located adjacent to and in the same build- ing as the proposed beauty shop and would be located in such a manner as to provide adequate pick-up and delivery area for the children, in addition to parking for the instructoss of the center; that the applicant indicated the center would be for the use of the tenants of the project only, however, it would be difficult to enforce such a stipulation and would be difficult to imagine r.ot taking children from outside the project; and that a child care center would appear to be an appropriate use in a residential area and would appear to be a logical land use in the midst of a multiple••family complex, however, the primary considerations usually involved the adequacy of parking and turn-around area for pick-up and delivery of the children. In addition, the deleterious effects of the noise of the children would appear to be minimized, and the Commission might wish to consider this to be an appropriate use in this residential area, particularly at this location in the project. Mrs. Judith Snipes, manager of the apartment complex, appeared be£ore the Commission and noted she had spent considerable time with staff regarding the proposal; and that she would not be operating either the beauty shop or the child care center, the child care center being operated by MPM Marketing. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to how the petitioner proposed to take care of the children for their play periods; whereupon Mrs. Snipes replied that L•he proposed operators of this facility would bring in their State-approved director and teachers to take care of the school. Commissioner Seymour inquired if remodeling took place, would the other tenants be deprived of their recreational facilities since a portion of the child care center would be occupying the small recreatian room. M:cs. Snipes replied that there were other recreatiun areas within the complex that were considerably larger, and this recreation area was never used and it would not be detrimental to the other tenants. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not the petitioner proposed to solicit outside business; whereupon Mrs. Snipes replied that the only adver- tising they would be doing would be within the apartment complex paper. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of vacant units there were in this complex; whereupon Mrs. Snipes stated that of the 391 units there were about 45 that were not rented. t'_~, - . ii ~~~ , m ~ ~ ~ s.... .. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-783 VARIANCE NO. 2313 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1280 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the amount of ground area that was proposed for the recreational faciliti~~; that he was not opposed to the use for a child care center, however, the commercial request should have been submitted at the time the development was considered by the City in order that a determination might be made as to the adequacy of both parking and recreational facilities. Commi._:ioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner had taken a survey as to the number of tenants ~hat would be using the baauty shop; whereupon Mrs. Snipes stated that there were 2,000 people, half Hho would be needing a beautician. ~~ [ 3 ~ ~ i ~ c i Commissioner Kaywood noted cnat she would hate to see a beauty shop opened in this area that would not be used because there appeared to be a recession in the beauty shop bus ness t is m y,~b~e d}~ e o i~-h~ ,~g' p advent of the wigsl Furt er~~mOr~t"Fie~~rs~`e~ry"~~SC~ol c~1-dreP~would be making considerable noise, and the use would be different than if it were in an R-1 area - the residents of the apartments could move if they did not like the noise. Mrs. Snipes replied that the nursery school would be located in the family section, which was noisy to begin with, and residents of this area would not be annoyed by the childish voices. *'' .if:t ,: ivo one appeared in opposition. Mr. McDaniel advised the Commission that even though a portion of the recreation area was being taken t,~ the proposed child care cente:=, there -~as sufficient recreational area provided elsewhe,r.e to take care of the nPeds of this complex. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour observed that the Commission in the past had consider:d the child care cent=r when a development was under new construction, however, t:his was the first time such a commercial use was requested after the develop- ~nent had occurred. Thus, two commercial uses were being requested. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2313, seccnded by Chairman Farano, on the basis that the beauty shop could caus~ all sorts of problems as to additional requests for commercial uses in this R-3 development; that additional traffic would be generated; and that the use would not be comFatible. On roll call the motion lost by a vote of 4 to 2, Commissioners Kaywood and Farano voting "aye"; Gommissioners Allred, Gauer, Herbst, and Seymour voting "no", The Commission inquired as to the number of chairs and operatcrs that were proposed for the beauty shop. Whereupon Mrs. Snipes replied that it was gropesed to have either eigY.t operators or eight chairs. Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that this beauty shop would be consider- ably different than normal commercial uses and would cause no more hazard than the child care cen.ter so long as it was oriented toward the project. Commissioner Herbst stated that with 391 units the number of persens that would be generating from these units could easily patranize this beauty shop. Further- more, conditions could be imposed even though there might be an enforcement problem; and that the use was approximately three to four miles from any regular service. Commissf.oner Allred offereci Resolution No. PC71-238 and moved fcr its passage and adoption to grant Petit~on for Variance No. 2313, subject to limitation to two operators and four chairs; that no outside advertising would be done to er.courage outside business; and that the use should be for Lhe tenants only, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~1YES: COMMISSIONEh;: l~llred, Gauer, Herbst, 5eymour. NO~S: COM!9ISSIONERS: Fazano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. rT~~,.,.,R•~ ... :.~~ `r;~d-[.. . _ . . , :~J I / ~ ~-~:..b.a.. ~,o„ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-784 VARIANCE NO. 2313 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1280 (Continued) Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-239 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1280, subject to conditions, limiting the use to a maximum of 40 children; that the use shall be for tenants of the existing apartment complex, and no outside business to be generated; and that no signing oriented toward public streets be permitted. (see Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Farano stated that his vote of "no" was based on the fact that the Commission was restricting the business as to signing which was impossible to administer, police, or enforce. Commissioner Seymour noted tnat this could be included in leases as to restrictions. VARIANCE NO. 2316 - PUBLIC HEARING. DUNN PROPERTIES CORPORATION, 2009 E. Edinger Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Owner; HAROLD W. STRICKLAND, 10361 Brightwood Drive, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES IN THE M-1 20NE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH INCIDENTAL RETAIL SALES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS PART OF A MAIL ORDER BUSINESS on properry described as; An irregularly-shaped parcel oE land located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and East Street consisting of approximately 3 acres and having frontages of approximately 658 feet on Ball Road and 130 feet on East Street, and further described as 1201 East Ball Roaii. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses establlshed in ciose proximity, and the proposal to establish a retail sales business of motorcycle supplies in conjunction with a mail order supply house, and then reviewed the Report to the Commission, concluding by stating that the Commission might wish to determine whether or not the inci- dental retail sales in this mail order house would be sufficient to warrant requiring parking standards ia accordance with the typical commercial uses, or whether or not this would, in fact, have a detrimental effect on the area involved. Mr. Harold Strickland, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted tha~ he would be the owner of the proposed mail order house for parts and accessories only and had nothing to do with completed vehicles; that they advertised nationally in eleven publications for mail order business; that they were currently located in Santa Ana, and this was a warehouse area; that people were reluctant to send their money to a post office box, and many people came in to see whether or not they were actually an existing and honest business and whether there was any display of inerchandi'se for this proposed t~.se; that they proposed a showroom in their Garehouse; that the pattern of traffic during their buslest time was during lunch and from 6:00 to 6:30 P.M.; that they would have four employees maximum at any one time; that there was room for 8 to 10 vehicles on the premises at any one time; that in accordance with the industrial stan:tards they proposed 13 parking spaces; that there was additional parking along the other er.d of the building for 27 spaces. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the petitioner planned to have a machine- type operation; whereupon Mr. Strickland stated they had no intent to have such an operation and they would so stipulate that this would not be done; that they handled parts and accessories and would do so;ne assembly of motorcycle parts sets; that they were presently locatefl ~.n Santa Ana off of McFadden Street, immediately. west of the Newport Freeway; and that they provided parts for the recreational ; type vehi.cle, not those qenerally used for racing purposes. Commissioner Allred ;tnquired in the proposed retail sales whether or not there was a possibility of having pick-up sales, to which Mr. Strickland replied that there would be some. ~ _s . ~ r ~_ . _ ~. Q ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, December l°, 1971 71-785 VARIANCE NO. 2316 (Continued) Chairman Farano then inquired whether or noi the petitioner would be sponsorinq any motorcycle clubs and received a negative response. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner anticipated a considerable amount of transient business; whereupon Mr. Strickland replied that most of the customers would be people in their twenties who came in automobiles, campers, etc., to obtain these par•ts, and approximately one out of a hundred would be coming on their motorcycles. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the petitioner anti.cipated any walk-up business, or would thi.s business be incidental to warehousing. N,r. Strickland replied that they were definitelp a mail order business, and all they were desirous of doing was providing an accommodation for people who were desirous of seeing the material. Mr. Strickland, in response to a questi ~y n ~vo ~r erbst, stated that the parts were display-mounted on p~ r, and t~hat~ilfany~p~op~2e just came in to determine whether or not they were an existing company. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer observed that the petitioner, Dunn Properties, had estab- lished a paint store at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and ' Ball Road and had done an outstanding job in taking care of problems involved; :~'~:~ therefore, he was s:~re they had also resolved problems that might arise with ' this proposal. .:~~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-240 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2316, subject to conditions k and the stipulation that the use proposed was only incidental to the main ~ 1,: ,,•;:,,p,r warehousing business and that there would be no modification or shop work on ~"+~s~~'."~ the vehicles. (See Resolution Book) ~ ,*L;; Office Engineer Jay Titus inquired whether or not the Commission was desirous ,7,; of requiring sidewalks since there would be commercial use of the property; '•~1 whereupon Commissioner Herbst noted that if sidewalks were required, this ;{ would encourage considerably more encroachment of commerc'al uses, therefore, '':~;!;; no sidewalks should be permitted, and waiver of sidewalks should remain in ~'s force. -~~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. "::; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Non2. . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ,b. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MABEL ANN YORBA, 5521 Santa Ana Canyon PERMIT NO. 1281 Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; VELC£ INVESTMENT COMPANY, 1128 East 6th Street, Suite 7, Corona, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT IN CONJUNC- TION W=TH A SERVICE STATION WITH WAIVER OF THE FREE-STANDING SIGNS IN THE SC 20NE AND TTME LIMITATION OF LIGHTED SIGNS IN THE SC ZONE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Imperial Highway and La Pa1ma Ave~ue, having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Imperial Highway and 180 £eet on La Palma Avenue. Property presently g~~ classifled M-1, L=GHT INDUSTRiAL, 20NE. As^istant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish ~ a restaurant in the f:-1 Zone in conjnnction with a service station, with waiver of the SC Zone requirements of no free-standing signs and time limited on lighted signs as set forth in the Report to the Commission. ~~~. Mr, McDan;iel further reviewed the evaluation of the proposal, noting that the .+kc_~ Scenic Corridor requirements in the M-1 2one were substantially different than those required in the C-1 Zone; that the SC Zone would also require a 20-foot wide landscaped area adjacent to La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, or a ,; . . ~. . •..~ . ~ .. ~ . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . ~. .M.~~~ . ... . . ' . ' ~ ~ ." ~ - :-'~~ 'i~ , ' :\"rt . . • . . . _ . ~ ~ . . ' _ ^ ~ . n~ ~+~~• .. ! ~ tiL/ ~ MINUTES, C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-786 CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT NO. 1281 (Continuen) 14-foot wide landscaped area with a 3-foot high earthen berm, however, the petitioner was proposing a 5-foot wide planter area along La Palma Avenue and a planter area along Imperial Highway varying from 2 feet tu 22 feet in width; that it was probable that arrangements could be made with the Division of Highways where the applicant could landscape portions of the State's right- of-a~ay; and then further reviewed the requirements of the Sr Zone as they pertained to the M-1 Zone and subject property, and conclu 1 by stating that the Commission might wish to determine that the requested waiver for the sign and the other items discussed would be unreasonable in ligh: of the recent concern of tk:e Commission with the scenic corridor and the development within the Santa Ana Canyon area. Furthermore, the State Division of Highways had expressed a desire that vehicular acr_ess from th~.s property to Imperial Highway be eliminated, and this would be consistent with the way property on the east side of Imperial Highway was treated at the present time. Mr. Frank Governale, representing Realty Investments, 1617 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, appeared before the Comn.ission, noting he was available to answer questions. Chairman Farano requested that the agent for the t Commission the ownershi of the Petitioner explain to the ~ P property on the south and east and why it was not included in the application. Mr. Gover~le presented a picture of the location and also a ~ parcel of land the agent for the picture of the # program of their development in Colton,~notingdthatcheswouldrlikeetotpresenton ; to the Commission the idea of one piece of ; that the intent oE the oil company industrypto~take aepieceSOf propertyPtoPuses~ for two common uses was recently explored, and Mr. Goetz was the original ~ developer of this idea; that this could be likened to an ecological movement; ~ that they would stipulate to conforming with almost all of the requirements of ~ the City, the only waivers being requested were tn nA,-m_~ ~ they would remain open 24 hours a day; that he had discussed~thisilting since the Highwap Patrol who stated they felt that because there was no servicelbetweeni Club Drive and Tmperial Highway and because the signing would not be detrimental to the freeway, the proposed use would not be objected to by them; that signing h"as very~ importaat to them, and the sign was not 255 but 250 square feet; that theg would baVe a gar.~iner maintain all of the landscaping, even the portion that h*ould be pl,anted by the C:lty of Anaheim; that automatic sprinklers and a landscaping plan was submitted to the Commission; that on the plot plan they had discussed thl,s with the planning staff as to moring of the sign from the corner to about 8 ieet from the previous location, and this was farther away from the freeway than before; that they were proposing additional landscaping along the road with ivy; and that several weeks ago one of the Commissioners had stated that the oil companies should try to change their ways, and the proposal was the start of this change. Commissioner Seymour observed that regardless of the ecology or the changes the oil company should be making, how did this sign proposed meet a change of ways; whereupon Mr. Goveranle stated that these two signs would decrease the number of signs adjacent to a service station. Commissioner Seymour noted he could not see where these two sians were an improvement to the ecology where formerl}• one sign was permitted; whereupon Mr. Goveranle stated that they were comaining two uses, therefore, the sign they now proposed also combined the two uses. The Commission further noted that - ~ petitioner had stated the signs would not distract the motorists from tF 'reeway - then why were the high signs necessary? Mr. Gover~le replied that signing was needed, and that only size roof sign was permitted. Commissioner Seymour inquired of staff why the State Division of Highways could not sign the freeways that gas and food wPre at given off-ramps, particularly when the City was f.aced with so many requests for freeway- oriented signing. 1 C_' : - ! i . f ~ ~1 ~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 128~ (Continued) 71-787 Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that when the Riverside Freeway was made a scenic highway, which happened very recently, they directed that the freeway be posted indicating motels, service stations, and food available at given off-ramps. Mr. Goveracle advised the Commission that the sign they proposed would not be seen from the freeway, only that it would be a lighted area. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that he would not vote for signinq for every service station and shopping center proposed in the scenic corridor since the Commission was trying to maintain the corridor beauty of the canyon; that subject property would be only 1/4 mile from a service station where the Commission had denied signiny, and after having spent many months on the SC 2one, one of the things the Commission did not want was signing, signing should be minimized, and gave, for example, driving the thruways in New Jersey for many miles without any signs being visible from this thruway; that he would not vote to violate the SC Zone requirements; and that he urged tne require- ments be maintained on subject property. Mr. Gover~le stated that they nee3ad signing because their facility would be one of the few places that would be open 24 hours a day, and they were asking for a symbol since one could n~t recognize names, but symbols were more easily identified. Mr. J. Richard Winder, 1477 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he wished to cZarify the problem of access to Imperial Highway, noting that the petitioner owned subject property both to the south and west; that the portion on the south belonged to the State where the State had placed fencing around the ingress drive. Office Enyineer Jay Titus interrupted by stating that this access from Imperial Highway was requested to be closed by the Division of Highways, and one of the conditions of approval required this. Mr. Winder replied that his client had had ~his access easement for a number of years, since 1929, and a letter from the Sta~te Division of Highways to Mrs. Yorba indicated this. Chairman Farano noted that while the State had owned the property to the north of the little notched-out portion and to the south, they clid not control the north-south boundary, and this easement grant was for the property to the west. "'` Mr. Winder replied that the petitioner had no access to La Palma Avenue from tI:ose two parcels, therefore, they would have to cross Mr~. Yorba's property; that they had tried for years to obtain - meaning the State - this piece of property, however, the property was unobtainable because it was held in owner- ship by three different parties.-_ bir. Winder further noted that he had been assured by the State that the Yorba - Linda Freeway would be relocated approximately 1~ miles farther east. I i • Commissioner Allred expressed the opznion that with so many problems being presented regarding access, perhaps subject petition should be continued. Commissioner Kaywood noted that since the freeways would be signed, according to the statement made by Mr. Thompson, there would be no need to have the service station sign because no one would be concerned with what type of '~ i gasoline would be sold when the motorists ran out of gas. :' ~' Mr. Thompson, referr+_ng to access to subject :~roperty from Tmperial Highway, stated there was a, left-turn pocket on Imperial Highway to make a left turn to La Palma Avenue, :iowever, there was no median break, and this was one of the reasons why it was appropriate to require that access rir,hts be granted to Anaheim and an easement be givea somewhere else on the property, as well ~ as signing. Therefore, in order to obtain all of this information, perhaps subject petition should be con+~.6.aued six weeks. ,', Commissioner Seymo~,ir inquired of the ~etit_oiier whether ar nc.c .• would be ~ wi111ng to accept approval o£ the conditional use permit with .~~e sign ~ jI waivers; whereupon Mr, Goveranle stated that they had been di. .sing this ~~ - - _ _.. . .. .-r • . , a; ;:. .:._. ,~ . __ ..~_. . . . - . r~ - . . " - . Q ~u3u _..,~r ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ` . ~ .. a. , ~ i, _ ' I }~ .- - - -- __ . ~ , ' ..~.. ~ ; ~ ~ .~t ~ MINUTES, CxTY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 ~ 71-788 CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1281 (Continued) with the sign people and the proposed lessee, and it was felt perhaps this signing could be changed. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1281 for a period of six weeks in order to resolve problems. Mr. Gover~6le requested to be heard,, stating that they would have escrow problems and requested that considerat~,on be given to a two-week continuance. After further discussion with Mr. Tl~ompson, Commissioner Kaywood amended her motion to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1281 to the meeting of December 29, 1971. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2314 - PUBLIC HEARING. DALE E. FOWLER, 1430 South Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF TAE REQUIREMENT TAAT A 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL SURROUND OUTDOOR USES TO ESTABLISH OUTDOOR STORAGE OF TRAVEL TRAILERS on property described as: A rectangularly-chaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3~ acres, having a frontage of approximately 290 feet on the north side of Coronado Street, havin~ a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet, and being located approximately 665 feet west of the centerline of Blue Gum Street, and further described as 2727 East Coronadc Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to store vacation trailers on a lot to the north and rear of the exi ting buil3ing, '' said trailers being manufactured in the existing building; that plans indicate i this paved storage area would not be surrounded by a 6-foot masonry wall but ' would be surrounded by a 6-foot high chainlink fence; that the 6-foot high i chainlink fence was shown as bisecting the rear portion of subject property and ' then proceeding northerly along the northerly property line and westerly ~ property line to the building, thus completing the enclosure for the storage area; that the applicant indicated the area would not be visible £rom the ~ surrounding area, and the wall would, consequently, not be appropriate, but it should be pointed out that the storage area would be visible from the property to the north and the properties to the east; that due to the elevation of the freeway in this vicinity, however, the storage area would not be visible from the Orange Freeway; and that in recent applications for similar waivers, the Planning Commission determined that the provision of screen landscaping on the interior side of the property line, in addition to a slatted chainlink fence, was an acceptable alternate and was sufficient to waive the 6-foot high masonry wall. The Commission would, therefore, wish to consider that similar circum- stances existecl in this request, at least as it related to the north property line and the fence that would proceed down the center of this storage area. Mr. Dale~Fowler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they proposed to store trailers as set forth in the Report to the Commis- ! sion and then presented several photographs which would better illustrate what they planned, noting that the trailers they stored were about 3~ feet high; that the property line to the west was the Orange Freew;,y and that to the north was o~:~td by the State and was a landlocked parcel, no u:~e being made of the property; that they planned to store these trailers abcsut 400 feet from the street, and the only way people could see them would be if they were directly in front of the building where they proposed to include view-obstructing material or a gate at Coronado Street looking into the rear property yard, however, a storage yard was to the east where presently there were stacks or bales 35 feet high. ~ Commissioner Aerbst inquired whether or not the petitioner w~uld be willing to plant landscaping alony the chainlink fence; whereupon Mr. Fowler stated tnat the landscaping could not be seen by anyone. Commissioner Herbst statcd that he wanted to assure himself that the view from the freeway would not be overlooking these trailers, and he was fully familiar with this particular area since he had driven the freeway a number of times; . ' . . . .i ' ' . . .I . . . .. . . ~ . t ~ . ~ ~ . , .. - ,, . ~~ i~ ~ MINUTES~ CI^i PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-789 VARIANCE NO. 2314 (Continued) whereupon Mr. Fowler stated that he was not agreeable to planting landscaping. Commissioner Herbst noted that in the past the Commission had required land- • scaping if the wall were waived. Mr. Fowler then stated that the Buildin,; Department had waived the landscaping because they felt the landscaping would not be seen from the freeway.. Mr. Carl Sator, 1028 North Wanda Drive, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission in opposition, notinq he owned property to the southeast of subject property; that he was in opposition although he realized this storage ya:.3 was not too visible in the immediate area, but he objected that the Commission passed a variance two years ago on "Truck Haven", and this was an eyesore which had degraded the entire area, as did "Pete's Road Service", and he felt that the petitioner should meet the Code requirements for outdoor storage in order to eliminate the possibility of having another eyesore in this area. Furthermore, he had sent numerous letters and had made phone calls to the City complaining about "Truck Haven" and "Pete's Road Service" to no avail. Chairman Farano sympathized with Mr. Sator, stating that the Commission was no happier with what was developed on the property, however, these comments did not apply to the property in question. Mr. Sator stated that the Commission had passed one variance that was similar to this, and there was a connection since this petitioner was asking for the same type of waiver that he had protested on a previous petition, and although the Commission had imposed conditions, the petitioner had not done anything to this date, although he realized the location of subject property was not similar to the petition granted two years ago, since the storage area would be hidden by the existing structure, he felt he was justified in presenting further opposition since he had suffered financial loses because "Truck Haven" and "Fete's Road Service" had not been forced to meet the conditions imposed upon them by the Commission in granting their petitions. Mr. Fowler, in rebuttal, stated that he was not present to take issue with ~ his neighbors, and the owner of the property adjacent to his ran a totally i different operation than his; that they proposed to store small camper trailers, ~ which was a very clean operation and would not be stored higher than 3~ feet ' as measured from the ground; that they needed a fence for security purposes because without a fence the campers would be stolen; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Allred regarding acceptability of installation of landscar+.ng where the storage area was visible, stated that if the storage area was visivle, he would provide the landscaping. Commissioner Herbst observed that granting of a variance went with the land, not with the use presently proposed, and the use might change with a less desirable use being located there, and this would be the only chance the City would have to require certain standards; that the Commission should not deviate ' from these previous requirements; that there were se-~era1 reasons for requiring the landscaping, partly to help the ecology of the area; and that the City in the past had required M-1 property owners, who were just as responsible for development and maintenance of the area, to plant sufficient landscaping. ;~ ;~ ~ Mr. Fowler stated that they would a~ree to providing 2andscaping if it could be sean from *_he freeway, and they had tried to make their building very attractive with landscaping. '~ ~ommissioner Kaywood noted that since a variance went with the land, if the petitioner ware to move and the storage area presently proposed were utilized by a less attractive industrial use, this was the reason for the Commission requiring landscaping at this time; and that oleanders and other dense land- ' scaping could be provided adjacent to this chainlink fence. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ..- ~ . ` , '! ~ _ ! i , - ,: ~ ~ ~ MZNUx~S~ C~TX,PLANNING CGMMISSZOIv, December ~3, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2314 (Continued) ~ 71-790 Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-241 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2314, subject to providing landscapinq adjacent to the inside of the fence along the freeway property line, this to be with fast-growing trees on 40-foot centers and other dense shrubbery selected from the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone Suggested List of Trees and Shrubberies to be planted, said condition to be complied with uithin a period of 180 days or prior to the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding "Truck Haven" and "Pete's Road Service" not having met the conditions of approval, and inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry what han happened and whether or not the conditional use permit could be revoked because they were in violation. Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that this matter had been referred to the City Attorney's office for action. Chairman Farano inqui.red what the course of action was for the Commission since the petitioner had not met the conditions of the conditional use permit - could the Commission revoke said conditional use permit? Chairman Farano stated that with the approval and agreement o£ the Commission, he would like to instruct ~he stafE to review the property and conditions in light of the existing conditional use permit to determine if the petitioner had complied with the requiremeats as set forth in the resolution of approval and report back to the Planning Commission at the December 29, 1971, meeting. Furthermore, if the City Attorney determined that this was not in compliance, he should ad+c•ise the Commission at said meetinq what the next step was to be taken. This would mean both "Truck Haven" and "Pete's Road Service". Commissioner Seymour left the Council Chamber at 6:20 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM J. AND PATRICIA A. BURKE, P. O. PERMIT NO. 1279 Box 6319, Anaheim, California, O~,ners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A TEMPORARY CONCRETE PRE-CASTING OPERATION WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 6-FQOT MASONRY WALL on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately I acre having a frontage of appror.imately 20 feet on the south side of Miraloma Way, havin~~ a maximum deptn of approximately 440 feec, and being located a~proxi- mately 230 feet west of the centerline of Lawrence Avenue, and further described as 2550 East Miraloma Way, Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ' ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a concrete casting facility in the open on subject property; that there were no plans to construct a building; that the operation would include pouring concrete into 13 10 x 10-foot steel casts and removing the pre-cast concrete slabs for transportation to the job site for use in the construction of tilt-up concrete buildings; that the petitioner was proposing to surround the yard with a 6-foot high chainlink fence with slats. Miraloma Avenue overcrossing at this point, Mr. McDaniel noted in the evaluation, was elevated and rendered this total preperty visible, and it would appear that the provision of a 6-foot high masonry wall on the property would not prevent viewing the operation, at least from Miraloma Avenue; that the use would be visible from other industrial sitps along Miraloma Way, and in recent applications for a similar waiver, the Commission determined that the provision of screen landscaping on the interior side of the property line, in addition to the slatted chainlink fence, was sufficient to waive the 6-foot high masonry wall requirement in those circumstances. Therefore, the Commission might wish to consider that similar circumstances exist in this request if the use itself - M-2 use - was deemed appWopriate at this location. _ .P. y ,?;.. ~. = ~;_.'~:_ :r.~- ~ . , , 5 ~ d ~.~ _ k . , ~ O ~ MrNUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 CONDITTONAL VSE PERMIT NO. 1279 (Continued) No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that continuance of subject petition was unnecessary since this entire area would be viewable from adjoining indus- trial progerties; that there would be no way of hiding this type of operation, even with landscaping, and this type of use should be located along the river or in an M-2 area. Furthermore, the multiple-family residential development across the street from the exit of this proposed use would be faced with the traffic from the trucks entering and leaving the site, and there would be no way of hiding this use from view uf these apartments. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Farano was.of the opinion that the Commission should not take action on the petition until the petitioner had a chance to appear to present his viewpoi.nt. Commisbioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-242 an3 moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1279 on the basis that it would be impossible to hide from view the proposed outdoor use; that the use was too intense for the area in which it was located; that the use should be located either in an M-2 Zone or adjacent to the river; and that there would be deleterious effects to the apartment houses located across the street from the entrance and exit to this facility since the use would be in full view of these units. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreg~ing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CITY OF FLLLERTON, 303 West Commonwealth Y=~~ N0. 71-72-24 Avenue, ~ullerton, California, Owner; JACK ROYER, Municipal Utilities Manager, 303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, ;. California, ~,gent; requesting that property described as: , An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4 acres being ;~I northwest of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Harb~r Boulevard with ~: ,:;rs~ frontages of approximately ~l25 feet and 182 feet respectively, and further described as 1029 North Harbor Boulevard be reclassified from the R-A, AGRI- _ CULTURAL, ZONE and C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMER- CIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify the property to the C-1 Zone; that the petitioner had submitted a sketch which indicated construction of a Department of Motor Vehicles office building which would include presently zoned C-1 property in addition to the R-A property proposed for reclassification; that plans indicated a 11,600-square foot build- ing fronting on La Palma Avenue with access.to La Palma Avenue via a 30-foot ' driveway and access to Harbor. Boulevard via a 30-fuo~ driveway, and the remainder of the site was shown as parking area; that the Anaheim General Plan designates the frontage along Harbor Soulevard and La Pa,lma Avenue as being appropriate for commercial uses, designating the area where the pumping plant was presently located as beir_g a special park site, and in view of the existing commercial uses along La Palr.a Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, it would appear that this zone would be appropriate at this location; that one of t:~e primary concerns of the proposed use would be the amount and location of on-site parking;, that hased upon the areas depicted on the sketch plan, between 250 and 280 park- ing stalls could be provided on the property for the 11,600-square foot building, and the existing Department of Motor Vehicles facility located farther to the west on La Palma Avenue provided 87 parking stalls for a 5,400-square foot build- ing; that field inspection of the existing facility indicated that there was a severe shortage of parking as it reflected itself in the overabundance of on- street parking and congestion; that althougn this use might be appropriate at this location and the zone may be appropriate for the property, the Commission ~ ___. z ~ E .. ~i . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-24 (Continuer„ 71-792 might wish to consider the submittal of more complete and detailed site plans, and the probable effects the use could have on the adjacent single-family home to the north if proper buffering was not provided. Mr. William J. Vasvary, Director of Development Services, City of Fullerton, appeared before the Commission and stated they were in concurrence with the staff's report and recommendation, and they would hope that the Commission would consider recommending the reclassification of the parcel so that the City of Fullerton could negotiate with the State of California for a land swap; that parking requirements would be met; and that Mr. Whigham of the Aepartment of Motor Vehicles and the manager of Municipal Utilities were present in the event the Commissi.on wished answezs to technical questions. Mr. Donn Parsons, 700 West Julianna Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that all the property owners adjacent to subject property were in opposition to the proposed use due to parking and traffic conditions already existing on Harbor Boulevard; that Harbor Boulevard was the major entrance into the City of Anaheim and Disneyland, and the access to subject property would be from a portion of a dogleg where motorists had a tendency to drive at a higher rate of speed than traffic in other areas and above the safe measure for traffic in this area; that subject property should not be reclassified to a commercial use but should have a residentiai use established on it; that he knew the problem the City of Fullerton and the State of Califor- nia were having, and the intersection where the proposed use was suggested did not merit this increase in traffic hazards. ` Commissioner Herrst inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus what the most recent •;~ traffic count was for both Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. ;; ~ ~{ Mr. Titus replied that the latest traffic count was made in 1968, and at that ;j time it was axound 27,000 per day for Harbor Boulevard and approximately 15,000 :~ per day on La Palma Avenue, but he was sure this had increased considerably because La Palma Avenue now extended all the way across the city, and the `I tra.ffic count should range around 18,000, while Harbor Boulevard would have ~,i inoreased to ?.5,000. ~ Mr. Vasvary, in rebuttal, stated that there were several representatives of the State he would call on. `~~ Mr. A1 Whig.ham, Manager of the Department of Motor Vehicles of Anaheim a ' . ppeared be.fore the Commission and stated that the architect of the proposed development was siipposed to have represented the Department of Motor Vehicles but had not arrived from Sacramento; that this development would be twice as large as the present building; that the proposed development plans he was now submitting were for another lot, however, the buildings would be quitE similar; that about 10$ of the property would be landscaped, and the State was expending $500,000 ' for the proposed development; that it was his feeling the proposed use would ' not disrupt the traffic flow or bring any more traffic into this area; that he was not sure how the method for driver testing would start from this facility, therefore, he did not know whether the dogleg would be a problem, however, he would assume from the amount of traffic on Harbor Boulevard that access, in all likelihood, would be from La Palma Avenne; that they planned approximately 175 to 200 parking spaces, which he fel= would be ample for most of the year ~,:' except during ~anuary, when there never appeared to be ample parking. % Chairman Farano inquired as to what the Department of Motor Vehicles anticipated the number of cars that could be expected to he on the property - considering r., the fact that both the motor vehicle inspection and tests would be given - did the State have any available traffic count? "'~ - Mr. Whigham replied that on an average basis, approximately 112 to l20 drt•~ers' tests per day would be given, and another 7.50 to 200 cars woild request counter service for registration, and another 300 for driver's licence for people not =:~ taking the driving portion, or a total of about 600 cars per day, and this was ,' what they presently had at their location farther west on La Palma Avenue. ~ Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that this traffic count would be too much `~ for this intersection, particuiarly when the park was open for special events - this could create problems. `.~sc • ~ ~s -. . ,,.,. ..:.: ~ ,~ z.,,., ~ ,,_•.. -. ,;, ~ ~~ _. .. ~ ;5. _ . . .. i . . ~ .. . . . . ' . . ' ~. . . - . ~ _ Y~ _ .~~ . `_ "_ `._~_ . ~ . ~ • _ . . .. ' . . . y - . . - . . CJ (_/ c~ MINUTSS~ CI~Y pLANNING COMMIS3ION, December 13, 1971 71-793 RECLASSIrICATION NO. 71-7~-2~] (Conttnued) Mr. Whigham repl?ed that they did not anticipate having office hours iu rtxa evening ur on we~.k ends . Commissioner Kaywood ina~ired whether or not ~;•.e Depart:nent of riiotor 4e].ticies planne3 to have addit~onal exaniners; whereular.~ D;:-. Whigham stated ::her•~ ~aas ' na plan fer additional examiners, and there m~~id be approximat.ely 60 F:~::-vons work:tng at the present office which was to be replaced. .• Cor~*ni ;sioner Herbst inquired why the nr;~ artment of Mator Vehi~;les was el:iminat- ~ ~r 4~`' ing consideration ~F t•.he Fullerton site; whereupon Mr. Whigham replie3 t'hat ' they had had cons;_ei•able opposit~i.on to the site, and the City of Fu7Ze-rton R,~ offered a swap :or th:~.s pr~Nerty conditioned upon obtaininii C-1 zonf^.g. .~. Commissioner Herbs~ t:zEi: nota3 that the Full~_rton site had better expr~sure ~ ~: an~ traffic Fa~tternr., thai: subject propErty, ,;nd then inqu:red of the representa- !'{ t: •Je of the City of Frollert.~n what the traffic count was ~on Valer.cia. ~ Mr. Vasvary stated that it was 8,000 vehicles per ;lay. - ; i~;: Commissioner Herbst noted that the proposed facility wo~~ld place m~~re traffic at this intersection than presented esisted. t;r. Svhigham replied that the traffic still would be using La Pa].ma Avenue to rea-h the presert facility, however, the present facility was too small, and the property was also leased, not owned by the Department of r9otor Vehiv?es. '•;~j Mr. Vasvary advise.9 the Com:nission that the City of Fullert~~n had gone +•~~ considerable expense on st~bject Frcperty sinre they would tiave to remov~ the water wells - that was .Y,o~~ anxious thep wexe to make the :swap. mhese water wells would be moved to tiae rear portii~r oi'. the property to thr west, and t:~y still. would be using the same location sinc~. they would be tak'na approximately _ 50$ of their water usage, this propesty bei~ig a v,ry valua.bZe site *_o the City of Fullerton. _ ' Chair:::zn Farano inquired how close the px_~.sad access drive would be to the ~ ;~:~ single-family homes to the north off Julee.lna Street. ~ Mr. Whigham replierl that they had not yer. determined where the building would :,.^~ be located since the plans presented to th~ Commission mere for another site. ,;,;p~ Commissioner HerL•st then inquired whether the State woulo meet the City of ;:;~ Aiiaheim's s:.tc devFl~~pment standards; whereupon Mr. Whigham replied he could {{ not com,ait tiie State but could not see why they could not meet these standards. ° `" Commissior.er Hezbs~ ^oted that he had vie~ced other site s havinj the Department ; of Motor Vehicle facilitie5 and most were unclesir.ble. Furthermoza, the City r.equired landscaped screening t~ s_parate comm~rci~Z fzom rc:s~dential uses. ~ i ' Mr. Whigham advised the Cor~:niss =on that: tt.~y were r_equiring a 6-fout wall ~ ~,~; adjacent tio their property 1i.e on the north. i --;4 Mr. Vasvary ugain appeared hefore the C:~:+mission and noted that part of L•heir ";:;~ negotiations with the State wou~d require the City of Fullerton to meet the ~; site development st~:~dards of the City of Anaheim if the State did aot comply with them. s Chairman Faranu noted that he would not b i.ix Favor of the proposal unless the s' r. City of Fullerton would comply with the City standards since the Commiss9.on h`>' requ~.red private citize,zs to meet these stGn3ards, ther,~.fore, he did not feel ;`"'J that the City of Anaheim should waive these stan~ards. Mr. Vasvary stated that he was present to represent. the City o~ ^uller~nn, and could only stipLlate to khatever the Commission would require in gr.anting +:his ' ~ petition, therefore, the City oF E'nllerton would meet r~ny iequirements if th~ State did not 3o so. ° Mr. McDaniel noted that Mr. Whigham had rtate3 the pz posed builc~~ng would be -*=' twice the size of their existing building, w'_ich wou'i mear~ approximately `,,~`: 16,700 square feet, and computing the parking, the otd facilit.y provided 16 ., :~ ~ _ ...~ . .. : _ . li~..~~~1~,i1~ ' _ _ ~~+~'^~'{'~*;" ~ ~17a . ti~ ~ 1 ~ i ~ I ~ ~ I.~ShU•i:,S~ ~~TY ~~,ANNZNG COMMISSION, December .13, 1971 RECLASSIFICATZON NO. 71-72-24 (Continued) 71-794 spaces per t~cusand, whereas the new facility would be providing 17 spaces per thousand. Commi~sioner Ka~ywuod ir.:quired whether or not this was less than originally proposed since th~a St.ate indicated they would have between 175 and 290 spaces. Mr. McDa:~iel stat:ed that t??i~ ~•as based on 280 spaces as staff had indicated. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :oenmis:toner Herbst stated that if this was not good enough for the City of I~:~?e~:ton an a less heavi.ly traveled road thsr: La Palma Avenue, he did not know if the City of .?1naY;_i~ would want it since it would take property off the tax role and the Cir.;~ e;oula not benef:t by this development but would be creating a hardship on the abu:`.ting oroperty owners. Cha?.rman Farano notec' h~a c;ruld not determine what could=be done to relieve the trafiic ~r~blen, howev~r, in regard to the abutting single-family homeowners, what the C~~mission couJ.Q require was for the ~ity of Fullerton to meet the condit3.o.s of submitting plans showing landscaping which would be protecting the single-.family hor„es to the north. Commi,ssioner HI_rbst observed that the Planninc Commission had recommended R-'s zoning for the rroperty co the south of the R-A parcel, denying the C-1 zoning, but the City Caunctl had granted C-1 zoning; that the shopping center across the street appya:.d to need some supporting multiple-family residential use, and R--3 zoning was logical adjacent to R-1 wherei-. the Commission could require ci 20-faot 'landscaped buffer strip, and ~b,e proposed type uf use would crc3te ;nroblems or the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Gauer observed that the motorists goinq to this facility would have a difficult time entering and leaving the facility beoaus= ef the traffic volume since many people used these two highways to go to and from their work; thst although he would be happy to a^sist the Department of Motor Vehicles in locat- ing a new site since their exis~ing site was inadequate, the proposed nite would be no hetter than the ori.ginal site - as a matr~er of fact, it would in- crease the grobJ.ems as to park;ing and traffic congestion. FurtherR~ore, ±he location proposed in the City ef Fullerton would have be~n more logicul since there was only a count of 8,000 vehicles per day ~n that street. Chairman Farano inq,~ired what the t±affic count a~:,iild be if the propertv were R-3 compared to C-1. Commissioner Herbst notecl ~;ui. traffic from R-3 would be intermitte~nt traffic, whereas the proposed use would inject continuous ~raffic to and fro~n this facility. i.ommissior~er Herbst noted that the Department oF :dotor Vehicles was o•riginally located an Valencia Drive in Fullerton, however, later ~.hey moved tc the City of Anaheim and found tha.t their original site was much bettEr and t~ien wPnt back anA purchased four :tdditional acres, and thaL he felt the ~,ropo ea use would have a detrimental ~:ffect upon the entire area i.n which it was proposed to be located. Commissicner Kaywood inquired as to the number of ~inits th,at eculd be developed on this property if it were zoned R-3. Chairman Farano noted that there would be various tvpns of residential traffic patterns if this were proposed and zoned for R-3, however, the drivers that would be taking their tests at the Department of Motor Vehiales would be more careful than the average driver from an R-3 development; and that regardless of the use that was permitted, this wouln add a trafEic load, but he rould not see how the property could remain vacant. Commissioner Herbst noted that the site £or the Depar.tmc:nt o£ Motor Vehicles appeared to become larqer and larger all the time and became more confusi~g since they had no control ovr•r the number of people who would be com9ng to :heir offices. I ~ 1 ;"y - ~`;:;;~r,• .. --- -;~-°a~, a•...,;~ ~ + '•~' , ~k ,z_: ~,, w,:t , c - . << ` _?, ~ i ~ ~ . . ~ , ~ ~ • ~.~~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 ~ 71-795 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-24 (Continued) Chairman Farano was of the op3nion that there would be more traffic trips if this were de~eloped for residentiaJ. uses, and that there might be as many as 70 to 80 apartments having 250 persons. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Mr. Vasvary had indicated to lim that the State'c architect would make himself available in terms of how the praperty would be developed if the Commission appeared to be concerned about the manner in which the property woui~d be developed. However, if the Planning Commission felt the land use was appropriate, theg could nake this a condi~ion of approval. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that land use was as important as plans for the building. Commissioner Gauer offerad a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassif3catiun No. 71-72-24 be denied~.~.x.,Z~i„Gµ~'(wltc~r~-~~XB~ ', ~~1' F -- -F A . > > Y _ _ Further discussion was held by the Commission, it be~ng determined that plans should be submitted so that the Commission could determine whether or not the traffic pattc:n and needed protection for tlie residential uses to the north of subject property had been providecl for. Commissioner Kagwood offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue can- sideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-24 to the meeting of December 29, 1S71, to allow time for the architect to meet with staff. Commissioner Gauer seconded Che motion. M02'ION CARRIED. .RECLASSIFICATI~N - PUBLIC HEARING. HAROLD D. STEVENSON, 916 South Beach NO. 71-72-23 Boulevard, Anaheim, California, and HERBERT J. BELSHE, . 9781 ~toyal Palm Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: A rec- tangularly-shaped piece of land consist.ing of two contiguous parcels anc~ conta3ning approximately l.b acres having a fro~taqe of approximately 190 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 380 feet, and beinq locatad approximately 240 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and £urther described as 920 South Beacn Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL', ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed tlie location of subject property, usPS established in close pr.oximity, the proposal to reclassify the property upon which a motel had been constructed in conformance with conditi.ons of the conditional use permit which required initiation of C-1 zoning within a year of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1227; that the Anaheim General Plan desiqnates this area as being appropriate for general commercial uses, and the C-1 2one would implement that designat~an; and that in light of the fact that *_he northerly portion of this reclassification request was a condition of the completion of the conditional use permit, the primary question would involve the apprapriateness of rezoninq the adjacent vacant property to the south. Mr. H. ~. Belshe, one of the petitionerc, appeared before the Commission and noted that thi.s property was completel; surrounded with C-3 and C-1 uses, therefore, the requested zoning would appear to Le appropriate. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. P~71-243 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to tr,e City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- ti~n No. 71-72-23 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreaoing resalution was passed by the following vote: AY;,S• ^t1Mt2ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. NOLSe f.`Ui3MIS8.LON~P.S; None. AbS~,;:~. ~~MMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. t'. - ~. ,.. - - ~ _a~ I i ~ ~ ~ { 't,~J MTNUTES, CITY PI,ANNZNG COMMISSION, December J.3, 1971 71-796 ~, STREET NAME CHANGE - PUBLIC HEARiNG. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COI4tdISSIGN, ' 204 East Linc~ln Avenue, to consider a street name change ' for Santa Ana Canyoz Road easterly of Tustin Avenue exter3- ing to the Newport Freeway to be renamed Riverport Drive. ~ F~ssistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the proposed street name , change, noting that when Traat No. 5222 was approved, this being located generally at the south:~est corner of the Riversidc: and the Newport Freeways, sai3 tract provided for vehicular circulation to the property by extending Santa Ana Canyon Road on the south through the property to intersect on the north with Tustin Avenue. The result of this extension would mear. two inter- ;;~- ..„., sections of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Tustin Avenue. Therefore, the developer y'" of the tract had proposed the name o£ Riverport Road for that portion of the ;?`%'" ~' street within their project. ~; ' Mr. Loren Tilles, 115 Merrimac Drive, appeared before the Commission, stating ~ he represented the Merrimac Apartment Organization, an informal organization of owners on Merrimac Drive who were opposed to the proposed etreet name, stating he had talked with all of them, and they felt the name in question would be just as confusing as Santa Ana Canyon Road, and they had lost tenants because of the fact that people associated the name of Santa Ana Canyon Road with the ~' former Riverside Freewa . y, and when they could not find the street or apartment building, they would turn around and go back tu their residence; that he had asked for preferred names that the apartment owners were desirous of having, anc3. the consensus of opinion was that the street should be named Merrimac Drive unless there was a master plan which would require Santa Ana Canyon Road to exit out to mus~in Avenue northerly along the freeway. The Commission indicated a recent tract map which had been approved indicated a perimeter drive alozg the east adjacent to the freeway property, which would exit to the north on Tustin Avenue. ~ Mr. Tilles advised the Commission that they, too, wanted to eliminate any 1 confusion, however, there now was Riverdale Avenue off of Tustin Avenue, and this would mean Riverpoi.~ Drive as well as Merrimac Drive, which started from ' - nowhere and ended nowhere - therefore, if thc:y could name it Merrimac Way or ! Kerrimac Road, this would eliminate the conEusion to get people to recognize tl:e street; and that of all the owners, ten requested Merrimac, three requested "_~ it remain as it was, and one approvrd the proposed Riverport Drive. !E + Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not any reference was made to old Santa '; Ana Canyon Road; whereupon Mr. Tilles stated that the on the northwest cnrner in Anaheim there was a sign that stated Santa Ana Canyon Road and Tustin Street, f but on the sou*_h side of that street, the City of orange sign stated Santa Ana --d Canyon Road and Jefferson Street, while the off-ramp was identified as the Jefferson Street off-ramp. This, of course, made it very confusing to newcomers to the area; and that when he had called the police on a matter one time it - took the police forever to find the place. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that fhe City had been having a problem and~were very concerned about adequate police and fire protection since some of the streets made complete 360 degree turns, and many times fire trucks had a difficult time getting to a fire because of misinforma- tion as to the exact street name. . : ~. ~ Mr. McDaniel noted that the tract approved to the east of Merrimac Drive had the major portion of the street located along the perimeter of its property. .' Therefore, the developer of the tract had su ggested this name. "r ~', Comm±.ssioner Kaywood noted that people tended to drop the last part of the name ;~ of .: street, and this, of course, would add to the confusion if two streets i: ~ were named Merrimac, onr; being Drive and the other Road. i! I~ ' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that because there were tao factions concerned with the str.eet name, one the old property owner~ anci the other ~:he ~ newer p•roperty owners, he would suggest that the proposed stieet name change be continued for further study so that a stre.et name could be presented that , I would be acceptable to both parties and would minimize any confusion in this 1 area. . _ _..._._. .._..~__'_ Y:F"' _ ..~'~..;.~'; fS$".~``~_:'-'': .. . ~.{' . .. ~ % ~~.,f..~, .. ,r.•~.: _ ~ . . « . y ~ ~ ~ MTNUTES, C~TY PT~ANN:~NG COMMISSION, DecP~nber 13, 1971 7~<797 ~ STREET '7AME CHANGE (Continued) • Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of a street name change for Santa Ana Canyon Road ~o the meeting of December 29, 1971, to allow time for further study. Commissioner Allred se.;onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF PLACENTIA USE PERMIT 71/30 - Property located approximately 330 feet west of Kraemer Boulevard and -'- 550 feet southerly of Orangethorpe Avenue, the southerly `~^ .- property line abutting the rity of Anal~Pim - Request a~ to establish a general st~rage warehouse on subject ; property. ,~ % ['; Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject + property, the proposed u,.e f.or the property, and the fact that access would ~ be gained utilizing a private road extending southerly from Orangethorpe Avenue. ~ Commissicner Herbst offered ~ motion to receive and file City of Placentia Use Permit 71/30, directinq that the Commission secretary advise the City of Placentia that the Commission wished to thank them for their notification, but that rhe Commission had no comment. Commissioner Allred seconded cre motion. MOTION CARRIED. '" ITEM NO. 2 HTLLSIDE STREET STANDARDS Assistai~t 2oning Sunervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the proposal to establish standard details for Hillside Street Standards known as 113-A, 114-A and 115, noting that these provided adequate~y-sized travel and parking lanes; that che cross sections provided for adequate local drainage; that the 7-foot park- , ways were determined to be sufficient for sidewalks and utilities and yet not so large as to be uneconomical to construct or wasteful of developable land; ; that si3ewalks were considered necessary for Hillside Secondary and Primary Highways and on the access side of the Hillside Interior and Collector Streets I to permit pedestrian traffic to walk in safety; and that the exhibits presented were for the Commission's consideration. The Commiss.~.on inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus whether or not this was what the City Engineer was really desirous of having; whereupon Mr. Titus sta!:ed that these were essentially the sections they had been using in a simi:ar manner, with a few changes in the parkway and moving the sidewalk to the cu:br wideaing the parkway, or narr~wing the parkway as was necessary. Discussion :+a~ held by the Commission relative to the proposed street standards. Commissioner Ka,•wood left the Council Chamber at 7:10 P.M, ~ I Mr. Titus noted that they were proposing 7-foot parkways which was sufficient to install sidewalks at a later date on b.,th sides if it was found to be necessary. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-244 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Standard Detail Nos. 113-A, 114-A, and 115 be approved for use in hillside areas as dericted on Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutiun was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Fa.rano, Gauer, Herbst. NOES: COMMSSSSONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywoood, Rowland, Seymour. r , . , -. a.J : -- . . . . . ~ _ . . . ... . , r, . . ~ ~ . . ~ .` -. ~ . ~ . . . ~ . . . . . ~ _ . ~_a _. i 9 ~ ~ ~ -----_1~ ~ ~ ~L~l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 13, 1971 71-798 TTEM NG. 3 KATHRYN-LINDSAY ANNEXATION - INHABITED Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of the proposed annexation, noting that it consisted of approximately 40 acres and was completel ,~r.eaoweredsingleefamily~residential~uassorted commercialYimary land uses in the ~esidential uses on both the east and west sides of BrookhurstesW;onal, and of the residential structures on Brookhurst Street still remainir~gtinause~asr residences; that the General Plan designation for the area was general commer- cial for the area south of Lincoln, as well as the west side of Brookhurst Street and the northwest corner of L:.r_coln and Brookhurst Street, the east side of Brookhurss: Street being designated for commercial-professional and ;.he balance being designated for lflw-density residential uses; that the City of Anaheim zones moat closely approximatinq the existing land uses were R-1, single-fami~y residential for the residential areas, C-1 for the south sicle of Lincoln Aves~ue and the northwest corner of Brookhurst and Lincoln, and either C-O or C-1 for most of the parcels along both sides of Brookhurst Street. Furthermore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the proposed anlexation be approved, and that the Development Services Staff be directed to initiate studies to determine the most appropriate City of Anaheim zoning and initiate necessary reclassification proceedinqs. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Kathrpn - Lindsay Annexation - InhaSited be approved as being a logical exten- sion of the boundaries of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioners Kaywood, Rowland, and Seymour absent.) Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the Development Services Department to initiate studies to.-determine the most appropriate City of Anaheim zoning and to initiate the necessary reclassification proceedings. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 7:15 P.M. Commissioner Kaywood returned to the Council Chamber at 7;15 P,M. TTEM NO. 4 WORK SESSION REGARDING THE ANAHEIM HILLS GENERAL PLAN. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Comraissioa that he would suggest the Commission meet at 8;30 A.M, on December 29, 1971, for a morning session with Anaheim Hills as to updating their proposal of the General Plan as considered in General Plan Amendment T~o. 123. Chairman Farano stated he would prefer spending more time reviewing this update rather than having it rushed through prior to a review of the public hearings for that date, and perhars another day or evening would be more appropriate. Discussion was held by r:,lp Commission on whether or not a field trip should be taken in conjunction wi `., th3s review of the Anaheim Hills General Plan, and upon its conclusion, it was determined that ~anuary 8, 1972, at 9:00 A.M. would appear to be the most appropriate time for both a field trip and a general review by representatives of Anaheim Hills. ADJOURNMENT - There beinq no further bus=ness to discuss, Commissioner Kaywood oEfered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTI0I.J CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at T;2p p,M. Respectfully submitted, ~~2~ ANN KREBS, Sec etarv Anaheim C~,ty Planning Commission ; ^_. _-wz_ ~~~~ ~ e_;~^;', K __ . . .. ~ ^~ ~ 1 ~ ~'.~ .,~ ~-'.'f ~- ._ ~' i! .. I I - .1 { / ~ I ~ ..~~.. ~. ~_ _ "-_ _. _ ' . . . . . . ~., . \~ ~l. ... . , -... . . .~.. . . .. . .. ~ ~~. , :.~: ~ .... . . .. ~ ... . . ~ : - ~.. .~. : , ~ ~ I~ . . .. ' ... ~ ~.. . . .. . . . .., ~~. ~ _ ,~, . . .. ~ - . , . . . . . ... , _ . .. . . . ~ . ~ . - ,. ~ . . _ ' . . . ~ ~ - - , .. . , ' ' . .... . . .. 1 ~ - a ~.-- ~ - ~_ n_ ~ , !~