Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/01/10~ ~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California January 10, 1972 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - P regular meeting of the Anaheim City ?lanning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present. Y PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kayv:oud, Rowland, Seymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONER::: None. PRESENT. - Assistar~t Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Of£ice Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles R~berts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Cammission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Cammissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. AFPROVAL OF - Commissioner ::arwood offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTES of the December 29,',~1971, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION G'ARRI~D, subject to the following corrections: Pg. 71-803, para. 4, line 1: name should re "Governale". Corzect name misspelling on T~ecember 13, 1971, minute~, pages 71-786 through 788. Pg. 71-815, para. 2, line 1: "f.ive guards, two inside~..." RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF NO. 7J-71-56 LATTER DAY SAINTS, 10 South Main, Room 214, Salt Lake City, Utah, Owneri SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard, C~NDITIONAL USE Suite W, Westminster. California,.Agent; property dea- PERMIT NO. 1244 cribed as: Ati irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 4.4 acres having a frontage of TENTATIVE MAP OF approximately 245 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, TRACT N0. 7439 having a maximum depth of approximately A91 feet, and beinq located approximately 660 feet south of the ce,:ter- iine of Orangewood Aven~e. Property presently classified R-A~ AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ N:ULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLZSH A 47-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM`'+ DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT SI2E~ I f2) MINIMUM I,OT WIDTH~ (3) REQUIREMEhT THAT A LOT HAVE STREET FRONTAGE, AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET O£ AN R-A 20NE. TENTAT2VE TRACT REQGEST: DEVELOPER: WM. J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite K, Westminstez, Cal;fornia. ENGINEER: RAAB & BOYER ENGINEERING COMPANY, ~~~_?2 Eieach Houlevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into 49 R-~ zoned lots. Subject petitions were continued from the June 14, July 12 and 26, August 23, Octoher 18, ahd iNovember 15, 1971, meetinqs to allow the petitionez` time to resolve problems with the owner. of the adj~ining R-A parcel, as requested by the Commission. 72-1 ~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~Z'2 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-56, CONDITIONP•L USE PERN.IT NO. 1244, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7439 (Continued) Assistant 2oning Supervisor por. McDaniel reviewed the location of aubject property, uses established in close proximity, the proposal and the w~i!~ers requested, together with the reason for the numerous continuances, and noted that the petitioner had now resolved the problem of a lot aplit by including the R-A garr.el wit'~ the pr~oosed development; that the petitioner now proposed a 57-unit, one and two-story condominium complexj and that the project was not intended to be the type where only air space was sold to individuals and all improvemer.ts and ground held under common ownership, but instead, each of the units would be situated on a postage stamp lot which would be so].d along with the dwelling unit, and one lot was being provided for opan space and recrea- tion area which would be held in common ownership by the individual lot owners. ~, . Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal,~stated the Anaheim General Plan indicated this area as b~ing appropriater for low-density residential develop- ment, with the property to the north designated for medium-density residential 3evelopmert, therefore, this being a mul.~.iple-familp resi~zntial propo=al, it woula not be the vehicle to implement the low-densicy c~~-signatian; that with the inclttsion o£ the R-A parcel at the southwest corner of the property into this project, there would be no necessity to waive the height limitation with- in 150 feet of a single-fa.mily structure in the R-A Zone; that three of the remaining waivers involved minimum lot size and width and the requirement that a lot ha~e street frontage had been waived in typical developments in other parts of the city; and that it would appear that the primary question before tlie Commission was one of land use and whether this property was appropriate for this condominium developmer.t. 'Mr. James Suffington, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed development offered an excellent solution to a problem piece of property; that the development would provide a buffex• between the R-3 to the north and the R-1 to the east and south; that this shauld not be considered an apartrient develogment since these would be sold as though each unit was considered a single-family hoLie; that the land would be permanent- ly maintained through a homeowners group; that there would be no impact on the enrollment i. schools since the number of children would be approximately the same for this as for any R-1 development; that they proposed 15 diEferent elevations so that this could not be considered a stereotype development; that a typical complex could be viewed in Garden Grove; and then presented copies of typical plans to the Commission, noting that a colored rendering was available if the Commission was desirous of reviewiag it. Mr. Buffington noted that the plan projected more than 2-1/3 parking spaces per unit, which was in excess of the R-3 requirement; and that he was avail- able to a~iswer ~ny questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not this wouid be handled under the FHA 203B program and received an affirmative reply. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the type oE lanfiscape buf£ering treatment that was proposed adjacent to the R-1 properties to the south and ~ast. Mr. Buffington replied that there would be a 6-foot wall, as well as land- ~caping, on the interior of the wall, and then in response to Commission questioning regarding the amcunt of landscaping, stated there would be a 3-foot strip. Commissioner xerbst noted that the Commission in the past, in considering multiple-famil.y sesidential development, had required a 20-foot landscaped buffer strip between R-1 and R-3 uses, thezefore, the 3 fEet propo~ed was considerably less than the Commission required of other developers, and he would not consider approvin~ these plans until this additional bufferinq was provided as protection to the R-1 properties. Furthermore, the plans indic:a~ed trash storage areas immediately adjacent to the R-1 properties. Mr. Buffington replied that a street or an accessway could be developed adjacent `:.o the R-1, which would mean a 25 to 28-foot ~trip. ~ ~ ~ s MINUTES, CITY PLANN=NG COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~Z'3 FtECLASSIFIr;ATION NO. 70-71-56~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12A4~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7439 (Continued) Commissioner Seymour noted that Commissionez Herbst referrzd to the fact that the Commission did not aonsider an alley or street as a baffer, but that a minimum of 20 feet should be landscaped where R-3 abutted R-1 homes, and then inquired whether or not the developer would consider an additional continaance to submit revised plans which would indicate this 20-foot landscape buffer strip. Mr. Buffington zepliad that he would consider a contiiiuance rather than receiving a denial, c.owever. he would like to state that it was advantageous to have these units facing a green, open area, therefore, he felt that a perimeter drive would be better in addition to the wal'~, particularly since they were required to desi~n the project so that there would be single story within 150 feet of the R-1 to the south and east. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Commission in the past haZ allowed perimeter drives and only 3 to 5 feet of landscaping adjacent to R-1, however, this was found to be insufficient p.'otection for ;:he single-family residents, particu- larly since residencs of these homes had less chance to move out iE they did not like their surroundings because perimeter drives and odors and noises, such as was the prerogai:ive of residents of R-3 properties. Mr. Buffington noted that he had provided the perimeter drive for fire protection. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that 3 feet of landscaping was not an adequate amount of buffering for t'~e R-1, and if the petitioner agreed t~ provide the 20-foot strip which the Commission ha3 required, staff could assist the developer in showing him typical development plans which had been approver. in the past. Mr. Buf`ington inquired whether or not the Commission wanted a 20-foot strip of lands:aping adjacent to the R-1 on both the east and south. Commissioner Seymour noted that a 20-foot landscape strip would be required adjacent to the R-1; that he was not aware of whether or not the other Com'.nissioners felt the same, but he did not feel the same type of buffering should be provided adjacent to the R-3 to the north where only 10 feet would be more than reasonable, however, he was familiar with the homes to the souths and that property values ran between $35,000 and $40,000 - therefore, it was important to protect their environment. Mr. Buffington advised the Commission that the proposed units would sell in a price range of $25,000 to $30,000. D Commissioner Seymour stated that it was not a matter of value but the density beinq proposed and developed on the property, as well as vehicles and other equipment that these homes would be subjected to. 2oning 5upervisor Charles Roberts, in response to questioning by the Commission, stated that one of the conditions of approval was requir3ng a modified cul-de- sac at the terminus of Fostoria Street. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions- for Reclassification No. 7J-71-56, Conditional Use Permit No. 1244, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7439 to the meeting o£ February 7, 1972, to al~ow time for the developer to review the proposal ~n order :.u include a 20-foot landscape strip adjacent to the R-1 properties to the south and east. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. • s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~Z-4 TENTATIVE MAP OF - OWNER/DEVELOPER: COVINGTON BROTHERS, 2451 East Orange- TRACT NO. 7448 thcrpe Avenue; Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, California. Subject property, located on the south side of Ball Road, approximately 280 feet ea~t of Eelhaven Street, containing approximately 10 acres, is proposed for sub~?ivision into 32 R-3 zoned lots. Subject tract w:a continued from the meeting of December 29, 1971, to allow time for the cr~•:loper to submit a revised tract map. Assis:ant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to subdivide the property into 32 R-3 zoned lots on which fourplex units +aould be constructed; and that the map provided for the extension of Omega Avenue along the southerly boundary of subject property, as well as the 10-foot landscaping buffer strip required as a condition of Area Development Plan No. 94 where residential uses abutted industrial property to the south. Mr. William Phelps, designer of the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and noted that the developer requested that he answer any develop- ment plan questions the Commission might have, and since they proposed to develop within the site development standards of `.he R-3 Zone, no waivers were being requested. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the proposed subdivision was an archaic form of development which the City of Anaheim had discouraged, even though the proposal met the site development standards of the R-3 Zone, and in a short time the zone would have this type of development eliminated since it did not provide the type of environment that othe.r multiple-family and single-family developments provided; that although the Commission .in the past had approved and allowed this type of development, he would not ag;3in vote for it because SO+t or more of the land was proposed to be in paving, and this would not provide proper green, open space which was more desirable for the residential environment; and that he felt tnis proposal was a ve•ry poor form of developing, to which he would be opposed. Mr. Phelps replied that even though Commissioner Rowland felt this was an archaic form of development, Covington Brothers had developed in Anaheim and other surrounding communities with similar types of development; that a resident of fourplexes was different than those in regular apartment complexes since this type of development gave a home-like environment both for the renter and/or the owner; that perhaps the Commission might not concur, but there was an abundance of sales in this type of development because renters were people who did not want to go into a large apartment complex; and that these units would be quite large. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the fourplex units would be owned by one person, or would they be sold in four-unit increments? Mr. Phelps repli=d that they usually sold as eight units, even though adver- tised on the market as fourplexes. Commissioner Gauer aas of the opinion that he would prefer to view s develop- taent that had been operating for some rime to determine how they operated. Mr. Phelps indicated that Covington P,:others could point with pride to a number of their developments, one be:~,g on Acacia Street north of the River- side Freeway. Commi~sioner Herbst was o£ the opinion that these fourplexes on Acacia Street weze not the most desirable, after having driven through them. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of bedrooms these units would have; whereupon Mr. Phelps replied there was one three-bedroam and three two- bedroom units for each fourplex. Commissioner xerbst noted that there would be children living in this complex, and one of the things the C~mmission was very mucY aware of in this type of development was the lack of an area for children to play in, and this could mean the children would be playing in the streets or alleys. However, under ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~2'S TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7448 (Continued) one owner, apartment complexes and a play area or recreation area was provided, and this was one reason why he was not in favor of the proposed type of development until some recreation facilities were provided. Furthermore, the plans proposed only a minimum requirement for apartment houses, which was inadequate for families with children. Mr. Phelps noted that the City required park and recxeation fees for park purposes, however, the important thing was the fact that the proposal was one method of a living environment; that it was leqally ccirrect because it met all the standards of the City code; and that it would be difficult to separate the parking area since it would be very difficult to control. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the desig;~er could provide the Commission with a reaWon why it would be a disadvantage to change the plans since these plans could be reversed, providing additional green area and removing the vast amount of asphalt. Mr. Phelps replied that staff and the developer had yone over the plans, and there had been several problem areas, one being the tras:i pick-up and two, the City's requirement of 2} and l~s parking spaces with one space per unit being covered - this wuuld eat up considerable area. Commissioner Seymour then noted that there were several developments which had presented the alley concept originally, an:i after the Commissioa's review and recommendation, the plans had been revisc•d, aad qave, for example, the Tancredi Village Green development as being one concept where the "sea of asphalt" had been removed, yet there was adequate vehicular an~i pedestrian traffic flow with considerable more green, open space, therefore, the developer could not say this could not be done; and that still another development was located on Dale Street near Crescent, where a similar type of treatment was developed. Commissioner Rowland noted that the two developments to which Commissioner Seymour referred had presented fourplex plans similar to that being presented by this developer, having the same basic problems which the developer had, and after revising their plan, they now dedicated apen space to people instead of vehicular traffic - these were not the on.ly developments which had a changed concept of providing open space for people instead of vehicles. Furthermore, i£ the developer needed some assistancQ as it pertained to trash storage, the Commission could help in this area since they did not feel that trash collec- tion should be dictating how a development should be designed, and that this portion of the ordinance had outlived its usefulness since it had little to do with people but with thingu. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that there had been a number of ineetings with the developer regarding trash collection and alleys; that the original proposal was different than that presently before the Commission w~here fewer lots were served by public alleys, where joint drives had been proposed betwe~en pairs of lots, as well as a different manner of trash collection. However, because of comments made at the ICPS&GW meeting regarding trash collection, the developer revised the tract map. Commissioner Rowland expressed the opini.on that a trash truck should not be the prime consideration in designing a residential development. Mr. Phelps stated that since the City's ordinance dictated this, how could the developer proceed to design this property? Commissioner Rowland noted that other developers had designed projects such as the Commission had mentioned, and even though the developer might not be able to follow these completely, he might reflect upon what had been accomplished in the past. Mr. Phelps noted that a different plan had been submitted originally, however, staff had "shot it down" - now the Commission was criticizing the revised plans, however, a representative of Covinaton Brothers was present if the Commission cared to question him since the plan before the Commission was designed within the standards o£ the zoning ordinance. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~2'6 TENTATIVE MI+P OF iRACT NO. 7448 (Continued) Commissio~ier Seymour noted that this was a very salient point, but he did not know what the original intent of the ordinance was, however, they were not now appropriate in the development of this property, as well as the property just previously considered by the Planning Commission; that his feelings were the same as those expressed by Commissioner Rowland; and that trash truck pick-up should not dictate how people should live, but he would like to have a plan that would partially solve the trash pick-up problem, and he was more con- cerned with the living environment in that it should be more desirable. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue con~ideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7448 to the meeting of February 7, 1972, in order to allow time for the engineer to revise the map, incorporating suggestions made by the Commission. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the ff.oc~on. MOTION CARRIED. (The developer later requested of staff that this be rescheduled for ;January 24, 1972, since thi~ was not an advertised publio hearing it,~m.) CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUSLIC HEARING. COLLINS LIMITED PARTiNERSHIP, PERMIT N0. 1282 David S. Collins, General Partner, 1077 West Sall Road, Anaheim. California, Owner; requesting pern.ission to ESTABLISH ?~ PI'.TVATE RECREATION CENTER INCLUDING LIVE AND FILM ENTERTAINMENT, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DANCING, AND OTHER RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT ACTIV'_TIES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre located at the southwest corner of Adams Strset and Broadway, having frontages of approximately 225 feet on Adams Street and 34 feet on Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 455 feet, and fLrther described as 1430 West Broadway. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the December 29, 1971, meeting to allow the various City departments time to observe the proposal first hand and report back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Farano noted that the public hearing on subject petition had been closed at the last meeting and continued only for the purpose of havinq reports from observations of various members of the City Safety Department and for these representatives to observe first hand the operation of this facility where a large attendance was anticipated, regarding both traffic and safety, and for the members of these departments who reviewed this operatioa to be present at the public hearing"to give their reports in person; and that this hearing would not be re-opened unless the Commission determined it was necessary. . Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to nermit re- eer.3blishment of a dance hall known as Y_armony Pa.rk to permit a p~ivate recreation center including live and film entertainment, public and private dancing, and other recreational and entertainment activities. Chairman Farano then requested that the report by Inspector Menges of the Fire Department be presented by him. Inspector Garth Menges appeared before the Commission and stated that on December 30, 1971, he had been requested to view Harmony Park with the Zoning Enforcement Officer and a representative o£ the Police Department; that the three of them had driven through the front gate o£ Harmony Park to the rear parking lot, however, there was no access ance one entered this area to get out; that there were no marked parking areas in this rear portion; that in the front there were 38 cars, and some uf these cars were blocked in because of the manner of subsequently parked vehicles; that they had viewed the peri- meter streets, particularly Hessel, where parking was observed on both sides of the street and cars were parked in front of the gates of the oil companies; and that if there had been an emergency, the City would not have b~en able to go in and take care of it. Furthermore, when they entered the inside of the building, there was a much smaller crowd than had been anticipated, otherwise it was very quiet; and that any fire code violations should be discussed by Marshal Phillips. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jan.uary 10, 1972 ~Z'~ CONDITIONAL USE PERN,?T NO. 1282 (Continued) Fire Marshal Sob Phillips appeared before the Commission and noted that he had been on vacation when th~s first came before the Fire Department; that it had been brought to his attention that the use of the building was now considered a new use in applying the California Administrative Code, which he was sworn to uphold as a member of the City of Anaheim; that upon inRpection of the property, together with the Building Depaztment representative, a number of the violations inside the building had been observed, which were set forth in a blue note to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Herbst inquired of Marshel Phillips, in order to brinq this development with.in code, would it be necessary for the petitioner to meet these requirements as set forth in his report to make this building safe? Marshal Phillips replied that the petitioner was asking for approval of a use that was formerly in the building, and since t.his was previously a nonconform- ing use, it would mean that he would have to ~eet these requirements. Commissioner Rowland requested that Marshal Phillips explain paragraph 8 of his report. Marshal Phillips replied that if the use was proposed to be continued as a ballroom, then they would use this section of the Fire and Safety Code to determine the manner in requiring proper fire protection. Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether it was Marshal Phillips' reasonable judgment that paraqraphs marked 1, 2, and 3 of the report must be conformed with in any event, and would the Fire Marshal consider this as a continuing use, forgetting the fact that for a short time it was used for something else - would this fall within the framework of the code; whereupon Marshal Phillips replied affirmatively. Commissioner Gauer inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry what the responsibility of the Commission was when reports such as had been submitted to the Commission were made - what was the Commission's responsibility in considerinq approval of the use - would the Commission be liable if something happened to the building that ~vas catastrophic and which could be traced to one of these deficiencies - would the City be liable? Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that since these sectiona were part of the Fire Code adopted by the City of Anaheim, they should not be waived; that if the question was whether a continuing use as Commission Rowland asked, then Section 4 would apply as to liability, however, the chances against the City as to liability would be extremely remote, provided the City recognized the responsibility of the code, which was not within the scope of the Ciiy's zoning code. Commiss3oner Herbst noted that the Commission could approve subject petition contingent upon the petitioner meeting the fire standards in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the report by the Fire Marshal. Mr. Lowry noted that if these were mer, there would be no problem. Commissioner Allred inquired why the building had to be brought up to code if it was being used for the same use that it had been for a number os' years except for a short pariod of time; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that the peti- tioner had abandoned the previous use. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the owner should have been required to meet code even though the use had changed. Mr. Lowry replied he did not know how the use had been permitted originally. Chairman Farano tl:en noted that in view oE the statements made, he felt that the petitioner should present his comments. Mr. Col2ins then noted that the City Attorney had ruled that the original use was nonconforming; that the City Council must then reverse themselves on tk~is before anything could be done; that even though a permlt were granteii, the ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~2-8 CONDZTIONAL_USE _PERMIT NO. 1282 (COntinued) State Fire Marshal would require him to meet a minimum State £ize standard, and he was told any of these would cost a considerable amount; that they ha3 permission of the City Council to operate while the conditional use permit was in process, and whatever action the Commission took, ic would continue until it was resolved through the City Council; that they had been booked through February in this facility, however, it looked as though the kind of costs which might be extensive and from what information they had gathered, it miqht appear that a good fire might be the answer, and then they could rebuild with a new building; that the neighbors might not like their manner of operation, and if the issue had not been raised, they would have been permitted to continue tkie operation until the Fire Marshal required them to meet requirements of the fire code; and that the building was 75 years old, therefore, it would be very difficult to meet these requirements. Chairman Farano noted that he could find little problem as it pertained to street parking, provided that the emergency equipment were not barred from entering the oi1 storage facilities, therefore, in cooperatio:. with the owners and operators, the petitioner could do something to keep these people from blocking the driveways; and then inquired as to the hours of operation since if this were operated during the off-business hours, there would be no parking problem - would the petitioner consider accepting a condition that would restsict the uae of this facility durinq times of the dsy when this would not be a p:oblem to the businesses in order to pxotect these streets durinq the week days, because the use could infringe on the use of the other properties? Mr. Collins replied that he had given the security people instructions, but in areas where they had placed barricadas, the people had moved these barricades:' that he thought his men were taking care of this situation, and the only way he would suggest would be the towing away of cz.rs by the poli~e if they were in violation. Furthermore, this was a part of the lease agreement to patrol the facilities, cleaning up the debris, and keeping general order. Chairman Farano noted that at the last public hearing Mr. Collins had stated that he would exercise all reasonable effo.rt~ to obtain additior.al parking - would this additional parking be a place whFire the people would be able to use it? Mr. Collins replied that t?:ere was parking on the north side of Broadway on Adams, which was always there and had been available, as well as parking that he could lease or purchase - however, he could not understand why people parked on Hessel Street. Commissioner Rowland noted that Mr. Collins had aptly stated the problem, namely, that the building was 75 years o.ld, and ;to try to bring it into the required minimum State fire standards ~~uld be something which he would have to look into very closely from an econosic standpoint. Therefore, how could the Commission take action on this petition since they could not waive the minimum State fire standards. Mr. Collins noted that Fize Marshal Phillips could come down any time anci require them to comply with thesa standards. Commissioner Allred iaquired as to the length of time Mr. Collins had after the Council took action. Mr. Collins stated that until the conditional use permit had been resolved, however, Fire Marshal Phillips had agreed not to "press us" until the middle of February. Mr. Collins then requested a two-week continuance to allow him time to investi- qate the cost factor to meet the State's minimum fire standards as required by tha State Fire Marshal in order to determine what further steps he could take. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1282 to the meeting of January 24, 1972, as requested by the petitioner to all.ow time for an assessment of economic problems in bring- ing the exist~nq use and structure to meet fire code standards. Commissioner Gauer seconded the moticn. MOTION CARRTED. s ~ ~ 72-9 MINUTES, CITY PLArINING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLSC HEARING (REl,DVERTISED). FOREST LAWN CEMETERY PERMIT N0. 1130 ASSOCIATION, 1712 South Glendale Boulevard, Glendale, Cali:ornia, Owner; MARTIN LUTHER HOSPITAL, INC., 1825 West Rom+zeya Drive, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent; requesting DELETIOt7 OF LANDSCAPED MEDIAN kEQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APFROVAL OF A HOSPITAL on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres having a frontagP of approximately E30 feet on the south side of Romneya Drive (a private street), having a maximum depth of approxi- ately 528 feet, and being located approximately 820 feet west of the center- 'line of Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIYLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervis~r pon McDaniel revi,ewed the location of subject property, uses establishe8. in close proximity, pr.evious zoning action on the property, and the request of the petitioner to now waive the requirement of a 12-foot planted median strip, Condition No. 9 of the r.esolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1130, and the deletion of the requirement of the parkway maintenance assessment district, Condition No. 6 of said resolution; that in a request from the petitioner and the hospital for said modiaintedon, the developer propcised to provide a 12-foot continuous, left-turn, p median, stating that a furtk~er study for the project had been completed, aad with the start of plans for the Romneya Drive improvement, it had become apparent that the 12-feot planted median was not practical for the reason that there currently was a series of existing driveway openings along the nortn side of Romneya Drive, providing access to the Martin Luther Medical Center and the existing Martin Luther Hospital unit L•rom Euclid Street to 1,650 feet west of Euclid St'reet; that the new hospital development adjacent to the south side of Romneya Drive would require additional driveway openings, and further development along the south side would also require said openings; and that in order to provide adequate left-turn openings for the nscessary vehicle storage and traffi: movement into and out of the existing and pYOposed driveways, the presently-required planted median became segmented to the point that its practicality was very doubtful and could, in fact, create a hazard to traffic. Furthermore, that a much more reasonable and workable solution for this particular situation was a paved, continuous, left-turn, painted median in lieu of a raised anc~ planted median; and that the City Attorney's Office had ruled that since theGe conditions were imposed at a public hearing, any pro~osed amendments must be considered at a public hearing. Mr. McDaniel then rewiewed the evaluation as set fretared aneoverlay to the Commission, concluding by stating that staff had p P plan submitted by Martin Luther Hospital to indicate the relationship of the e:cis`ting on-site circulation system on the north side oE Romneya Drive to the individual driveway open3.ngs to Romneya Drive, and that it would appear that iF the Planning Commission felt the planted median should still be provided, median b•reaks could be limited in a manner similar to that depicted on the staff ovezlay, and sufficient areas could still be retained for planting. Mr. John Arnerich, representing the agent for the petitioner, Martin Luther Hospital, appeared before the Commission and noted that the letter they had s:ibmitted accurately set forth their situation regarding development of the property; that when the petition was originally considered several years ago, development plans were not comg'_ete; that at this time there appeared to be so many driveway openings onto Romneya Drive that it was nacessary for the his engineering staff to prepare a layout indicating this problem, which was presented to the Commission for purposes of discussion; and that the engineer would discuss this layout with the Commission. Mr. John Clough, enqineer for the proposed street improvement on Romneya Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted that the plan presented to the Commis- sion indicated the street improvement and widening; that in order to provide for turning movements that were needed both from the bospital and medical center on the north and south, in addition to the driveways needed for the undeveloped property on the south side of Romneya Drive, any left turns would create quite a problem since this street dead-ended 1,650 feet west of Euclid Street, and if the median were landscaped, it would require someone to make a right turn before making a U-turn to gain access to either the east-bound or west-bound lanes to gain access to the offices or hospital or either the north or south side of the street; that if a continuous left-turn, painted median were provided, this grablem would be solved; that they had some success with this ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 72-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1i30 (Continued) painted median; that he had disc~issed this with both the City and Traffic Engineer of the City, with the Traff.ic Engineer indicating that a continuoue left-turn, painted median had been somewhat of a success; and that he felt their proposal for the median would crPate less of a traffic hazard than a landscaped median since i: w~~uld not obstruct acceso to the adjoining pro: erties . No one appeared in oppos`_tion. THE HEARING YJAS CLOSED. Commissioner Sepmour noted he could appreciate the fact that the buildings already existed on the north side of Romneya Drive, as well as development that could occur on the south side, but the engf.neer indicated numerous access poir.ts, and then inquired why so many were neceesary. Mr. Clouqh replied that, in general, medical buildings were built in clust=rs with driveway access and parking between them; that the center had considerable construction by the time his company becume involved, therefore, they had no opportunity to change man,y of these accessways, however, they had eliminated one double drive aince they had started on this job and had changed some of the circulation. Commissioner Seymour noted he was more concezned with the development that wuuld take place, particularly since he had counted at least nine openings. Mr. Clough statad that five of these openings were from the hospital plans, while he was only concerned with the improvement plans for Romneya Drive, and that the four additional openings on the south side were part of the new hospital and for accessways in the event the properties alonq the south side of Romneya were developed - he felt there would be a need for additional access- ways, however, this miqht not be the exact location of them. Commissioner Gauer inquired why it was necessary to have more accessways from the south than were needed on the north side since he visited this area and it was necessary for him to make only one left turn, therefore, he could see no reason for having so many left-turn areas. Mr. Clough stated that it was their feeling that in the future the street would extend through the property to the west, thus bringing more people from the west who could be making left-turns; that they planned to widen the street to 88 feet, having two drive lanes each wayi and that they did not propose to eliminate the median, they just wanted to eliminate the planted median. Commissioner Herbst commented that this would remove some of the aesthetic values for this area. Mr. Clough responded by stating that they were fully aware of that, but there already were parkways on the north side which had considerable landscaping, and they also proposed to laiidscape the balance of the parkways on both sides of the street. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that this would create an aaphalt jungle by removing the green area which had an aesthetic value to the community, and it would be a matter of controlled access points versus random access points, and then stated that staff had prepared an overlay which also had a safety factor incorporated with controlled access points and not just havinq random left-turn lanes. (Commissioner Herbst then presented this layout to the engineer and reviewed and discussed it.) Commissioner Seymour noted that it was a little difficult to determine what the requirements would end up in reality on the southerly portion of Romneya Drive; that it was also difficult to determine the acces3 points all along the street. therefore, he would aqree that from both safety and amenity standpoints, a~edian was desirable, but with the number of access points•existing on the north and those on the property that could become a reality, would it be possible to accept the painted median, holding back final judgmeizt on whether C~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarv 10, 1972 72-11 CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT NO. 1130 (Continued) • or not this shovl.d be a planted median with the turn-around indicated by staff• until the south pr.operty was proposed to be developed or until the street was extended to the west, since the space had been allocated, therefore, with the City Attorney's assistance, if the Commission could so structure it, this could be brought back to the Commission some time in the future to see where the access points had been established on the southerly properties - then the median could be put in, and this might provide the Commission with a solution that would aid the applicant and at the same time provide the City with the protection desirable which they were looking for. Deputy City Attorney Prank Lowry advised the Commisaion that the only way this could be ac:complished was to require the posting cf a bond to insure the installation of a landscapeu median if it was dete~rmined in the future that it should be planted. Chairmas. Farano inquired sahether or not the Commission could establish a time limitation in order to review this petition pesiodically, because the property on the south sid.e of. Romneya Drive could develop as well as the street being extended westerly, and by that time the petitioner could review this to determine whether or not the median should or should not be landscaped. Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that regardless of what happened to the properties along the south side o£ the street, he did not feel the landscaped median should be cut up with nine to ten openinqs but should be developed in the manner staff presented as an alternetive. Commissioner Seymour observed ~hat the Commission had seen concept plans when the petition was originally considered by the Commission, however, now more precise plans weze being presented, therefore, the median would dictate their access points, and he was sure the Commission would be reviewing their develop- ment plans. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted Eor the Commission that he did not think this was a cond3tion of ,3pproval of submitting the alternate plans to the Commission. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commi~sion later could more intelligently consider where these median breaks :ahould be placed. Commissioner Herbst inquired when tlie petitioner proposed to widen Romneya Arive, and why couldn't the street widening and development plaas be kept together so that when they were ready with their plans, the Commission could review this, since he was not agreeable to removing the requirement of a land- scaped median condition. Mr. Clough advised the Commission that street plans were in the City Street Department for consideration at the present time. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-1 and moved for its passage dnd adoption to amend Condition No. 4, adding thereto. "That the construction of the landscaped median strip may be deferred for a period of two years from date of this resolution, and further provided that a bond be posted to guaran- tee the installation of said landscaped median strip, if at the end of two years the Planning Commission determined that this pl>nted median strip was still required". (See Resolution Book) Considerable discussion was held by the Commission regarding the motion by Commissioner Seymour and a request for an interpretation. After the discussion it was determined that the Commission wae not deleting the condition but only delaying it, and then inquired whether or not the developer would stipulate to posting a bond in the event the Commiss3on required the landscaped median be provided; whereupon Mr. Arnerich stipulated to said posting of a bond. Mr. Arnerich then inquired whether the action iaken by the Cammission would permit them to make a decision as to the median. Chairman Farano advised Mr. Arnerich that whether or not the median was to be constructed would be the decision of the Commission - t;ie requirement r~ould still remain - all the Commission was doing was postponing construction and ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~Z'lZ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1130 (Continued) planting of the land::caped median for two years, at which time the Commission would review the property to determine ~:hether or not the median should be constructed. However, he wished to assure the developer that this conditior. was still a requirement until the Commission amended it or deleted it. Mr. Arnerich indicated that this might cost them considerable money if they provided the continuous left-turn median and in two years would be required to remove it and curbs and landscaping provided. Chairman Farano noted that this w~s the reason Commissioner Herbst felt the two-year vtaiver was not desirable, and he did not want to lead the developer into a false sense of se~urity that the median would not be requiren, there- fore, if this continuous left-turn median was provided for the next two years, the developer might be creating his own hardship. Mr. Arnerich then noted that as the motion was presented, would this prevent them from providing the planted median strip if within the next two weeks they decided that this would be provided. Chairman Farano no`ed that the requirement was still present, and if the dEVeloper determined that he wanted to plant the landscaping strip before the two years were up, this would be his prerogative. On roll call the foregoing zesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY AND JOSEPHINE SCHINHOFEN~ 2900 PERMIT NO. 1283 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; MICHAEL J. AND JERI J. GARAN, 435 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A BASEBALL BATTING FACILITY WITH INCIDEN~AL RENTAL OF SICYCLES AND SALE OF FOOD WITH WAIVER OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL HEIGHT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre, having a Ezontage of approximately 160 feet on the south side of Linco?.n Avenue, having a maximum depth of agproxi- mately 308 Eeet, and being located approximately 1,340 feet east of the center- line of. Rio Vista Street, and further described as 2900 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviawed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a baseball batting range with incidental rental. of bicycles ~ad food sales with waiver of the maximum structural height limitation, noting that the existing house would be used for storage sp:ce in connection with this facility and in connection with the rental of bicyclc~; that the plans indicated the provision of a refreshment stand adjacent ~.u the batting cage; that 17 parking stalls were proposed; that a 5-foot landscaped buffer and a 6-foot hiqh, concrete wall was proposed to be provided along the westerly property line separating the proposed use From the single-family residential homes; that tYie battir.g range was fully enclosed with a wire mesh screen ranging in heiqht from 10 feet on the westerlg pnd to 35 feet along the easterly boundary line; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated this area as being appropriate for low-density residential development, consequently, the use would not be in conformity with the General Plan designation; that the General Plan also indicated the area to the east, the Santa Ana River and its levee, as being appropriate for special park purposes, which might include riding and hi]:ing or bicycling trails, and in addition there was currently a proposal to convert property ,n the north side of Lincoln Avenue immediately to the east of this psoposal to a special park site, tentatively labeled as Anaheim Beachj thus, conside~:ing these circumstances, the Commission might wish to determine whether this proposal would warrant consideration as an acceptable adjunct to the proposed recreational facilities in the area; that the waiver for the maximum haight limit.ati~~n was necessary for the batting cage because the R-A Zone would require that the height be one-half of the structural se!:back, and with ~ MINUT~S, CITY PLANrTING COMMISSION, 3anuary 10, 1972 72-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1'l83 (Continved) the proposed height at 35 feet, this would, consequently, require a 70-foot setback; that while the property to the east was vacant R-A property and was an aban3oned sand excavation pit, it was unlikely that the construction of this 35-foot high wire mesh fence would be detrimental to that property or to its future development. ^ Mr. Mike Gar~n, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to answer questions, stating he had some questions regarding the staff's evalua- tion an3 the recommended conlitions. Chairman Farano requested that the agent present nis petition in completeness. Mr. Garan noted that they planned to provide a buffer wall behind the batting cages for ~aoth protection of sound and lightt that the bacting cages would be projected toward the Santa Ana River and the excavation pit which was presently being filled by the City, who planned to use it as a parking lot for the proposed park on the north side of the bridyet that the reason they faced the cages away from the wast was because of the sun which would be difficult to face if one were batting; that the lights would also be directed away from the R-1 properties co the west; and that in addition to the wall along the west property line, they already had considerable landscaping. Mr. Garan then noted that he had looked over the entire east Anaheim area for ~ property which could be used for tae facility the~ now planned for subject property; that since the Commission was interested in retaining the,green, open area, the existing landscaping would remain= that they had ample off- street parking, thus discouraging any on-street parkings that the City was Fresently considering widening this portion of Lincoln Avenue, and from hts calculation and the stakes placed by the City's road survey crew, the house would not be within the ultimate right-of-wayt that the Burris sand pit and the property to the east could not be used for the existing zoniag because the type of fill and compaction ci the ground was not being done in a manner that would permit anything but parking and recreational facilitiest that subject property was not fill land even although zoaed R-A; that if they could not use it for recreational uses, could the'Commission tell them the best use; and that the batting cage fences would range in height from 10 feet on the west to 35 feet farther east and would be a sufficient distance from the R-1 so that they would not be an eyesore, since landscaping wuul.d hide them from vi ew . Chairman Farano inquired as to the hours of operations whereupon Mr. Garan replied they would be open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Mr. Garan note3 that he had talked wii_h representatives of Little Leagues, who stated there was a need for this type of facility, and it would.be antici- pated children would be coming to the facility a£ter school. Chairman Farano r.oted that the plans did not indicate any lights, therefc,re. would the agent explain the location and type of lights that were proposed if this facility were to remain open until 10:0fl or 11:00 p.m.? Mr. Garan replied that these liqhts would be facing toward the east since the homes were along the west side, and that there was about 1,000 feet of vacant land to the east. Chairman Faranc? then i.nquired as to the method. of maunting th~ee lights since the plans did not inclicate lights. Commissioner Herbst inquired as tn, t~ow the screen was proposed to be mounted. ~ Mr. Garan replied that tre screens would be mounted on ateel poles and would be hung inside the cages to keep the balls from bouncing: Commissioner Herbst ~urther noted that the petitioner;was providing only a 5-foot landscaped buffer strip betweea this commercitil use and the R-1 f>roperties to the west and stated that perhaps the p;etitioner had heard the, Commission require a 20-foot landscaped strip bEtween R-1 and R-3, therefore;- ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January lOr 15~2- 72-14 CONDITIONAi: L'SE PERMIT NO. 1283 (Continued) he did not feel this development should be given any privi2eges not afforded others since this lar.dscaping was needed to protect the residents - even though the petitioner might have his project facing the river, there was inadequate landscaping to the west. Mr. Garan inquired whetY:er or not the Commission had vlsited the property b~cau3e there was considerable landscaping between the R-1 and subject property, and in place of the grapestake fence on the property, they would replace it with a 6-foot masonry wall; and that they had a driveway area for ingress and egress to the property. Commissioner Herbst stated that the driveway would be only 5 feet from the R-1 homes, and possibly the bedrooms of these homes, therefore, if this facility would be remaining o~~en until 11:00 p.m., thia could create quite a disturbance to the rest of ti.iese residentss whereupon Mr. Garan replied that they mo.st likely would have to move this driveway, and that he would not object to even moving the batting cages down to the south property line, leaving the balance of the propexty landscaped. Commissioner Herbst then reviewed the manner in which the pzoposed development couid be changed by providing additional landscaping, relocation of the drive, and even removing it if arrangements could be made with the City to have an easement across the parking area property to the east. Commissioner Allred noted that the plans indicated a number of tables and inquired whether or not it was intended to serve food on the premises; where- upon Mr. Garan stated that with so many children visiting this facility, they were planning to have a small refreshment stand, and th~t it was not intended to be a large-scale eating area, although he may have ~mbellished upon this in the plan, but this woald only be a small eating area and would act as a sound barrier while children were seated and awaiting their turn at bat. Furthermore, it was not their intent to remodel the existing home, which was of old California architecture, which had been used in the past as a berry operation, and that there was also an area for the storage of bicycles. Nine persons indicated their presence in opposition. Chairman Farano requested that the opposition be represented by one or two spokesmen. Mr. Norman Cromie, 516 South Westgate Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting his home was immediately adjacent to subject property; that the value of their homes wauld deprecia±e, and his home was valued at $33,000; that the landscaping which the agent for the petitioner had refexred to comprised of three palm trees and six oleandersi that he had lived at this address for ten years, and at 10:00 p.m. when children c:sre studping in their rooms, this facility witke the lights and noise would be distracting; that he had children in Little League also and was a~are of their needs, but he felt this type of use shauld be confined to either a commercial or industrial area; that the homes on the north side of Lincoln Avenue were valued between $40,000 and $45,000, and these ].arge cages would catch the dirt and debris during a Santa Ana wind; that one just had to visit a similar area to notice the noise, light, and parking problems, particularly since people would have to use either Lincoln Avenue or the parking area, and he did not feel the City should be providing parking for a private commercial venturet that the proposed use would devalue all of the properties in this area, both from an economic standpoint as well as ~owngrading the area witY~ noise and lights; and that although this was a needed use, it was not the proper place for it. Commissioner Seymour inquired as to how Mr. Cromie felt regarding the proposed park adjacent to the rives; whereupon Mx. Cromie stated this would be an excellent idea and would make this ares a showplace, as well as an asset to the community. C ~ ~ MINUTES, CI'rY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 72-15 CONDITIONAL USR PERMIT NO. 1283 (Continued) Mr. C. M. Thomson, 2912 Collyer Lane, appeared before the Commiseion in opposi- tion and stated the rear portion o£ his proPerty would be looking into this area, and altliough the gzound level was.higher, it was not 35 feet higher; that the petitioner had a good idea that this was improperly zoned property and would never be de~eloped for residential uses because of the vast amount ~Y sand in this area, however, he was not in favor of commercial uses for the property; that the lights would be shining into his second floor windows - the bedroomsi that subject property had difficulties in the past with motarists attempting to enter the flow of traffic on Lincoln Avenuet that access to and from the property wouid be very difficult, particularly since this access would be located near the Kingsley Drive access where residents of many homes in tkie tracts on the north side of Lincoln Avenue had to exit; that traffic had to merge into one lan~: in this area, and unless the City planned to widen the street, there would be no parking on Lincoln Avenue, but there still would be a traf£ic hazard since few people could make a left turn into traffic going west; that'-he had worked on plans for a similar operation, therefore, he knew the problems that residents in the area would be confronted witht that the Cjnty of Orange and the City of i~naheim were ~lanning a park for bicycl~ riding, and if motor or mini-bikes were proposed to be rented~ this could create not only noise, but dust and odor; that his neighbox presently had an agreement with the Orange County Flood Control District to plant and irrigate ground cover outside of his immediate property lines, and he could state for a fact that the Orange County Flood Control District patrolled their properties very carefully; that he di,d. not feel the use would be an attractive one for this areat and that the batting cages might be popular in the summer but not in the winter - and if there was a zone change, then undesirable commercial uses could be planned for this property Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner was requesting a special.use far the property, and so long as the use approved was on the property, the petitioner would be allowed to operate, but if other uses were introduced, the conditional use permit could be revoked. Mr. Thomson noted that he was not opposed to the hours of operation since he rarely went to bed before 11:00 p.m., however, he could envision later hours than 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. Thomson had indicated subject property was not suitable for R-1 and inquired why this was so; whereupon Mr. Thomson stated that R-1 praperties would have a difficult`access problem, just as resident's cominq out of Kingsley Drive had. Commissioner Seymour then inquired what Mr. Thomson felt would be the proper use of the propertyt whereupon Mr. Thomson stated this was a problem for tlte Commission, and he was glad he was not a Planning Commissione.r, but perhaps this could be included in the parking area for the park. Mr. Garan, in rebuttal, stated that they would not be handling motor.or mini- bikes on the property, and if the County was planning a 17-:nile hiking and riding trail park along the Santa Ana 12iver, these bikes could be rented and tha tunnel under the bridge could be used to gain access to the trails, there- fore, one could consider this an adjunct use with the park eystem; that they had tried to include other uses because they realizedosal oftbicgcleseSthatehe seasonal, therefore, this was the reason for the prop Y realized there would be a problem regarding street access, and this would have to be worked out with the City Engineer and the Road Department since if•this were a problem, he could meet with the City Engineer and Road Department representatives to try to arrive at a swap with them if access acro~s their property was given, thereby decreasinq the possible hazards on Lincoln Avenue; that staff's evaluation of the proposal indicated only 17 parking stalls,,,how- ever he thought he had 2B parking stalls, and certainly there were not 28' cages that would be used; that it was anticipated most of their patror_~ would be coming on bicycles, and this was the reason why they did not select an indus- trial location - he felt the parents would not want to send their childran to an industrial area far batting practice; that in their discussion with repre- sentatives of Little Leagues and operators of similar facilities, 3t was'deter- mined that they would prefer havinq a facility close to home~ that on Lincoln Avenue just a few feet from subject property there was C-1 zoninq, therefore, one could consider this was almost contiguous to commercial uses; that he could ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1283 (Continued} 72-16 see no problem as far as light:~ were concerned since they would be directed toward the river away from residential uses and certainly would not affect the property to the north, whicYi would be more than 300 feet from these lights and cages; and that there would be no detrimental effect to the residential integrity ~f the area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that subject petition should be con- tinuad in order to allow the petitioner time to determir.e what could be done as to access, to providing proper protection for the single-family homes in this area, both from liqht, noise, odor, dust, etc.; that landscaping would have to be provided in the same manner as was being requested of R-3 develop- ments adjacent to R-l, to allow the petitioner time to meet with City repre- sentatives reqarding the arrangement for access easements since the children were going to visit this facility on their bicycles, some alternative access would have to be provided to insure that the children would not be injured. and before all of these things were taker. care of, he could not vote on subject petition. Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion that he did not know if this would enhance the area if permitted. Commissi~ner Allred noted that ~he manner in which the,petitioner was proposing to light the area would create a considerable traffic hazard with these lights shining into the motorists' eyes as they were traveling westward across the river. Chairman E~arano was of the opinion that the lights as presently proposed would be very detrimental to motorists driving west on >>incoln Avenue, therefore, he also felt the petition should be continued until the agent for the petitioner could redesign the facility, having cages in a southeasterly direction from the homes, and since there were only three palm trees and six oleanders, it would be necessary to provide a minimum 20-foot landscaped strip along the west property line. Commissioner Seymour noted that the use could be a proper use if proper buffer- ing, lighting, moving of cages, etc., were done as suggested by the Commission. Furthermore, there was no reason for proposing an alley along the west property line with so much of the property available for a street, and if the petitioner could work out some arrangement with the City regarding access to the property, this might be a logical use £or the property, since he felt that the use of subject prope:rty for R-1 was not proper. Commissioner f~offered a motion to re-open the hearing and continue considez3tion of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1283 to the meeting of February 7, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans conforming with the recommendations made by the Commission. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute recess at 4:15 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano rer.onvened the meeting at 4:25 n.m., Commissioner Rowland bein9 absent. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. KOLL INCOME PROPERTIES, INC.. P. O. Box DK,i PERMIT NO. 1?84 Irvine, California, Owner; WAI,KER & LEE, INC., Mr. Buck Newsome, 1477 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTASLZSH A NON-INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTER (FOR REAL ESTATE TRAINING) IN AN EXISTING BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conststing of approximate~y 10 acres located at the northeast corner of State College Soulevard and Cerritos Avenue and having frontages of approximately 630 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 590 feet on the north aide of Cerritos Avenue, and further described as 1440 South State College Boulevazd. Property prasently classified M-1, LIGHT ZNDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 ~2'1~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1284 (Continusd) AESistant 2oning Super•visor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a real estate training school utilizing 1,900 square feet of an existing industrial building; that the maximum number of stt:dents proposed in the school would be 30 students, and classes would be conducted on two shifts, both occurring in the morning; and that parkinq and circulation beinq provided was adequate for the proposed use. Mr. Dennis Osborne, 4127 Hilaria Way, Newport Beach, representing the agTOtosal for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the p P would be a Walker & Lee in-house training center having a maximum number oE 30 students, with two classes held in the morning; that there would be more than adequate parking spaces; that approximately 38$ of the parkinq spaces were presently being used, while 658 of the buildinq had baen leased, therefore, there would be no parking problem that he could envision. No one appeare3 in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commis~ioner Herbst noted that it would appear the City was being faced with an overabunZance of non-industrial uses in the industrial area, and from the design of the buildings, it would appeaz they were oriented toward commercial rather than industrial, therefore, the Commission would have to take a closer look at the design of the building so that the Commission would not bF circum- venting the industrial area, turning it into a commercial area; and that he felt the use proposed might be acceptable in the area, but the City could end up with all commercial uses in the indusY.rial area along major a.•rterials. Chairman Farano inquired of staff, since this was not a permitted use, what was the proper zone for the use? Zoning Supervi~or Charles Roberts advised the Commission that this was a C-1, General Commercial, 2one use. Chairman Farano then noted that he would agree with the comments made by Commissioner Herbst; that he might vote in favor of this proposal, but he, too, was opposed to turning industrial buildings into commercial areas. Commissioner Seymour noted he would aqree that maybe this application and any future application should have a time limitation placed on i.t so that the industrial area woald not be prostituted with commercial uses, and that the Commission could then take a long look at parking in the industrial areas, since parking requirements of a commercial use were more than that required of an industrial use, however, from viewing the amount of parking being pro- vided for this building, he would assume *_hat they were gearing the use toward commercial rather than ir.dustrial. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-2 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1284 for a period of three years. the use to be reviewed by the Planning Commission upon expiration to determine whether or not the use should be permitted to continue in the industrial area, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ItEPORTS AND - TTEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7684 - Butler Houaing Corp., ~ 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Developer; Toups Engineering. 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California, Engineer. Subject tract, located on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue, east of Kraemer Boulevard, containing approximately 4.1 acres, is proposed for sub- divisior. into 17 R-3 lots to be developed with fourplexes. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 10, 1972 72-18 ITEM NO. 1 ~Continued) Assistant 2aning Supervisor pon McDaniel presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 7684 to the planning Commission and reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous Commission zoning action, and stated that the tract had been referred back to the Comm'_ssion by the Council for a repart and recommendation. ~Chairman Farano inquired on what basis was the City Council requesting recon- sideration of said traat. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the City Council had approved the reclassification of the property to R-3 by a vote of 3 to 2; that the Comm3ssion had subsequently denied the tract map, and upon it being considered by the City Council it was denied by the City Council by a 3 to 2 vote. However, at a more recent Council meeting, a Councilman stated that his action had been based upon erroneaus information and that the tract should be considered again. Chairman Farano then inquire3 whether or not the City Coincil was given the same information as the Planning Commission had at their consideration of both the reclassification of the pr.operty and the presentation of the tract map; whereupon Mr. Roberts replied affirmatively. Commissioner xerbst noted that when the tract map was presented to the Commig- sion, it was his opinion that the map was ver~ poorly designed since it did not indicate trash storage areas, and if these were provided, part of the required parking would be eliminated; that if the Commission was to consider this tract, he would prefer to see plot plans and elevations which would indi- cate a better living environment than previously presented. Mr. Hoon, representing the developex• of the tract, presented plans to the Commission and stated these were typical plans of Lot Nos. 14 and 15. Where- upon Chairman Farano noted that the tract. map was still the same one considered previously by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Seymour observed that the Planning Commission had recommended Qi.;approval of the reclassification on the basis that the property should not be developed in the manner pxoposed because the intensity of the use would be too great and woulZ not provide suitable living environmentt however, the City Council approved the reclassification and later when the tract map was presented to the Planning Commission, it had been denied by all except himself since he felt the City Cour._:il ~as giving direction to the Planning Commission by their approval of the reclassification of the property. Mr. Roberts noted that the City Council, upon.initially reviewing the tract map, stated that they did not feel the approved R-3 zoning was appropriate for the property and perhaps it should be rescinded by the City Council. This feeling. hotvever, did not prevail at the Council meeting of January 4, 1971. Chairman Farano noted he did not feel the property was suitable for R-3, and the Commission at this time should make a very strong recommendation as to why they did not feel this was suitable. Commissioner Herbst stated that ihe living environment was most undesirable, particularly when one viewed the two and three-bedroom apartments proposed, which would indicate the presence of children. No recreation area was prop~sed, and children would either have to play in the a11ey, since Orangethorpe Avenue was a main thoroughfare, or in the flood control channel; and unless the devel- oper provided a better living environment and recreation area, this tract should be denied. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, and MOTION CARRZED, to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7684 on the basis that subject property was not suitable for any type of multiple-family residential uses; that the developer was providing a very undesirable living environment for the residentss and that there was no recreation area for the children wha Would undoubtedly be living in this facility, which could mean the children would be playing in the alley or even in the flood control channel. ~ .. • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 5anuary 10, 1972 72-19 ~ _ ;i ITEM NO. 2 REPORT ON PROGRESS OF PRIORITIES SET FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL ITEMS AT A PREVIOUS WORK SESSION. Chairman Farano inquired of staff what the progresa was regardiag tha special items considered at a work session several montha ago and whether staff had anything of importance to bring to the Commieaion at a work session in order to determine whether or not a work session should be held with the City Council. Aasistant Development Servicea Director Ronald Thompson noted that staff had discusaed the priorities and had made soma progreas in relaying the Planning Commission's concazn to other departments in ordar to resolve these concerns. Chairman Farano noted that in order to qive the Planning Commisaion some idea of the progress, he would like a report to be made as soon as possible.in order " that the Commission might 3etermina when to hold a joint meeting with.the City Council. Mr. Thompson noted that some of the hiqh pricrity items were underway, auch ae the underground utilitiea, with staff working closely aith the City Engineer and Utilities Dizector. Chairman Farano then directed that staff submit a written report to the Commission at the next meeting for theis consideration. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discussr Commissioner Herbst o£fered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The aeeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Reapectfully submitted, C!~~" ~ `~~ _ /~~~ ~~ ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Ari'aheim City Planning Commission.: ~"`J 0 R C 0 MICROfILMING SERVICE, INC. 3010 lacy AJe. 17e 3220 Anahe~m. Gel:fnrn~a