Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/03/06~ lJ City Hall Anaheim, California March 6, 1972 A REGDLAR MEETSNG OF THE ANAHEIM I;ITY PLANTIING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City P.lanning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. . - COMMISSIONERS: 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 Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant 2oning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to appruve the minutes THE MINUTES of the February 7, 1972, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: pq, 72_52, para. 11, line 6: after "vehicles", add "no servicing of large trucks;" Pg. 72-62, para. 12, line 1: Commissioner Kaywood instead of Seymour. pq, 72_57, para. 14 and 17: Commissioner Allred absent; not Rowland. PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chairman Farano inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether or not the adopted procedure should be, or wou1J it be desirable to read it at the beginning of each meeting. Mr. Lowry replied that it wciuld have to be done until the City Council took action on the adopted proceclure. Whereupon Chairman Farano then read the adopted procedure. Commissioner Herbst observed that since the audience had copies of the Commis- sion's agenda £or the day, perhaps this could be printed on the top of the agenda to avoid reading the procedure at the beginzing of each public hearing. Mr. Lowry suggested that the Commission Chairman continue reading the adopted procedure until final action was taken by the City Council, and then the printed adopted procedure could be placed at the top of each Commission agenda in the future, thereby eliminating having to read it at each meeting. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CLARENCE WAGNER, 822 South NO. 71-72-31 Sunkist Street, Anaheim, California 92806, Owner; ANN T. MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California VARIANCE N0. 2333 92805, Agent; property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.8 acres, having a TENTATIVE MAP OF frontage of approximately 422 feet on the east side of TRACT N0. 7754 Sunkist Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 636 feet, and being located approximately 910 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. 72-84 ^ U ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~Z-85 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-31, VARIANCE NO. 2333~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7754 (Continued! REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-l~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH~ (2) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, AND (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL HEIGFIT TO ESTABLISH A 33-LOT R-1 SUSDIVISION. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ADAM GITTELSON, 272 South Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, Cali£ornia 90?.12; ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805 - subdivide subject property into a 33-lot R-1 subdiv~sion. Subject petitions and tract were continued from the meeting of February 23, 1972, to allow time for the submission of revised plans. Chairman Farano inquired wherher or not there was any opposition to the oro- posed reclassification and variance and received no response, and then inquired whether or not the proponents could present their evidence within five minutes. Mr. Cal Queyrel, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, engineer of the proposed develop- ment, appeared before the Commission and stated that the agent for the petitioner would like to make several statements after he had presented the engineering aspect, therefore, it might take seven to eight minutes. Subject property, consisting of approximately 7.8 acres located on the east side of Sunkist Street, approximately 900 feet south of South Street, is proposed for reclassification to the R-1 Zone; that waivers requesLed covPred the maximum fence height (6 feet permitted; B feet proposed); minimum front setback (25~ of the lot depth required, which need not exceed 25 feet; 20 feet proposed); minimum cul-de-sac lot width (60 feet required; 53 to 45 feet proposed); minimum lot width (70 feet required; 55 to 65 feet proposed); that subject tract was proposed for subdivision into 33 R-1 zoned lots; and that the tract further indicated a street being extended from the present terminus o£ Jamison Street on the ~ast to Sunkist Street on the west, said street being aligned so as to be adjacent to and parallel with the southerly property line of the large R-A parcel to the north. In the evaluation of the proposal, the Anaheim General Plan designates the area in q~iestion as being appropriate for low-density residential development, and the proposed R-1 zoning would implement this low-density designation; that the waiv^rs requested were set forth in detail in the Report to the Commission; that the City Council had become concerned with garage entrances being only 20 feet from the property line in some subdivisions in the city, and staff had been diracted to examine possible alternati;-2s to this situation. The Council's concern was that 20 feet apparently did not provide sufficient room for a vehicle to park on the driveway apron out of the right-of-way and still leave room to open up the garage door; that waiver of the miaimum cul- de-sac lot width was being requested for 36~ of the lots; that the waiver of the minimum lot width of a typical lot - 70 feet being required - was proposed to contain two lots of 60-foot widths; that the current subdivision regulations required that all lots abutting arterial highways contain a lot depth of 120 feet, or provide a minimum 40-foot building setback along these highways, and the submitted plans did not indicate either of these, and since this require- ment was contained within the subdivision section of the Municipal Code, the waiver could not be granted by the Planning Co~mission, however, the Commission could recall this portion of the Subdivision Ordinance was originally amended to include the 120-foot lot depth, primarily to accommodate proposed develop- men!s in the Santa Ana Canyon in connection with the Scenic Corridor 2one, therefore, it might be considered inappropriate in this instance along Sunkist Street to require this provision since the majority of the single-family devel- opments on both sides of Sunkist Street in this vicinity contain the typical 25 to 30-foot building setbacks as proposed in subject tract; and that the requested waivers tended to indicate the applicant was proposing to establish too many lots on this property, and the proposed homes might be too large for the lots proposed, therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether the requested waivers would be appropriate in this particular single-family residential area. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mar~h 6, 1972 ~2'86 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-31, VARIANCE NO. 2333, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NJ. 7754 (Continued) Mr. Queyrel again appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that they had submitted two maps previously since staff recommended that the street extend through the property from the east and then extend the same street to Sunkist Street; that the property owners to the north and south objected to traffic from the tract affecting their properties; that staff indicated opposition to the proposed 20-foot building setbacks, however, it was thair feeling that the future property owners of these homes would prefer to have this 5 feet differ- ence in their rear yards so that swimming pools could be provided; that it was felt that only 2 Yeet could be provided to increase the front setback on those lots facing Jamison Street, particularly for Lots 20 and 21, since Lot 22 would have a 25-foot setback; that reference had been made as to treatment of the northerly side of Jamison Street with the possibility of an offset masonry wall, however, since the owners of the northerly parcel on which the Wagner home was located were rather elderly, the Wagners objected to having to take care of the trees in the insets, therefore, he would propose a decorative wall with trees planted at less than 40-foot intervals, with the City maintaining them since they would be maintaining trees on Sunkist Street; and that most of the development in the area had 20-foot setbacks, therefore, they felt their pro- posal would be compatible. Mrs. Ann Madison, Madison Real Estate, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the reason they were prcposing an 8-foot wall adjacent to the Wagner property was because the Wagner family wanted to discourage curious children from climbing a 6-foot wall to investigate the equipment on this small farm parcel an@ possibly get- ting into the insecticides, since from their experience, having lived for 44 years on this property and seeing all the area around them being built for subdivisions, small children could scale a 6-foot wall but not an 8-foot wall, and by the time they were able to scale an 8-foot wall, they would no longer be curious children but would have other interests; that ths Wagners in the past few years had built an $80,000 home, and it would be rather remote that the praPerty being withheld would be developed for a residential subdivision since their improvements far outweighed tYie land value; that to overburden thls elderly couple with the maintenance of trees in the offset wall along the north side would be a hardship, and when this property was split, there would be tWo seoarate owners; that the ~Iagner family, by right, could install the wa11, however, the deceloper agreed to plant the trees but wanted these trees to be in the parkway, not offset in the wall as stafE suggested; that staff appeared concerned that the 2-acre parcel could be developed in the near future, however, it woulZ appear that the proposed new homes would be a number of years old before this would transpirej that the livingrooms of the proposed homes would be approximately 90 feet away from the 8-foot wall, and the developer did not feel this height ef a wall would detract from the sale of the homes; and that the developer was willing to build a decorative wall, thexefore, with proper planning, this could be an attractive addition to the proposed development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the layout of the street since it appeared only 16 feet was provided fcr a curb and parkway. Mr. Queyrel replied that the widt:~ of the travelway would be 40 feet from curb to curb. with 32 feet from the centerline; that the sidewalk would be placed adjacent to the curb on the north side of the street; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated that the driveway would be 20 feet, however, this would be to the parkway, not to the street, and the vehicle would not hang over into the street if a vehicle were parked in the driveway. Office Engineer Jay Titus, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the width of the road would be 60 feet aajacent to the Wagner property on the north with a 40-foot street; that there would be a 12-foot parkway on the south side but on7.y an S-foot parkway and sidewalk on the north adjacent to the R~A parcel. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-87 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-31, VARIANCE NO. 2333~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7754 (Continued) Mr. Queyrel noted for the Commission that the interior streets would have a different cross-section. The Commission discussP•' at length the proposed 20-foot building setback, expressing grave concern chat with the station wagons and rather large auto- mobiles having a length of at least 20 feet, these vehicles would be hanging into the public right-of-way, and even if not into the street, there could be danger of children skating or bicycling on the sidewalk, running into these parked vehicles; and then inquired whether or not the garage could be moved to the interior of the lot 5 feet to provide the minimum of a 25-foot setback; whereupon Mr. Queyrel stated that the houses were so designed that this could not be accomplished. ADAM Mr. !r~ Gittelson, the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that with a 22-foot setback it would be possible to open up the garage door, even with a station wagon, without having the vehicle hanging over the side- walk. Commissioner Kaywood noted that she recently had to use someone's driveway in order to tuzn around on one of the streets where 20-foot setbacks were provided because it was impossible to accomplish circling the cul-de-sac in the normal manner because the vehicles overlapped into the street, therefore, it was her opinion that 20 feet was insufficient. Mr. Gittelson noted that in a previous tract he hud built to the north on Bethel Drive, 22-foot drives had been developed and no one appeared to have any problem, nor did he see any vehicles overlapping the sidewalk or hanging into the street, and that it was his intent to provide a pool-size rear yard in order that residents could bui13 a swimming pcol in their rear yards. Mr. Queyrel noted that a 25-foot rear ;~a:cd could be provided - this would then increase the front yard setback to 2:' '-'et; that some of the lots would have more than 25 feet; and that it was no~ 3esirable to have a 25-foot rear yard. Chairman Farano was of the opinion that five out of ten persons did not know how far to drive into a driveway to have adequate clearance, since he did not feel people could open a garage door in 2 or even 3 feetj that the Commission had taken time to view past developments in Anaheim where 20-foot setbacks were permitted, and they did not like what they sawj that the developer was sacrificing the front yard for the rear yard when neither required setback could be accomplished, and even though most of the lots were 100 feet in depth, the developer was olaciny r.o~ large a home on the lots, and he would be re- luctant to waive the front yard setback. Commissioner Rowland observed that the homes with 22-foot setbacks kad been built some time ago. Commissioner Seymour noted that he •oLlfl prefer a 25-foot setback, therefore, he would like a two-week conti.nuance in order that he could check homes with 20-foot setbacks to determine if vehicles were hanging over onto t:ie ~idewalk, and he would be willing to visit these areas several times so as to get a true picture of projections of vehicles into the sidewalk areas, and inquired whether or not the developer would be agreeable to said continuance. Mr. Queyrel replied that they had requested one continuance because of the map problems and because they had obtained an extension of their escrow from Mr. Wagner, therefore, he was hesitant to state they were agreeable to this. Chairman Farano indicated that if there was sufficient space wi*_h only 22 feet, the Commission would not press the issue, however, if more space was needed, the Commission would be hesitant to waive this requirement. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of bedrooms proposed for these homes; whereupon Mr. Gittelson replied there would be four and five bedrooms. Commissioner Raywood then noted this could mean more than two vehiclesj where- upon Mr. Gittelson stated that each home was proposed with a three-car garage, all would be single-story and would be very large homes £or the pr.ice; that s ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-88 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-31~ VARIANCE N0. 2333~ AT7D TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7%54 (Continued) many older per.sons and handicapped people could not purchase two-story homes, and with today's land prices, he wa3 attempting to provide a very desirable living environment for an attractive price. Commissioner He.rb::t noted that the agent, Mrs. Madison, had stated that the R-A parcel being withheld would not be subdivided for some time to come, however, if taxes rose any higher, then perhaps the Wagners would be forced to make a different decision, and from his observation of the map, there would be some difficulty in subdividing this property and inquired if staff had prepared a subdivision layout for the ~roperty. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that staff had not done a detailed overlay, but if the entrance would be from the north side of the east-west street and with lots backing onto Sunkist Street, it could be developed with six lots, even though some mi.ght be 150 to 170 feet deep; however, if the petitioner proposed side-on lots, thcre would be some very shallow lots, and shallow lots would require a variance. Commissior.er Herbst then noted the Commission should go on record to apprise the Wagners and/or their heirs that if they proposed to subdivide this property, that waivers would not be granted sir.ce they were creating their own hardship by the proposed subdivi~ion. Commissioner Farano noted that since the Commission only wanted to view other properties having 20-foot setbacks, there would be no reason for re-opening the hearing, and that unless revised plans were submitted, the petitioner and developer r.eed not present evidence submitted this date. Commissioner Rowland noted f.rom his personal point of v ew an 8-foot high wall, 300 feet long, would be somewhat monumental and ~pressive without any relief from a stark appearance, therefore, the petitioner should make every attempt to relieve this wall appearance since other cities in this general area had required a similar relief with offsets, therefore, if the petitioner/ developer could not present this offset proposed by staff, then the developer should provide for some alternative since there were many ways of doing this, and he would caution the developer to be able to present something tnat would give a better appearance. Furthermore, one way to resolve the setback problem would be to provide special fold-away, vertical garage doors, however, these were considerably more expensive than the regulation doors where one stood in front of the door to raise it. Mr. Roberts then inquired whether or not the Commis5ion wished to give the developer some indication oE whether or not the Commission would grant the lot width waiver because most of the discussion had been centered on the wall and setback. Whereupon Chairman Farano and Commissioner Seymour indicated there appeared to be no problem regarding this. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue the decision on Petitions for Reclassification D?o. 71-72-31, Variance No. 2333, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7754 to the meetinq of March 20, 1972, to allow the Commission time to review other subdivisions where 20-foot building setbacks to garages were granted to determine whether or not a problem would exist with vehicles pro- jecting into the sidewalks or right-of-way area and for alternative plans to be submitted regarding the wall treatment along the north side of the propertp of the proposed extension of Jamison Street. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-89 RECLASSIFICATTON - PUBLIC HEARING. DONN C. GILMORE AND TARIQ M. SHAMMA~ NO. 71-72-32 2229 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 64 feet PERMIT NO. 1293 on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 138 feet, and being located approxa.- mately 150 feet east of the centerline of Olana Way, and further described as 2137 East Lincaln Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-O, COMMERCIAL-OFFICE~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: UTILI2E AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITH WAIVER OF rHE REQUIREMENT THAT VEHICULAR ACCESS `r0 LINCOLN AVENJE BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Subject property, located at 2137 East Lincoln Avenue, is oroposed for reclassi- fication from the R-1 to the C-O Zone, and the conditional use permit to es'tab- lish an office use in an existing residence in the C-O Zone with waiver of the requirement to dedicate access rights to the City of Anaheim for Lincoln Avenue; that the applicant was proposing to convert an existing single-family home into an office building and provide a circular drive with tvao approaches to Li.ncoln Avenue; that plans also indicated 5 parking stalls to the rear of the property, with access being provided by way of an alley along the northerly boundary of this property; that tw~~ of the proposed parking stalls would be in an existing garage; and that the plans did not indicate any proposed signing of the property, however, the applicant had indicated he was aware of the sign restrictions contained in the C-O 2one. An evaluation of the proposal indicated the Anaheim General Plan projected the area in question as being appropriate for commercial-~rofessional land use, and the C-O designation would implement this General Plan designation; that the C-0 Zone would also require, in addition to the dedication of access rights to Lincoln Avenue, that no parking be provided in the front setback area, and while the applicant did not propose parking in the front setback area, the driveway arrangement, as indicated on the plans, would encourage off-street parking in the circular drive, and it would be difficult to arrange parking in a manner that wou3d conform with Code, thus traffic conflicts could very easily develop. Furthermore, the 57-foot frontage wauld be considered minimal for establishinq two drive approaches to Lincoln Avenue, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider the request for rezoning to C-0 as being appropriate, together with the`use of the structure for an office building, however, the proposal to tlke access to Lincoln Avenue and the informal parking tbat would result would be inappropriate. Mr. Tariq Shamma, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that they concurred with the report presented except for two or three points, one being the driveway in the i•ront, since he would like the Commission to grant this because of the traffic on the street, people would have to double- park, which could create a traffic hazard; that suppliers delivering anything would park only for a few minutes in this circular drive, therefore, there would be no problem as to parking and traffic conflicts; that Condition No. 7 of the recommended conditions required a 6-foot masonry wall, however, there were wooden walls along the property, and he would like to retain these at least for a while until they deteriorated, such as had been permitted on ;:is property to the east on which they had recently replaced the wooden walls with masonr_ ~~'_lls; that the property was presently served with utilities, and, th::re£ore, `e coald not see any reason for requiring underground utilities; and than requesta3 an ~ explanation of this. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that it was a policy of the Electrical Division of the Utilities Department where it was necessary to place an addi- tional pole or poles to serve said p;:operty, then underground utilities would be required. • _ .. -~--~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~2-90 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-32 AND CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1293 (Continued) Chairman Farano noted that with the statements made by Mr. Roberts, he would assume that there would be no additional service as to underground utilities required. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted he was not opoosed to the reclassification since this was part of an area development plan which the Commission intended fox these properties some time ago, but he would take exception to the circular drive proposed, even though it might work fine for this particular use, it would quadruple the traffic conflict points within the five homes adjacent to subject property, and as each lot developed individually, he could see the increase in these traffic conflicts; and that the C-O Zone was designed to promote the acquisition of small parcels and developing them as one large parcel rather than using existing homes and converting them for commercial uses. Discussion was held pertaining to the request by Mr. Shamma regarding waiver of the required masonry walls, it being determined that in order to insure the construction of said masonry walls, the petitioner could post a bond. tdr. Shamma requested that this wall be waived ra*_her than requiring a bond; whereupon Commissioner Rowland noted that this would mean only about a$4.20 per year fee for posting said bond. Mr. Shamma withdrew his request since he intended, in the £uture, to construct the wall. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether or not the Commission was bypassing the C-O Zone requirement of 20,000 square feet for said lots, since it was his understanding that the C-O Zone for these parcels wae to allow the people a chance to consolidate these lots for one large lot, and if the access points to Lincoln Avenue were granted, the Commission could visualize innumerable access points to Lincoln Avenue, which would be magnifying the traffic problem on Lincoln Avenue in this area. There£ore, he felt that the property owners in this area should give more cansideration to land assembly rather than developing the individual homes. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the conditional use permit was *_:eces- sary since the petitioner wa's proposing to convert a residence for commercial uses, and if the waiver of the dedication of access rights to Lincoln Avenue was not permitted, this would be the portion of the conditional use permit that should be denied, if the Commission so desired. Commission~r Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-39 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-32 be approved, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 4 to require that all access rights to Lincoln Avenue be dedicated to the City of Anaheim; that the condition requiring the 6-foot masonry wall along the east and west property lines be amended to include, "....and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said masonry wall"; and that Condi- tion No. 12 include Condition No. 7 to be met prior to reading of an ordinance, with deletion of Condition No. 7 in Condition No. 13. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-40 and moved £cr its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1293, in part, denying waiver of the requiremeat for dedication of access rights to Lincoln Avenue, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywo~d, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~2-91 RECLASSIFICATIOY - PUBLIC HEARING. H. L. BUDLONG, 200~6 Santa Ana Canyon N0. 71-72-34 Road, Anaheim, California 92806, and R. JOSEPH MAAG, 1761 Ladera Vista Drive, Fullerton, California 92631, TENTATZVE MAP OF Owners: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P. O. Box 3668, TRACT NO. 7769 Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; property described as: - A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 34 acres, having a frontage of approximately 674 feet on the ~outh side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 2,380 feet, and being located approximately 1,100 feet aast of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY~ ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: S& S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. R857 west Olympic Boulevard, Severly Hills, California 90211. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, P. O. Box 3668, Anaheim, California 92803; proposing subdivision of 34 acres into 187 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not there were any persons in opposition to subject petition, and a shewing of hands indicated two persons present. Mr. Calvin Queyrel, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, engineer of the tract, appeared before the Commission and indicated there was a lett~r requesting continuance on file due to the moratorium declared by the City Council on any R-2-5000 development pending completion of the study for said density, and that if the request was for two weeks, he would now request a four-week continuance. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts note:l that the letter on file requested fuur weeks, however, since there was opposition, as well as there being problems with the design of the tract, particularly as it related to circula- tion, the Commission might consider hearing the petition in order that changes might be indicated to the developer and his engineer. Commissioner Herbst noted that he had one question regarding the R-3 portion which was previously recommended to the City Council, because this had been the zoning approved while the property was under the jurisdiction of the County, and inquired whether or not this was so. Mr. Roberts noted that the northerly 13 a~res had a resolution of intent for R-3, although he did not know whether this had been the zoning while the property was under the jurisdiction of the County, but thar. it would be the northerly one-third of the 2,380 feet going to the first street stubbing into another street. Chairman Farano noted that if the Commission was of the opinion that the reclassification and tract should be continued, he did nut feel the Commission should hear the evidence twice. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that perhaps the opposition would be unable to be present, trerefore, he would like to hear subject petition. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassifi- cation No. 71-72-34 and TentaLive Map of Tract No. 7769 to the meeting of :1pri1 3, 1972, or after the forty-five day moratorium period established by the City Council on R-2-5000 zoning had expired in order for staff to present new standards of said zone. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. Prior to voting, Mr. Roberts noted that the earliest Planning Commission meet- ing at which this could be con~idered after the moratorium would be May 1; whereupon Commissioner Rowland amended his motion to centinue said petition and tract to May 1, 1972. Said motion lost by a vote of 3 to 4. Commissioner Spymour offered a motion to consider subject petition and tract. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED 4 to 3. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~2-92 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-34 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7769 (Continued) Considerable discussion :vas then held by the Commission as to the type of . information that should be presented; whether or not a full public hearing should be held since by past actions both the City Council and Planning Commissi~n had allowed other continuances on a regular basis where the developer had requested it, however, there were certain serious misgivings on the layout of the tract itself, but since the developer had requested the continuance, perhaps the engineer had not prepared himself for a presentation. Chaa.rman Farano noted that since there appeared to be some changing of minds, the previous motion was declared null and void by him. After continued discussion by the Commission regarding the merits of possibly considering subject petition, Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to consider subject petition and tract. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED by a vote of 5 to 2. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that if the developer knew what was wrong with his map, perhaps he would revise it and present a new map. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that the developer was fully aware of the Commission's feelings regarding this type of R-2-5000 development for property south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel then reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zon3ng on the property. and the proposal to establish a 187-1ot, R-2-5000 subdivision, further noting that the plans provided an accesn street to Santa Ana Canyon Road at the approximate location of Access Point 6-A, which the Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council under Area Development Plan No. 109, however, this had not been considered by that body; that streets were alsa shown stub- bing into adjacent properties, particularly to the south and east, to provide circulation for future development of those areas; and that the high ~chool site to the west would alleviate the need for vehicular access to that property, however, the applicant had shown pedesirian access through one cul-de-~ac to said site. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, note~i that the General Plan projected this area as being suitable for low-density devalopment, and the proposed zoning would not implement that designation which was associated with low- medium density; that the northerly portion of the property had a resolution of intent to R-3 approved in 1967, which could be developed theoretically as an apartment complex pending approval of specific building plans; and that it could be reasoned that the combination of the two densities (low and medium) as it now existed would be somewhat higher than that proposed under the low- medium development for the entire property with R-2-5000 lots. Furthermore, that although the map contained no waivers from the zoning code, several areas of the Subdivision Ordinance and current City policy had been ignored, namely, the policy of the Access Point Study which required that intersections of all paralleling streets with the streets to the various access points along Santa Ana Canyon Road be no closer than 300 feet to Santa Ana Canyon Road, while the proposal would provide a street approximately 125 feet from Santa Ana Canyon Road. Secondly, the Subdivision Ordinance which related to development adjacent to an expressway would require lots 150 feet deep or the provision of a 50-foot building setback, and neither were being proposed by the submitted map. Thirdly, the Subdivision Ordinance would also requi.re an earthen berm along Santa ~na Canyon Road, and this, too, was not indicated on the map. In addition, Mr. McDaniel continued, in the Planning Commission's recent consideration o£ Area Development Plan No. 109 for this general area, an additional access point for Santa Ana Canyon ltoad aas recommended as depicced on Exhibit "A", and if the City Council also adopted this exhibit, ther the street into this proposed tract would have to be realigned slightly to conform with the location of this access point; that the proposed street which stubs into the southerly boun3ary oE the preject could be more appropriately re- located farther west depending upon the design of the public facilities which miqht include a park, a fire station, a library, etc., and based on informa- tion from the Parks & Recreation Department concerning the potential develop- ment of the property to the south, it would appear that an area development ~ ~,. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~z-93 RECLASSIFICATION_NO. 71-72-34 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7769 (Continued) plan would be in order to determine the desired vehicular circulation in this immediate vicinity. Therefore, if the Commission concurred with this sugges- tion, staff could be directed to prepare said area development plan. Further- more, the tract which was developed immediately to the east had provided two stub streets into the easterly tract houndary, while the applicant had shown no provision to extend these streets into his tracE for complete circulation throughout the tracts, something which the staff considered imperative; and that it had been the Planning Commission's practice in the past, where R-2-5000 was proposed adjacent to an existing single-family tracY., that 7200-square foot lots be provided aiong the boundary separating the tvro types of subdivi- sions, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider this to be an appropri- ate procedure. In conrlusion, Mr. McDaniel noted that the Commission was aware of the City Council action on February 29, 1972, declaring a 45-day moratorium on R-2-5000 zoning, with instructions beir.g given to staff to evaluate the development standards of the zone and consider revisions that would improve the livinq environment being created by said zone, and that it woul~: appear. that if this tract were given any additional consideration, that a redesign of the tract to more closely conform to current City standards and policies would be in order. Mr. Queyrel a4ain appeared before the Commission and noted that the developer had met with the homeowners, at which time the homeowners indicated they wanted the two streets to be dead-ended , therefore, in erder to sho~~ faith with the desires of the homeowners, this was so indicated on the tract map; that they were unaware of the future projections regarding a library and park site to the south, therefore, these streets were dead-ended, and the tract would have to be revised to reflect this. In addition, since the Santa Ana Canyon Access Point Study required location of parallel streets adjacent to Santa Ana Road to be not less than 300 feet, this would also mean a revision to the map; that if the City Council adopted the Planning Commission recommendation of Area Development Plan No. 109, then they would have to move the access road about 200 feet to the west; tnat the R-3 zoning on the northerly portion of the property could be developed with approximately 28 units per acre, which would be a considerable greater density with the adjacer.t R-1 than if deveZoped with all R-2-5000; that the residents of this area would prefer developme~:t of subject property in the manner proposed by S& S Construction Company rather than having apartments in this area; that if the school was to be developed according to plans by the Orange Unified School District, there would be a football field adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road with steel bleachers just a few feet from the property line to the east; that these were open bleachers from the rear, and their appearance would have a most undesirable effect for the residents to the east; that Mr. Plant of the Orange Unified School District had indicated, after talking with City staff, that there would be no access to Santa Ana Canyon Road from the school, and all access would be to Imperial Highway; that they were aware there would have to be some ravision on the tract map, but they were awaiting an action on Area Development Plan No. 109 by the City Council; that if the City required extending the street through subject property, as well as the library requiring access from the south, these would all have to be taken care of; and that with present zoning on the northerly portion, it could be developed separatly with a considerably higher densitcy together with R-1 than if developed with all R-2-5000 lots. Mr. Frank Raczek, 5917 Hadrians Crescent, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that Mr. Sifferman of S& S Construction Company had met with the homeowners of the tract to the east at his home, and he would like to correct a misstatement regarding what was said, namely, that an R-1 tract was presented for the southerly portion, with R-3 proposed for the northerly portion, and, of course, the homeowners immediately indicated opposition to apartments; then Mr. Sifferman presented the R-2-5000 tract, noting a few minor changes and asked if the homeowners would prefer this. Of course, the homeowners indicated they would prefer R-2-5000, but they also indicated they would prefer all R-1 for the propesty with 7200-square foot lots; that they had also discussed the circulation and possible traffic problems since the plans presented did not have access from Santa Ana Canyon Road, and the home- owners indicated that the school bus picked up the children at Cicero Road, therefore, it was felt there would be considerable traffic conflict and pedestrian hazard~ with children standiny and walking across, waiting et this intersection; that the property owners east of their tract also requested ~ _ . ~ [;:tNUTES, CITY PLANr!ING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~2-94 RECLASSIFICATION NO.,_71-72-34 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7769 (Continued) R-2-5000 but were granted R-1 zuning, where 118 homes were being developed, and when one considered those homes toqether with the existing tract homes, as well as those proposed to the west, this would present a considerable amount o£ traffic for Solomon Drive, even though Solomon Drive would eventually extend over the crest to Nohl Ranch Road; and that, in conclusion, the home- owners were ~.lso opposed to R-2-5000, preferring R-l, 7200-square foot lots since it was his opinion that S& S Construction were the culprits in placing exceptionally large homes on lots that were not compatible with the lot size. Mr. Queyrel, in rebuttal, stated that he had nothing further to state but would request the Commission's consideration ~f an area development plan for circulatioK as it would affect their property and the property to the south :or librzry, park site, etc., purposes. Commissione: Herbst noted that the SC 2one required a 50-foot building setback £rom Santa Ans Canyon Road would have to be met and inquired whether or not the developer proposed to meet this requirements whereupon Mr. Queyrel state3 that they would have a 50-foot building setback since their lots were 120 feet lonq now, and a revised tract would mean only an increase of 5 feet to meet this, Commissioner Herbst t.hen noted that he realized there was a resolution of intent to Rs3 zonir.y on the northerly portion of subject property, but *_nis was approved in the County, and the City of Anaheim honorel this zoning, however, many things had transpired in the canyon which would change this, and consideration ~:ould have to be given on what was best for A;:aheim and for the people who would be living there. Therefore, one of the things which had to be considered by the property ownars was the fact that R-3 zoning had been approved; that R-1 had been developed in the area, however, he would not vote for R-2-5000 zoning for the northerly portion of the property, and if a developer had other plans, he wouid prefer that all R-1 zoning be considered for the property and plans be submitted accordingly. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission, the staff, and the engineer regarding the definition of a resolution of intent for R-3 and actually grant- ing R-3, and upon its conclusion it was determined that the City in the past had honored the extensions of time to meet conditions when a resolution of intent to R-3 had been approved, even though it might be a number of years before construction actually transpired. However, no zoning was granted until conditions had been met in the resolution of intent, then the City would read an ordinance changing said zone. Mr. Roberts, in response to questioning by the Commission, stated chat the C.ity Council had the auLhority in zoning properties and had the authority to revoke any previous zoning approved by resoZution of intent wherein the conditions had not been met. Commissioner Seymour noted that the existing R-3 zoning resolution of intent had an extension of time, which would expire January 6, 1973. After that time, if conditions have not been met, couldn't the Commission then recommend R-1 zoning to the City Council? Whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that tlie laaguage of the zoning ordinance stated that the resolution of intent was good for a given period as set forth, but in practice and policy of the City Council, they had granted extensions of time even where zoning had been held in limbo until the zoning action took place. Commissioner Seymour noted that during the time he had served on the Planning Commission there had been a number of changes in the canyon regarding the type of development, and zoning which the Commission felt should be permitted there and R-3 zoning was not one of them. Chairman Farano then stated that what the Commission was attempting to do was make certain that the agent and his client had the facts of the matter, and since there was a valid time extension on the property, the client had the right to develop R-3 regardless of the desires of the Commission - they could do nothing about it. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~Z'95 RECLASSIFICATION NO,__71-72-34 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7769 (Continued) Mr. Queyrel stated that he wished he could convince the Commission of the justification of the proposed zoning, particularly with a school to the west and ccmmercial proposed on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner had a right to develop the northerly portion for R-3, however, with the action taken by the Planning Commission and the City Council on General Plar. Amendment No. 122 and the attitude of the Commission that only low density should be permitted on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, the existing resolution of intent for R-3 would seem to be out o€ line with said General Plan amendment. Commissioner Hei•bst ~hen noted that one of the r~asons for permitting R-2-5000 originally was to allow lower density for property originally approved for R-3, however, this did not justify the developer "holding a qun" against the resi- dents of the single-family homes in this area with a threat of apartments to obtain their approval for R-2-5000. Mr. Queyrel then stated that if the current developer did aot develop the northerly portion, someone else could do it. Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, representing homeowners in the Santa Ana Ca<<yon area, advised the Commission that Mr. Raczek had presented every- thing that he would have discussed, therefore, he would withhold making any further statement. Commissioner Rowland noted that since the City Council had declared a 45-day moratorium pending studies and possiw'!e changes of standards for the R-2-5000 2u:ie, in all likelihood there would be a new set of standards of which the developer of subject property would have no idea, therefore, the developer would have to reconsider his plans, and this could not be done in a few days. Thus, he could not see how the Commission could consider subject petitions before May 1. Commissioner Y,aywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for ReclassiEication No. 71-72-34 aud Tentative Map of Tract No. 7769 to the meeting of May 1, 1972, to allow time for staff to prepare and advertise an area development plan and for recommendations to the City Council reqarding any changes in the standards for the R-2-5000 7one. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRZED. RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute recess at 3:32 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 3:42 p.m., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE NO. 2330 - PUBLIC HEARZNG. ANGELO AND CARL A. ZABY, 1401 East Slst Street. Los Angeles, California 90011, Owners; MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 11001 Valley Mall, E1 Monte, California 91734, Aqent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMSER OF SIGNS, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN S3GNS~ AND (3) MINIMUM SIGN HEIGHT TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF TWO "SELF SERVICE", FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parr,el of land being the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boalevard with frontages of 160 feet and 130 feet respectively and further described as 1800 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone in opposition and received no response. Subject property is located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Sou].evard, is presently zoned R-A with a resolvtion of intent to C-R, and surrounding land uses include a restaurant to the n~rth across Katella Avenue, a motel to the east, car rental to the south, and a service station to the west across Harbor Boulevard. The automobile service station was established by conditional use permit in 1965, however, the petitioner has not established C-R zoning on the property. ~ r''1 L~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~Z-96 t'ARIANCE NO. 2330 (Continued) The applicant is proposing to construct two "self-s~~rvice" signs to be located at the ends of the two pump islands nearest the street frontages, said signs would indicate the self-service nature of these two particular pump.islands and would indicate the price of the gasoline at said locations; all existing signing on the property would rEmain, and no alterations were proposed for the service station buiZding. Therefore, the Planning Commission will recall a similar request by Mobil Oil Corporation on three of their Anaheim locations for similar signing in the past, the Commission having recommended denial for said signs. Subsequently, the City Council approved the establishment o£ said self-service and price signs, and since the same waivers were involved in the previous cases, the Commission might consider it appropriate to grant the requested waivers to accommodate the proposed signir.g at this location. Mr. Bill Potter, representing Mobil Oil Corporation, 11001 Valley Mall, E1 Monte, appeared before the Commission and noted *hat subject property and service station was a training center on self-service pumps; that the City Council had granted similar signing on other Mobil Oil service stations; and that there were two separate ingress points on subject property, therefore, this was the reason for asking Eor the additioaal signs. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Planning Commission had denied this request, although the City Council had approved it, and inquired whether or not the self-service plan was a good one; whereupon Mr. Potter repl.ied that apparently it was very good since it was a new concept. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood noted that at one of the Mobil Oil stations where there was a proliferation of signs, they had duplicate signs with the same price for self-service as for serviced gas. Mr. Bob Goldabzne, representing Mobil 031 Corporation, advised the Commi~sion that up until two weeks ago he had been the instructor at the service station for self-service; and that at most stations the custom was to charge 2C per gallon less than the regulation price, however, by law they could not set these prices, but at a company-operated station there would be a difference of 2C. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the Fire Department had expressed any concern regardinq self-service stations since Los Angeles would not allow said self-service stations. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Fire Department had expressed concern a.bout coin-operated gas pumps, but not for self-service operations. Mr. Goldabene noted that the City of Los Angeles had recently reconsidered their prohibition of self-service with the new concept in their marketing. and they might recor.sider this since this was a going process all across the country. :4r. Don Fink, also of Mobil Oil Company, noted that the self-service operation had been approved by the City's Fire Department. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that the Planning Commission should maintain their previous action regarding all self-service station signs, namely. that they were in excess over and above that permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Chairman Farano inquired o£ staff whether or aot this station was in conform- ance with the signinq requirements of the ordinance, or had they had any previous waivers of the Sign Ordinance; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that he did not believe there were any sign waivers requested when the service station was approved originally. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-41 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2330 on the basis that the petitioner did not submit evidence to substantiate that there wese exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property in- volved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zones that the petitioner ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72'97 VARIANCE NO. 2330 (Continued) was proposing considerably more signs over and above signing permitted by the Sign Ordinance; and that granting the request would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by similar operations in the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed b~~ ~he following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, riaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 2332 - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM E. AND JOY L. DITMAR, 2901 West Hall Road, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF THE PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT A MOBILEHOME IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING 52NGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre, havina a frontage of approximately 203 feet on the north side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 220 feet, and being lacated approxi- mately 140 feet east of the centerline of Gaymont Drive, an~ °_urther described as 2901 West Sall Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Subject property, located at 2901 West Bsll Road, is developeci with a single- family house and a mobilehome, and surrounding land uses include a single- family development to the west and north, a church and church school to the east, and single-family homes on large R-A parcels to the south across Eall Road.. The petitioner proposes to establish the existing mobilehome on the R-A parcel with the existing single-family dwelling as a legal use by variance; and the City Council in 1964 denied a request for reclassification of the property from R-A to R-3, however, in 1966 the Council granted ;~imission for the applicant to establish a mobilehome on this property for a per~od of one year, subject to dedication of 53 feet for street purposes along Ball Road. The c.=stion of the legality o£ this mobilehome on the R-A parcel with the exisc~r~g unit arose when a City building inspector noticed the porch addition on the mobilehame and determined that a building permit had not been procured for the construction of the addition. The addition, consequently, might not be in conformance with the Building Code. Subsequently, it was determined that the mobilehome had been granted only a one-year extension of time, which ex- pired in November, 1968, making the use illegal for a period of four years. The zoning ordinance requires a structure to be of permanent character and does not permit mobilehomes specifically, even though the wheels might be removed. Said m~bilehome having been established by Council action on the property since 1966 has had no apparent detrimental effect to the sui:.ounding land uses, and the Commission might wish to consider the addition ~o the mobilehome to be appropriate if it conforms to all the current standards regarding mobilehomes in the Uniform Building Code. Mr. William Ditmar, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission and noted that the reason for having the mobilehome on the property was to house his parents who were eighty years old; that there had been a trailer on the prop~rty prior to annexation o£ the property to the City of Anaheim; that the City Council had granted them a year-to-year extension of time until the death of the parents - at least this was his assumption; that the reason this was before the Commission was because his father had built a small porch, however, if this was the bone oE contention, he would be willing to tear it down; that it was his understanding at the last ~xtension of time, the City Council granted this until the parents passeG away; and that according to the recom- mended conditions, since there were no improvements on the front of the property, this would be a considerable expense since he was fully aware of the cost, being a cement contractor. Commissioner Allred noted that the condition was recommended because the petitioner was enjoying something on his property which others in the city did not enjoy, in addition to having increased the calue o£ the mobilehome. ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~2'98 VARIANCE NO. 2332 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the length of time it was planned to have the mobilehome on the property; whereupon Mr. Ditmar stated he did not know, however, his mother had been very ill for some time. Mr. Ditmar, in response to a question by Commissioner Allred, stated that the last time the Council had granted an extension of tirae it was his under~t.and- ing that it was granted for an indefinite period of time since they had not received any notice to request any additional extension of time. P. letter of approval was read to the Commission. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour erpressed t.he opinion that the Commission shouLd look at this request as it partaiaed to the intent of the City Council to maintain the mobilehome on the property at whatever increments of time or until the parents were deceased or the property was sold, and althouqh the small porch had been added to the mobilehome, he felt it was asking too much of the petitioner to meet the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations regarding engineering requirements and ic~provements, as well as requiring the street tree fees; and that he would concur that the Commission should continue carrying out the intent of the City Council to permit this mobilehome until the elderly parents passed away. Commissioner Gauer concurred with statements made by Commissioner Seymour. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the new addition was in accordance with the building code requirementsj whereupon Mr. Ditmar replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Rowland noted that there were no standards adopted by the City of Anaheim in respect to mobilehomest that there was adequate space for these two homes since this was a one-acre parcelr that the City Council in their benevolence had granted establishment of the mobilehome, and he questioned whether or not the variance was the proper vehicle since it was not a planning problem but should be sent to the City Council without any recommendation by the Planning Commission. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the last time the reguest for an extension of time to permit the mobilehome on the property was granted by the City Council, the City Attorney had indicated that the Council was not taking the appropriat~ action, bui shoul@ consider this under a variance,procedure. However, the City Council appro~ed it anyway, and when this came before the staff, the City Attorney was again approached regarding the procedure in which to handle this request; whereupon the City Attarney stated that the variarce proredure was the proper way to go about establishing this vse; and that Commissioner Rowland was correct in stating th_tt the State had the responai- bility of enforcing the mobilehome code, however, an addition had been made on the mobilehome, and since sta£f did not know whether this fell within the confines of the definition of a permanent building, the variance was presented. Discussion was held by the Commission on whether or not a variance should be approved, even though the City Attorney had recommended this as a proper vehicle, and up~n its conclusion, Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-42 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2332 for ~ period of three years, however, in the event the property was sold to other thar. a member of the family, the variance sl:ould be considered null and void, and upon expiration of said three-year period and upon written request by the petitioner, the Planning Commission may give consideration to granting the use for an additional timei that the recommended conditions of the Interdepa~tmental Committee should not be imposed on the property until full development of the property took placei and that the existinq mobilehome shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, includinq the Uniform ::uilding, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical, and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, that the existing mobilehome shall be removed from the site if the present owner sold the property prior to the three-year limit or if the existing mobilehome occupants vacated the mobilehome. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-99 VARIANCE N0. 2332 (Continued) 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 Rowland noted that his vote of opposition was the fact that the Building Department stated that room additions without a building permit were constantly being bootlegged onto residences and until they were sold, then they met opposition in the refinancing, and that by approving all of these bootlegged additions, the City was seriously hampering the Building Department in maintaining the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. Chairman Farano concurred in the statement made by Commissioner Rowland in his vote of "no". VARIANCE NO. 2235 - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE AND ADELE WETHERBEE. 1031 South Avocado Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners; CONTRACTOR's PRODUCTION, 1938 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK AND (2) MAXIMUM REAR YARD COVERAGE TO PERMIT A ROOM ADDITION IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Avocade Street and Turin Avenue, with frontages of approximately 65 feet on Avocado Street and 100 feet on Turin Avenue, and further descsibed as 1031 South Avocado Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was any opposition and received no response. Subject property, located at 1031 South Avocado Street, currently zoned R-l, is surrounded by single-family land uses. The petitioner was proposing to construct a 393-square foot room addition that would project to within 5 feet of the rear property line; that the existing rear yard in this singl~- family r~sidence was 21~i feet zather than the required 25 feet, consequently, the rear yard was already covered with 136 square feet of the existint resi- dence; that this corner lot has provided larger than average side yards on both sides of the structure, and as such, ample outdoor recreation and open area appear to have been provided, therefore, the maximum coverage of the required rear yard waiver was no longer necessary and the Commission would wish to determine whether the requested waiver for the minimum rear yard set- back would be appropriate at this location. Mr. Asselbrink, representing Contractor's Production and the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that the owners of subject property also had an elderly mother who would be moving in with them and who also had a hobby of china painting and wanted to continue meeting with neighbors for this hobby, therefore, they would need a family room, and the proposed addi- tion would be a 16~5-foot room. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether o up to the garage only or also extending ing property to the west; whereupon Mr. would be backing up to the garage only, 40 feet from the property line. not this addition would be backing toward a residential use on the adjoin- Asselbrink stated that this addition and the residence on Dove Place was The Commission reviewed the pictures and inquired as to the location of the garage referred to, and then Mr. Asselbrink clarified th=.s fer the Commission, noting that there had been no other encroachment to the required rear yard requested previously. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 VARIANCE N0. 2235 (Continued) ~2-ioo Commissioner Herbst offere3 Re~solution No. PC72-43 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2235 on the basis that the petitioner had ample rear and side yards for recreational uses and the pro- posed addition would not aff~ct any residential uses on the property to the west since it would be adjacent to a garage, and subject to conditiotts. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call, Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or..not the peti- tioner's mother intended to use this facility as a sales of£ice; whereupon Mr. Asselbrink replied that there would be no advertising or sales of this hobby since the petitioner's mother only intended to pursue her hobby. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Parano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONFRS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2336 - PUBLIC HEARING. PHILLIP G. AND MARJORIE L. LEIPOLD. 935 South Caplan Street, Anaheim, California 92802, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD AND ~2) MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT TO PERMIT AN EXISTING ROOM ADDITION WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD AND A CARPORT IN LIEU OF A GARAGE on.~roperty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 72 feet on the west side of South Caplan Street, having a maxi- mum depth of approximately 107 feet, and being located approximately 127 feet south of Vermont Avenue, and further described as 935 South Caplan Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not anyone was present in opposition and received no response. Subject property is located at 935 South Caplan Street and is gresently zoned R-1. The petitioner is requesting the minimum rear yard setback waiver to permit a 5-foot setback, whereas 10 feet is required, and minimum parking requirement in which an enclosed two-car qarage is required and a carport is proposed. Subject property Ys surrounded by single-family residential development. The applicant proposes to construct a carport in lieu of a garage because the existing garage on the property had been convert~.d to a room; the existing garage conversion was located within 5 feet of tt.e rear property line, however, this 5-foot yard met the code requirement '~+hen the garage was originally constructed as a detached, accessory building, but as an attached room to the main structure, the 5 feet was considered inadequatej the 20x20-foot carport was proposed to be located near the front af the residence; this lot had a large open area in the rear and side yards, and the Commission would have to determine whether the rear yard waiver was considered appropriate; and there appeared to be no limitations that would prohibit the applicant from construct- ing a garage rather than the proposed carport, therefore, the question also arose as to whether the garage waiver would be appropriate. Mr. Phillip Leipold, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition signed by surrounding neighbors, indicating their approval of the proposed carport construction; that the garage haA been converted into a room some time ago, and the carport was constructed in lieu thereof; and tha~ although they realize they have overbuilt the property, this occurrence was prevalent throughout the neighborhood, and they had sold the property as it was. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ lJ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1572 72-101 VARIANCE NO. 2336 (Continued) Chairman Farano noted that this was a similar situation to which Commissioner Rowland had referred previously wherein additions were "bootlegged" onto the pzoperty and whe~ the property was sold, the lender would require that any additions meet tl~e Building c:ode, however, since the Commission had granted some of these additi~ns in the past, it was 3ifficult tu approve some and not approve others, and that there was adequate parking space, and the addition of a carport would provide for a covered space for automobiles. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that this variance petition was different from athers the Commisaion had considered in the past since the Commission had always required every home in Anaheim built to have a garage; that he realized he had no opposition to a carport, but it should be designed so that if it were sold again that the lender later require a garage, that the carport be so constructed that it could be converted into a garage. Commissioner Rowland noted that in order to do this they wculd have to have cantinuous footings, however, it was possible this property was built p~ior to the time the City required garages for homes, and he felt a carport fitted the purpose for which it was intended in California's climate since there would be no place to store anything and no door to close, perhaps a carport would be better than an open garage door where everything was stored and a vehicle was never placed into the garage. Commissioner Gauer oLserve3 that he had occasion to consider placing a patio structure on his property and hafl been informed by the contractor that he did not need a building permit, however, he had advised him said permit was re- quired. Therefore, it was possible that many contractors in the city were constructing additions illegally. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-44 and moved for its passage and adaption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2336, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND •• ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 937 (Speech and Language Development Center) - Request for an extension of time to complete conditions - Property located on the west side of Loara Street between Lincoln Aver.ue and Broadway. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDanie.l reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property and previoue extensions of time granted to meet conditions, noting that in accordance with the conditional use permit approved, the petitioner had proposed development in two stages: in the first stage, the original resi- dential structure, was to be utilized ii~ conjunction with a proposed two- story structure; that the second phase would see the removal of the residence and replacement with three two-story structures, with the second phase to be completed within five years, however, the petitioner was now requesting an additiona.'_ three-year period to complete the second phase. Furthermore, on January 13, 1972, the Building Division and Fire Department made an inspection of the resider.ce which had been approved originally for the speech and therapy clinic. and said inspection revealed that the structure still had not been braught up to the Uniform Building Code standards as was reflected in the report presented to the Planning Commission; and that the staff, therefore. k•uuld recommend that the requested extension of time for the completion of phase two be approved, provided, however, that within ninety days the existing structure on the property be brought up ta the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical, and Fire Codes. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNYNG COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-102 ITEM NO. 1 ~Continued) Mrs. Mary Freck, 515 North Taormina Drive, appeared before th Commissian representing the petitioner and noted that their center had been growing very rapidly; that they originally started with a small number of chi7.dren, however~ this was now increased to 258, with some of the students liaving small neuro- Soqical p'toblems while others had multiple handicapst that their nursery was located on West Ball Roadt that it was their intent to have thzee buildings eventually, and it was also the board of director's intEnt, if this extension of time was granted, to bring the existinq building up to Fire Department requirements; and that the business manager wo~:ld be able to answer any ques- tions the Commission might have. Mr. ~~t manager of the center, a;~peared before the Commission and stated that they had conferred with the Fire Department and Building Division regarding meeting code "C" for the school, which would mean a new roof, fire proofing and bringinq the electical system up to code; tnat this would have to be censidered by the directors of the center, and if it could not be done with- in their budget, then the building would have to be razed, and if an extension of time were granted, they would attempt to work with Che City departments to meet the requirements since they had obtained a written report. However, they did not want to start these repairs until aftes the school term ended in June. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the Fire rtment was agreeable to delaying meeting the requirementsT whereupon Mr. ~ stateZ that no time limit had been set, however, they would try te meet as much as pcssible things that could be done without interfering with classes, such as resurfacing the roof with rock. Mrs. Freck again appeared before the Commission and statad there were thirty youngsters in the building ~eing discussed, each class having five students, one teaCher, and one aide. Commissioner Gauer noted that these were very small groups and were not like regular classrooms. Mrs. Freck replied that there would not be the same difficulty in leaving the building in the event of an emergency. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a three-year extension of time in which to complete conditions of the second phase granted under Conditional Use Permit No. 937, contingent upon the petitioner's meeting the requirements of the Building Division and the Fire Department~ said time extension to expire April 24, 1975. Commi.ssioner Allxed seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 2 DUNN PROPERTIES CORPORATION - Request for Code clarification - M-1 Zone. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of the property under consideration, which was located in the M-1 Zone, and a request £or a determination as to whether or not a variance was required to establish a photographic supply business in said zone= that the owner of trofessional had described his business as primarily established to serve the p customer who utilized photography, and cited various examples= that the owner further indicated he would sell retail to anyone coming to his piace of busi- ness; that the M-1 Code provided for retail distribution of nr.dncts produced on the premises, which was not the primary rEtai3 outle~ for said products; that staff h.id concluded that a variance request wonld be required zOVed;~that ''the same criteria as the retail motorcycle parts sales recently app the ordinance further provided for the establishment of industrially-related uses by £iling and approval of a conditional use permit where the use would be primarily serving commerce and industry with only incidental sales to the general public; that the petitioner had filed a conditional use permit for this property under Section 18.52.050(2), therefore, the Commission woula wish to determine the appropriateness of the applicant's filing a variance to estab- lish the photographic supp].y business in a portion of a recent:~~ completed industrial park and the possibility of the applicant filing a conditional use permit to establish a variety of retail distributing firms and service busi- nesses primarily serving commerce and industry for thi.s entire industrial park. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-103 ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) Chairman Farano inquired whether or not this would be primar.ily walk-in trade. Mr. Don Grow, 2020 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and stated their business was directed toward professional photo- graphy; that they would have some walk-in trade; that they had established accounts with which they dealt on a cantinuous basis; that they advertised through a trade journal; and that they did not advertise in any local news- papers, such as regular commercial stores did. Chairman Farano inquired whether this was in the same complex as the motor- cycle parts sales who had indicated their business was primarily mail order with some walk-in craffic. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts replied that this was so, primarily whole- sale and some retail. Commissioner Rowland inquired as to the number o.. ~ rsons that would be employed in this facility; whereupon Mr. Grow stated there would be approxi- mately three for this facility having 3400 square feet; that the xeason they wanted to come into this area was because of the number of customers in the area, and with the cost of transportation it was decided to open a br>nch business at this location. . Chairman Farano inquired what would happen if a small printing company needed a supply of paper; whereupon Mr. Grow replied that they handled only photo- graphic paper and aluminum plates, and that they also soJ.d Nikkon and Hessel- baum cameras generally to professional photographers; and that their main facility was located in Los Angeles where they employed thirty-seven persons i~i a 21,000-square foot facility, and this would ba their second faci~ity. Commissioner Rowland noted that if 'chis facility became as successful as the one in Los Angeles, it could be assumed there would b~ an increase to seven persons; whereupon Mr. Grow stated that they would have to have larger quar- ters if that would happen; that their o'.'fice in Los Angeles handled all the office work, and this would be a wa~ehouse delivexy with some pick-up, but primarily United Parcel Service would be delivering and picking up. Mr. Grow, in response to a question by tre Commission regarding paying sales tax, stated that even on some items sold to their customers, according to regulations of the State, tax would have to be charged even though it was not considered to be used for resale; that they were listed in the telephone directory as a wholesale supplier; that they did not stock less than 100 feet of film or 500 sheets of photographic paper, and any retail sales would px•obably be to a photography buff. Discussion was held by the Commission on the request for clarification as to whether this was primarily retail ~r industrially-oriented since it appeared more and more that these types of businesses were asking permission to estab- lish in the industrial park complexes, and a conditional use permit vehicle would have to be filed in order that the Commission could determine if adequate parking was being provided. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that approving these commercial uses could be negating the redevelopment of the City's downtown area, and it would appear that rents were aheaper in these facilities than in the regulation commercial area, therefore, the developer of this industrial park should be made aw4re of the problem he was creating by proposing any of these buildings or portions of the buildings with commercially-oriented uses. Mr. Grow noted that they were not interested in commerciaJ.ly-oriented property sinee they were not in that type of businesst that they did not sell the run- of-the mill cameras used by the average person, and their business was similar to the businesses estabiished in an industrial park since they were like a printing supply business; and that their previous experience in retail sales was that it was approximately 1$ to 2+t of their business, and even thovgh they were located in downtown Los Angeles now, they were moving their main ~. ant to E1 Monte and the warehouse would rema.in in downtown Los Angeles. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, March 6, 1972 72-104 ITFM N0. 2 ~Continued) nfter continued discussion regarding the permitted uses, Commissioner Hezbst was of the opinion that these uses should reqnire filing a conditional use permit to give the Commission a chance to require certain conditions if apL~roved. Mr. Don Yoder, representinq Dunn Properties, appeared before the Commission and noted they had developed 125 acres of industrial plants in Anaheim and had always tried to attract industry - the one on Ball Road and East Street was developed for rather small industries, but because of the residential use approved to the rear of their buildings, their pro:~pective tenants,being aware of the ecological feeling of these people, hesitated to lease becauss of the possible noise and odor and dust factor; that they had many inquiries but very few tenants, and they needed some relief for those companies that were in'ustrially-oriented where some retail sales was anticipated, but it would take ninety days to process a conditional use permit each time a differ- ent type of use was proposed, and any prospective lessees would go elsewhere. Commissioner Rowland suggested that perhaps a blanket conditional use permit could be considered for the entire complex, and when questionable uses were proposed, this, then, could be presented to the Planning Commission at their next public hearing under ReParts and Recommendations to allow them a chance to determine whether or not the use should be permitted. This could be done on a two-week basis, thereby eliminating any lengthy delay. The Commission further noted that the developer should be further apprised of the problem that if these uses were continued for the entire complex, he might end up with the last portion of the facility having only two park.ing spaces - then he would be requesting a waiver of the parking requirement. Mr. Yoder advised the Commission that they were more aware of an acute parking problem than perhaps even the Commission, and that they screened an3 analyzed each request for this specific facility. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the petitioner had already filed a conditional use permit for the entire industrial park complex, and the photo- graphic facility would be one of the uses. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to advise the petitioner that a blanket conditional use permit should be processed without granting any specific uses, however, where uses were in question, these could be presented to the Commis- sion under Reports and Recommendations at the next Commission meeting for an intarpretation in order that approval or disapproval could be made and to alleviate the need to file a conditional use permit for each use beinq con- sidered. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N~ 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1130 (Martin Lu::her Hospital) Request for an extension of time in order to comply with conditions of approval - Prop:rty located on the south side of Romneya Drive, approximately 820 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisoz' Dcn McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, the previous extensions of time granted for the Martin Luther Hospital complex, and the current request for a six-mor.th extension of time to meet conditions of anproval. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to grant a one-year extension o£ time, to expire January 25, 1973~ for the completion of conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1130. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, March 6, 1972 72-105 ITEM NO. 4 VARIANCE N0. 2160 (Paul and Ruth Knaak - Big Brake Safety Center) - Request for an extension of time for completion of conditions - Property located at 2170 West Lincoln Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted Lhe location of subject property and that the petition had been approved by the Planning Commission on April 2. 1970, :'ubject to condition~, however, the petitioner had neglected to request an extension of time, therefore, the time limitation to meet the conditions of approval had expired, and the petitioner now wished to proceed with this development and was requesting a retroactive and future extension of time in order to meet the conditions of approval. Therefore, staff would recommend a two-year setroactive and £uture extension of time be granted, to expire October 2, 1972. Commissioner Herbst ofEered a motion to grant a retroactive extension of time from October 2, 1970, to expire October 2, 1972, for the completion of condi- tions of approval in Variance No. 2160. Commissioner Sepmour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 ORANGE COUNTY USE PERMIT NO. 3256 (James E. Matych- Yorba Linda) - Property located approximately 410 feet south of La Palma Avenue between Fee Ana Street and Lakeview Avenue in the M1 (SR) Light Industrial District (Sand and Gravel Extraction) - Proposing to establish a golf driving range and bicycle rental facility on subject property. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel presented Orange County Use Permit No. 3256 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property, surrounding land uses, and the proposal to establish a golf driving range and bicycle rental facility located in the Northeast Industrial Area, but the property was an abandoned gravel pit converted into a lake; that there would be a practice green and putting greens; that there was an existing Bxl2-foot building located near the northwest corner of the property that would be used for an office, ball house, and bicycle rental; that off-street parking was proposed for 16 vehicles and access would be from Fee Ana Street; that an 18- square foot, double-faced, free-standing sign not to exceed 15 feet in height was proposed on the northeast corner of the prapertyt and that it would be difficult to project a more appropriate use for the property due to the exist- ence of the abandoned gravel pit on the property, and it would appear to be consiatent with the County Green Belt dlan and projected utilization of the areas near the Santa Ana River for recreational uses. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding parking and the use proposed, it being their opinion that the use would be consistent with plans which the County had for the Green Belt Plan along the Santa Ana River, however, in comparing the number of tees as well as putting greens to the 18 parking spaces proposed, it would appear that the parking wculd be totally inadequate, and inquired of staff as to the parking provided on cimilar facilities in Orange County. Staff advised the Commission that the La Mirada-Big Tee provided 175 spa,ces for 130 tees; Disneyland Hotel provided 345 spaces for 50 tees and their miniature golf coursei Willie Barber Driving Range located near the overpass of the Santa Ana Freeway on South Anaheim Boulevard pr.ovided 55 spaces for 25 tees; and that the one that could be considered mo~t comparable to the proposed facility as to use would be the L,a Mirada-Big Tee. Continued discussion was held by the Commission, it being noted that the use was logical for said property as it pertained to the driving range and puttina greens, but there appeared to be some doubt as to the proposal to have bicycle rentals since there were no paths for cycling except on the roads in the Northeast industrial Area. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-106 ITEM NO. 5 (Continued) Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to the City Council *_hat the Orange Caunty Planning Commission be advised that if Orange County Use Permit No. 3256 is approved, consideration should be given to requiring parking at the ratio of one space for each tee, since similar operations in Orange County provided more than one sgace per tee, and that the use would be consistent with plans which the County had for the Green Belt Plan along the Santa Ana River. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCE NO. 2286 (Union Pacific Railroad Company) - Request for an extension of time for completion of conditions of approval. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, previous zoning action on the property, noting that the time limit to comply with conditions had expired on February 9, 1972, and that staff recommended a one-year extension of time be granted. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for completion of conditions in approval of Variance No. 2296, said time exten- sion to expire February 9, 1973. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N'O. 1287 (Canyon Terrace Development Company) - Request for amendment of condition of approval in Resolution No. PC72-29, changing hours of operation originally approved. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, previous zoning action by the Planning Commission on February 7, 1972, in which one of the conditions of approval limited the hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m, seven days a week, and that the petitioner was now requesting permission to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday inclusive and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-45 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC72-29 granted on February 7. 1972, to read as follows: "That the hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 a.m, to 8:00 p.m. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday as stipulated to by the petitioner." (See Resolution Sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was paesed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 72-107 ITEM NO. 8 ORANGE COUNTY USE PERMIT NO. 3260 - Anaheim Hills, Inc. - Subject property is located in the Santa Ana Canyon, approximately one mile south of the pxesent city boundaries near the southerly terminus of Wa2nut Canyon Road at Oranqe Park Boulevard - zoned R-A, and propoaea to establish a 41.5-acre commercial stable and ridinq club facilities for a maximum of 120 horses including barns, paddocks, show rinqs, tack rooms, administrative office building, black- smith and equipment repair facilities. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel presented Qrange County Dse Permit No. 3260 to the Planninq Commission, noting the location of the progerty, surroundiag land uses and the proposal and indicated that an approximate 18- acre portion of this proposal had received approval subject to ~oaditions by the Anaheim Planning Commission November 21, 1971. It was further noted that this was the second half of the equestriar, center which was currently County terzitory, however, the property was under annexation proceedings to the City of Anaheim, but these proceedings would not be completed prior to the proposed commenr,ement o£ constructioni and that the 18-acre portion approved by the Planning Commission had two conditions requiring that the final parking plan for all permanent parking areas be approved by the Development Services Depart- ment, and any landscaped areas in the parking area be protected with 6-inch high, concrete curbs and concrete wheel stops for parking spaces as required by the Development Services Department. Furthermore, final parking plans should be submitted to the Development Services Department for any overflow parking proposed within a 6~C-acre vacant portion of said property, as well as within the adjacent Edison easement. In addition, any development plans for the veterinazian hospital be submitted to the Anaheim Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. MeDaniel concluded by stating that the plans submitted to the Orange County Planning Department appeared to be substantially the same as those submitted to the City of Anaheim by the equestrian center developer, except that the parking spaces were now shown on the former; and that the Commission might wish to recommend to the City Council to recommend approval of subject petition subject to the two conditions aforementioned. Discussion was held by the Commission on the proposal and the annexation proceedings that were being processed on the property in question, and upon its conclusion, Commisaioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council to urge the Orange County Planning Commission to approve Orange County Use Permit No. 3260 on the basis that an 18-acre portion of r•ubject property had bezn approved by the Anaheim Planning Commission for the same use, however, it should be subject to the fcllowing conditions: 1. That the final parking plan for all permanent parking areas shall be approvPd ~y the City of Anaheim, and any landscaped areas in the parking area shall be protected with 6-inch hiyh, concrete curbs and concrete wheel stops shall be provided for parking spaces as required by the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, final parking plar.s shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim for any overflow parking proposed within the adjacent Edison easement. 2. That development plans for any veterinarian hospital shall be submitted :o the Anaheim Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 6, 1972 ~2-ios ZTEM NO. 9 CONDIT20NAL USE PERMIT NO. 1281 (Maoel Ann Yorba) - Property located on the southwest c;orner of T,a Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway - Request for amendment of condition. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented Conditional Uae Permit No. 1281 fox the Top Deck Restaurant and service station located on the southwest corner of Imperial Hiqhway and La Yalma Avenue, noting that plans had been submitted to the Building Department and were in plan check where a question was raiaed as to whethez or not the Commission intended to require a 10-foot wide planter strip along the west and south property lines since the property adjacent was R-A~and the C-1 2one required where coamercial uses abutted a residential use, 10 feet of landscaping would be required. However, staff was of the opinion that the SC Zone required this 10-foot strip of landscaping where actual residential use'was intended, and the properties adjacent to the south and west were projected for industrial uses, that a 5-foot strip would be sufficient. The Commission in reviewing the plans noted that there was a poasibility that the developes of this service station and restaurant would bank the property and inquired whether or not the landscaping was proposed on the bank, and if not, this should be a requirement. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-46 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Condition No. 12 of Resolution No. PC71-245 to read as follows: That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordaiice with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4(revised;, 5, 6, 7, ar,d 8, provided, however, that all landscaping standards of the C-1 Zone (SC) shall be complzed with subject to the following exception: that the landscape strip along the south and west propertp lines may be reduced to a a~inimum of 5 feet provided that if any slopes are p.roposed along these property lines, the entire slope area shall be landscaped". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESe' COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSZONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to adjourn the meetinq. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~%W~ %~~~'- ` - ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm U R C Q MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. lnl'] lacY Ave. 1i6~3220 f.ii.ihr~~m. ~,.~.~nrni;l