Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/03/20~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California March 20, 1972 A REGULAR MEETZNG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMi+iISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion was MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:05 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred (who entered the Co uncil Cnamber at 2:25 p.m.), Gauer, Herbst~ Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: pson a Deputy City Attorney: Lowry Frank Office Engineer: Jay Titus 2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts • Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Seymour Ied in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRZED, to approve the minutes of tho meeting of February 23, 1972, subject to the following corrections: Pg. 72-66, para. 5, line 1, should read: "Mr. Harry Rinker, developer, advised the Commission '+e agrees with" pq, 72-67, para. 6, line 10, should read: "storage entering and provide sight distance...." pq, '72_gg, paza. 2, line 25, next to last word should be "Park", not Vista. pq, ~Z_69, para. 5, lines 15, 16, and 17, ahould read: "property , and inadequate access point; that easement techniaues are to be used on difficult pieces of proPerty to develop. This ts 38 acres, and as proposed is totally unfeasible _ ~ and illogical." pq, 72-70, para. 15, line 1: November 29, not.l9. pq, ~2_75, para. 8, line 7: delete "the poster a part of the advertisement for the past weekend dance." pq, ~2_79, para. 8, line 4: after "eyesore." add: "He replaced ' it with concrete." pq, 72-80, para. ~, line ls "Mr. Len McKenzie, Planning Engi- neer", not Norm Koski, General Manaqer. PROCEDURE FOR EXFEDITING PLAP]NING - Chz =:~An Farano read the adopted Qrocedure CQMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS fo.. ~editing Planning Commission public hear :gs (copy on iile). VARIANCE NO. 2339 - PUBLZC HEARING. ANAHEIM AILLS~ INC.~ AND TEXACO VENTURES~ I iNC., Attn: William J. Stark; President, 1665 South Brook-.,, TENTATIVE MAP OF hurst Street, Ar.aheim, Califosnia 92804, Owners; property TRaCT NO. 7588 described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximataly 53 acres located approximately 1/2 ~ mile south of Walnut Canyon Rservoir in the Santa Ana Canyon. Property presently zoned R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. 72-109 • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-110 VARIANCE N0. 2339 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7588 (Continued) VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, ~(3) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK~ AND (4) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A AEDICATED STREET TO CONSTRUCT A 44-LOT EQUESTRIAN-ORIENTED SUBDIVZSION. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 1665 South BrookhuTat Street, Anahe3m, Cali=ornia 92804, ENGINEER: Willdan Engineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California 92805T proposing to subdivide 56.5 acres located approximately 1/2 mile south of Walnut Canyon Reservoir into 45 R-A zoned lots. Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner had snbmitted a letter requestinq that subject petition and tract be continued for four weeks for further study and inquired if there was anyone present in opposition or to represent the petitioner, and received no response. Commissioner Kaywood offered a mation to continue consideration of Variance No. 2339 and Tentative Map of Tract 110. 7588 to the meeting of April 17, 1972, as requested by the petitioner. Commissionez Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2340 - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC.~ AND TEXACO VENTURES~ INC., Attn: William J. Stark, President, 1665 South Brook- TENTATIVE MAP OF hurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners; property TRACT NO. 7589 described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 20 acres located approximately 3/4 i mile south-southwest of Walnut C3nyon Reservoir in Santa Ana Canyon. Propezty presently zoned R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE . VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE (1) MINIMUM LOT SIZE~ (2) MINIMUM LOT WID'PH, AND (3) THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET TO CONSTRUCT A 21-LOT EQUESTRIAN-ORIENTED SUBDIVISIOt7. TENTATZVE TRACT RE QUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC.. 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804. ENGINEER: Willdan Engineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California 92805t proposing to subdivide 20 acres into 21 R-A zoned lots. Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting that subject petition and tract be continued for four weeks for further study and inquired if there was anyone present in opposition or to represent the petitioner, and received no response. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance No. 2340 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7589 to the meeting of Apzil 17,.1972, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2341 - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC.~ AND TEXACO VENTURES, INC.. Attn: Wiliiam J. Stark, President, 1665 South Brook- TENTATIVE MAP OF hurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804, Ownersj pro~erty TRACT N0. 7590 described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 56.5 acres located approximately 1/2 mile south of Wa3nut Canyon Rservoir in Santa Ana Canyon. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH~ ~3) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK~ (4) REQUIREMENT THAT.A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDZCATED STREET~ AND (5) REQUIRSMENT THAT A SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE REAR ON AN ARTERIAL HZGHWAY TO CONSTRUCT A 45-LOT k:QUESTRIAN-ORIENTED SUSD:LVISZON. s • ~~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-111 VARIANCE NO. 2341 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7590 (Continued) T~NTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804. ENGINEER: Willdan Engineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California 92805s proposing to subdivide 56.5 acres into 45 R-A zoned lots. Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting tliat subject petition and tract be continued for four weeks for further study and inquired if there was anyone present in oppoyition or to represent the petitioner, and received no response. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion Lo continue consideration of Variance No. 2341 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7590 to the meeting of April 17, 1972, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CLARENCE WAGNER, 822 South 71-72-31 NO Sunkist Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ANN T. MADISON, . 600 South Harbor Bovlevard, Anaheim, California, Agentt VARIANCE NO. 2333 property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land consiat- proxi- ta e of a o f p g r n ing of approximately 7.8 acres having a TENTATIVE MAP OF inately 422 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, having a TRACT N0. 7754 maximum depth of approximately 63b feet and being located approximately 910 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGP.ICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) AIINIMUM LOT WIDTH~ ~Z) MINIMUM FRONT SE7BACK~ AND (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL HEIGHT i0 ESTABLISH A 33-LOT~ R-1 SUBDIVISION. TENTATIVE RRACT REQ UEST: DEVELOPER: ADAM GITTELSONr 272 South Rexford Drive, Anacal Engi- ER : Beverly Hills, California. ENGINE neering Company, 2^Z East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California.~ Subject property is proposed to be subdivided into 33 R-1 zoned lots. Subject petitions and tract were continued from the February 23, 1972, meei•ing for the submission of revised plans and from the meeting of March 6, 1972, to allow time for the Commission to further study front setbacks requested by the petitioner. The Commission Secretary advised the Chairman that the Commission had closed the public hearing on March 6, 1972, and continued subject petitions and tract in order tihat the Commission might visit similar single-family developments having 20-foot front setbacks adjacent to garages and for the pet3tioner to possibly submit alternate wall treatment plans for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Seymour noted that since the petitioner's representative had stated his willingness to do some work on the wall treatmen~~ he would be interested in viewing the ~utcome. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer of the project and representing the petitionar, appeared before the Commission and presented drawings of the type of wall treatmer.t that could be deceloped on the propexty, noting it would be similar to that being built on the S& S development at Impexial Highway and the Riverside Freeway; and that there would be insets instead of.a flat wall. The Commic;sion then reviewed drawings and pictures presented of the referenced wall, after which Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the distance between each tree Y.hat was proposed to be planted. Mr. Queyrel replied that the picture indicated trees at 48-foot centers, however, these could be planted at 24-foot centers if the Commission so desired, and that the wall would have a 2-inch inset, revealed pilastex instead of a straight wall. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-112 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-31, VARIANCE NO. 2333~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7754 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that inasmuch as the trees would be in the City's right-of-way, had there been any specific requests from the Parkway Superin- tender.t as to spacing between trees since the plan presented by the engineer proposed trees at 48-foot centers. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the Superintend- ent of Parkway Maintenance would require trees at a minimum of 40-foot spacing. Commissioner Herbst then observed that since this would be an S-foot wall, the Commission shauld consider the petitioner's willingness to place these trees at 24-foot centers. Commissioner Seymour further noted that at the last presentation the engineer had indicated the proposed wall would be stepped up and asked that this be explained. Mr. Queyrel noted that the wall would be 4 feet high for the first 25 feet from Sunkist Street, then 6 feet for tne next 25 feet, with the balance of the wall being 8 feet high. Commissioner Herbst then inquired as to the type of treatment =or the wall that was proposed where homes would be facing this 8-foot wall,'since this could screen some of the sunlight from these homess whereupon Mr. Queyrel stated that there would be none~facing this wall, only that these homes' rear yards would be facing the wall. Commissioner Rowland noted that the last thing he wanted to see was for the Planning Com:~ission to become involved in the development standards for eyery design characteristic that was presented to the Co~r:iission, howevez, in this particular instance, it was a unique situation because the 8-foot wall was 25$ greater than Code permitted, and the length of the wall was consi3erable, therefore, this might qualify the Commission's entering into design develupment standards, but he felt that the wall proposed was not the most desirable; that it might be better than a perfor.ated block wall, and it might fit the purpose for which it was intended, but it did not establish any environmental relation- ship to the planting areas, one should reinforce the other; and that he had dis- cussed the wall problem with the agent for the petitioner and had made several suggestions as to what would be preferred to that proposed, however, t~e wall as proposed was not as skillfully done as he wou].d like to see it. Commissioner Seymour concurred with Commissioner Rowland, but stated he was not one to decide what was ugly or beautiful; that his primary concern was the setback waiver requested, and at the last hearing the Commission discussed visiting other tracts constxucCedby the developer where waivers of tiie front setback were approved, however, when one compared the development on Whidby Lane to the proposed development, there was considerable difference because the Whidby Lane tract had only 8 homes of the 39 in which the setback waiver was granted, while that before the Commission now proposed 17 of the 33 homes, or 51$, therefore, the.re was no fair comparison, and it was difficult to make said comparison where one tract had only 21+k of the homes with the setback waiver as compared to Sl+t and stated the latter could work as well, however, his inclination aas to hold the line at the minimum 25-foot setback to insure that vehicles did not hang over sidewalks, and if this waiver of the setback was favorably considered, then the Commission should require paneled, vertical- lift doors with a minimum of 22 to 23-foot setbacks since most people then would be able to park their cars, giving them adequate space tc vertically lift the door while still not having the vehicle projecting over the sidewalk. Mr. Queyrel stated he had felt the Commission planned to visit the Whidby Lane tract in order to determine what was prcposed on subject property was acceptable since they would have a 28-foot rear yarfl and 3 feet could be added to the front setback. Commissioner Seymour advised the petitioner that i:a visiting the other develop- ment, he wanted to get a feel of the total environment of the tract, howeves, the comparison cou~d nut be made where only 8 of the 39 homes had a similar setback to that proposed of thr, 17 of the 33 homes. CJ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-113 RECLASSI?ICATION NO. 71-72-31~ VARIANCE NO. 2333, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7754 (Continued) Commissioner Y.aywood noted she, too, had visited this tract and had observed a small £ord parked in one short driveway, which overlapped onto the sidewalk, and if this Y:ad been a larger car, it would have overlapped into the street. Therefore, she felt the Commission should retain the 25-foot setback. Mr. Queyrel then inquired whether or not the Cor..miasion would approve the 20- foct setback if the vertical doors were provided; ~.•hereupon Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether it was that difficult to relocate the garage farther into the lot on the paper plan. Mr. Adam Gittelson, the developer, appeare3 before the Commission and stated it would not be possible to redesign the home or pn~h the garage farther back because a portic.n of the home was behind the garage, therefore, he would appreciate it if the Commission could consider the 23-foot setback, since he felt this would resolve the problem because there were a number of the 23-f.oot setbacks in the old tract, and he could see no problem, but then he did not see many automobiles in the driveways either. Commissioner Kaywood noted that if tlse vehicle she had seen in the driveway had. been a station wagon or a Cadillao, the vehicle would have exEended into the st.reet. Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber at 2:25 p.m. Ccmmissioner Seymour observed that the concept tc have a large rear yard was great, but if the price in exchange was to have an automobile protrude into the ~,urlic right-of-way, then the exchange was not desirable, and then in response to a comment made by Mr. Queyrel, stated that if Code permitted a 20-foot set- back on a cul-de-sac, then this would be permissible, but not as presently proposed on the other lotst and that the petitioner was trying to be creative but did not want to pay the price, therefore, the Commission wanted to see a better design and a proper setback. Commissioner Rowla.nd observed tiiat the Commission was considering a variance on land cse, and if the property ~•Tas overpriced, this did not constitute grounds for a variance or as a determining factor on a piece of ~,ropprtye and that the petitioner did not pro~e any hardship for this property, and there wa~ no evidence of cooperation except that plans approved years ago had a similar ~etback granted. Mr. Queyrel stated that the developer was not concerned abuut tha cost but the appearance of the development. Commissioner Rowland then stated that k.e wanted to see a separation of the vehicular and pedestrian access traffic, and i£ Code were met, this mig`.t mean a little less yield to that which was proposed. Mr. Queyrel t'en stated that they would accept the requirement of paneled vertical doors and take their chances on the appearance of these doors. Commissioner Herbst observed that during the past few years where approval had been given for P.-2-5000 and Rw1-6000 lots, the builders had been constructing homes that were too large for the lots, therefore, the nEed for waivers~ but now that the Commission had viewed these developments after they had been constructe3 and noted the environment created, the developer had created their own problems by having vehicles protruding into sidewalks, therefore, some consideration should be given to smaller homes on these smaller lots; and that plans for, homes could be so designed to have the garage meet Cade sethack requirements, and it was now time for the dev~;.loper to live within tarticularlce in order to provide a better designed home an@ living environment, p Y where vehicles would be protruding into the street - this would create a problem with chfl.dren running into a parked aar or car doors being opened and children running into them. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to tk.e distance between the drive and the 4-foot sidewalYt whereupon OfficF Engineer Jay Titus stated that it was 20 feet to the propLrty line in this instance; that where there was a 64-foot gYOVidinthfor a there would be 12 feet between the curs and the pr~perty line, p 9 4-foot sidewalk and a 7~S-foot parkway. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-114 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-31~ VARIANCE NO. 2333~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OE TRACT N0. 7754 (Continued) -• Commissioner Gauer then stated he woulfl prefer seeing the sidewalk next to the rurb since this would place the parkway into the property area, and it would be maintained with other landscaped areas; and that many people did not main- tain their parkways. Mr. Titus stated there would be another problem, and it would also be a matter of personal preference, but the City was concerned with pedestrian traffic immediately adjacent to a curb since this could interfere with the opening doors of vehicles. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that it would be better to have the side- walks next to the curb to avoid stepping into ivy, rose bushes, or wet grass. Mr. Titus noted that in places where sidewalks were next to the curb, there had been a tendency for children to run into the street, creating pedestrian and vehicular hazards, and then there was also a problem of placement of public utilities if no parkway was required, therefore, the Commission would have to weigh one against the other. Commissioner Kaywood inquired of Mr. Titus whether or not the City planted trees where there was no parkway; whereupon Mr. Titus stated ~hat the Superin- tendent of Parkway Maintenance recommended aqainst planting trees on private property behind the sidewalk because the City would be unable to maintain them. Mr. Queyrel noted that if the trees were planted in the front yard rather than in the parkway, this would save the City thousands of dollars in maintenance, which then would be maintained by the property owners. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-47 and moved for sts passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-31 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-48 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2333, in part, permitting a 22-foot setback instead of the '0-foot setback providedj that the developer construct paneled, vertical-lift garage doors and if said vestical-lift doors were not provided, then the setback should be 25 feet as Code required in order that pedestrian problems of running int~ parked cars might be avoided; and that trees at 24-foot centers be planted adjacent to the 8-foot wall, with additional screen landscaping provided in the parkway between the sidewalk and the wall. Prior to roll call, Commissioner Kaywood requested that the motion be amended t~ require a minimum 23-foot setback to insure that larger vehicles would not protrude over the public right-of-way. Commissioner Rowland requested that the motion be further amended to require that the pro~:~sed 8-foot wall along the north side of Jamison Street and west of the northezly portion of the lots in this tract on Jamison 5treet be ~e- studied by a licensed landscape architect and alternate plans be subrnitted to the Development Services Department staff for review, since that pxoposed by the developer was not acceptable; and that with a little study a more harmonious and acceptable wall with proper landscaping could be provided. Commissioner Seymour accepted said amendments to his motior.. (See Resolution Book) Continued discussion was held by the Commi.ssion regarding the setback, Chairman Farano being of the opinion that this was approval of a minimal deviation, and the Commission was nok solving the problem since what was being talked about was people being capable of ineasuring the closeness of the garage when driving ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-115 FiECLASSIFICATION NG. 71-72-31~ VARIANCE NO. 2333~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7754 (Contin~xed) a car into the drive, and if the Commission was going to solve this, there was only one way, and that was to require a 25-foot setback, or in the event the s?dewalk was placed next to the curb, to allow a 20-foot setback, however, he could see little reason for placing the sidewalk at the curb since there were very few people who would be stepping into the ivy, etc., but there would be many children carelessly running into automobiles parked in the public right- of-way and into the street and into the open automobile doors. Furthermore, he had seen people park their cars 4 to 5 feet from the garage door, and they had no intention of drivinq the car into the garage. Mr. Roberts then requested clarification from the Commission regarding the motion and asked, did the Commission wish to grant waivers 1, 3, and 4, as requested; approve waiver 2 modified by requiring a 23-foot setback between the garage and property line, provided paneled, vertical-lift type doors were constructed as garege doors= require that the wall treatment be re-studied by a licensed landscape architect and altarnatives submitted to the Development Services Department staff for apprc+val prior to issuance of a buildinq permit £or subdivision; that the parkway alonq the north side of Jamison Street be- tween the wall and sidewalk have landscapinq in addition to the trees to be planted at 24-foot centers; and did the Commission propose to have the wall placed in the public right-of-way or private property. Commissioner Seymonr stated that the staff's reading of the motion was corxect. Commissioner Rowland stated that the petitioner stipulated to constructing the wall on private property. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gaupr, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: CJMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTIQ:J CARRIED to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7754, subject to the - following conditions: (1) That the approval ~f Tentative Map of Tract No. 7759 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-31 and Variance No. 2333. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wa].1 shall be constructed on the west property line separating lot Nos. 1 through 5 and Sunkist Street and along the north property line of lot No. l, provided however, that said wall shall be stepped down to a maximum height of 30 inches in the required front yard of said lot No. l. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in Lhe uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subjev-t to the approvaJ. of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (4) The City Council reserves the right to amend or delete the assump- tion of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy chanqes. (5) That all lot~ within this tract shall be served by underground utilitiea. (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (7) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings to Sunkist Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ~ ~ ~ MTNt1TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 7972 72-116 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-31, VARIANCE NO. 2333, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7754 (Continued) (8) Drainage of Tract No. 7754 shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory ~o the City Engineer. (9) Standard 25-foot radius curb returns with 15-foot radius properky line returns shall be built at the intersection of Sunkist Stree! and Jamison Street. (10) Tha~t the 8-foot masonry wall proposed along the north side of Jamison Street shull be constructed on private proaerty (on the R-A parcel north of Jamison Street) as stipulated by the pet .oner. (11) That the parkway along the north side of Jamison Street shall be 8 feet wide. The sidewaZk shall have a minimum width of 5 feet and shall be placed adjacent to the curb. The uncemented portion of the parkway adjacent to the 8-foot masonry wall shall be provided with permanent irrigation facilities and shall be planted with.trees on 24-foot centera'and additional landscaping in the form of shrubs and ground cover. Said la:idscapinq shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent and the Development Services Department. The maintenance of the landscap- ing shall be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. CONDITIONAL USE - READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. MARIO F. AND DIXIE L. SANCHEZ~ PERMIT NO. 1291 511 North Hampton Street, Anaheim, California, OwnersJ requesting permission to ESTABLISri A CHILD DAY CARE NURSERY FOR SIX CHILDREN IN CONJDNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE on property described as: A rect,sngularly-shaped parcel of laad having a frontaqe of approximately 60 feet on the west side of Hampton Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 134 feet, and being located approximately 570 feet south of the centerl.ine o£'Crescent Avenue, and further described as 511 North Hampton Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Chair:r.an Farano inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition, and a showing of hands indicated seven persons present. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location o£ subject propert.y, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a child day care nursery for six or more children in conjunetion with an existinq residence. Mr. McDaniel tk:en -~oted t.hat at the February 23, 1972, Planning Commission meeting this request hac: been cunsidered originally, and it was determined at that meeting the condiLional use permit was not necessary since the petitioner was proposing to babysit five or less cY.ildren, however, subsequent to that meeting, the City Attorney's office determir.ed that the ~:onditional use permit was necessary, therefore, ~+.he petition had been readvert:Lsed at the City's expense to be heard again;;.,that the petitioner proposed +.o provide a babysitting service for up to nine pre-school age children, which would include four children of her own; that the petitioner had constructed a two-stozy room addition. a major portion of which would be utilized for the day care purposes, with space for the parking of two vehicles, two of which would be tandem; and that the petitioner further provided a 60x55-foot fenced yard with ~mple play equipment being provided. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the Anaheim zoning rcde had no provision for development standards for a use such as was proposed, especially as it pertained to parking requir=ments, but it was customary tu require one parking s~all for. each instru..tor, in addition to a ciroular drive or drop-off area on the site, however, the petitioner was_not proposing to employ anyone, thus no instructo~ parking would be rea•~i.red; that the petitioner further stated the parents did not a: ~ve at the same time for pick-up and delivery, anfl from their experience, ~re was ample off-street parkingt that the occupants of the dwelling ~~-~.liz ehe existing garage for automobile park- ing, and the driveway was util z d foz parking by parents of the childrent and that the Commission might consider this use tc+ be appropriate at this locakion since it would appear there would be no adverse effects to the surroundii:g homes. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-117 CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 1291 (Continued) Mrs. Dixie Sanchez, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that she had been licensed by the State of California to take care of five children besides her own; that after she obtained this license, she and her husband had built the second-story addition both with the thought of increasinq the value of their home and paying for it with earnings obtained from the care of chidren; that several women had circulated a petition among the adjoining property owners, who had indicated they were not in opposition to the child day care uper.stion; that her neighbor to the west had objected to her woodpile which she used for her fireplace because the children climbed on top of it; that she had indj.cated to those in opposition that if they would talk with her about their objections, she would be glad to rectify any problems; that people complained that the persons dxiving to her hame were driving in an unsafe manner, but there was nothing she could do to stop this; that if the condi- tional use permit were not granted, it would mean she would have to go to work to pay for the addition; hire a babyaitter for her owr. children, and mothers of children she now took. care of would also have to secure someone else for their children; und that when she had been informed she needed a conditional use permit to operate the child care facility, she immediately applied fcr one, but she fe7.t that since she had been licensed by the State, after a very rigid investigation together with being fingergrinted and chest X-rayed, this was all that was necessary. Furtliermore, the social worker could check on her at any time to ascertain whether she was operating in the manner approved by the State. Mr. Luke Mentser. 510 North Harcourt Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his property was immediately to the west of the petition- er's property; that he was trying to protect the neighborhood and its environ- ment; that he had made considerable improvement to his property, having recently spent $10,000 for improvements and an additiont that the petitioner had added a second story in an area where primarily single-story homes were developedt that the petitioner had been operating this day care center for sever.al years as an illegal operation, and he was opposed to any legalization of an undesirable use; that some of the problems he encountered were the fact that with the second story, his privacy had been invaded; that the woodpile referrpd to was just one of t:he many problems since there was another pile of dirt at the southeast corner of their property, which had been there since the house had been built and kept creeping into his yard as mudr that he had selected his home because he wanted to be where there was a lot of green area, and the golf course represented that; that he wanted peace of mind in his old age, and the screaming and carrying-on by these childzen prohibited that; that they could not enjoy his rear yard because the children kept taunting them from the second-story window and using foul language; that the block wall between the properties was not a common wall, because when he purchased the property, he had asked the petitioners if. they wanted to share in the cost of said wall but had been informed that the chainlink fence was adequate for their purposes, thus he had paid for the cost of building said wall himself, and the wall was located on his property, however, there was a small area bEtween the wall and the chainlink fence which appeared to be a dumping ground for the petitioner's family; and that upon contacting the Police Department, he had been informed there was noth- ing that could be done, it would be a Health Department problem only. In addi- tion, he had been informed that the property owner to the north of the petitioner would be requesting a similar conditional use permit if subject petition were approved; that the use of the proper=y and the disturbances were something to behold; that the number of children would not onxy be those she presently pro- posed but would also include her friends and relatives' children; that he wanted to build a pool in his rear yard, but he did not knocv how he would be able to keen the toys, ba11s, and other debris ~.hrown over the wall frc,~ polluting the pool; that with all the balls and toys thrown over the wall, the trim portion of the wall was becoming ].oosenedt that if subject petition were approved, it would be not only legalizing an existing use, but it would not provide any protection for his health, safety and general welfare or his privacy; that the petitioner was requesting permisaion to operate a business in her home in the middle of all single-family homes; and that although he was in sympathy with working mothers, if the petitioner wanted to operate a business enterprise, then she should be located in the C-1 Zone. Therefore, he was pleading with the Commission to give him the protection afforded other res:a~nts in the ci.ty and requested that subject petition be denied. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAI'r1JING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-11II CONDITIONAL USE PE'_tMIT NO. 1291 (C~.itinued) Mr. David Bergman, 514 Haroourt Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, sta*_ing he represented the other persons in opposition and noted that his property was adjacent to Mr. Mentser's, and then made reference to the petition circulated in the neighborhood, to which the petitioner might have alluded, which was circulated by two persons whoee children were taken care of by the petitioner; that the petition w:s misrepresented, and many persons signed it because they had been informed that onl.y one additional child was being requested, and if subject petition were approved, perhaps the woman living next door would ask for permission to have 20 children plus her friends', her neighbors' and her own children; that he had purchased his home in a sesi- dential area, and although he appreciated that there was a problem of kaking care of children of working mothers, this did not mean adjoi•.ing property owners had to suffer for the gains which Mrs. Sanchez might receive; that he wanted to protect the rear yard envircnment of his home since his fence was considerably lower than his neighbor's and people could see over the fencei that they would be bothered by the children since it was normal not to expect to watch children every minute; that 13 persons who signed the petition in favor stated this was done because it was inferred that only one child was proposed to be babysat; and that he would request that the existing single-family residential environ- ment be retained for the area since he did not want to see anl businesses being conducted in this residential area. Commissionec Allred inquired as to the distance Mr. Bergman's home was from subject property; whereupon Mr. Bergman indicated he lived immediately north- west of subject property. Mrs. Sanchez, in rebuttal, stated that the only illegal thing about her op•:ra- tion was that she did not know a conditional use pez^+j.,t from the City of Anaheim was required, and she thought State approval was sufficient; that there were other two-atory homes in this areat that it was strange with all the horrible things talked about that the opposition did not come to her to voice any com- plaints; that her neighbor would be allowed to have three children in addition to her own two without being required to obtain a conditional use permit; and that if there was any way shE c~uld cooperate with the propert; owners to try to work out these problems, she would be glad to since she, too, was concerned about environment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the amount of supervision that was given the children, in reference to Mr. Mentser's complaint; whereupon Mrs. Sanchez replied that during the winter months they were kept indoors, and she had all types of activities planned for them because she had a play room with every type of toy, a television, and stereo. Commissioner Kaywood noted that perhaps adding 2 feet to the existing wall would be the answer to complaintst whereupon Mrs. Sanchez stated that she would be willing to do this. Commissioner Gauer observed that this couid create a nuisance with both the chainlink fence and a wall since there would be an area where debris could collect, which could not be removed, therefore, he would suggest that the chainlink fence be removed. Commissioner Seymour inqui~ed whether or not the petitioner felt that it was the right of every single-family homeowner to have a day care nurseryj where- upon Mrs. Sanchez replied, yes, that if they were the same as the one she had and the children were treated as she treated the children ehe took care of, because having these children was just an extension of her own family. Commissioner Seymour then inquired how M•rs. Sanchez' care for these childrer: differed from a regular day care nursery; whereupon Mrs. Sanchez stated tha~. her facility was not institutionalizedr but then she did not know what a regular day care center operation was like. Chairman Farano noted that all 24 homes on Y.ar~pton Street could be permitted to have a day rare nursery for five children, and this would mean care for 120 children. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1291 ~Continued) 72-119 Commissioner Allred inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry what consti- tuted being able to take care of five or more children in the home - could this be done legally without a City or State licenset whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that a business license would be needed from the City, just as any other business use of a home, and that represent~d a revenue license but had nothing to do with•zoning. Commissioner Allred then inquired whether or not it was illegal for anyone to take care of five childreni whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that in order to ope•rate a child care center a conditional use permit would have to be approved and a City license obtained. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether it was illegal to have less than five children; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that a business license still would be required. Mrs. Sanchez advised the Commission that ane could not even watch one child without a State of California license because a given amount of play area was required, inves~igation of the character of the person had to be made by the police, etc. Chairman Farano inquired as to the ages of the children being cared forp whereupon Mrs. Sanchez stated that she only cared for pre-school children, and her hours of operation were from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Cor.:missioner Kaywood suggested that perhaps the petitioner could remove her chainlink fence or add to the height of the neighbor's wall since Mrs. Sanchez also had four children. Mr. Lowry stated that the petitioner cou='3 remove this fence, however, to add to the existing wall would mean certain Engineering and Suilding Department rpquirements and whether or not the owner of the adjoining wall would even permit the petitioner to add to his wall was a questions lastly, she could even build a 6-foot wall on her own property. Chairman Farano inquired of Mr. Mentser whether or not he ever made a complaint to the Sanchez family about his problem and the conduct of the business; where- upon Mr. Mentser stated that he had talked with her, but she refused to do any- thing about it. Commissioner Allred then inquired whether or not Mr. Mentser had lodged a complaint with the City at any time about his problems; whereupon Mr. Mentser stated that he had not because he did not know what his rights were concerning this. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not :1r. Mentser would be agreeable to a wall addition; whereupon Mr. M:•ntser stated he would not want an addition to his wall since the wall had been there since 1959, and the wall had faded, and to place this colored block on top would not be desirable.• Furthermore, it would require removal of the special wall treatment which he had on top of the wall, and he did not feel a higher wall would solve the problem because the children threw stones into his yard, struck the patio about 35 feet from the wall, and they had to keep their chairs in front of the patio door in order to prevent possible window glass breakage, therefore, he did not feel the increased height of the wall would stop the existing problem. ;~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-49 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1291 on the basis that granting the petition would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by other single-family residents; tt.at this would be "spot zoning" in the middle of a residential area; and that a commercial intrusion would be harmful to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the neighbors. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoina resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland~ Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-120 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FR~D MILLER, 2109 North Mary Wap, PERMIT NO. 1294 Placentia, California 92670, Ownerj LBONARD SMITH REAL ESTATE, 125 "D" South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE LIQUOR IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT THAT A DWELLING BE USED SY A PROPRIETOR~ MANAGER, OR CUSTODIAN OF A USE PERMITTED IN THIS ZONE~ (2} 3-FOOT LANDSCAPEA STRIP ADJACENT TO A FRONT PROPERTY LINE~ (3) REQUIREMENT TF1AT 2+6 OF ALL PARKING AREAS BE LANDSCAPED, AND (4) REQUIREMENT THAT TREES SHALL BE PLANTED ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property desc•ribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approx~m%.tely 110 feet on the south side of Pall Roa@, having a maximum depth of approximately 430 feet, and being located approximately 343 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2170 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Chairman Faran~~ inquired whether there was anyone in opposition to subject petition and rEeceived no response. Although the'Report to the Commission was not read at public hearing, it is referred to and made part of the file. Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the petiticner presently had a license for on-sale beer and wine, howeves, he was now requesting a liquor license in canjunction with the Italian restaurant; that the restaurant had been at this location since the building had been constructed in 1959, at the time it was under the jurisdiction of the County; that the waivers requested were determined upon filing of the petition; that they had dedicated the necessary footage for widening, but the 3-foot planter area indicated on the plot plan by staff would mean a loss of three parking spaces; that one space had been lost four years ago when the street was widenedj that although 37 parking spaces were required and 38 were shown, if the 3-foot planter area were required in the frunt, then they would be below the Code-required parkingt that the landscaping at the rear o£ the property would appear not to have any particular value since this would pro- pose landscaping adjacent to the apartment development concrete garage walls 10 to 12 feet high abutting to the south; and that the lot was 480 feet deep with a home on the rear portion. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer observed that in reviewing the plans there appeared to be two dining rooms, and one dining room had a bar and inquired when this was built; whEreupon Mr. Smith replied that the bar was presently being installed. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission in the past had required a separa- tion of the bar f.rom the dining area, therefore, since there were 48 chairs and 12 tables, if the petitioner could place a screen between the bar and the dining area, this would then be acceptable. Mr. Smith noted that there were no stools at the bar since they planned to serve all alcoholic beverages at the tablesj whereupon Commissioner Gauer stated that this might be true now, k~ut there was no guarantee that stools would not be placed adjacent to the bar later. Mr. Smith noted that a screen could be placed where Commissioner Gauer suggested, however, they considered this a. service bar, but because of a technicality in the liquor license, even if this were used for serving across the bar as a service area, it was considered a bar. Commissioner Kaywood inquired if the conditional use permit were denied, would this mean the bar would not be permitted; whereupon Mr. Smith replied that the only reason for the conditional use permit was for on-sale liquor since they already had a permit for wine and beer, and that the existing enlargement had been there for three months. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired as to the reason for tlxe grassy area in che rear - was this to be considered part of the parking areat whereupon Mr. Smith replied that a portion of that area would be paved, and that there would be a turn-around area in this parking area. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the petitioner covld stipulate as to the time the house would be removed, since approval of a conditional use permit went with the land, and if the 3-foot landscape strip were required together with the sidewalk, this would eliminate three parkiny spaces. • s t4INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-121 CONDITIONAL USE PERMST NO. 1294 (COntinued) Mr. Smith noted that the home in the rear of the property was in existence ever since this progerty had been zoned commercial and was still being used; that when the property was first purchased the owner of the property had attempted to acquire the adjacent property in order to develop both rear portions of the proPerty, however, the adjacent property was tied up in liti- gation, and he did not know when this home would be removed. Chairman Farano noted that there was no wall between the commercial use and the residential use and inquired if this was being used as a rental, what would happen if there were chidren; wnereupon Mr. Smith replied that only a couple resided in the home and had been there for some time, and this was about a 1000-square foot building. Mr. Smith, in response to questioning by Commissioner Kaywood, sta~ed that the width of the driveway for ingress a:id egress was 15 feet, and although only one-way traffic was indicated, some people appeared to use it as a two-way drive, and that since this had been in existence since 1958 without any problems, he could see no px'oblem in handling the access traffic. Commissioner Herbst stated the house was a nonconforming use, ancl he did not want to legalize it, therefore, he wanted to know the intent of the petitioner. Mr. Smith, in response, stated that although resideraces could be used for commercial purposes, this residence was being used :is a home, and although he had asked the property owner when he anticipated removing the building and developing the rear portion, the owner could not give him an exact date since he wanted to purchase the additional property, therefore, the Commission might wish to place a time limitation on the home since he could not commit the property owner to a given time, and if the home were not removed in the time limitation established by the Commission, the use could be terminated, making the conditional use permit null and void. Office Engineer Jay Titus, in response to a question by Commission~sr Herbst, stated that the 3-foot w±dth being requested by Engineering for street widening would provide for a sidewalk since the street width was already there with the curb constructed. Mr. Smith observed that when the street was widened, the 53-foot half-width was noc available and the sidewalk meandezed; but the sidewalk would now have to be installed, and that since the curb location and the width of the street were at ultimate and the 3 feet being requested by Bngineering would mean removal of the existing parking spaces, this would also mean removal of the blacktop for said landscaping purooses. Commissioner Rowland noted that the house located on the rear portion of the property could be removed, then any necessary parking couZd be provided in the rear, leaving the area in the front open for landscaping, Lhus the peY.itioner could be taking care of some of the loose ends left over on the property when the City inherited this property as it was developed from the County, and then inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether or not the Commission could grant one year for complying with removal of the house and providing the required parking and landscaping. and at the same time allow him to operate with his liquor license. Mr. Lowry stated that the Commission could grant the use for one year subject to review, and if the conditions imposed were not met, then the conditional use permit for the on-sale liquor could be revoked. Chairman Farano then inquired whether or not the Commission could place a condition requiring removal of the residence within one year and subject to meeting Code-required landscaping and parking. Mr. Smith advised the Commission that at such time as the residence was removed they woi~ld submit an application to the Citt for development of the rear po:-tion of the property - then the Commission could require these conditions. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the owner could develop the rear portion in c~nformance with the C-1 Zone requirements s nce it already had said zone without the necessity of appearing before the Plinning Commission. Chairman Farano then inquired whether or not the Commission could establish the one-year time limitation to meet waivers 1-a, b, and d as set forth in the Report to the Commission, but was there any way this could be accomplished with- out jeopardizing the petitioner's chances to obtain his liquor license since he was not familiar with the zequirements of the ABC. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 ~2'12Z CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1294 (Continued) Mr. Lowry then asked the agent whetY~er or not he could stipulate that the reaidence would be removed within one year; whereupon Mr. Smith stated that he could i~ot do this since the petitioner did not know when development would occur, said development being dependent upon the acquisition of the adjoining property. Commissioner Farano then inquired whether the petitioner could stipulate to providing thc: front landscaping within 15 months; wheseupon Mr. Smith so stipulated. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that requiring the 3-foot strip of landscaping would practically force the petitioner to lose some of the required parking, a.nd to require customers to park to the rear when only a 15-foot alley was provided could compound the problem because the major portion of the park- ing would be tu the rear. Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner would be limited in what could be developed at the rear because of this acaess problem, and that there was a combination of circumstances involved, however, the Commission was not correct- ing an existing situation nor making it worse. Commissioner Kaywood was o£ the opinion that the situation was made worse by granting on-sale liquor while still not resolving the ingress-egress problem where only a 15-foot accessway existed to the rear parking area~~~ ''^a ~~-rf e~e't-~f-~ efi 3a~:_.,~-rr~s.~..^ r Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-50 ancl moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1294 for the use only for a year with the option to request and receive approval for renewal for on-sale liquor, waiving the reaeirement of landscaping adjacent to the residen- tial use to the rear of the pr~yarty and requiring that the existing residence on the rear of the property be r.emove3 in one year and requiring parking and front setback landscaping and parking area landscaping be provided within 15 months, as stipulated by the oetii:ioner. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call, in response to questions by the Commission, Commissioner Herbst noted that perhaps the existing reside:~ce could be remodeled for commer- cial purposes, ::herefore, there was no rEason to require reviewing the petition in one year, and the building was Lo be removed in one year if. it was continued to be used for residential purposes since Mr. Lowry had :atated the Commission could not force removal o£ the house under this conditional use permit; where- upon Mr. Lowry stated this was his reason for suggesting that the Commission review the petition in one year to determine what the petitioner pl~.nned to do with the house. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts then inquircc v;hether it was the Commission's intent to deny 1-b and 1-d and grant 1-a, ailowing 15 months for the completion of the landscaping requirement and house removal.. Chairman Farano noted that the action was equivalent to denial of waivers 1-a, 1-b, and 1-d since the Commission was requiring that these be met within a time limitation. On roll call the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NQES: CODSMISSiOD?ERS: Kaywood. ABSENP: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute rpcess at 4:00 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting a~ 4:10 p.m., all Commissioners being present. ~ ~ MINUTSS, CITY PLrNNING COMMZSSION, March 20, 1972 72-123 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT MILLER. P. O. Hox 731, Long Beach, PERMIT NO. 1295 California 90801, Owner; WARMINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., 300 North Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Californ?a 52660, TENTATIVE MAP OF Agent; requeating permission to CONSTRUCT A 111-UNIT TRACT NO. 5162~ PLRNNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT V`_T"'H i+IAIVERS "'r ~1) REQUIRE- REVISION N0. 4 MENT THAT A LOT AHUT A PUBLIC STRi.'.ET, (2) MININIUM BUI:;nING SITE AREA~ (3) MINIMU:d BUILDING SiTE WIDTH, (4) MINIMTlM LANDSCAPED BUILDIT:G ~BTBACK~ ('~) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE7.WEEN BUILDINGS, (6) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MA30NRY WAL'~ IN F'RONT SETBAC:K AREA, AND (7) 6-FOOT HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL REQUIREMENT T.IHERF PROPERTY ABUT:: SINGLE•-F'AMZLY ZONE on property described as: An irregularly-sh~ne2 parcel ~f lanu consisting of approximately 12 acrc•;, having a frontage of approximately 469 feet on the north side of Ball Road, haviag a maximum depth of approximately 1,268 feet, and being located approximately 200 feet east of the centex'i:~.e of Brookhurst Street. Property presently classif.ied R-3; MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 2Ci??. TENTA:IVE TRACT REQUESi: DEVELOPER: WARF!INCPON C•)NSTRU~TION CO., 300 N~..t,h Newport Soule.•ard, Newpor.t Beach, Cal~fornia 92660. ENGINEr'.R: Southwest En,ineerinq, 747 West Katell.a Avenue, orange, Ca':_Po•rnia 92567; property cunsist?:ig of approximately li ~cres on t.h<: aorth si3e uf Bai3 Road, 200 £ee+ east o± Brookl:us~t 'treet is propos~~ for subdivisio~~ in~o J.12 a-3 zoned lots. Chairman Farano inquired whether anyone was pre~ent in opposition and noted that three persons indicated their opposition while three others indi:;ated they were interest.ed in knowing more ~bout the proposal. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDan':el reviewed the locarion of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous r.cr.ing action o• the property, and the proposal to construct a 111-unit planned residential develop- ment consisting of one and two stories; said development not to be the tppe where only air space was sold to individuals and all improvements and gro::;~~i held under common ownership, instead e:.ch of the units would be situated on a postage-stamp lot which would be sold alor_g with the dwelling unit and garage; that the 112th lot wouln be open space recreation area and driveways that ~ would be held in common by •'_he individuals who owne3 each lot; that because of the size o£ the lo*.s, each lot would not have frontage on a public street, and the proposed building site area and building site width would not meet the standards established in the zoning brdinance; that tha applicant was proposing two covered spaces per unit, or 222 stalls, and ~5 open stal'-a for a total of 297 parking stalls in the project; that in a~idition to the large open green areas in and around all of the dwe~.liny ur..its, a major recreati.on center was proposed near the Ba:l Rozd. irontai•e; that the density of the proposed develop- ment was approximately 10.4 dwelli.~.R ~:ns.:G c>er net acre and tlie coverage was approximately 33~; and that each d~relling would have spproximately 4159 square feet of net land area. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that tne Anah~im GEneral fl~in designated this area as being appropriate for ~~edium-den~ity reside.itial devel- opment, and the 10 units per net acre f:ll withi~ *he medium-densit;~ zesidential designation; that waivers 1, 2, and 7 were r~~que: :.s !hat were ger~erzilly atiached to developments of this type and had been granted on :;imilar pzoi~cts in the past, therefore, the Commission might wish to ~onsidEr waiver of the minimum building site area and minimum buildin~ site ws.dth ac.d the requirement that a lot abut a public street as an appropriate request a~ in previous similar proposa].s; that the wz.iver of the minimum flistance between k+uildings where it was not excessive in R-3 projects in the past had been approved by the Commis- sion; that the request for waiver of the 6-foot high masonry wall separating the proposal and the single-family residential zone to the east was requested because one existing single-family residential lot sided onto the proposaZ. and the side-on lot was ar.ross the existing alley whicli tke developer proposed to utilize, therafore, the Commission might wish to consi~er t}ie wai~ construc•- tion as being inappropriate in this instance since it would render the a:.l?y unusable to the developer; that the remaining two waivers, thz..t of the 20-Fout landscaping requirement along Ball Road and the maximum height of a w.ll in the front setback, were being requested because the applicant ~,ras p.ropusing to locate a drivewz: within the required setback along Ball Rr~ad aud wis also proposing a 6-foot high wall on the front property line in this aret to Rcreen the driveway and the garages from Ball Road, and while the waiver in this area might be appropriate to screen the parking area and to allow full development ^ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-524 COriD2TI0NAL USE PERMIT NO. 12~ i AND TENTATIVE .MAP OF TP.ACT N0. 5162 ~'.7'c7PTS:p;i NO. 4 (Continued) __ of the property, the Commisri? nn r.~' gn ~ wish t.o cc~asider requiring the wall to be set back a reasonable di~:.~ce ar~: landscaping planted between the wall and the sidewalk, thixs breaking ~~;. :'~z scerile eifect of the cencrete wall without planting. In r.cz,clusion, Mr. M~.uar:ie? nateQ that the applicant had been advised cf the :~'_anning Commisaion anr7 ::,`.ty Council tulicy of reguiring a 20-f~o: wide land- scape buffer ai'_jacent t.~, ';Z-1 properties, bnt h..-: had chosen not to iacarporatc this into his plan, an~i ~.he apolicant sliould be further advised that the Building Department had i.ndicated ths*_ the propFl•:ty lines for the postage- stamp lots mv.at be 3 feet from anp building wail that contained op_:iings. Mr. Ed Warmi~~7ton, r~~~resenting the developer, appeared hetn~•e t'ha i:~~:~mis~ioa and noted thi~ wa5 <•r.e fourth ti~ne sub~:s,.t propcrty had bc+c:+ ~.resented Lo the Commissior. since 1?.SY, at which tim~ a freeze occurred an apartmea~. devel.op- ment, anc this was the first project ~a which they hdd a loan comm~tment; that statements made in the Report to the Commiss~.~n were factual; Lt,at tb.e density ~~roposed war, one-half that 9er.sity allov;ed by the zcne if dev.>.loFed ~oith apartments j ar.d th,3t they agreed to meet a~ 1 staff-rec~i,~raended cot.ditions. ~1rs: David ~~azdoii, 2132 Minerva Aven~ie; ~rNear°~ before the Commission an.3 s~tated that a=:-er naving v~ewed the ksl~ns that were presented w:.th the prcipc:sed townhouses, ic a.p~eared there was a green belt ~.rea at tne ba.se of Minerva Avenue; that ain~~e Code required extending the wal!. northerly of her neiqhbor's property, she wr,uld prefer to look at the green area than viewing one oi• her favorite markt'.s, which she had been viewing for fonrteen yeass; that she was concerned abo:~t the 6-foot m~sonry wall along Crone ~venze not being placed there; that for a numbc~': cf years they had lived adjacent to apartments and found nothi.ng wrong s~n:.~ they had gsxages 22 feet irom their fenct-, and the living en~•ironment was cceptable; :xno that all she would ba i^ter~:sted i-~ in this development wauld .;:e 3eleting •th~:. req~iired wall so that ,a pleasant vie could be. seen. Mr. Ant.hony i~~i., 2145 Juno AvCnue, aFg~eared before thc: Commissi.e:. and stated *_hat hie Y:opertv ~:as across the alle~' from the proposed 8evela2ment; that his ho.Re was t`:~ onl~/ tne adjacent to the a:~.tey outside oE the apartments; that his, mz~in ^or~.aerv w?.~ the possible incr::a5= in traffir flow through the alley since he ha~3 co:~siderable trouble wit:h traffic in tne area when he attempted to le.sve hi.s garage due to the 10-f~~ot width of tbe alley; that the alley had a dra~n i.:i the centex, which was rarely amptyj that or.e e° ~nt sports young drive~~s had was to drive through the alley at 35 to 40 niles per hour and then slam cn the brakes ta turn into another stseet; anii i.!~at ic. appeared to be unsafe to cry to dri_ve out into the alley for fe,ar oi beinu killed cr childran being injured. The Commission noted that the alle• wc±uld be t:idei;ec: to 3C feet, and no garRges ' were proposed to exit to the alley, however, there were scme open parking spaces, ~ being opposite Mr. Lopi's property or cpposite Juno Avenue, wiiich would appear to be gue~t parking; and that there was considerable landscaping adjacent to this area. Commi~3ioner Herb~t noted that since su~ject property had R-3 ~uning on it, under the zoning the petitioner could dev~top up to 36 units per acre, while *.hat being proposed was slightly over 10 ~anits per acre. Commissioner Seymour :ioted thac this was a very important poii~t to consiier, but he was also concerned with th~a alley. Mr. '.opi advised the C~mmisG~~;i that tY.e alley was used as a short-cut into the neighbonnood due to ;:ie limited access, however, if the alley were widf~ned, this cauld make for a safer area, but it could alsc increase the traffic, and then :nquireJ v:hether or not the residents of the proposed complex would be drio'ing 3own tne alley anA exiting to Minerva A~-enue. ~:r. se~~mour noted for the develoAer the alley being discusszd and that Mr. Lopi's property was a triplex. ~ ~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-125 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 12y5 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 5162~ REVISION NO. 4 (ContinueA) Mr. Heinrich Kneubuhl, 835 South Valley Street, apneared before the Commission and noted that all of the residents in the area were interested in seeing subject proper`y developed as proposed, but there were several i~ems of concern, parL•iculasly with residents adjacent *_o the property on the we:.c side of Valley Street where the grade of the property was 3 feet higher than the homes, and inquired wl~ether or not the petitioner proposed to extend the wall along the east side of the property line or the west side of the residential uses since Code required said wall, therefore, they wanted the Commission to take i.~to consideration both the grade level and the height of the building within 150 feet of R-1 so that two-story would not be permitted within 150 feet. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted there was only one lot where r.o wall was proposed along the east side of subject property adjacent to R-1, and that was 1ot 10, or 2140 West Minerva Avenue. Mr. Kneubuhl noted that in viewing the plans there was a variance of 5 to 10 feet from one corner of his lot to the north property line as it pertained to the adjoining parkway. Mr. LaMOnt Seifert, 2152 Crone Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted his property was immediately to the north and abutting subject property; tha~ he was in general agreement with the proposed ~,mQxovemeat for the property, l~ut there were several things he wished to have considered, aiid this would include the feelings of the adjoining property owners on Crone A~enue, namely, that mo~t of the homes had swim:~ina gaols in their rear yards and they used their rear yards for living. howaver, this could be disturbed with the private accessway being p.roposed immediately adjacent to che wall and with tkye possi- bi~.ity of the people climbtng said fence to enter their propErties, therefore, he would request that a 6-foot masonry wall be required on the north property line :ts a buffer wall since, as he could recall, this was not required o£ the R-3 zuned lots. Commissioner Herbst noted that the density would not be the same as for regular i?-3, and the d::v?loper was proposing a 5-foot strip of landscaping adjacent to the wall. Mr. Seifert stated that there c:ould be pro~lems with the private accessway, particularly with people backing out of their garages, therefore, who would be responsible for maintaining the wall, partic•~larly because these units were being sold or, en ind'.vidual basis - would there be any special homeowners group that would 3ssure that thf: woil would 'ae the responsibility of the owne;:s of the units? I'urthermore; it was his opinion that there should be a minimum 20-foot lannscape buffer strip betv~e~n the R-1 and tl:e R-3 because the residents of thes.-~~ units could back out of their garages and hit the wall sinae only 5 feet of ~an.dscaping was pro~osed; and that tYiere would be no supervision of the privace drivz - anyone r;.uld d^ive through tne development since the City did not mair_tuin a private drive, th?re£o_,., `.here could be a debris problem when this wasnat maintainec. Furthermore, ~hcre was tne possibility of children climbing the fence. Mz. Wa.rmington, in ral~ut`al, stated that the wa7.1 adjacent to the one R-1 lot on Minerva Avenue wa~ deleted at the suggest.ion uf staff in order that they could utilize the alley from M~nerva Avec:ue; as to two-story construction, they would abide by ~he requized '150-~oot, one-sta;~y height limitation; and that he did not feel there wou~i:~r_ any probJ.em as presented by Mr. Seifert since they had devr,loped ~everal cther similar projects ai~3 no such problem had occurred at these project~. iyr, ~I:~rmingt~n, ~n response to Commission qu:~cioning, stated that they proposed sreas varying in 3epth for planting of larger trees and were desired to break up the o*:operty line's appearance. Commissioner Rcwlan3 inquired whether or not the developer had met with adjoin- ing property owners since there appeared to Le some confusion and numerous qucstions asked wh`_ch should have been taken care of by the devel.oper at a meetin~ with adjoi~ing property owners. ~ 1"1 ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20. 1972 72-126 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1295 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 5162, REVISION N0. 4 (Continued) Mr. Warmington replied negatively, stating that sirce they were proposing a density of one-half o£ that previously approved, there would be no opposition. Comsissioner Rowlanz noted that althouqh he felt this was one of the best p,:ojects ever presented to the Commission, as a bu5iness venture the developer should have ~aet with the adjoining property owners to avoid all the quPStions beinq presented at public hearing. C„mmissioaer Se~+mour inquired as to the wall proposed along Ball Road - couldn't it be set back and landscape treatment placed between the sidewalk and the wall? Mr. Warmington presented a colored rendering sttowin3 what was ps'oposed for that area and stared tha.t there would be reveals ir. the wa'l1 and planted trees in the insets. Commissioner Seymour inqu3.red as to the depths of the insets; whereupon Mr. Warmington stated that they had no dimension for that area, but there would be planting in the front of the w~ll in additicn to the driveway lane, and r.hat the wsll would be set in where the entrance was located on Ball Road. Cummissioner Seymour tkien inquired as to the grade proposed for this development since the opposition indicated subject property grade was 3 feet above the adjoining property to the east and north - did the petitioner plan to develop on this grade as it presently existed? Mr. Dave Woods, 747 West Katella Avenue, Orange, representing the engineer, appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that they had not determined the exact grade, but it would be lower than the property to the east and north of the alleys; that people had disposed of considi~rable amounts of dirt on the property, however, they proposed to extend the private alley, therefore, they would need this dirt for both alley and the various green areas which they pioPosed, therefore, he felt the proposed develapment would be lower than the adjoining properties. Mr. Lopi inquired of the Commiss:on whether or not it wo.•,ld be possible to extend Minerva Avenue to Brook:lurst Street since thi~ aould funnel more people from this entire area to Brookhurst Street. The Commission advised Mr. Lopi that to extend the street the property would have to be purchased rrom the petitioner, then there were still commercial us~s along the east side of Brookhurst Street that might be require~d to be moved i~i order to extend the street, tharefore, it would appear to be i~zpracti~al. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-51 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Per~it No. 1295, subject to findings and conditions, amending Condition Ne. 17 to require that a 6-foot masonry wall as proposed on Exhibit 1-A may be relocated so as to provide an average of 5 feet of landscaping between the wsll and the south property line, as stipulated by the petltioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote.: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, H.erbst,,Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONiRS: None. ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5162, Revi~ion No. 4, subject to the following conditions: ..~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 ~Z'12~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1295 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 5162~ REVISZON NO. 4 (Continued) (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5162, Revision No. 4, is granted subject to the approval of Condi_ional Use Permit No. 1295. (2) That • ould this aubdivision be developed as more than one subdi.ision, eac.h subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form~.for approval. (3) ~hat all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Oranqe Countp Recorder. (5) That the covenants, conditions, snd restrictions shall be sub- m~.tted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be reourded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the Citp Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (7) That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisEactory to the City Engineer. (8) That the owners of subject property shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 10 feet in width on the west side of the existing allex from Ball Road *o Minerva Avenue for alley purposes. • s MID'UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 ~2'128 CONDITIONAL USE - PUSLIC HEARING. BROTHERS INVESTMENT COMPANY, 710 West I PERMIT N0. 1296 Yinehurst Avenue, La Habr~, California 90631, Owner; ' JOHN E. EDMINSTON, Colon?_al Bible Church, 1916 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Californ'_a 92804, Agent; requesting permis- sion to ESTABLISH A CHURCH on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 470 feet on the west side of Cerro Vista Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 500 feet, and being located approximately 408 feet south of the centerline of 3anta Ana Canyon Road. Property presently classified R-E, RESIDENTI.AL ESTATE, ZONE. Chairman Farano inauired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and a showing of hands indicated six persons present in opposition. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewci the location of subject property, uses established in clo~e proximity, existing zoning of the property, and the proposal to construct a church in at least two -~hases, the £irst phase to be the construction of a 42x80-foot chapel and provision of 56 paved parking stalls and two paved driveways from Cerro Vista Way. The remaining structures to be built i.n the future would include a 76x40-foot educational building, a 60x90-foot youth building, a 45x120-foot education building, and a 90x180-foot sanctuary; that the 90x180-FOOt future sanctuary would ultimately require 80 parking stalls; and that there was no indication on the submitted plans that these stalls cocld be provided. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the Anaheim General Plan designaced the area in question as being appropriate for low density residential development; that the existing zoning on the property (R-Ei has a minimum lot size of one acre and would implemen~ the General Plan designation, however, it should be pointed out that there is no specific General Plan designation that would accommodate a church, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider the site design in this case since the property was rolling terrain and it was di£ficult to visualize the layout as submitted. Furthermore, it was difficult to visualize the expansion of the parking area to accommodate a minimum of. 80 stalls based on the existing terrain and vegetation, and while this application might be appropriate for the first phase, namely, the chapel and the initial parking, the Commission might wish to request the applicant to give further consideration to ultimate development of the property. Mr. Lloyd Haglund, 2725 North Glenwood, Santa Ana, Secretary-Treasurer of the church, appeared before the Commission and noted that it was his feeling that it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to follow through on the master plan for the City of Anaheim; that the press had indicated several months ago that a three million do.llar commercial venture was proposed in the canyon; that the Scenic Corridor 2one would require maintaining the scenic beauty of the canyon; that the reason he felt this petition should be suppor~.ed was because he was just as concerned with tb.e aesthetics of the property in the area which should be maintained; that the church council was as much concerned about this also; that when they made a survey of the area, he had met with many of the property owners in the area around the location of the proposed church, and he knew what pride oi ownership was for the people in this area ky resisting any high density because of its ef£ect upon the environment; that as far as the proposed construction was concerned, they wer.e anxious to meet any conditions that would be associated with their petition to develop a church in the area; that a church was more cur.ducive to the area since it would be more in harmony with the area; that the church they proposed would be of early American style and ~vould be great'Ly enhanced with landscaping as part of the overall plan; that if a church were to be considered ir. `he ~ame category as a commercial venture, they would not have invested thousands of dollars on drawings to present the petition; that they proposed to develop a church in keeping with the area, which would have a low silhouette, and he could not see anything that would not be advantageous to the area with this facility. Furthermore, the chairman of the building committee would present more particulars as to the church construction and parking facilities as it pertained to the adjacent property owner to the south. Mr. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, appeared before the Commission, representing the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association in opposition to the proposed development, noting that one of the persons present in opposition planned to build across the street, and he, too. wanted to state something; ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNIN~ COMMZSSION, March 20, 1972 ~2'129 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1296 (Continued) that it was difficult to present opposition to building a church, but t'_°.e homeowners in the area did have some concern about it, namely, 1) whether or not this particular development would be in the best interests £or the area and the immediate impact of tne development and 2) philosophically, it was not desirable to have non-re~si,,,d~e~ al uses in a residential area; that Peralta 1~i1.1s was the only smal7~'~~sEates ~area in Anaheim, and there was only one other i.:: Orange County - an area that was relatively small and comprised o£ 335 acres, a>~~: removal of any acreage for non-residential purposes, whether a church or commercial, re~luced this area that much more from this limited type of develop- ment which a city like Anaheim should have as an option to its residents; that the immediate impact to the area was of great concern since this was a semi- rural area with many households having farm animals, children riding their ponies and horsesj that there were no curbs, gu~ters, or sidewalks and represented a typical rural street; and that some children even brought their sheep along on leashes. Furthermore, the residents of this area were concerned with the peak load traffic into this area, which could be a hazard to their children, particuarly since access was proposed on Cerro Vista Wa.y an3 Drive; that since there was access proposed, he would imagine the City w..uid require that the street be widened with curbs and gutters installed according to most develop- ments of this nature in order to provide adequate traffic control; that this type of develupment would be inimical to the surroundings and environment of the area; that if the street were required to be widened, this could mean the removal of trees, and the City Council, when the residents petitioned to aanex to the City of Anaheim, supported the residents' desire to retain this area for residential purposes without the usual subdivision-type streets, etc.; that City Council Policy No. 207 did not require street improvement, storm drains, street lights as a condition of approval of a parcel map or residential use; and that the policy also stated the intent to maintain the rural-type atmosphere. In addition, Peralta Hills Drive sloped gradually at the beginn?ng and more rapidly toward the Nohl Ranch area, and most people built on their lots for a view to the north and the mountains, thus there was considerable concern that a non-residential, large structure constructed into this area would have a detrimental impact to this view to the north, and this was the reason to maintain the environment of the area. Mr. Krueger, in stating their second concern, noted that since a church was considered more a commercial development, the residents of the area were con- cerned with the non-residential use which could be establishing a precedent for non-residential uses. For instance, just a month ago he had a subdivider who had purchased eight acres on Peralta Hills Drive ask him what hie chances were for rezoning of this property for commercial purposes, and he did not encourage him along that vein of thought. This interest always existed in the back of developer:' minds once they saw intrusion of this type of development in a residential area and felt they could ask for similar requests, and they would hate to see the floodgates open up for variances for other uses in the area, therefore, for the best interests of the area, the residents ~anted to retain the residential character of the area. Mr. Richard Herrmann, owner of the property immediately adjacent on Cerro Vista Way, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he concurred in the statements made by Mr. Krueger and requested every bit of help the Commis- sion could give him in retaining the residential character uf the area. In rebuttal, Mr. Haglund stated he wanted to emphasize the aesthetic value of I the area since it was their primary purpose to retain this aesthetic appearance, but he could not unders ,.>.n; *_hp residents' apprehension; that one question raised regarding the po ::ibility of a high-rise building being constructed on the church site - he would like to aseure the residents that the architect had designed the initial unit because of the slope of the property so that it would not interfere with the view of the property owners to the south; that he could not see any other use for the property since most people wanted to get away from the noise and odors of the freeway, and the buffer road was not conducive to building a large estate-size home on the propertys that in past contact with the property owner~ in the area, he could appreciate their concern with the aestheta.c values sinc~ he came from the °tate of Washington where they tried to remove the least amount of trees possible in any development; that the County found it necessary in the Irvine area to open up a controlled area; that the City of Anaheim also opened up the scenic corridor, retaining this ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-130 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1296 (Continued) area for bridal paths and estate-type homes, and a church site would do more to retain this rather than having a more intense use come in later; that he felt there was a need for other churches in the area since the nearest one was at Lincoln and Tustin Hvenues; and that to deny the church the use of their property for church purposes, on the basis of the opinions presented that this would open up the gates for future non-residential uses, appeared to be unreasonable. THE HEARZNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred observed that the plans iadicated future education build- ings, which would mean that eventually they planned to have a private day school, and inquired if this were so; whereupon Mr. Aaglund stated they did not plan to have a parochial school, and the education buildings were for Sunday school use and future youth education, and instead of stating Sunday school, it was suggested educational buildings be indicated. Chairman Farano noted that the petitioners had indicated the use of these buildings would not be for a parochial school per se, and then inquired as to the type of youth activities proposed for the youth buildings indicated on the plans, since the Commission needed to know what was actually being planned because of past unpleasant experience where a church at the corner of Nohl Ranch and Nohl Canyon Roads originally had education buildings presented before the Commission and assumed the same indication on the plar,s that these would be for Sunday school only, but the church representative later came in and asked for permission to establish a regular private schoal under the same conditional use permit, therefore, what would be the ages of the children in the youth group- would this be similar to the activity established at MelodylandZ Mr. Haglund stated that they had discussed the future education building, but they did not plan to bootleq a private school without Commission approval. CY,airman Farano stateu the Commission did not intend ta infer that the school was planned, but since there were several buildings under "youth education", what type of programs were planned; whereupon Mr. Haglund replied that they could delete reference to the buildings as educational centers - these would be for Sunday school classes for small children to adults; that they did not intend to have a school that Nould increase the traffic flow, particularly at this time; that future plans for the site, if the church requested this for a school, would mean they would appear before the Planning Commission at a public hearing requesting this use. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that the petitioner would have: to present more specific and definite plans, together with graphic infor:iation of what was proposed. Furthermore, the representative had not answered any question which staff had presented; that the Commission was concerned in many ways since the project did not seem to fit the site; that there was no possi- bility that the traffic flow and number of parking spaces could be provided for; that no landscaping was shown; that the petitioner had indicated that he spent considerable time and money on the plans for approval, which he could appreciate, but the petitioner had not presented anythi,ng concrete so far, and if the petitioner was serious about developing this property for church purposes, the Commission could grant a sixty-day extension of time for the petitioners to study their problems so that the Commicsion could understand what the petitioner was really planning, and if he were required to vote on these plans presented, he would have to vote "no" simply because there was insufficient information on which to base a decision. Commissioner Allred noted that the Commission had presented some of the problems which the petitioner had to face before consideration could be given by the Commission, namely, sufticient parking, good traffic circulation, uee of the education buildings and youth buildings, which should be spelled out as to their actual use, therefore, it would appear that the petitioner needed more time to revise the plans. ~ ~ 0 MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-131 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1296 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland noted that there was insufficient information for the development of this property, and before the petitiuner came again before the Commission, he should present the revised plans to the property owners in the area for their consideration. Commissioner Allred noted that he was not opposed to private school education, but in this particular location he would have to vote "no" primarily because the Commission has had unpleasant experience in this general area with another church in the past. Mr. Haglund noted that staff had discussed this problem with them, however, he had indicated that the church did not want to spend an excessive amount of money on plans until the use was approved. Commissioner Seymour noted that none of the Commission nor anyone present in the Council Chamber was opposed to churches, however, he felt the Commission's concern was not so much with what was being proposed this date, but if the church was successful, what did they propose in the future? Thus, the Commis- sion was quite concerned with the growth now rather than later when the church would come in and request establishment of a private school on a five-day-a- week basis because of the growth of the church, claiming that they wanted to locate in this area because they already had the church established and to move would be a hardship. Therefore, what the Commission was desirous of having was something that would indicate actually what was proposed for the present and the future. Commissioner Gauer noted that when the MormoN Church was considered at Westmont Drive and Loara Street a number of years ago, the entire Council chamber was filled with people in opposition, and if the Commission had listened to the homeowners at that time, a church would not have been built, and from present indications it has not created a hardship on the residents in the area. Commissioner Herbst noted that he wanted to know more about how the church intended to handle the growth of the church on the property since they could provide only 58 parking stalls, much less that required for the ultimate c'iui^.h sanctuary, and when one considered growth of churches, those churches in the downtown area were now moving out into other areas because of the dire need for vehicular parking; that even the church that was located on Romneya Drive off the freeway had to move because their growth was so fast and because of the numerous complaints of neighborsj that this parcel, because of the terrain, would be somewhat locked in, therefore, how did the petitioner plan to cope with growth, even though cars might park along the ~treet - this was something the Commission did not want. Mr. Haglund replied that they wanted the present chapel to be turned into a country-type wedding chapel, and that he had asked at the outset to permit the architect to answer the questions on development plans if the Commission still had some. Chairman Farano then stated that if the Commission so desired to hear from the architect, he would give him an opportunity, but he was not sure from what was presented to the Commission whether the Commission would gain anything from his presentation; that the petitioner had been given a lot of food for thought, and if he could bring in more de£initive plans, the Commission would reopen the hearing so that the opposition could speak to convey their opinions to the Commission. Mr. Don Forbes, arr.hitect, 10541 Ritter Street, Cypress, appeared before the Commission and noted that from questions asked about the building, in order to give a general idea, one of the buildings would be a gymnasium not unlike those high schools used, but would probably be similar; that the theme proposed would be colonial; that some of the trees would have to be removed for ingress and egress, however, they planned to plant many more than those taken out; that in the center of the project there was proposed to be a garden court, and if the Commission so desired to have the education buildings designated as Sunday school buildings, this would be done. ~ ~ t9ZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-132 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1296 (Continued) Chairman Farano interrupted by stating that the more definitive information the petitoner submitted to the Commission far their consideration, the better it would be for the petitioner. Mr. Forbes then inquired as to the amount of detail the Commission wanted for the futuze buildings; whereupon Chairman Farano stated that the Commission wanted a general idea of the appearance, size, type of accommodations, and load capacity for the different types of gatherings so that the Commission could formulate an idea as to the amount of parkinq and load factors on streets this would entail. Commissioner Allred requested that site elevations be submitted due to the terrain of the property so that the view of the surrounding residents would not be blocked by any unusuaJ. structure, and concluded by stating that there was hardly a possibility that this property would be zoned for commercial uses. Chairman Farano noted that the City Council policy regarding the retention of the amenities in the Peralta Hills had been spelled out very specifically for the preservation of this are> for a rural appearance, and inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to follow this since he would suggest this be done, and if he were not acquainted with this policy, he should discuss it with staff. Commissioner Allred further requested that data be pre~~ented as to capacity at saturation of development and parking that would be pro~rided at saturation point. Mr. Forbes noted that the parking problem had been explaine.d to staff since they realized the parking was not equivalent to the ultim~*_e meeting facility, and it was their intent to provide an additional 65 to 70 parking spaces. Commissioner Rowland noted that any parkinq spaces proposed should be indicated on the plans so that in the future when the Planning Commission reviewed the request, these parking spaces would be documented as to what was planned, and then inquired as to the possible cut and fill that might be proposed in the event additional parking and landscaping was needed. Mr. Forbes replied that there would be very little cut and fill since there was only about a 3-foot grade. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1296 to the meeting of May 1, 1972, in order to allow time for the petitioner. to submit revised plans with riore definitive information as requested by the Commission. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Seymour left the Council Chamber at 5:40 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DUNN PROPERTIES CORP., 2009 East Edinger PERMIT NO. 1299 Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92702, Owner; DON GROW, 2021 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90007, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH RETAIL DISTRIB'UT- ING FIRMS AND SERVICE BUSINESSES INCLUDING BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES PRIMARILY SERVZNG INDUSTRY WI4~H INCIDENTAL SAiES TO THE PUSLIC on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel nf land consisting of approximately 5.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,076 feet.on Ball Road ar.d 130 feet on East Street, and further described as 1201 East Ball Road, Suite B. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at public hearing, it is referred to and made part of the file. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-133 CONi~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1299 (Continued) Mr. Joe Holsinger, 2009 East Ed:nger Avenue, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Comm~ssion and noted that although they had a very attrac- tiva development, many people who were prospective tenants presented some rather unusual requests for quasi-profess:onal ana commercial uses similar to the photographic firm who would be selli;ig primarily to professionals, not retail, since they had a limited clientele, and the type of equipment would not be found in general retail stores; that the suggested list submitted to the Cammission indicated a potentially good market for stable and re~ronsible business firms, and they were not asking for a complete change by conditional use permit, only to bring different types of firms before the Commission under Reports and Recommendations rather than having to file individual conditional use permits, causing a two months' waiting period for consideration of the different uses. Commissioner Gauer observed that the development was certainly fine and very attractive, but it appeared to be more of a retail sales operation than an industrial operation. Mr. Holsinger replied tnat the facilities could not be used for commercial uses primarily because of the high traffic pattern on the street. Commissioner Gauer then inquired what would happen if additional parking were need~d and when most of the development was filled all the existing p'arking had been allocated. Mr. Holsinger replied that they did not intend to allow themselves to get into that situation since they would require each use to be considered by staff and/or the Planning Commission, at which time if the use were approved, the allocated number of parking spaces would then be subtracted from the total •number of spaces available. Mr. David Travis, representing Dunn Properties, appeare3 before the Commission and noted that they realized full well the great number of automobiles that would be at that site and ww~i~i.~! be a detriment to the area as far as future tenants were concerned; and that they did not want this to take place, and they would tak~ this into consideration when they reviewed any prospects. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not Dunn Properties retained control of the property and the businesses that were located there, sinceshe wzs rather shocked•to see a free-standing sign located outside on an automobile, with app~a°rt~orbel~~iatl~heh~usine°ss waslgeaie~ toer~~aig usesopen. This would Mr. Travis replied that he had not visited the area recently, however, if these signs were there, he would :?ave thi:ni taken down. Chairman Farano noted that the motorcycle vse in the west building appeared to be encouraging retail sales. Commissioner Rowland observed that this brought up a very interesting point sizce it appeared the Commission was getting into the operation as deeply as the petitioner in or3er to retain control since these were borderline uses which the petitioner was attempting to establish; that when this first came before the Commission, he was in favor of it, but now it appeared the petitioner was not handling it in a manner in which it was originally presented. Mr. Holsinger stated that he would take care of the problem presented by Commissioner Kaywood since they did not want to make this appear to be a commercial showcase; that the price of the prooerty was too high for the original use intended, and they found competition in that usage, namely, straight industrial, could provide the facilities for less price; that they were now looking into alternative uses, such as professional studios, supply businesses, and professionals, however, if the Cycle xouse was advertising with signs, they were wrong, and they did not want to jeopardize their future uses for the property. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-134 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1299 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood observed that she had been informed this sign had been there for three weeks, and she could not understand why people not necessarily dealing with retail trade would have all of theae signs. Mr. Holsinger replied that each firm was permitted one sign over their entrance and nothing else, however, it might be difficult to control what was placed in the windows, but anything that was placed outside of the building would come under their jurisdiction. Chairman Farano noted that the Cycle House had stipulated that they would not engage in retail or encourage retail sales, therefore, the petitioner might be in violation of his variance. Mr. Holsinger noted that they had stipulated this would not be primarily retail sales, and it was part of the lease agreement to protect the developers and the use of the property, and he could assure the Commission that these signs would be taken down. Chairman Farano noted that the Commission was not necessarily "nit-picking", they were attempting to help the developer to arrive at the goal he was seeking. Mr. Holsinger replied that they now proposed to have a leasing office on the premises, complete with secretasy, and the offices would be open eiglit hours a day, however, prior to this time they had no one on the premises, therefore, he would pre£er resolving this problem before taking any more of the Comm~ssion's ti Chairman Farano noted that he had a further suggestion that in the future when uses were proposed for subject property in the event subject petition were approved, that the specific use have the parking requirements set forth and how this parkinq would relate to the developuient as a whole, rather than to have each unit assigned so many parking spaces, as each use was approved. The Commission should be apprised of the number of parking spaces that still would be avai].able to the clients since the petitioner would be jeopardizing his own development if adequate parking were not proposed or available. Commissioner Kaywood noted that by the use of the signs posted in the windows that the place was open, this would indicate that they were advertising, and the petitioner had stipulated there would be no advertising to the public. Mr. Travis advised the Commission that Mr. Don Grow, the proposed lessee of the photographic studio and supply distributor, would not be available for the next public hearing and requested the Commission to consider his statements at this time. Mr. Don Grow, representing Treck Photographic, Inc., 2021 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and read the letter that was sub- mitted to the Commission regarding the uses they proposed, such as portrait and professional customers that they serviced, such as a portrait and commercial photogr:-pher, industri~l and graphic arts, commercial printers and newspapers, hospital, edvcaeion, city, state, and federal governments; that for the most part these people were established customers and their purchases included small and large cameras, film, paper, chemicals, plates, and associated supplies; that they did not advertise toward the amateur photographer, such as camera or department stores, but only to professional classification accounts; that they needed only 6 parking spaces in their present locationWOUld beAallowed 8 that according to the square footage on the property, they parking spaces; that they planned to have only 2 employees, which would leave 6 parking spaces available for sporakic parking. Commissioner K.aywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1299 to the meeting of April 3, 1972, in order to allow time for the developer to resolve his signing problem. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ r'1 u MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-135 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MAURiCE M. LEBANOFF, 13731 Carlsbad Drive, N0. 71-72-33 Santa Ana, California 92705 and DAVID PRITCHARD, 757 North -- West Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners; property VARIANCE N0. 2337 described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 2.9 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 680 f~et on the south side of La Palma Avenue, havinq a maximum de~,th of approximately 380 feet and being located approximately 500 feet west of the centerline of East Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAZVER OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-1 ZONE, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUTLDINGS, AND (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT TO CONSTRUCT A 74-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and a showing of hands indicated two persons in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to reclassify an R-1 portion to R-3 to permit con- struction of a 74-unit, one and two-story apartment complex having drive approaches for access to the property from La Palma Avenue at the easterly end of the property and to North Street at the westerly end of the property; that the density proposed was 25 units per net acre and the coverage was 35$; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated this area in question as being appropriate for medium density residential development, and the proposed zoning would implement said designation; that waiver of the two-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 was proposed for 46 of the 51 second-story units, the applicant contending that the large R-1 paraels on the north side of North Street would eventually convert to multiple-family resi3ential development since the General Plan designated the area north of North Street as being appropriate for medium density residential uses, however, the Commissfon might wish to con- sider whethez the existing R-1 zoning and the existing R-1 uses on the north side of North Street should be disreqarded in determining whether there was justification for granting the zequested height waiver - none of the two-story units would be within 150 feet of the existing single-family homes on the south side of North Street; that the waiver for the m?nim~xm distance between buildings was a waiver that was often granted in specific instances, and it would appear that it would be appropriate in this instance since there were no critical areas of conflict; that waiver nf the minimum floor area per dwelling unit had been requested for 22$ of the proposed units, and since the Planning Commission had approved projects having bachelor or singles units up to 25$ in the past so long as the units were no smaller than 425 square £eet, the Commission might wish to consider this waiver as being appropriate; and that it would appear that this property was appropriate for multiple-family residential development, however, the requested waivers may be of significant magnitude to warrant further consideration in the design of the proposed complex by the Commission. Mr. Maurice Lebanoff, one of the petitioners, appeared before tha Commission and stated that because o£ the extremely irregular shape of the property, special circumstances existed; that because staff had indicated La Palma Avenue would have an overcrossing of the railroad, this would leave only 75 feet of his property along La Palma Avenue for ingress and egress, and it was necessary to purchase the R-1 property to the east of his property; t:~at he had mEt with adjoining single-family homeowners trying to resolve any objections they might have, and thus he was submitting a letter with signatures of most of these property owners who indicated they were in favor of subject petition, provided however, that the second-story windows overloaking the R-1 properties be placed a minimum 5 feet from the floor, and though the plot plan did not so indica.te this, it was his intent to meet this request of the R-1 property owners; that this pazticular project had a rather unique design - many times people felt it should be designed for families, but this would not be desirable because of its location adjacent to the railroad tracks; that the concept proposed was some- thing new since many rer.ters wanted deluxe units, and they proposed 49 one- bedroom and 25 two-bedroom units which were designed in such a manner to provide many luxuries for apartment residents, and.one of the biggest ass~ts wou].d be ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-136 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-33 AND VARIANCE NO. 2337 (Continued) the extzemely environmental type of living proposed on the plot plan; and then presented a landscape plan for the development. Mr. Lebanoff then reviewed the plan as it would affect the R-1 properties adjacent, notinq that a 5-foot buffer strip with planting and screen-type trees was proposed adjacent to the 6-foot masonry wall; that the recreation area was proposed at the farthest distance from the R-1 and would be adjacent to the railroad tracks and the existing R-3 on the south side of North Street; that two-story unit~ were proposed adjacent to the railroad tracks on the north to act as a buffer for the R-1 properties, as would the two-stories proposed along La Palma Avenue where the street woul.o be elevated. In addition, there would be no patios facing the R-1 properti~~s since these would be facing toward La Palma Avenuet that they would have to redesign some of the units in order to meet the request for the window height on the secand-floor units; that every sidewalk in the development would be curvilinear and sloping to the actual groun3,, which qav~e it a park-like appearance; that there would be ponds and streams that would have circulating pumps and which would meet the Department of 8ealtka requirements; that he had slides which he had intended to show to the Commission if they so desired, which would emphasize the important features o£ the pr.oposal; that the benefits would be considerable to the adjoining property owners, particularly since he proposed specimen type trees 25 feet tall adjacent to the 6-foot wall and trees 12 to 15 feet tall within the development; and that when a good project was proposed to be developed adjacent to existing R-3, this could be an in,centive for the adjoining R-3 property owners to upgrade their developments. Ira addition, he proposed to provide police protection, whzcn would also protect the adjoining properties. Mr. Gerald Meyer, 907 East North Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that his home was affected on two sides by the proposed developm~ent, both on the norti:. and west; that the proposed development was very attractivE and he would like to see it on this property, however, there were four items of concern to which he was in opposition: one was the safety hazard created on North Street with one-xialf of the circulation from this development using Noxth Street and since there would be 111 vehicles, this could mean over 50 additional veh~.cles using North Stre~t several times a day - a street that was dead-ended at i:he railroad - and because of this, children in the area used the street for their play areai that there were inadequate school facilities if these units proposed to have children, even though the petitioner proposed these for adults only, nothing would prevent renting the units to families; that the noise pollution would.be increased with a private street proposed behind his property, and the traffic entering off La Palma Avenue toward East Street would mean more accidents at this intersection, which was already dangerous with several fatal accidents; and that the City required single-story within 150 feet of single-family zones, while the proposal would have two-storp units only 5 feet from his west property line and 30 feet to the north, which would be separated only by a private roadway, thus this would be affecting his rear yard privacy. Mr. Meyer further noted that the developer stated the project was very uni.que, therefore, he needed the two-story, however, any good designer could also have an attractive development with only one story. Further.more, the property to the east was presently in escrow, and the prosp~ective purchaser was considering backing out of the purchase because of the prospect of two-story apartments, and he was submitting a petition from other property owners who were also in opposition. Mr. Lebanoff, in rebuttal, stated that he was sorry he was unable to resolve all of the problems presented by the single-family homeowners, but he had taken Mr. Meyer's problems into consideration, and he could delete one of the two- story unit~ from the two-story apartments to the west of Mr. Meyer's property; that subject property could be developed with low-priced homes or apartments as those which had developed on Mavis Street; that from his calculation, there would be only 27~ of the units using North Street for ingress and egress; that there should be no concern that ci:ildren would be creeping into this proposed all-adult facility since there were only 25 two-bedroom units, and in their planning there had been no consideration given for the needs of families with children since this would downgrade this development; that he could not under- stand why an apartment development should be considered adding to the noise S ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-137 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-33 AND VARI?\NCE N0. 2337 (Continued) pollution N•hen one considered there were six trains a day on the railroad track, and with La Palma Avenue bei;~, elevated there would be more noise pollution than ever; and that if the Commission did not favorably consider this proposal, it was only because he had failed to convey the quality of this project. Finally, it was his intent to retain th~s property as k:is own for income purposes and intende3 to have a full-time resident manager on the property. THE AEARING WAS CLOSEA. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the development should be one-story and that a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer be provided between the R-1 and the R-3. Mr. Lebanof£ stated that the Code required only S feet; whereupon Commissioner Herbst replied that thP Commission in recent months Y.ad been requiring a 20- foot buffer strip where R-3 was proposed adjacent to R-1, and even though the General Plan indi~ated th?s area for multiple-family residential use, there was one house that was primari].y affected by what was being proposed on two sides of the single-family home. Mr. Lebanoff suggested perhaps the height ef the wall could be increased. Commissioner Herbst stated that he did not like walls greater than 6 feet because this gave an appearance of an institution, ju~~ as the appearance of carports abutting the R-1 gave the same appearance. Chairman Farano inquired as to the length of time the petitioner had owned this property; whereupon Mr. Leranoff stated that he :iad purchased the property from a construction company aboiit six months ago, and he was in escrow on the other R-1 parcel, but if he ~~+uld not get certain requirements from the City, he wou13 not build this project; ar~d that he had built other developments in Anaheim before, however, this was an entirely new concept. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the petitioner had made contradictory state- ments, stating in one instance that these would be luxury apartments and then on the other hand talking about six trains a day passing this property, there- fore, what did he really mean? Mr. Lebanoff stated that it was his assumption this property would be developed, and the only way it could be developed successfully was to protect someone !the R-1 properties), and because of the many unusual amenities they were proposing, providing for an unusual living envir~nment, it would be assumed tha± people rentir.g these units would overlook noises from La Palma Avenue and the trains. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired as to the method of soundproofing of these units; whereupon Mr. Lebanoff stated that in addition to perimeter insulation, they had a 6-inch space between the concrete walls, the floors would be plywood over the concrete, and that each e~~rtment would have 2 inches of special insulation on each side of the wai'.~. Commissioner Farano inquired whether Mr. Lebanoff as an owner-developer felt he could develop under the Government 236 Program. Commissioner Rowland noted that this would be difficalt to build both in Anaheim and Santa Ana where there was no Housing Authority. Mr. Lebanof£ stated that he was only using that as an example. Chairman Farano noted that there was still the 150-foot, two-story aetback required since he could not recall the Commission ever deviating froia this requirement where R-1 adjoined any R-3s and that there were no signs that theea adjoining properties would he deve-oping for R-3. Commis~ioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-52 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-33 be approved on the basis that this was a definite R-3 area, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 ~`'138 RECLASSIFICATIOi~ NO. 71-72-33 AND VARIANCE NO. 2337 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES:- COMMISSIONERS: Nonp. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-53 and moved for its passage and adoption to qrant Petition for Variance No. 2337, in part, requiring one- story constructi~~n immediately adjacent to the we~= of the R-1 parcel known as the Meyer property, providing for a 20-foot buffer strip a~ong said west property line and requising that any two-story units proposed to overlook the R-1 properties to the north provide second-story windows at a height no lower than 5 feet from tne floor, permitting the,proposed two-story units adjacent to the railroad as a buffer for the R-1 property, and subject to conditions. The waiver of the or.e-story to the north being granted on the basis that since the General Plan projectpd this area for R-3, in all likelihood in the future it would be developed as such, and to require one-story adjacent to this R-1 would penalize the proposed developer. (See Reeolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votc: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONEP.S: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONEFS: Seymour. FECLASSZFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL ALTHEIDE, ET AL, 17922 Villa Park Nei. 7:-72-36 Road, Villa Park, California 92667, Owners; ANN MP_DISON, - ~ 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; requesting that property described as: A recta.ngu- larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8 acres, havin.; a frontage of approximately 320 feet on the south side of Winston Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,265 feet, and being located approximately 1,520 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard be reclassified £rom the C~unty of Orange A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHETM M-1~ LIGBT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not reafi at public hearinq, it is referred to and made part of the file. Mrs. Ann Madison, agent fo~ the petitioner, appeared before the Comm'_ssion and note3 that the prospective user of the property had withdrawn their proposal to Lse the property, however, the owners were still desirous o£ havinq the M-1 Zone on the property since they had a?ready requested annexation to the City of Anaheim. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED Chairman Farano noted that hi:? company originally proposed to use the property, however, the deal was no longer active and inquired whether or not there would be a conflict of interest if he partook in the voting on subject petition. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised Chairman Farano tihat since his company was no lonqer interested in the property, there would be no conflict of interest. Commissioner Gauer offered 12esolution No. PC72-54 and moved for ite passaga and adoption to recommen.'. to the City Counci2 that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-36 be approved. subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll ~all the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: Seymour. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, l°~ 72-139 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JERRY D. NILr;SQN, M. D., 1720 West Ball NO. 71-72-35 Road, Anaheim, Cali£ornia 92804, Owner; CHARLES A. ROSS, 4868 Gondar Avenue, S,akewood, California 90713, Agent; VARIANCE NO. 2338 property described as: A rectangularly-shaned parcel of land having a frontage ~t agproximately 96 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, Y.aving a maximum depth of approxi- mately 310 feet and being located approximately 820 feet north of the center- line of Ball Road and further described as'831 South Seach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ~ONE. REQUS^TED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMLSr,~CIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: V7AiVER OF ~1) MINIMUM REQUIREL' SIDE SETBAC{~ ~2) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING~ ~3) 6-FOOT HIGH MAS.7NRY WALL REQUIRE- MENT~ (4) REQUIREMENT OP SCREEN TYPE TREES, AND (5) MP.XIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A MEDICAL OFFIC~ BUILDING. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no.response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at public hearing, it is referred to and made part of the file. Mr. Charles A. Ross, aqent for the ~etitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that reference made in the Report to the Commission regarding the parking, the 49 spaces represented the required parking for 8000 square feet of building, however, this also covered 1000 square feet of storage space in the building, and the suitability af this facility was predicated on the doctor's requirement for this specific fuactionj that the 1000 square feet of storage space was very necessary, and the petitioner felt he should not be penalized for area being used for storaae purposes; that the storage area would have film records and linen s plies; and then in response to a question by the Commission, stated that ci~e emergency area would be for ambulances only which would stay at this facility until the patient had been ~reated and left eithex for his home or for the hospitalj and that there would be no overnight patient treatment at this area. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the numher of physicians who would be utiliz- ing this facility; whexeupon Mr. Ross stated there would be appzoximately five to sever and there would be two nurse~,.and that at the present time they considered one full-time clerical gir~ would be sufficient since all the records would be sent out for filming and all billing would be done a.t the computer center. ComL~issioner Rowland noted that the petitioner was also subject to the City of Anaheim requirements; that he had reviewed the entire plan and there appeared to be no landscaping; that thera was no adequate way for pedestrian access from the cars to the building without using the same restrictive entrance and exit that cars used; whereupon Mr. Ross stated that the walkway ~+vould be under the arches on the side. Commissioner Rowland stated that all that was left was a 3-foot planting strip along the building not devoted to vehicles, and he could not vote foz thia site plan, although he might vote for the waiver of the parking as related to 128 of the building being devoted to storage, however, the petitioner had not satis£ied the'~arking and landscaping requirements as he understood the plans. Mr. Ross then inquired whether or not it would be acceptable to the Commission if they found a means of transporting the people from the parking area to the building without using the driveway. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not feel the petitioner had su£ficient parking since this proposal was short of the Code parking requirement, and from his experience with most medical offices, waiver of the required parking shoul3 not be granted; that this particular design indicated small cubicles, which would indicate any number of patients waiting for the physician's or nurse's services; that he could not see where just one clerical person would be suf£icient f'or the number of patients and physicians proposed for this development; and that he felt the petitioner was overbuilding the site and it would not be acceptable to liim. ~ TT ~ MIAUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMIS~ION, March 20, 1972 72-140 RECLASSIFICA4ION N~. 71-72-35 AND VARIANCE NO. 2338 (Continued) Corr.~issioner Rowland inquired of staff whether or not there was any special breakdown in parki.:~g requirementsj whereupon 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that Code required 6 parking spaces per 1000 for medical and dental of£ices, and he would imagine that the existing requirement took into conaidera- tion a certain area for storage space for medical facilities, and that;although he did not know how significant this larger storage area would be in th"is pro- posal, from the appearance of the number of physicians who would be practicing ir, this facility, he would question the azgument that one space would take care of the storage area. Commissioner Kaywood observed that there could be as many as twenty•eiaht patients waiting for an appointment. Commissianer Rowland inquired whether or not this facility would be in operation twent~-four hours a day; whereupon Mr. Ross stated that this was corsect. Commissioner Rowland stated that his first impression of the proposed plans was correct, and that the petitioner was proposing too much building for tlxe amount of land available. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted that from a practical standpoint the petitioner would need more parking spaces and that a redesign of the proposed development should be in order. Mr. Ross then inquired whether or not if they proposed a 4500 square foot build- ing,,,instead of the 9000 square feet, would this accommodate more cars; whereupon Commissioner Rowland stated he would have to see the plan after the staff analyzed it before he could make any decision, and then in response to a question by Mr. Ross, stated tnat he wanted plans that would workJ that although so~e of the storage area might be eacessive for that use, from nis analysis of the plan, there appeared to be only one storage area and that was behind the nurses' station, and with ':.he variance being requested, it was not feasible that this project would workt and that just because the agent had stated they had calcu- lated the storage area separately, the parking standards set forth in the Code took into consideration the storage facility. Mr. Roberts noted that he did not know whether the staff's calculatian of the parking requirements also included the pharmacy area, but if this was separate, then there would also have to be additional parking for the pharmacy in additicn to the doctor's office. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Peti- tion for Reclassification No. 71-72-35 and Variance No. 2338 to the,meetinq of April 3, 1972, ia order £or the petitioner to submit revised plans. Commis- sioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a five-minute recess at 6:45 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 6:50 p.m., Commissioner Se~ymour being absent. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING.. HOWARD P. HOUSE, c/o Coldwell Banker Co.. II NO. 71-72-37 2333 North Broad~~ay, Santa Ana, California 92706, Owner; STANLEY E. SELL, 9776 Katella Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, CONDITIONAL USE California 92804, Aqent; property described as: A rectangu- PERMIT NO. 1297 larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 316 feet on the TENTATIVE MAP OF north side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approxi- TRACT NO. 7728 mately 288 feet and being located approximately 188 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMER~IAL, ZONE. REQT.IESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM2dISSION, March 20, 1972 72-141 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-37r CONDITIONI~IL USE PERMIT N0. 1297~ AND TENTATIVE MAP•OF TRACT NO. 7728 (Continued) REQUES^_'ED COt3DITIONAL USE: CONSTRUCT A 30-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELCPMENT viI7'H WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA~ (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH, AND (3) REQLIIRE- MENT THAT A LOT ABUT A PUBLIC STREET. T°NTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: STANLEY E. SELL, 9776 Katella Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, California 92804. ENGINEER: Raab 8 Boyer Engineering Co., 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite R, t4estminster, California 92683t proposing to subdivide a 2-acre parcel into 31 R-3 zoned lots. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was any one present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at public hearing, it is zeferred to and made part of the file. Mr. Stanley Bell, developer and agent for tne petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they were now proposing 30 units on the property formzrly appruved for 66 units; that they would still conform to Code; that there was a closed gas station at the corner of Magnolia and Broadway; that subject property had been vacant for some time; that R-3 development had occurred to the north, and recently R-3 had been approved to the south adjacent to Stater Brothers; that the density they proposed for the 2.09 acres would be aporoximately 13 units per acre, although this did not coincide with the density figures staff had presented. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to why a billboard was located on the property since this billboard petition had been terminated some time ago; whereupon Mr. Sell replied he was not familiar with the reason why the billboard was located there. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-55 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-37 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allsed, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: CJMMISSIONERS: Seymour. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-56 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1297, subject to conilitions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7728 subject to the following conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7728 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-37 and Conditional Use Perm°_t No. 1297. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form £or approval. ~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-142 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-37, CONDYTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1297~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7728 (COntinued) (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (5) That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded con- currently with the final tract map. (6) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings to Broadway, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (7) That drainage of Tract No. 7728 shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES, 2082 Business Center Drive, TRACT NOS. 7785, Newport Beach, California 92664. ENGINEER: Touas 7786, AND 7787 Engineering, 17291 Irvine Soulevard, Tustin, California 92680. Subject propertp, consisting of approximately 34.7 acres located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, easterly of the northerly extension of Walnut Canyon Road, is proposed for subdivision into 59 R-2-5000 zoned lots (Tract No. 778~)t 77 R-2-5000 zoned lots iTract No. 7786); and 51 R-2-5000 zoned lots (Tract No. 7787)• Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the Re.port to the Commission on file. Mr. A1 Uman, the engineer representing the developer, appeared before Lhe Commission and noted that they had reviewed the recommended conditions and would concur with them; and that the three tract maps were basically the same as that previously filed when subject property was considered for reclassi- fi.cation. Chairman Farano inquired as to what effect the 45-day moratorium declared on R-2-5000 zoning would have on subject property. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that when the City Council established the moratorium, they indicated that where property had no resolution of intent, the moratorium would be in effect; and that subject property had a resolution of intent to R-2-5000, although an ordinance had not been read on the property. Chairman Farano noted that according to the minutes of the City Council meet- ing of February 29, 1972, the City Attorney advised the Coun~il that if construction had not started by the time new standards are adopted, it would be necessary to meet the new standards, therefore, how would this affect any approval of a tract map and would it be effective with the moratorium in effect. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that althaugh he was not present at the Council meeting, where property had a resolution of intent for a given zone, they would be allowed to proaeed under that resolution. Chairman Farano then noted that it would be an exercise of futility to consider these tracts if, in effect, the R-2-5000 Zone would not be applicable because of the moratorium. Mx, ~obexta noted that when the moratorlum was established he was cognizant that these tracts r~ould be considered by the Commission and Ci.ty Council, and that he as!•.ed the Council how the moratorium would affect the development of these tracts, at ~hich time the Council stated there would be no effect on the tracts under consideration by the Commission now. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS20N, March 20, 1972 72-143 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS 7785 7786, P.ND 7787 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst stated he had also read the Council minutes, and it was his interpretation that the City Council was desirous of waiting until the new standards were established for the R-2-5000 Zone, and according to the same minutes, the developer of Ponderosa Homes stated they w.fluld meet these stand- ards if a copy of the standards was made available to them as soon as possible. Chairman Farano was of the opinion that leyally the City Council could not expect anyone to consider any R-2-5000 after a moratorium had been established - this would mean no R-2-5000 approval until the new standards were adopted, therefore, he questiened whether the Commission could approve a tract map. Mr. Roberts stated it was his understanding that the City Council action placed a moratorium on any new R-2-5000 zoning requests, not on those already approved. Mr. tJman advised the Commission that they proposed 5000-square foot locs; and then in response to a question by Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson as to the number of bedrooms proposed, stated that the Ponderosa Homes series had homee ranging from two to five bedrooms. Mr. Roberts also noted that the action before the Commission was only a re- subdivision of a tract approved by the City Council when the R-2-5000 zoning was approved by them, and that one of the conditions of approval required the filing uf a new tract map if the original tract map was proposed for re- subdivisicn. Mr. Lowry then concurred that if previous approval had been granted, the action before the Commission was only an administrative requirement to file new maps for any re-subdivision. Mr. Roberts, in reviewing previous Planning Commission action on subject property, noted that the Commission had recommended o~ni.al of the reclassi- fication and tract map. Commissioner Kaywood, in referring to the February 29, 1971, minutes, noted that when the Council considered the Classic Development Corporation property, Councilman Roth stated that since there was a possibility that the R-2-5000 standards would be revised in the r.ear future, he felt that the request of the developes for a 45-day continuance was appropriate - other Councilmen also indicated they would be in favor of said continuance because of these possible revisions. Chairman Farano advised the engineer that it would appear that the property could be developed under the original tract map and zoning approved by the City Ccuncil, howeves, i.f development did not occur by the time the amended standards were adopted, the developer wonld have to meet the new standards, and then inquired whether the engineer would stipulate for the developer that after approval of a final tract map that he would develop in accordance with the new standards; whereupon Mr. Uman stated he would so stipulate since Mr. Matzick ef Ponderosa Homes had made thira statement to the Council. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that his original motion for denial, when subject property was considered previously, was still appropriat~, and the property shou3d be developed with R-1 homes to implement the adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 122. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7785, 7786, and 7787 on the basis that the Planning Commission had originally con- sidered the property and Eelt that R-1, 7200-square foot homesites should be developed on the property, because this would implement General Plan ~,mendment No. 122; and that if the City Council deems it appropriate to approve the tract maps,then the Planning Commission would recommend that the property be developed in accordance with the new R-2-5000 site developmeat standards now under study (to be considere3 at public hearing by the Planning Commission April 3, 1972). Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Rowland abstained and Commissioner Seymour was absent.) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-144 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS AMENDMENT TO THE R-2-5000 ZONE AND ANY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHERE PROBLEMS OF SETBACKS ADJACENT TO GARAGES MIGHT OCCUR. Chairman Farano noted that since he had not attended the morning work session, he would like to make his comments regarding tne problems set forth ry staff, namely, he did not feel that consideration should be given to referring to the 5000-square foot lots as being R-1 because this could create problems in the regular single-family zones where density was considerably less. There- fore, he felt the R-2-5000 Zon~ connotation should remain and not be dis- guised since it should be left in the low-medium category because it had been established as an alternative for higher density development. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised Chairman Farano that these were alternates prepared by staff for the Commission to consider. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that it would be in order to set these Code amendments for public hearing for the meeting of April 3, 1972. Discussion was held by the Commission after the Commission Secretary informed them there would be eleven new public hearing items for that meeting in addi- tion to the previously continued items, and upon completion of the discussion, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to set for public hearing on April 3, 1972~ at 7:30 p.m., amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.13, 16.18, 18.20, and 18.24 - Site Development Standardsf and Chapter 18.26 - R-2-5000 Zone. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Farano informed the Commission that he would have to leave and appointed Commissioner Gauer as temporary chairman pro tem. Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 7:35 p.m. ITEM NO. 2 VARIANCE NO. 2302 - Clarification of intent of Planning Commission action - Property located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approxi- mately 575 feet west o£ Anaheim Hills Road, containing approximately 29 acres. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission previous action taken on the property, the latest being November 29, 1971, in which the Planning Commission considered a new variance petition (No. 2302) and Revision No. 2 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7203, wherein the petitioner proposed to subdivide the property into 136 R-1 zoned lots. This differed from the originally-approved tentative map in that 18 additional lots were being proposed, and in order to gain these additional lots, the applicants requested approval o£ a variance in which the minimum lot widths would be as low as 50 feet and the waiver of the minimum lot area from the required 7200 square feet was as low as 6225 square feet; and that a third waiver requested under said variance was for minimum front setback for four lots adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the Planning Commission at said public hearing had granted the waiver for the minimum front setback for the four lots, and the other two waivers were denied on the basis that the Commission was opposed to any reduc- tion of lot areas and widths for any properties proposed t~ pe developed south of Santa Ana Canyon Road; that on December 21, 1971, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the variance and the tentative tract map and reached the same conclusion as the Planning Commission relative to waiver of the front setback for the front lots only, however, in view of the £act that an active variance and tentat!.ve tract maps were in effect on the property, which could allow the property owner to develop a single-family residential subdivis~on with 7200-square foot lots, but having some lots with frontages as low as 60 fept, the question had arisen as to whethez or not the wording of Condition No. 2 of Planning Commissioa Resolution No. PC71-233 truly reflected the intent of the Planning Commission, therefore, the Development Services Department would like to have an interpretation or clarification as to whether it was the ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-145 ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) Planning Commission's intent to permit the developers to develop a single- family residential subdivision under the originally-approved variance and tentative maps, or was it now the intent of the Planning Commission to require that all lots within the subdivision conform to all area and lot w•ldth stand- ards of the R-1 Zone. Commissioner Kaywood noted that Commissioner Herbst had offered this motion and had referred to General Plan Amendment No. 122, wherein the Commission recom- mended that low density be retained south of the river, and that the lot wi3th should be a minimum of 70 feet because no hardship had been proven, and the intent of the Commission was to disregard the approval of the previous variance. Therefore, as the Commission's resolution stood, this was the consensus of opinion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, that the intent of the Commission was that the condition as set forth in Resolution No. PC71-233 remain, and the Commission intended to disregard any consideration of the previous variance granted. ITEM NO. 3 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR STREET LIGHT STANDARDS IN THE SANTA ANA CANYON AREA. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 7:40 p.m. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the findings of the Report to the Commission relative to the Grant Corporation having received City Council approval for the use of street lighting units for the Anaheim Hills develop- ment that were different from those traditionally used throughout the remainder of the city; that the units that would be utilized were the McGraw-Edison Traditionaire type unit with a decorative scroll bracket and jasper brown pole, said units having a rustic appearance and were selected because of its aesthetic qualities being more in keepiag with the character of development anticipated for the Anaheim Hills community; that since this particular type of street lighting unit was proposed to be used for the 4200-acre Anaheim Hills project, it would appear desirable to adopt a policy that would maintain consistency throughouz the Santa Ana Canyon. Furthermore, if a policy for a particular lighting unit was established, it should facilitate planning, supplying, and maintaining lighting £acilities in the area, therefore, staff would suggest that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the McGraw-Edison Traditionaire type street lighting unit (used for descriptive purposes only) having a decorative scroll bracket and jasper brown pole be adopted as the approved street lighting standard £or the undeveloped areas within existing and future boundaries of thE City of Anaheim south of Santa Ana Can,yon Road from Villa Real Drive to Imperial Highway, excepting the Peralta Hills area, and for all undeveloped areas within the existing and future boundaries of the City of Anaheim east of Imperial Highway. Deputy City A~torney Frank Lowry noted for the Commission that prior to the hearing Commissioner Herbst advised him that because of ~ possible conflict of interest, he would not participate in the discussions or voting on this proposal and for the minutes to reflect that. Discussion was held by the Commission rela~ive to the proposal, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Allred offered ¢ motion to approve the proposed street lighting units referred to as the McGraw-Edison Traditionaire type unit for the entire area east of Imperial Highway within the present and future boundaries of thE City of Anaheim located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. This motion lost for lack of a second. The Commission then continued their discussion, it being the Commission's opinionl that the source of the liqht should not be more dominant than the light itself. Commissioner Allred noted that those lights installed in the Nohl Ranch area did not appear to have any particular effect on him since he did not notice them, however, it might be better that any consideration of this be held off until a full Commission was present, there£ore, it should be continued until the meeting of April 3, 1972, for further study. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 20, 1972 72-146 ITEM NO. 4 REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TAE 50-FOOT MAXIMUM SLOPE HEIGHT CONTAINED IN THE HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE - REQUEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that in October, 1971, Anaheim Hi.l:.:; Inc. submitted grading plans to the Anaheim Engineering Division for a poc;<:=:, of their 4200-acre holdings in the Santa Ana Canyan, however, the plans d::`_ not coincide W'ith any tentative tract map, and the land owner's intent aa stated by his enginaer was to simply grade off larqe 5 to 10-acre buildia~' pads and to offer them for sale to prospective developers; that the EnginE::'~.':, Division and the Zor:ing Division had extensive meetings on this matter with the engineers presently engaged in the development o£ the R. H. Grant property, and the consensus of these meetings was that the 50-foot maximum height on cut or fill slopes was impractical for a development of this type and might be impractical to a lesser extent in the development of the more usual type of residential tract~ therefore, staff would recommend that the 50-foot maximum height limitation be waived for the grading plans that were being checked by the Engineering Division. In addition, it was recommended that the Hillside Grading Ordinance be amended to eliminate the 50-foot height limitation and require that the tops of cut slopes be rounded and contoured, and the bottom of fill slopes alsa be rounded and contoured; that the City Council at their meeting of November 9, 1971, granted the requested waiver, and further, ref2rred the Hillside Grading Ordinance (Chapter 17.06 of the Municipal Code) to the City Planning Commission for review and recommendation; and that the recommended changes to the Hillside Grading Ordinance had been set forth in the Report to the Commission. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission and staff relative to the proposals made by staff, and upon its conclusion, the Commissioii recommended that consideration of the amendment to the Hillside Grading Ordinance regard- ing thia 50-foot maximum slope height be continued to April 17, 1972, in order for staff to present alternatives to the Planning Commission rather than recommendations, pointing out the various problems that might occur in these various alternatives. Commissioner Herbst returned _o the Council Chamber at 8:05 p.m. ITEM NO. 5 YORBA REGIONAL PARK ACQUISITION Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the request from the Orange County Department of Real Property Services for a deterrnination by the Anaheim Planning Commission as to the conformity of their plans to acquire park land in the Santa Ana Canyon with the adopted General Plan of the City of Anaheim. The California Government Code requires that prior to County acquisition of land within a city that has an adopted general plan, the planning agency having jurisdiction must have reviewed the project and reported as to conformity with said general plan. The Anaheim General Plan designates the area under considera- tion for special park uses and water-oriented uses as being appropriate land uses in the specific area since the adoption of the Hill and Canyon General Pla:i of 1965, therefore, staff would recommend that a letter be forwarded to the Orange County Department of Real Property Services, advising that the proposed park acquisition was in conformity with the adopted General Plan of the City of Anaheim. ~ Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to direct the Planning Commission Secretary to forward a letter to the Orange County Department of Real Property Services, advisinq them that the proposed park acquisition is in conformity with the adopted General P1an of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY °LANNING COMMISSION~ March 20, 1972 72-147 TTEM NO. 6 CONDITION~L USE PERMIT NO. 107 (Zian Lutheran Church) Approval of revised plans - Property located at the southeast corner of East and Cypress Streets. Assistant Zon~.ng Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of the property, surrounding l.and uses, previous zoning action on the property, and the recent request for approval of revised plans which include a snack bar and storage building and playground area site which would be used in connection with the Little League baseball diamond and which was not indicated on the master site plan; that there were two points which the Commission should be made aware of, namely, that the church was required to install street lights along Cypress Street whenever a building permit was issued, and street lighta had been in- stalled on only a portion of the street, and street lights evidently were not installed because the first phase of development did not cover the entire property, therefore, staff would sugge~t that the church be advised that the balance of the street lights must be installed along the balance of their property on Cypress Street at the next phase of development. However, if it was proposed to use the baseball d~.amond extensively, it might be desirable £rom a safety standpoint to have the remaini_ng lights installed now. Further- more, there appeared to be a question as to whether people attending these games would be parking in the church parking lot or on the grass area west of the baseball diamond, therefore, the Commission might wish to have this clarified, and if this grass area was to be used for parking, a dust problem might be created if the grass were worn away. Commissioner Kaywood left the Council Chamber at 8:08 p.m. The Commission discussed the snack bar proposed and inquired if the church representative was present. Mr. John Lundy, representa.ng the Zion Lutheran Church, appeared before the Commission and stated that the church had entered into a contract with the North Anaheim Littl,: League to use the ball diamond along the easterly portion of the property; that all park:ng would be in the regular church parking area, and none would be permitted on the green area because too much money had been spent to landscape this area, and the area would be policed by the church; that there would be no night games since this was written into their contract; that they were requesting approval of the erection of a snack bar and yrand- stand since they had enter.ed into a five-year contract, not realizing this was not in con£ormance with plans pseviously approved. In addition, the Enqineer- ing Department had waived installation af streei: lights and sidewalks, although curbs and gutters were in, unti7. the next phase of development, and they had a letter on file to this effect. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that at the time the waivers were granted, staff had no knowledge qf a Little League ball diamond proposed and already established on the property, theref.ore, staff felt there would be considerable pedestrian traffic and the sidewalk shou3.d be installed, thus, this was the only reason ~or suggesting said installation. Commissioner Kaywood returned to the Coun~il Chamber at 8:11 p.m. Mr. Lundy stated he did not think there wouid be a great deal of pedestrian traffic since children generally were transported to the games by parents or cflaches in automobiles. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that tha proposed use of the property was a good interim use, and he did not feel the church should be penalized by requiring both lights and sidewalks, however, there was a problem of trash collection. and inquired how the church intended to resolve this. Mr. Lundy replied that there was a large bin at the rear of the church bnild- ing about 120 yards from tne ball diamond, which would be adequate, and that the area was now completely fenced in. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve revised plans as submitted, deleting any reference to conditions. Commissioner Allred seconded the metion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Kaywood abstained, Commissioners Farano and Seymour being absent.) ~ ~~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Narch 20, 1972 ~Z'148 ITEM NO. i ORANGE COUNTY USE PERMIT NO. 3265 - Permit enlargement of a horse stable and establishment of a mo'oileh,ome an property located approximately 1600 feet south of Ball Road and 700 feet east of the Orange Freeway. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location o.f subject property, uses er,tablished in close proximity, and the request beFOre the Orange County Planning Commission to expand an existing commercial stable to permit a maxiTUm of 100 horses and to establish a caretaker's residen~e in a mobilehome, and that staff noted it would appear the proposed enlargemei:t of the stable previously granted in April. 1967, for a five-year time limit for a maximum of 40 horses would not appear to affect the surrounding land uses provided that sufficient landscaping was planned to screen the mobilehome. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to receive and file Orange County Use Permit No. 3265, but to thank the Orange County Planning Commission for advising the Anaheim Planning Commis~ion of thic expansion. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1281 (Top Deck Restaurant) Property located at the southeast corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma Ao•enue - Amendment to a legal description. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the petitioner, upon having a new title search for his property, determined L•hat insufficient property had bee:~ included in their request of Conditional Use Permit No. 1281 and requested that the approval of the Top Deck Restaurant be amended to in- clude the additional property. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-57 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Resolution No. PC71-245, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1281, nunc pro tunc on the basis that the Planning Commission declared it was their intention to correct said title company error. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the f~~regoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. ITEM N0. 9 AM£ND PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY REGARDING PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PUBLIC HEARING. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that staff would prefer that rather than having the Report to the Commission summarized in the minutes, that reference be made to it only, since a copy was always on file. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to amend the Procedure to Expedite Planning Commission Public Hearing Policy, deleting the requirement of summarization of the Report to the Commission and making re£erence to said report to the Commission only in the minutes. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - These being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred o£fered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourne3 at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ~~ dil~ il~' _" _ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. ioto ;:,c~i r..~:~~. ~~~-s~zo t,n;,ne:m. ~',:~~,:,ni~n 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. !O10 Lacy A;c. 7'e~3220 Anahe~m, f.ai~tum~a