Minutes-PC 1972/05/31•
~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
Msy 31, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGLILAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
MESTING called to order by Chairman pro tem Seymour,at 2:00 p.m., a
quorum beinq present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Seymour.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allsed, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland.
ASSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attarney: Frank Lowry
Office Engineer: Jay Titua
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Robert.~
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebe
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Alleqiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve the minutes
of the meeting of May l, 1972, seconded hy Com:nissioner
Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the followinq
corrections:
pg. 72-223, para. 5, last line should read: '~hat the depth
of the lot was too shallow, it would
pezmit going into a residential area."
pg. 72-229, para. 3, line 4, second word should be:
"COmmissioners".
Pg. 72-i32, para. 4, line 2 should rr:ad: "however, if de~e.lop-
ers developed completely witnin Code, there
would be no"
Pg. 72-239, para. 5, line 3 should read: "as to the use for a
yarn shop only...."
Pg. 72-243, para. 7, line 2, add: "The berm with landscaoing
will be added later."
Pg. 72-248, para. 2, line 2 should read: "neces~sary for her to
use a private driveway on Varna Street...."
Pg. 72-251, para. 12, line 3 should read: "would b=< quire
visible from some distance - Mr. Do~ley
agreed."
VARIANCE NO. 2355 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER REVOCABLE TRUST,
RCA Building, Suite 700, 6363 Sunset~Boulevard, Hollywood,
'California 90028. Ownert JOHN L. OSBORNE, 1861 West
Lincoln Avenue, Aaaheim, California 92801, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1)
MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AREA OF SIGNS~ (2) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS~
(3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (4) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-
STANDING SIGN, AND (5) MAXIMUM AREA OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ESTABLISH THE
EXISTING SIG*1S AS CONFORMING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximate2y 10 acres, having a frontage
of approximately 800 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum
depth of approximately 570 feet and being located between Crescent Way and
Mullez Street, and further described as 1881 West Lincoln Avenue. Property
presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the May 1, 1972 meeting to allow time fc,r
the submission of revised plans.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted there was a request from the petitioner to
continue consideration of Variance No. 2355 for four weeks and inquired
whether anyone was nresent in opposition and received nu response.
Commiasioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood arid
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance Nu. 2355
to the meeting of June 26, 1972, as requested by the petitioner.
72-311
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, i972 72-312
AREA DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY
PLAN N0. 110 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
California; to consider circulation and access for an area
bounded on the north by Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the east
by Analieim Hills Road, on the south by Nohl Ranch Road,
and on the west by Imperial Highway.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. H. L. BUDLONG, 20046 Santa Ana
*]O. 71-72-34 Canyon Road, Anaheim, California 92806 and R. JQ~EPH MAAG,
1761 Ladera Vista Drive, Fullerton, California 92631,
TENTATIVE MAP OF Owners; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P. O. Sox 3668,
TRACT N0. 7769 Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; oroperty described as:
A rectangularly-shaped parcel of ].~,~d consisting of
approximately 34 acres, having a frontage of approximately
674 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canycn Road, having a maximum depth of
approximately 2,380 feet, and being located approximately 1,100 feet east of
the centerline o:E Imperial Highway. Property presently alassified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, 20NE.
TENTATIVE TRACT RRQUEST: DEVELOPER: S& S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. H857 West
Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Calif~r~ia 90211.
ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, P. O. yox
3668, Anaheim, California 92803; pxoposi:t,o, sub-
division of 34 acres into 187 R-2-5000 zoned lots.
Subject area development plan and petitions were continued from the meetings of
March 6 and May 1, 1972, for preparation of an area development p~an an3 for
the suLmission of revised plans in light of Council action on site development
standards af the R-2-5000 Zone.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that the petitioners of Reclassificatian No.
71-72-34 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7769 had submitted a request for a
four-week continuance in order to revise their plans, and that since Area
Development Plan No. 110 directly affected subject property, it would ha.ve to
be considered in conjunction with the reclassification petition, and then
inquired whether anyone was present in opposition and rece~ved no response.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and
MOTION CARRIED to continue consideration of Area Development Plan No. 110,
Reclassification No. 71-72-34 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7769 tu the
meeting of June 26, 1972, as requested by the petitioner.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM, INC., :ctcx.:lon
PERMIT N0. 1314 Gary A. Clarke, Vice President, Bank of Amer:ica Building,
Suite 505, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, An.aheim, Califor.nia
92805, Owner; VONOLA CUTTER, Leasing Representativc:, Sai~;:
of America Building. Suite 505, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California
92805, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTIT:T-
TION (LAW SCHOOL) IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING on property describe.. as: Thc
entire block surrounded by Harbor Boulevard, Sroadway, Helena Street azci El~i
Street, and further described as.309 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently
classified C-O, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONS.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that staff had suggested Conditional Use Permit
No. 1314 be continued to the June 12, ~972 meeting in order to allow time tc~
advertise waiver of the minimum number ef parking stalls, and then inquirad if
anyone was present in opposition and received no response.
Commiss:onar Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1314 to the meeting of June 12, 1972, in order to allow time for
staff to readvertise the petition.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-313
CONDITICNAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARTNG. WILTOWER ?F.Ui~~kTIES, 1010 Wilshire
PERMIT N(~. 1311 Boulevard, Los Angelesr California 9C~'17, Ow:~er; ROBEP,T
BURGLIN AND SAM I4•AYA, 14571 Brookhur•;r Street, WestR•'inster,
California 92683, Agents; requestino Fcr'~i~sion to RF-
ESTABLISH A CARS9ASH AND AN AUTO:QOBILE SERVICE STATION W.I1'~.IP~ 1S FEET OF A
RESIDENTIAL ZONE on propertv 3escribed as: An ixreyv~..,r1.y-*':~',p~d parcel of
land having frontages of approximately 1.80 fee*_ on ~t.i~c ~,^utfi side of Lincoln
Avenue and 180 feet on the wcst side .~: 5=~te Collo~,•= b,ui ~ard and being
]~cated at the southweai. ':~rner of :,incoln Avenu~ a.u~: Stats Ccllege Boulevard,
and furtner described x;: ?~7 ~outh State Colle!:s Ro~~lt.vard. Property presently
alassified C-1, GENERAL ':Q"!=d~RCIAL, AND C-"s, HcAV? CC'.dMERCIAL, 'LOIvES.
Subject petition was contii.~ued from the rneeting ci: '•isy 15, 1972, at, the re5uest
of the petitio~er.
Chairman pr~ tem Seymour inquired whethe.r there aas anyone present in opposi+tian,
ahd ~ showing of hands indicated six nersons pr~~e:~t.
'.s::istant Zoning Supervisox Don McDar•.iel revieweid the location o" subject
1,xoperty, uses established in closz ~roximity, previous zoning a.~':ion on the
p:o~:erty, and the prop~~sal to demoli.sh ar. existing service statio~i on the
pzoperty, thereby redesigning the s:Lte and za-e'stablishing Lhe carwash a~d
~~vic_ station; that tk:^ existing carwash nanopy would remain but wouid br.
r.cdified; that *_he southe~ly 16 feet wavld be removed and the r~t~aaind~ar would
cuver 7 parking stalls; that: tt:e exist~^.;i maintenance building i~u:•?~ re~~~ai*+;
and that two drive approaches were propos~:d on Lincol-i Aveaue w:.cY one exit
drive to State Coll~age Boulevard.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that there had been an exist-
ing carwash ar.d service station on subjec'c property for a number of years,
which apparently created no problems to the adjacent ~in~le-family properties
to the west, therefore, the re-establi&hment. of t`:•^^2 same sFrvi.ces would
ap~+arently have no more detrimental e~fect on the •,urrounding la.zd uses; and
that the ::zitical consideration in t'.iis petition ~ s the site -i_sign, witl: the
p:an laid out so tlte.t the customers entered the prupesty from ::,.coln Avenue
nF~ar the westerly bc•;undary and pro~:eeding :c~utY,erly through the qasoline pump
islands and vacuu.n c,suopy where a 180-dAqree turn would have to r•.4 n:ade to
the north in arder. t~~ proceed thr~~ugh tt,a :arwash and bacn out through the
exiting drive. on Linc~ln Avanue. Furi:hermcr.:, ihe carwash build: ng, gasoJ.ine
c;anopy and vacuum aa.>?p ~~ul~i bf: cor.~ ~crur_tec. in place of the old ~ervice
station buildiu3; .,~ i:here wou'Ld b~ 7 coverr.: ~ and 11 open park; i~, s~o ] ls,
and when the carw .:.h ~+as not at full ~~~ccupancy, all of the park._inn etalls
~vou'ld be readily accessxble, but if t'.~e carwasl~ were full and cars wer.e N~ait-
ing at the gasoline pump '•.slands cr vacuum canogy, these stalls wcuid be
vi.rtually inaccese,ibl~; that the applicant furtb.er indicated t'he covered
stalls would not be used for waxi.ng, polishing, or detailing of the cars, [>ut
~imply for parking of employees or guests, therefore, the Commission m:.y wish
to have the F•etitioner stipulate to this effe•~t; that the maximum namber of
employees prcposed would be 12, therefore, the number of parking stall~ wou7.~
be adequate since the Anaheim Municipal Code did not provide :or. parkinq
standards for a carwash, thus the Cominission would wish to betermine ~.~:e
appropriateness oE either reauiring one parking space per ~mployee ~r basing
the parking ?n accordance aith the sauare footage of the buildings proposed.
Mr. :9cDaniel, in s~immary, noted that it wauld appear the plan, as pr~posed,
re:~ultcd i.i ov~:rd~+e2opment. of ti:e site, placing too many structuT~es and
buildings •:n a relati~ely small site, and toq~ather with the potentiai traf£ic
ci.rcnlatiun con£licts beth :ri`;i stre~t and on-site, thi~ would be ~omett~ing
of significa.~ce; and that th? Comm~ssion may wish to consider ~he request to
re-°stanlish ~he service station-carwash to be .~ppropriate, but the plans
submitted to b~ inadequate for the proper ievelopment ~f the property.
Mr. Robert Burg].in, agent for ~_he petitioner, a~~~,~eared ;;efore t`~e Commission
and noted l~e had ~ee~ in the :arwash bssiness for ..;xteen years, and his
reasa.i for mention;.ng t.his wa~ the fact that carwash operat.ons in service
stations coui3 be l~kened t~~ a ailot of a small olane, while his type of
experience in the carwash opera=ion could be likened to the pilot of a 747;
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-314
rONi~ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1311 (Continued)
that he also owned two other carwar,h facilitiea, one at Brookhurst and Hazard
in Westminster and the other at Linco3n and Knott Avenues in Buena Park; that
the present operation of suLject property had been very badly managed and
dsveloped with poor £acilities, therefore, they planned to tehr down the
s~:rvice station and replace it with a new, modern faaility; that a portion of
tlte existing sraal canopy may be retained, but it would be completely surrounded
w:~th a fa~ade; that,there would be considerable landscaping of the interior of
che property; that there was a definite need for z carwash operation in this
are;a since the r.earest was the Angel Carwash on South Ana:~eim Boulevard, which
had been bui.lc te~ to fifteen years ago, and the closest to the north was in
Placentia, which : a stEel building, with a third facility about three miles
to the east ir thr City of Orange; and that the traffic created from this
operation would be less than one to two vehicles per minute, !.f they "peaked
out" five to six days a week, but he felt there would be virtually no traffic
,-,sob:.em.
Mr. siirgi.in then note3 that the Report to the Commisaion stated that the parking
stalls H•nuld :~ae virtualiy inaccessible, however, he had measured the distance
and ther! uou'_~3 be 12 to 13 feet between the atalls and the cars whicb would
be stati.or.ary, ae:aiting their turn for gasoline and vacuuming, and these cars
wov.ld moce e•t a distance of 20 feet at a time, therefore, this still would
lea~•e 12 f.~:et £or laterai movem~nt before making a right turn, thvs he could
not see where this inaccassibility was correctr that they proposed to construct
a carwasn that would be appeal~ng to the City, and then submitted letters from
the Pla~ining Direct~rs from r.he Cities of Westminster and Buena Park, compli-
menting his facilities in their ~ities, noting he had always had a good relation-
.;hip wit, *_he cities in which he was located; that he tried to w:ic :vith the
n~ighbors of ~nese facilities in an attempt to comply with their requests which
wP.re within reasos: since he ~nerated a p•rofessional business; and that it was
2iis ooinion they had both landscaping and architecture that was prize-winning.
Mr. 3ob Neamy, 212 South :=h Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion an~l took umbrage with statements made in the Report to *.he Commission that
there were no apparent problems to the residunts adjacent to the existing
facilit;•, because he had lived there for five years and he could not hold an
~rdinary conversation in his rear yard becau~e of the noise from this facility.
In addition to the trash problem wit;i tra~h being thrown i.nto his yard, the
lights were kert on 24 hours a day, disturbing their rest; tY.at the managament
cf the existing carwash was only sixteen to eighteen-year-o1ds, and hp had made
::umerous complai.nrs to both the management and the police; and that he hzd a
petition in oppusition from residents of Ash Street ~lirec:tly affected by the
proposed use, and then read the petition o.'. opposition.
Mr. Neamy then scated that since ~.3~e last public hearin-3 t?~e petitioner had
z;et with the neigY,bors and promis~?a :~ make this an attr.active facilitv that
wouZd be similar to the one ~c Lii:~cln and Knott Avo:,ues, however, he nad
visited tk:at operation :.nd found i`c ~sz~r noisy, z.nd whilo ~he one in West-
minster ~•r'> enc'_a~ed, it also procuced noise, thc:refo:e, he decided '•o aheck
with tlie aujoini~ig residents, who advised him thc:re !+zs more noise witY ci^e
honking of horns on cara anc? the public address system r.han with the ^arwash
operation itself. In addition, he ha3 discussed tiies_ findings with h~s :iei.3h-
bors; who stated th~= if the petitioner would limi: t'~e hcurs of oper~.tioa to
normal business hours with a letter of intent that ~,ny probP.ems in the fucure
the neic;hbors presented within reason would be t~•.::en ca::e oi', the neighbor~
would withdre.w their opFosition, however, thare was a fixrther problem ~rom L•he
existing operation relative to drainage of the facil+ty ~c•ir~ into thz alley,
and this should be resolved i£ subject petition were ppr..~ved, however, he
~vould llate `.o sP~ the present operat~un reopened.
Mr. Burglir., in rebuttal. stated hp r~ould aa-,e with the opposition 100~ that
the existing operation should n~= bE: reopened b~cause of its appearancer ard he
could not understand how the residents w3thstood the operation as long as tY~ey
had siace these problems could have been resolved; Lhat he would like to state
e
~
~
MI2lUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-3'5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1311 tContiaued) •
he would do anything within reaaon in a lettcr of intent since it was only
common sense to eliminate un3esirable things in such an operation; that as ~c+
comments made ahout lights, he would stipulate that the liqhts would 'be
screanec'. so that they would not affect the residents, howevez, for purpose:~
of deterring vandalism and thPft, he would prefer that the lights remain on
24 'hours a day under the canopies; that the haurs of operation requested by
the opposition would be something he would prefer not being he].d to since
they would like •to remain open until 10:00 p.m., and if there was any probleu~,
then the hours could be reduced. Then, in response tu qcestion;.ng by the
Commission, Mr. Surglin stated their present facilities zemained open until
6:30 p.m, an3 during holidays until 7:00 p.m. In addition, he would hate not
to be able to physically polish a car which had road tar or oxidation on it,
which woulc~ have to ne remcved from the carwash and gasoline pumps, and they
tri.ed to please th>_ir customers, therefore, he would prefer only incidental
polishing of the vehicles in the parking area rather than making it a condition
that no polishing would be done since according to their schedule it was not
intended to have a polishing operation; that he had met with staf£ a nuaiber of
times and tY.ought ev~ryt:hing had been resolved, there°.ure, he was quite sur-
prised with the negative recommendations by staff; that the conditions of
approval required an 8-foot high lighting as Condition No. 5, he would suggest
10 to 12 feet s3nce he did not know the heigrt of the trucks that would be
bringing in supplies, and he did not want any obstructions for these trucks;
and that he could not understand any reason for requiring underground utilities
aince there were existinq wires and poles at this facility.
Commisaioner Gauer ~nquired whether there wa:, sufficient space to operate, and
was the exiating ca.opy to be completely removed; whereupon Mr. Burglin repli~d
they pl.anned to tear out a portion of the canopy - thst this present carwash
had a 185-foot frontage with a depth of 262 feet, however, with the improve-
menta made with carwash equipment in the past three years, where formerly a
160-foot building was requixed, now only a 110-foot building would be erected;
that they planned to remodel a portion of the A-frame canopy and place brick
nnd tile around the remair.der; that the existing maintenance building would be
converted into an employees' lounge and locker room; that close to $450,000
would be invested in this operation, and if they thought the property ~~ras too
amall or unworkable, they would not receive ~he financing they had from both
the oil company and the bank who had visited the site and determined this aould
be a workable location.
Commissioner Allred inquired as to the height of_the wall along the west
prop~rty line; whereupon Mr. Burglin stated the height varied from 6 to 8 feet.
Commissioner Herbst ir.quired why the area near the a~.ley could not be enclosed
where the area was proposed to re used partially for polishing since most car-
wash facilities had polishinq, and he wanted to protect the adjacent residents;
w1^Rreupon Mr. Burglin stated that if. this were a continuing polishing operation,
then they would enclose it.
Commissioner Heibst thEn inquired whether the petitionex was awere of the City
of Anahei.m's oxdinance limiting the deciuel reading at 60 dB(A) at the property
linet whereupon Mr. Burglin stated, to hi;s knowledge, there was no carwash that
could comply with the 60 decibel reading; that a car~ash facility in Fountain
Valley was having problems with an apartment house 80 feet away, and they had
reduced the noise of the blowErs to 67 ds(A), but the industry, to date, had
not been able to find a means of reducing this noise any further, and if this
were a requirement of the City of Anaheim, then he could not operate the
proposed facility.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~oning Supervisor Chax•les Roberts not~d that' the ordinance limited the de.ibel
reading to 60 dB(A) at the property line; where+ipon Mr. Burglin stated this
would be less than the noise of traffic at the intersecsion which was presently
louder than the operation would be, howevez, traffic was not a steady noise. and
if trucks went Ly, the reading could go up to 75 flS(A).
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGMMISSION, May 31, 1S72 72-315
CONDITICNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1311 (Continued)
Mr. Lowry noted that the decibel reading ;e£erred to the mechanical equipment
since the City was not referring to.stree. noises, only to equipment inrttalled
on the premises.
Assistant DevelopmenE Services Director Ronald Thompson n~ted that the maximum
of 60 dS(Ai would not be for extended Yeriods o_° time where an increase of no
mor.. than 5 dB(A) of the ambient suund levea, was nresent, and then noted that
the City Council had requested staff to make a sound test of a comparable
eituation for a carwash proposed at Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard, in which
the report indicated the traffic noise was 70 dB(A) and the noise at tl:e property
line was 75 dB(A).
Mr. Burglin then reviewed se•~eral sound studies made iz Huntington Beach and
other cities where the sounds ranged from 75 dB(A) to up t~ 90 dB(A) and stated
that if the City ordinance were to be met, this could eliminate all carwashes
with blowers of the type he proposed for this faci.lity, and thus would be duing
a disservice to the peopl.~ in this area; and that they could not reduce the
noise because of the air leaving the blowers.
Commissi~ner Herbst noted this was a requii~ement for every industry, not
necessarily carwashes, and if the car::ash n~anufacturers really wanted to, they
could'-educe the noise of the blowPr; that in this instance the noise would be
a bother to the residential area; whereupon Mr. Burglin stated that he did not
feel there wou13 be a noise problem from this opero:ian since they wuuld be 75
feet from the property line to the west and would be located ne:arer the State
College Boulevard frontage where there was a traffic count of 35,000 vehicles
per day; that he felt thia operation would be a prote~~tion c.o the residents
since the buildings would ulock some of the stTeet noises rather than being a
nuisance, however, there would be no wz~y of ineeting the 60 dB(A), even after
having studied this problem fur three y~ears.
Mr. Burglin, in respon>e to questioning by Commissioner Allred, stated that the
building would be open on both ends an.~. partially open to State College Boulevard
where the bl~wers were located; and that they could reduce the decibel reading
but not to 60 dB(A).
Commissioner'Seymour noted the::e was also a problem of ingress and egress,
entering an Seaving the pump islands for the carwash, and since there were so
many variablas which the Commission could not resolve, he would suggest that
the petitioner take a long hard look at the design of this site to resolve
these prok~lems, however, the Cummission could not waive the 3ecibel readings of
the Code, therefore, he would suggest a two-week continuance to resolve the many
croblems presented, since it was his opinion that the plans presented were more
or less sk~tches which were rather minimal and difficult to understand.
Mr. Burglin :~tated he did not draw the~e plans, and he had not spent money for
a•rchitectural plans because he did not know whether tk:e petition would be
approved. In addition, he, too, did not want a tra£fic bottleneck since it
was difficult enough ta operate a carwash and make it successful without a
L-raffic problem, as well; that he could bring sketches of what he proposed to
Ue enclosed, enclosing the blower area, and he could do anything a.rchitecturally
except reduce the d13(A) to 60. Then in response to questioning by the Commission
regarding a carwash oz Katella Avenue, stated they had the'same type of operation
he was proposing to have.
Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion that he could not see whx the Commission
should try to design a carwash - this was something the petitioner should have
done so that he could make money from the operation.
Commissioner Allred in3uired whether the proposed facilitl would be similar to
those in the colored pictures; whereupon Mr. Burglin stated it would of equal
quality except that there would be more landscaping.
Commissioner Allred then stated that in the revised plans the petitioner should
submit renderings of the proposed buildings and indicate where changesc were
proposed to the existing A-frame canopy.
^
~,.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, ,1472
CONDITIONAL USE PE:<MIT NO. 1311 ~Conti~~.ed)
72-317
Mr. Burglin stated that. one o£ the top contractors in Los A.~;geles advised him
what should be done since he did not know how to design this facility, but
'.\e existing canopy would tie in with their proposal in order to make it
attractive to the customers.
Chairm.~n pro tem Seymour stated he would like to see plans that were more
specific if revised plans were to be presented to the Commisaion.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired vhether lights a~ 10 to 12 feet could be shielded
adequately £rom shining into the residential aLaa; whereupon Mr. Surglin stated
these lights cou13 be tilted away from the residential uses. Furthermore, he
would hate to put in money for plans i£ the City Council denies subject peti-
tion because of the decibel readings.
Commissioner Rowland noted th>t the City Council was the only body that could
enforce the decibel requirements.
Mr. Burglin t.hen inquired whether subject petition wculd be considEred by the
City Council; Whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that tha City Counci.l reviewed all
action by the Planning Co~mission within 22 &ays after the Commission action,
and at thtit time they could set it for publir, hearing or some indiviaual could
request iL- be set for public hearing.
Commissioner Rowland expressed concern that the height of the lights had been
increased to 8 feet since for years che Commission had been working to have
lights no more than 6 feet where commercial uses were adja~ent to residential
uses because of the required 6-foot wall. Did the City Council change this,
and if so, then it should be reflected in the Code sitice once the height of
the lights went above 6 feet - why pick 8 feet - why not go to 30 feet so that
proper designing and lighting could be made.
Mr. Roberts noted that at a City Council meeting sevesal weeks ago the question
arose as to the height of a parkinc,• lot light condition placed by the Planning
Commission resclution, and during discussion by the City Council and City
Manager, concern was exprv,;sed that at 6 feet these lights were subject to a
great deal of vandalism a,nd cited the Broadway Shopping Center employee parking
area, and since that time, staff had changed their recommended condition from
6 to 8 feet based upon that concern. Furthermore, staff had been studying
lighting fixtures, and it was hopEd to bring this to the Commission for their
consideration - the main reason staff was studying this was because of Power
Sales stating that lighting at the 6-foot height was rather restrictive.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that it would appear from Commissioner Rowland's
comments that the Commission was "playin3 the game" under one set of rules, and
now these standards were being changed.
Mr. Roberts noted this was not part of the site development standards but was a
policy which had been rather closely adhered to where commercial uses were
established adjacent to residential uses.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the present facilities could continue to
operate; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated there was an existing conditional usa
permit on the property that had not been terminated, howevr.r, this facility
had been opera~ing as late as last summer.
Commissioner Gauer then noted that the petitioner was attempting to improve
rather undesirable situation and had gone to the neighbors and had obtair.ed
th2ir good will, and the Commission was trying to throw a roadblock.
Commissioner Rocvland noted that he only wanted to point out the fact that the
Commission had been requiring a 6-foot wall in the past and lighting at the
6-foot height, and his concern was the height of the lights which had been
raised above the height of the adjoining walls, which was no limit as to the
height of the lig}.ts. Furthermore, if subject pet=tion were approved, the
hours of operation should be subject to review within one year as a condition
~
~
~
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-318
CONDITIONAL USC PERMIT NO. 1311 (Continued)
of approval, however, he was not sure the Commission was empowered to waive
the provisions of the environmental condition of 60 decibels.
Commissioner Gauer noted that this would be up to the petitioner to meet this
ordinance requirementj that the petitioner had appeared in good faith showing
a design of ths proposed facility and had also obtained the good faith of the
adjoining residents, and he did not feel any~;ne would be spending as much
money as s;ated if a less than desirable f::..iity was going to be erectedp and
that he cou.id not see any reason for a conti:~uance.
Commissi.~n~lr Gauer offered a motion to approve Petition for Conditional Use
Permit t~o. 1311, subject ko c~nditions and stipulations by the petitioner.
Upon roll call the foregoing motion lost for a tie vote, Commissioners Allred,
Herbst and Gauer voting "aye" and Commissioners Kaywood, Rowland and Seymour
voting "no".
Further discussion was held by the Commission regarding the hours of operation,
submission of revised plans, and stipulations made by the petitioner, as well
as the fact that the existing facility could reopen.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether there was any provision in the noise
abatement ordinance that would alleviate existing problems as a nuisance.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that this carwash or any other carwash
or business that would be proposed for subject property would be subject to
Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as to sound restrictions, and neither
the Planning Commission nor the City Council, short of repealing the law,
could waive these requirements, and if the existinq carwash functioned in
excess of 60 dB(A), they could be prosecuted, and if this man wanted to build
this in excess of 60 dB(A), he, too, would be subject to prosecution.
Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether people living in abandoned carwashes
and service stations were also there illegally; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated Code
permitted only a watchman on the premises.
Commissioner Rowland then noted that everything to stampede this petition
through would be governed by Title 6, and it would appear the Commission should
not accept something that was less than desirable wiLh the thought that anything
proposed was better than aa illegal activity - this was short-sighted planning
on the part of the Planning Commisssion.
Chairman pro tem Seymour stated that.he believed Mr. Burglin and the testimony
of the neighbors, as well as the petitioaer's intent to construct an AAA car-
wash, but he, too, did not want to accept anything less than desirable - even
though he knew Mr. Burglin meant well, he could not see wh'ere a two-week~'
delay would hurt him.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue
consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1311 to the meeting
of June 12, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to submit revi.sed plans showinq
all of the improvements stated verbally; whether or not the polishing facility
would be enclosed; hours of o~a~Yation; entrance and exit areas; whether the
State College Boulevard access would be posted as an exit only; star.kability
of the vehicles; sound-deadenirig devices to be used; and that the cype of sign-
ing that was proposed for subject property should be stipulated in *..he revised
plans submitted. Then asked staff to obtain information from otY~,r communities
as to their decibel ordinances as they affected them. Commissioner Keywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
•
A
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-319
CONDITZONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CENTURY PROPERTIES, 16200
PERMIT NO. 1307 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 201, Encino, California 91316,
Owner; KAM FOY YEE, 17391 Mira Loma Circle, Huntington
Beach, California 92647, Agent; requesting permission to
HAVE ON-SALE LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED RESTI~URANT WITH WAIVERS OF
(1) NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND (2) HEIGHi OF MASONRY WALL ABUTTING RESIDEN-
TIAL ZONE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
having a frontage of approximately 90 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard,
having a maximum depth of approximately 302 feet and being located approximataly
1,050 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as
310 North Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
Subject petition was continued from the May 1, 1972 meetinq to allow time for
the petitioner to submit access and parking agreements.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Kam Foy Yee, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer
questions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Coc~mission noted that staff had indicated the aqent for the petitioner
could submit agreements regarding access and parking and inquired whether the
agent had these documents.
Mr. Bruno Pozzi, Vice President of Century Properties, appeared before the
Commission and stated the agent for the petitioner did represent them; that
he was desirous of building a restaurant under the terms of the lease held by
him, the petitioner; that the land in quescion was part of a parcel map but
there was a continuous drive; that subject property was logically buildable
for the purpose and intent of the application; that the petitioner did not
involve the Century Properties since it was only for on-sale liquor; that the
City permitted restaurants by right in the C-1 Zone, therefore, he could not
see why there appeared to be a problem of access.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that a restaurant could be built i.n
the C-1 Zone, but when building plans were submitted, the petitioner would have
to meet parking and access requirements before the building permit would be
issued.
Chairman pro tem Seymour then requested that Mr. Pozzi explain whether or not
the parkinq and ingress and egress agreements could be supplied as the Commis-
sion requested, since this was the only concern the Commission had.
Mr. Pozzi then stated that they had been made as part of the lease an easement
agreement permitting access to the north, which was also owned by Century
Properties; that there was a further agreement for a second easement around
the rear of the building to the south to a third drive, therefore, as a matter
of tne lease, the petitioner would have access to three driveways, and if it
was a requirement of the City, these easements and covenants wou13 be submitted
to the City.
Mr. Pozzi then advised the Commission that he had not received a notice of the
public hearing, although he did receive a copy of the Report to the Commission.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether Century Properties owned the Prime Rib
Restaurant to the north, and would there be access from the driveway of subject
property through the Prime Rib Restaurant property7
Mr. Pozzi replied that the access did not affect the Prime Rib Restaurant
leasehold but was a driveway onto Stanton Avenue immediately south of the
southerly boundary of the Prime Rib Restaurant.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, May 31, 1972 72-320
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1307 (Continued)
Commissioner Kaywood noted that it would be difficult to reach the proposed
restaurant when one traveled south on Stanton-Beach Soulevard because traffic
lanes changed from two-way to one-way, necessitating traveling south until a
break in the medi3n strip occurred in order to make a U-turn to go back north
again.
Mr. Pozzi noted that by providing the access to t~.e property to the north,
this would give guests of the restaurant an opportunity to travel north from
subject property.
Continued discussion was held by Commissioner Kaywood and Mr. Pozzi regarding
the difficulty as to access £or guests coming south on Beach Boulevard.
Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the shortage of parking spaces since it
would appear that some of the angle parking would require one-way to the rear,
and those going ta the rear would need access north or south since they could
not go back out the same way that they had entered; whereupon Mr. Pozzi stated
that the parking and access were interrelated, and everybody agreed that two
exits were needed in addition to the existing one on the leasehold property,
and one oL the reasons for this was because the building would have to be
placed on one side of the property due to its being long and narrow, and in
urder not to create a bottleneck. the easement was granted to qo around the
adjoining building to the south, giving the customer the choice of either going
~outh or north, and the other easement to Stanton would permit traf£ic only
to the north; and that these easements were granted and documented and went
with the life of the building.
Commissioner Seymour asked Mr. Pozzi whether he had any disagreements regarding
the recommended conditions; whereupon Mr. Pozzi stated he did not know what
action had taken place, and although he had asked the architect to evaluate
this, he had heard nothing; and that if the Commission required the covenants
for parking and access agreements, these would be given.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that Code required a given amount of
parking, and the easements for access would be part of the lease of the land,
and since the properties to the north and south were under one ownership, the
City needed these agreements that were set forth in the lease because they
would have to be recorded.
Mr. Pozzi then noted that if the City Attorney's office had copien of the
forms, he would be glad to file them; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated these were
documents that had to be drawn up by the attorney for the petitioner and
submitted to the City Attorney's o£fice for approval since there were no
special forms available.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-112 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1307, in part,
denying waiver of the required narking since t:he petitioner indicated there
would be a parking agreement submitted; that waiver of the required landscaping
had been withdrawn; and subject to conditions, together with the condition that
covenants covering both the parking agreement and ingress and egress easements
shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office for approval prior to recorda-
tion. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
e
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIuG COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-321
VARIANCE NO. 2368 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MAGIC LANTERN, INC.. 1030
West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner;
MC LEAN & SCHULT2, ENGII~EERS, Attention: Howard Parsell,
2000 East Chapman Avenue, Fulleston, California 92631,~Agent; requesting
WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARK]'NG SPACES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 39-UNIT MOTEL
TO 74 UNITS on property describec. as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
having a frontaqe of approximateiy 150 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue,
having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet and being located approxi-
mately 390 feet west of the cen~:erline of West Street, and further described
as 1030 West Katella Avenue. P::operty presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-
RECREATION, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the May 15, 1972 meeting to allow time for
the submission of special parkinq study data.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Chairman pru tem Seymour deferred consideration to later in the meeting and
sugqested staff contact the petitioner to determine what was proposed. (See
page No. 72-323)
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ARDEN D. AND MAV7S A. STRAND~
NO. 71-72-42 840 West Grove Avenue, Orange, California 92665, Owners;
HARRY KNISELY, 1741 South Euclid Street~ S,te B, Anaheim,
California 92802, Agent; requesting that property described
as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4 acres
having frontages of approximately 177 feet on the west side of Glassell. Street
and 513 feet on the south side o£ Frontera Street, being located at the south-
west corner of Glassell and Frontera Streets be reclassified from the R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Su~ject petition was continue3 from the meeting of May 1, 1972, in order to
determine if there were alternative methods of approving subject petition and
for the p~:.~•tioner *_~ meet with the City Attorney to determine the alternative
zoning method~ that could be used.
No one appeared ?.n opposition.
Although the Repoit to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated the petitioner was proposing only M-1 uees; that although he had met with
the City Attorney and the recommendations were made, it was decided to go ahead
with the original request; that subject property was somewhat isolated because
of the flood control channel to the west, the Riverside Freeway to the north,
and tta motorcycle raceway to the east; that there would be no trucks in the
rear, and because of the circulation pattern, there would be no outdoor storage;
and that of utmost importance was the fact that the parcel was quite isolated
from other uses, therefore, the use proposed would not be harmful.
Commissioner Herbst inquired a~ to the owner of the parcel to the west; where-
upon staff indicated this was the property of ~the Flood Control District.
Mr. Knisely noted that Code itself would prevent noise, odor, dust, etc., and
development in accordance with plans would prevent any other use permitted.
THE AEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend approval of Petition for
Reclassification No. 71-72-42, subject to conditions, although there could be
problems since this would be developed by Dunn Properties which had created
problems with their existing faci2ities on Ball Road.
Prior to roll call, considerable discussion was held by the Commission, with
Commissioner Herbst expressing concern that subject property did not lend
itself to rt--1 uses because the property had limited access to Frontera Street,
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 ~2'322
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-42 (Continued)
none to Glassell Street, and any industry prnposed needed access, even i!: only
for warehousing; that the property was completely isolated from the other M-1
properties north of the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana River and Glassell
Street; that the traffic from this use would not be compatible with the resi-
dential uses to the west since truck traffic could use Frontera Street to exit
to Rio Vista Street; that this would be spot zoningj and that he could not see
even any small industry making a success at this location.
Commissioner Allred concur.red with Commissioner Herbst's statements.
Commissioner Kaywood noted concern was because the Commission had been having
problems with Dunn Properties' M-1 development, pa::ticularly the Cycle House
on Ball Road, and she did not want a similar problem to occur on subject
property.
Mr. Knisely stated that although he had advised the Commission at the previous
hearing that Dunn Prooerties would be developing this, this was not so - it
would be J.E.D. Properties, the last name being the same but not the same
comp any .
On roll call the foregoing resolution lost for a tie vote, Commissioners Gauer,
Rowland and Seymour voting "aye", Commissioners Allred. Herbst and Kaywood
voting "no".
Subject petition was then held over to the June 12, 1972 public hearing for a
full Commission.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LEO ROSE, 375 San Palo Place, Pasadena,
NO. 71-72-48 California 91107. Owner; CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
1200 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92801,
Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangu-
larly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the
south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 222 feet,
being located at the southeast corner of Lincoln and Dale Avenues, and further
described as 2790 West Liacoln Avenue he reclassified fxom the R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
20NE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition
and received no response.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that subject petition was a condition
of approval of redevelopc~ent of the property, therefore, there would appear to
be no reason for the petitioner to be present.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-113 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the Cit~ Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 71-72-48 be approved, subject to canditions. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the £oregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSYOt3ERS: Allred. Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIJNERS: Farano.
..~
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-323
VARIANC~ NO. 2368 (Continued from page No. 72-321)
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that he had contacted the engineer for
the petitioner and had been advised that the owner was out of town, therefore,
he would request a two-week continuance on subject petition.
Commissioner Gauer offere8 a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION
CARRIED, to continue c~nsideration of Petition for Variance No. 2368 to the
meeting of June 12, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to be present and
to present additional parking information as required by the Commission.
RECLASS7FIC:ITZCN - PUBLIC HEARI:JG. DOMINICK AND NELLIE N. FRENO, 426 South
NO. 71-72-50 Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners;
property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
VARIANCE No. 2374 land having z frontage of approximately 66 feet on the
east side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of
approximately 238 feet and being located approximately
462 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as
426 South Seach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ 20NE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) REQUIRED FRONT LANDSCAPE AREA. (2) REQUIRED
REAR PARKING AREA LOCATION, (3) MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK,
(4) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONE~ AND (5) PARKING AREA DESIGN STANDARDS
TO PERMIT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO BE USED FOR
BOTH HOME AND REAL ESTATE OFFICE.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether anyone was present in opposition and
received no response.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referzed to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Dominick Freno, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
scated that plans and ~ictures submitted with the petition indicated what was
proposed, and that in his estimation trere was more than adequate parkinq being
provided.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer noted that it would appear to him the petitioner wanted the
zoning on the property, but there was no intent to improve the facilities since
under the variance five waivers were being requested.
Mr. Freno stated that all he wanted was a real estate office in conjunction
with hi~ residence; that there would be adequate parking; that there would be
easy access from the office to the parking areu; that there were walls presently
existing; and that there was a shoppiny center only 66 feet southerly of his
property. Furthermore, according to the master plan, this property was projected
for commercial uses.
Commissioner Herbst stated that Commissioner Gauer wanted to indicate that the
Commission recognized this to be commercial property, however, if this were
zoned and na improvements made, this would not add to the aesthetics of the
area since the waivers requested represented quite a number of the necessary
site development standards; and that i£ the petitioner wanted the zone, he
should conform Mith the standards o£ the zone rather than retaining the existing
building as it was.
Commissioner Allred noted that the Commission had not approved such a petition
for quite some time, and that the Commission would prefer to see commercial
buildings on the property.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-3i4
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-50 AND VARIANCE NO. 2374 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner did not even intend to improve
the front of the property, and although he did not find fault with the zone
request, he felt that the site development standards of the requested zone
should be met since both zoning and waivers wen* with the land, therefore,
he had no intention of waiving the site development stand>rds, and then
inquired whether the petitioner had any plans for the buildings on the property
and how old were the buildings; whereupon Mr. Freno replied negatively and
stated he did not know the age of the buildings, but they were there when the
property was annexed into the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Herbst noted these were very old homes which did not complement
the commercial uses established in the area.
Commissioner Allred inquired whether the petitioner would consider a continuance
in order to take the comments made by the Commission into conaideration, and
then present plans for commercial buildings; whereupon Mr. Freno stated he did
not have any plans for the present, but there might be something in the future.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that the plans indicated a planter and a 6-foot
wall on both sides, but upon visiting the property, these were not there at
th~ present time.
Mr. Freno replied that the wall was in for most of the way.
Commissioner Kaywood not~~,th~C he visit,~ the$r e t~, s~~se~~
only a~ ~ ooo`~lal lw wo~:~ __ no ~~ e~ n~ s+y ~~~TiC.
(~;,L~,;,,,~ r~~.:.._. ~.-tcN•
Mr. Freno replied there was a 6-foot fence, but not a wall.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether the petitioner had read the con3itions
of approval, particularly since this would require meeting the C-1 site develop-
ment standards and also bring the buildings up to the Uniform Suilding Code,
which incZuded the Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Fire Codes, and this
could amount to a considerable expense, probably more than tearing down the
buildings and rebuilding them would be, and it would be important to read these
reports submitted to petitioners, particularly when requesting a zoning, since
the commercial zone was not like a residential zone.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that if the Commission was of the
opinion that the zoning was appropriate, particularly since this was reflected
on the General Plan, it might be appropriate to approve the reclassification
and deny the variance, therefore, befoxe the owner could use the property for
commercial purposes, he would have to meet the site development stan::ards o£
the C-1 Zone, which could necessitate removal of the buildings.
Commissioner Gauer noted what would happen would be granting C-1 zoning in
order to permit selling of the property.
Chairman pro tem Seymour stated that regardlesa of who owned the property, the
site development standards of the proposed zone would have to be met.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-114 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 71-72-50 be approved, subject to conditions, eliminating Condition Nos. 7
and 9 and amending Condition No. 11, deleting reference to Condition Nos. 7 and
9. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F.arano.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-115 and mov_d for its passage
and adoption to deny Fetition for Variance No. 2374 on the basis that the
petita.oner did not demonstrate a hardship existed; that the existing buildings
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIG.~, "rlay 31, 1972 72-325
RECLASSIFICATION_ NO. 71-72-50 AND VARIANCE NU. 2374 (Continued)
could not be brought ug to the mini'mum standards required by the Uniform Build-
ing Code for conversion to commerciil uses; and thac the site development
standards of the C-1 Zone should be met if subject property were to ~e used
for commercial purposes. (See Resolution Book)
On ro11 call the foregoing reso].ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to recess the
meeting for ten minutes at 3:55 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman pro tem Seymour seconvened the meeting at
4:06 p.m., Commissioners Farano and Rowland being
absent.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD A. NIELSEN, ET AL, 1386 Laster
NO. 71-72-51 Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802, Owners; WOODY .TOHVSON,
1605 North Spurgeon, Santa Ana, Califor.nia 92701, Agent;
requesting that propesty described as: A recta~ngul~rly-
shaped parcel of land consisting oi' approximately 2.4 acres, having a frortage
of approximately 168 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, havinq a u~aximvm
depth of approximately 614 feet and being located approximately 760 feet east
of the centerline of Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2131 W~st
Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the C-1;
GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition
and received no response.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
reEerred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Woody Johnson, agent for the petitioner, appeared bef~re the Commission and
stated they were requesting reclassification of the property in order to develop
a 10,000-square foot buiiding for commercial sales of software and camping
equipment, and it was their intent to meet all Code requirements of the C-1 2one.
Commissioner Allred inquired as to the possible future plans for the rear
portion of the property; whereupon Mr. Johnson replied that it would be a good
place for children to play baseball or £or the establishment of gardens; that
they planned t~ blacktop it, but did not plan to fence it in, and the property
immediately to the north also ended in dirt, therefore, it would be better to
leave it for children to play.
Mr. Johnson further noted that if a suitable tenant could be obtained, they
might ask for further development of it for commercial uses.
THE HEA~ING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-116 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica-
tion No. 71-72-51 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Eook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, ::erbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COt4MISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-326
VARIANCE NO. 2371 - PUBLSC HEARING. RAYMOND C. AND CAROL L. COSTA, 862 Granite
Circle, Anaheim, California 92806, C:wners; requesting
WAIVER OF MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO PERMIT AN EXISTING
7-FOOT, 2-INCH HIGH FENCE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS of property descri5ed as:
An irregularly-shaped parcel of lsnd having a frontage of aporoximately 32 feet
on the east side of Granite Circle, h2ving a maximum depth of approximately 120
feet, being located approximately 175 feet north of the centerline of Nyon
Avenue, and further described as 862 Granite Circle. Property presently
classified P.-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether anyone was present in opposition, and
one person indicated his presence.
Ass.~stant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
prop.~rty, uses established in close proximity, aad the proposal in which the
applic:ant added a Fiber-glas extension to the existing block wall on the
property, making the total height of the fence 7 feet, 2 inches; that the
applicant indicated they desired to install a portable-type swimming pool and
wished to have the privacy that the added height would give; that the added
fence height would give the property protection from the chil3ren in t:he
adjacent school yard; and that this addition to the existiny fence wauld appear
to have no detrimental effect upon the adjacent properties since the increase
of 1 foot, 2 inches over the required 6 feet would appear to have little ef.fect
in relationship to the intent of requiring a 6-foot wall. Therefore, tt,e
Con~mission might wish to. consider this fence height to be appropriate in light
of the adjacent school.
Mr. Ray Costa, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
prior to construction of this Plexi-glas addition, he had mentioned it to his
neighbor who was in favor of it and only concerned that it would loosen the
mortar of the brick on the wall; that this had been adequately provided for by
angling into the wall, and the Plexi-glas addition was loose enough in the
event of a strong wind that it would tear out of the frame before it would
break down the wall; that his dog could clear the 6-foot fence, therefore,
the addition was necessary; that everythinq was acceptable until his neighbor
tried to tell him what he should do to his own yard, and subject petition was
the result of this.
Mr. Paul Scheer, 864 Granite Circle, appeared before the Commission in opposition
and stated he would deny that he was in favor of the Fiber-Plexi-glas wall;
that another consideration he would like to question this height in the evalu-
ation i*_ was 1 foot. 2 inches, but when the petitioner moved in, he had agreed
with him to install a 6-foot wall, and from his fence it would appear to be
over 8 feet high since the two-by-fours of the Plexi-glas wall measured 29
inches, and it was indicated a 7-£oot, 2-inch wall - one section was one block
lower than the balance of the wall, thus there would be two measurements; that
if it were measured at 7 feet, 2 inches and 29 inches were subtracted from the
6 feet, this would be difficult to believe that the wall was only 4 feet, 9
inches high, and if that were so, there would be sufficient height to add more
blocks to the existinq'wall; that the petitioner had constructed the Fiber-g'tts
wall after he had asked him that this not be constructe2, and construction h:-~.
occurred without permission from the City, there£ore, he had made certain tr~*
the City was made aware of it; and that the primary reason for the wall was
because of his dogs, since the scliool district had mov2d the baseball diamond
to the north and placed a larger backstop to keeF balls from being thrown or
hit into the residential area. Furthermore, since he and his neighbor had
agreed to the 6-foot wall and all of his neighbors were opposed to the increase
in height, he had contacted the neighbo•~~s who had received not?ces of che vari-
ance request, and 25 persons had siqned his petition in opposition, and then
read said petition.
Mr. Costa, in rebuttal, stated that the existing wall was a 5-foot fence
measured from the grade level; that the opponent's property was 1 foot below
his yard; that this property originally was an orange grove with considerable
drop from one property to another, and this was the reason why only a 5-foet
fence had been consc.ructed in ..he rear while a 7-foot fence was constructed
in the front; that the opposition had made reference to spending money to
relocate the ball diamond, however, the school had built a new ball diamond
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~MMI3SION, May 31, 1972 72-327
VARIANCF N0. 2371 (Continued)
for Li*_tle League, and it was not unusual for him to pick up eight to ten
balls on weekends L•rom his propertyt that the glass patio door had been broken
by these balls; and that of the 25 names mentioned, these were others than those
residing on the cul-de-sac where only 9 homes were located, and the latter were
the ones who should be concerne3 w:th the request.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether this 6-foot wall was joint~y owned by him
and his neighbor and received an affirmati°ae response from the petitioner, who
noted that the opgosition was complaining about two panels that were adjacent
to his property line, but these panels were angled into his side of the fence
and were far enough away from his home so as not to interfere with light and
air, however, the ~pponent's property was not adjacent to the school.
Commissioner Gauer again inquired wi:ether or not the petitioner had attached
anything to this common wall; whereupon the petitioner stated tiiat there were
two panels anchored on his side of the wall, and that the panels wexe not
located on top of the common portion of the wall.
Commissioner Herbst noted, in reviewing the pictures presented, one waJ.l
measured 5 feet,. 4 inches. and with this additional 29 inches, would add up
to a 7-foot, 2-inch wall.
Cammissioner Allred obser~ed that this opposition was the reverse of what
normally has been requested by the opposition, wherein 8-£oot walls were
requested.
Mr. Costa noted that all of the homes on this ct.-de-sac had more than 6-foot
wal.ls, and many measured almost 8 feet.
Comm?ssioner Herbst inquired as to the location of the opposition's home;
whereupon Mr. Scheer stated that he was located immediately to the south of
subject property, and that all of the walls were 9-course walls except for
one side.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-117 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition~for Variance No. 2371 on the basis that the
petitioner had proven a hardship existed, and the Commission in the past
had granted waiver of the 6-foot wall where a hardship had been proven. (See
2esolution•BOOk)
Prior to soll call, Commissioner ti~rbst noted that as a point of clarification,
the Planninq Commission in the past had gzanted 8-foot high walls; that he d.Ld
not agree with the opposition that £iber-glas paneling was not attractive or
that it would be detrimental to the masonry wall, particularly the manner in
which this was constructed;" and that portions of the wall were not 6 feet high
according to the number of courses, therefore, measurement as staff indicated
was correct.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst. Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AHSENT: COMMISSZONERS: Farano, Rowland.
•
~
e
,! ~.pT~S, CI:Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 ~2'328
VARIANCE NO. 2372 - PUBLIC HEARING. EDWIN E. KETTLER, 525 South West Street,
Anaheim, !:alifornia 92805, Owner; requesting WAIVEP. OF
(1) MINIMUM BUILDINC+ SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (2)
MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK, AND (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SP:~,CES TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX IN ADDITZON TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX on property des-
cribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 52 feet on the west side of Claudina Street, havi.ng a maximum depth of
approximately 155 feet, being located approximately 446 feet north of the
centerline of Wilhelmina Street an.: furthet described as 735 North Claudina
Street. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether there was anyone present in opposi-
tian and received no response.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public haaring, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Ed Kettler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
presently the two residential units did not have any parking facilities; that
the proposed use was in con£ormance with the General Plan; that if subject
petition were approved, upon completion parking wocld he provided in accordance
with Code, although tandem parking was proposed for two parY.ing spaces and was
not permitted by Code; that the existing structures on the rear of the property
were substandard, and it would be unreasonable to requirE that they be brought
up to Code; that the area where the proposed structures were to be located was
an eyesore; and that the petition had signatures of four persons in this area in
favor of the proposal since they felt this would increase the value of their
property, which, in turn, would mean an increase in tax rate.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner .'~erbst inquired whether the two tandem parking stalls would be
assigned to the same apartment; whereupon Mr. Kettler replied that since he
would be manager of this, he would make ^ertain that this would be a regulation
so that the prospective tenants would understand that tandem cars would have to
be parked accordingly in garages assigned to them and spaces alloted to tandem
parking.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether other lots in this general asea had
had aimilar waivers of the side yard; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles
Roberts noted that similar requests had been approved across the street and
two lots down where a 6-foot side yard was permitted.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-118 and mo~~.d for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2372, subject to oanditions
and the stipulation by the petitioner that any tandem parking would be assigned
according to the units they were supposed to serve. (See Resolixtion Book)
Prior to roll call, Comm~ssioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner had
made any plans for the redesign of the trash storage area; whereupon Mr.
Kettler stated he had discussed this with staff, who had called the Sanitation
Department, and the Sanitation Department had advised the~ that they did not
need the trash bi*.~ in the alley, and that he had also talked with a representa-
tive earlier in the day who recommended the standard 6x8-foot bin, however,
this would not fit into their present plan and it was the size that would
accommodate 12 units, whereas they were proposing only 4 units, and after havinq
discussed this with the Sanitation Department, they had advised him that the
6x8-foot bin was not necessary and that trash areas then could be provided in
a einilar manner as single-family homes.
On roll call the foregoing resoletion was passed by the following vote:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
C
..4
i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMtSSION, May 31, 1972 ~2-329
VARIANCE NO. 2373 - PUBLIC HEARING. IRWIN B. NEWHOUSE ANL' ROY L. HURLBUT,
11301 Bir.ler Drive, Garden Grove, California 9264G, Ownersj
requestiag WAIVER OF (::? ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT ANA (2)
PERMITTED 20NE TO ALLOW DISPLAY OF FLAGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING
29-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described. as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 232 feet on the south side
of P4unga1l Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 190 feet, beinq
located approximately 664 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue and
further described as 3700 West Mungall Drive. Property presently classified
R-3. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whethex thexe was anyone present in opposi-
tion anL received no response.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Irwin Newhouse, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
stated his request was rather unusual since he was in an unusual situation
because of the location of the apartments, beinq on a dead-end street, which
can be seen fram Orange Avenue at a distance; that these flags caught the eye
of people driving on Orange Avenue, and since these flags were up, they had
rented the majority of their apartments, the people stating they had seen the
apartments because of these flagst that he had na results from advertising in
the newspaper; that he could not afford a larqe display ad for tenants because
of the size of the apartment complex; that he proposed red, white and blue flags
of 3x5 feet; that these flags would not hurt the ecology; that they would be
erected in the morning and taken down in the evening; that he would discontinue
using the flags when the apartment house was fullt that they needed every means
possible to fill the apartment house since it took a certain amount of money
to maintain the apartments; and that this was not a busy street where people
would be driving by to see the apartments.
Commissioner Allred inquired whether the flags could be seen from Knott Avenue;
wt;ereupon Mr. Newhouse stated that they could not be seen too well, but the
majority of their prospective tenants saw the flaqs from Orange Avenue.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred noted that there was no time limit indicated in the
petition for the length of time these flags would be kept up, and inquired
of the petiti~ner what length of time was needed; whereupon Mr. Newhouse
replied, until the apartments were full and that might take some time.
Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the length of time these L•lags had been
up; whereupon Mr. Newhouse stated that the apartments had opened ia October,
1971, and they were now jus•t half full; that they had received the majority
of their tenants since the flags had been put up, which was abor~t three months
aqo.
Commissioner Seymour observed that one c~ hardly see these flags from the
street; whereupon Mr. Newhouse stated thatAb~ rather readily seen from
Orar_ge Avenue. ~~ .~,y~y~` ~ ~.w./~SJ ,~cw~K.'
v
Commissioner Gauer inquired of staff as to the requirements of flags on
service stations; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that for
special events the service stations were allowed to have flags fourteen days
twice a year.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether Mr. Newhouse would like to see flags
flying from every apartment house; whereupon Mr. Newhouse stated that they
could not have the hardship he had because of the location of the property and
the fact that they had aot rented the property.
Commissioner Herbst noted that if subject petition were approved, this would
be setting a precedent in which the Commission would have to allow everyone
having apartment houses to be permitted to have flags because of vacancies -
this would be his great concern because a var'ance went with the land.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-330
VARIANCE N0. 2373 (Continaed)
Mr. Newhouse stated that all he was asking for was use of the flags until his
building was full.
Commissioner Gauer noted that an apartment development on Crescent Avenue
advertised child care; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the provisions in
the Siqn Ordinance provided for identification of the project and advertised
renting of the facilities with the sign a maximum of 20 square feet for a
rental sign in the R-3 Zone.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that there were other apartments along this same
street which indicated their vacancies in the propes manner, and if subject
petition were approved, it would set a precedent for other similar requests.
In addition, the apartments down the street also had a vacancy sign that
could not be sEen.
Mr. Newhouse replied that these vacancy signs were not visible from Orange or
Knott Avenues.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that with the existing vacancy factor, where
would one set the limit for similar requests? Furthermore, the petitioner had
selected this location to build these apartments; whereupon the petitioner stated
that he would not have built these apartments had he known that he r.ould not
rent them.
Commissioner Gauer noted that a new apartment complex should expect to have a
vacancy factor.
Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission had a great amount of empathy
for the petitioner, however, these flags had already been up for three manths,
and i£ a variance were approved, this would open the door for all other apart-
ment complexes to request similar display of flags.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the City Sign Ordinance permitted the display of
flags and banners for two fourteen-day periods a year, and the petitioner had
already exceeded the allotted amount several times.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-119 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 23T3 on the basis that the
petitioner had not proven a hardship existed and approval o£ subject petition
would set an undesirable precedent wherein all other apartment complexes could
request a similar waiver, and that the petitioner would be enjoying a privilege
not enjoyed by others. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing reso2ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbs*_, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-331
VARIANCE NG. 2375 - PUBLIC HEARING. ERNEST L. DANKER, ET AL, 5132 South Ohio
Street, Yorba Linda, California 92686, Owners; CLASSIC
TENTATIVE MAP OP DEVELOPMENT CORP., 12700 Knott Avenue, Garden Grove,
TRACT NOS. 7617, California 92641, Agent; ENGINEER: RONALD W. MARTIN &
7730, 7731, 7732, ASSOCIATES, INC., 2212 Dupont Drive, Suite B. Irvine,
7733, AND 7734, California 92664; requesting WAiVER OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT
REVISION N0. 2 YARD, (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH~ AND ~3) MINIMUM LOT AREA TO
ESTABLISH A 459-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION on property
described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land con-
sisting of approximately 100 acres, having a frontage of approximately 4,100
feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of
approximately 1,500 feet, being located approximately one mile east of Imperial
Highway, and further described as 20631 Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property
presently classified COUNTY OF ORANGE R1, SINGLE-FAMILY 7000 DISTRICT AND A1,
AGP :ULTURAL DISTRICT.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUESTS: No. 7617 - 75 lots; 7730 - 80 lots; 7731 - 67 lots;
7732 - 68 lots; 7733 - 94 lots; and 7734 - 70 lots,
all zoned R-1.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether there was anyone present in opposi-
tion, and one person indicated his presence.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action un the
property in which the City Council denied a req~iest for R-2-5000 zoning under
Reclassification No. 71-72-30 and established a resolution of intent to R-1,
7200-square foot lots on the same property; that at the same time, the variance
request was denied, as were the tract maps since they were not designed to meet
the reguired site development standards of the zone approvedt that the peti-
tioner was proposing to develop a 454-1ot subdivision on anproximately 100
acres with waiver of the minimum lot width and lot area; that the proposal had
utilized one of the existing access points to Santa Ana Canyon Road and also
proposed the relocation of a second access point to more adequately serve the
proposed development as well as future development on the south side of Santa
Ana Canyon Road; that a third access point at the easterly end - Access Point
No. 11 - would be utilized in the event the property between this proposal and
Santa Ana Canyon Road was developed - otherwise, this entire 454-1ot, single-
family subdivision would be served by tw~ access points to Santa Ana Canyon
Road; that the tract maps submitted conformed with the Scenic Corridor Overlay
2one which was in effect in this partioular area; and that the tract maps
proposed 167 lots, or 36.8$ of the total 454 lots, at 6000 to 6490 square feet;
54 lots, or 11.8~ of the total lots, at 6590 to 7190 square feet; and 233 lots,
or 51.4~ of the total lots, at 7200 square feet or more per lot.
Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the General Plan designated
this entire area as being appropriate for low density residential development;
that the General Plan also indicated the location of an elementary and junior
high school, tcgether with a park site and a commercial area within this general
area; that General Plan Amendment No. 122, Exhibit "C", was approved by the
City Council in 1971, reaffirming the City Council's determination of this
area as being appropriate ~or low density residential development; that in
recent discussions with the Orange Unified School District, it was indicated
that an elementary school would be the only probable school facility that
would be needed in this general srea, however, the submitted plans did not
indicate the inclusion of the school site on this property, but a previously
submitted tract map indicated the school on the adjacent property; and that
the Anaheim City Parks Department indicated the need in this area for a 9 to
10-acre park site~ which was also r,o longer shown on this plan but was shown
on the previous map as being adjacent to the proposed elementary school site.
Mr. McDaniel, in continuing his evaluation, stated that the waiver of the
minimum front setback was for one lot adjacent to the Riverside Free::ay which
would not have sufficient depth to a*_tain the required 25-foot setnack while
still adhering to the required Scenic Corridor Zone 50-foot building setback
adjacent to arterials or freeways, and this was the only lot in these tracts
on which the request was being made; that waiver of the minimum lot area and
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PL•ANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-332
VARIANCE N0. 2375 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NQS. 7617. 7730~ 7731, 7732~
7733, AND 7734, REVISZON N0. 2(Continued)
lot width was being requested with no hardship being shown on the entire
property, and the request was apparently the result of an attempt to maximize
the number of units permitted on the property; that the developer had indicated
the proposed development would occur in six phases which would correspond with
the submit:ed tentative tract maps; that the existing Subdivision Ordinance as
it appliec' in the Scenic Corridor would reauire a 6-foot high earthen berm
along Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, with the provision that
a 6-foot high masonry wall be constructed in lieu of tl:e berm where hardship
existed, thus, considering the difference in grade between subject property
and Santa Ana Canyon Road and consi.dering the fact that the tracts to the west
were permitted a 6-foot wall instead of the berm, the Commission might wish to
consider the appliaant's proposal to install a masonry wall along Santa Ana
Canyon Road to be more appropriate than the earthen berm. In addition, the
developer was providing the 50-foot rear yard setback along the fre~way in
addition to the 6-foot high earthen berm; and that the developer had also
indicaten a willingness to close the median break and relinquish the access
points that exist in order to obtain a relocated access point as shown on the
tentative tract map.
Mr. Morrie Nickle, representing the developer, Classic Development Corp.,
appeared before the Commission and stated there were three points which he
wished to bring to the Commission's attention, nareely, 1) there was a need
for smaller lot housing, and approval of subject petition would close off the
corridor for any other type of zoning; that they recognized there was a need
for under $30,000 houses in the City of Anaheim, and it was probably the most
neglected market in the business; and that they were proposing through the use
of some smaller lots to have at least 30$ to 40$ of the homes under $30,000,
although he could not state exactly what the cost would be, it would be in the
neighborhood of $28,000 for the smaller lots.
2) As to hardship, there was one involved in this property. and the engineer
could elaborate on this - this was a long, narrow piece of property between
the freeway and a major arterial; that the berm area required as a sound
barrier was a very definite need; that the Scenic Corridor required additional
setback which was out of proportion in grading costs to that of developing in
the flatland areas; that there were two major drainage structures required
across subject property, which would take care of the "run-off" from the
property to the south - these were all economic conditions which had created
a hardship on the property and should be worthy of special consideration.
3) There was an indication by previous Ciky Council action that certazn size,
5000-square foot lots were in line with development of the master plan as
being low density, but now he did not know what that density was considered,
and they had been laboring under the problem of trying to interpret what the
master plan saift; that in their attempt to interpret this meaning, they had
submiY.ted a development with a density of 5.8 units per acre on more acreage,
however, the revised plans before Ehe Commission had reduced this to 4.5 units
per acre; that it was his opinion that the blend of 7200-square foot lots and
some of-the smaller lots would allow for homes in the lower price range - in
addition, this proposal was about the limit of their ability to economically
and feasibly develop this property, and if it was unacceptable as was being
proposed with a few minor revisions, he could state that it would be totally
unfeasible to think of all 7200-square foot lots, and they would have to go
elsewhere.
Mr. Nickle, in conclusion, stated that there was one lot where the waiver of
setback was requested, however, this was at the end of a cul-de-sac and it
would not be a problem; and that several o£ the landowners were present because
they were interested in what would be done with their propertyt and that
Mr. Danker's agent wcild speak briefly for them.
Mr. Richard Zlaket, 4110 Maple ~Drive, representing Ernest, Ralph, and
Stella Danker, app are before the Commission and sta~ed he had been an
accountant for theq n er-+ for many years and as Mr. Nickle stated, it was
rather difficult to develop subject property; that the Dankers had purchased
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-333
VARIANCE N0. 2375 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7617~ 7730~ 7731, 7732~
7733, AND 7734, REVISION ho. 2(Continued)
their property in 1933, and it was developed with orange groves, however, with
the recently-enacted law, the taxes had been increased to $10,000 per acre;
and that they were asking favorable consideration of the Commission in approv-
ing subject petition since they felt this was a better way of developing their
property. In addition, the Dankers were in their 70's and 80's and could no
longer work the groves to make them productive.
Mr. Robert Martin, engineer for the proposed development, appeared before the
Commission and referred to Finding (12) of the Report to the Commission
regarding hardship and stated that subject property was experiencing an un-
usual amount of development problems, and the economics of a project should
be part of the consideration of the developmer. , particularly with the two
items previously mentioned - they could be considered abnormal expenditures,
namely, the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation ditch which had to be lowEred in order
to accommodate the development of the property, which blocked the acce>s to
the property, and then presented an illustration indicating the varying dif-
ferences this development had compared to others, notinq that the orange lines
represented the storm drains for drainage purposes above Santa Ana Canyon Road;
that the cost for changing the SAVI channel was $80,000, and the storm drain
was for a 72-inch diameter drain, cos~ing $155,000, or a total of about
$235,000 or approximately $2,350 per acre for two items alone. in addition,
the construction of the berm along the Riverside Freeway, together with the
decorative walls and the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Zone, brought the
initial cost up considerably, and with Code requiring 7200-square foot lots
averaging 4 lots per acre, the developer was requesting only an additional
one-half lot per acre to take care of these substantial costs of development.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether subject property was located in the flood
plain area; whereupon Mr. Martin stated that the Orange County Flood Control
District stated subject property was safe from a 100-year storm, but the Corps
of Engineers stated that the property would not be safe from the standard
project flood, and that theOrange County Flood Control District required only
that the property be protected from a 100-year flood, which subject property
had except for the school site.
Commissioner Gauer then inquired whether this would be acceptable to the Real
Estate Commission when they considered issuing a clearance for the subdivisions.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that the Real Estate Commission would have to
issue their report as to these potential hazards, and from his experience.
reports had been issued for properties in this general area, however, he did
not feel this would be a deterrent.
Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion, representing the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, and stated
there were several things on the new plan which were not pr.esent in the previous
proposal, namely, traffic circulation problems that would affect fire protection
since the cul-de-sacs were rather narrow, down to 20 feet, and it would appear
this was dcne in order to meet a larger land area for development.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the 20 feet referred to was a walkway for
school children.
Mr. McQueen stated his organization was opposed to the proposed density since
it would be in conflict with the R-1 2one which required 7200-square foot lots;
that the hardship indicated appeared to be similar to a previous petition,
namely, flags needed to rent the property - in this instance, waivers needed
to get more yield from the land; and that their primary concern would be what
wnuld happen to development in Santa Ana Canyon on the oouth side of Santa Ana
Canyon Road. Furthermoxe, the City Council had recently denied smaller lots
on property on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, with the developers
later coming in with the requi.red lot size as set forth in the R-1 Zone,
therefore, he would request that subject petition and tracts be denied on the
basis that they did not conform with the R-1 Zone site development standards.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72•-334
VARIANCE NO. 2375 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7617~ 7730, 7731, 7732r
7733, AND 7734, REVISION NO. 2(Continued)
A letter of opposition was read to the Commission by the Commission Secretary.
Mr. Nickle, in rebuttal, stated that although the staff indicated the per-
centage of land coverage, they were well below the 33$ land coverage. and
that he was available to answer any que~tions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood requested that the developer explain why the school and
park site were not included in this plan; whereupon Mr. Nickle stated that it
was in the original plan and was part of the Kraemer property, however, the
delays had worked against them, and they were unable to qet further coopera-
tion from the Kraemer family, but the GenEral Plan still projected the school
and park site for this general azea, which would be close to the mid-point
between the possible ea~tward development and the ~~st end of the residential
development of the areas between Imperial Highway and Eucalyptus Drive and
between Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, the most central
point which would meet the requirements of both the school and park peop2e.
Mr. Nickle further stated that the figures presented by staff as to develop-
ment were somewhat deceiving regarding the 7200-square foot lots because these
lots represented almost 63+t of the land area, and there were lots ranging up
to 13,000 and 15,000 square feet, therefore, the 51$ represented the number
of homes and not acreage used.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that he had given this proposal considerable
thought as to development costs and cost of land and the need for yield, and
he was also very familiar with the fact that the developer was "caught in the
middle" of a change in policy by the City Council, but not as it pertained to
the Planning Commi.ssion - the Planning Commission land use policy had r,ever
changed, and the Commission had been very vocal and consistent on development
in the Santa Ana Canyon between the river and Santa Ana Canyon Road, which was
reflected in General Plan Tmendment No. 122; and that although he had great
empathy in this particular development and had a thorough under.standing of the
problems of development which had been told by the petitioner's developer, the
developer had never been misled in the thinking of the Planninq Commission.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-120 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2375 on the basis that the
Planning Commission had ~onsistently recommended that the land use p~licy under
General Plan Amendment No. 122. Exhibit "C", be upheld wherein low density
residential development was indicated; that low density residential is inte~•-
preted as being single-family development with Zots no smaller than 7200 square
feet, whereas the petitioner was proposing approximately 51$ of the lots with
less than 7200 square feet of land area; that the City Council denied a request
for R-2-5000 zoning (5000-square foot lots) and adopted a resolution o.° intQnt
approving R-1 zoning (7200-square foot lots) on this property on April 18, 1972;
and that the petitioner had not demons*_rated a hardship existed to grant favor-
able consideration of any waivers from Code as had been requested. (See
Resolution Book)
Prior to roll call, further discussion was held by the Commission, Commissioner
Kaywood noting that she had attended the City Council public hearing on the
previous request by the petitioner-developer, and the City Council specifically
stated the R-1 lots should be 7200 square feet, and that although she was aware
of the need for less expensive homes, they should not be located in this area
where people would be miles from shopping facilities, and it would coet more to
live in this area.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the applicant was fully aware of the Planning
Commission's stand on low density development in the canyon, and it would have
been to his advantage to present a plan that would meet Code requirements, but
it would appear that what was being attempted was to "beat down" the Ordinance
by requesting waivers; that the petitioner could proceed on subject property
without appearing before the Commission at a public hearing for a variance -
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-335
VARIANCE NO. 2375 AND T~NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7617, 7730, 7731, 7732~
7733, AND 7734, REVISION NO. 2(Continued)
all that would be necessary would be to present the subdivision map for
approval; and that he could not understand why the developer could not be
convinced that this area could not withstand higher density.
Commissioner Gauer noted that for each lot it would cost $510 for storm drains
and lowerinq the SAVI channel; that an additional 5200 would be required for
park and recreation fees, and epproximately $250 for underground utilities -
this would be approximately $1,000 per lot alone, there£ore, he did not feel
that homes could be built cheaply unless the homes were substandard :ousing.
Commissioner Herbst noted that where considerable expense was incurred in
development, this was not unusual for property in this area. Furthermore, if
the petitioner planned to redesign the tract maps, he would suggest that some-
thing be done with the circulation in this tract, which appeared to be a game
with a maze - this was one of the poorest circulation patterns he had ever
seen, and it would be difficult to move people from here in the event of an
emergency.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
Chairman pro tem Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred
and MOTION CARRIED, to deny Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7617, 7730, 7731,
7732, 7733, and 7734, Revision No. 2, on the basis that since the variance
had been denied, subdivision as proposed could not be accompZished within
the site development standards of the R-1 Zone.
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS GARAGE SETBACKS IN THE R-H-10,000 ZONE.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that based on the City Council's
discussion the previous day at the public hearing on the R-2-5000 2one, the
Code amendment would be brought back to the Commission at their next meeting,
and sather than considering the R-H-10,000 Zone proposal before them now, the
Commission could consider all the setbacks of the single-family zones.
ITEM NO. 2
VARIANCE NO. 2261 (Alfred W. Melin) - Waiver of
the minimum required parking - Property located
on the north side of Katella Avenue, approximately
240 feet east of the centerline o£ Brookhurst Street -
Request for termination.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, us'es established in close proximity, previous zoning action on
the property under Petition for Variance No. 2261, and the petitioner's
request to terminate said action since he did not plan to exercise the
variance.
Commissioner xerbst offered Resolution No. PC72-121 and moved for its oassage
and adoption to terminate all proceedings ~n Variance No. 2261, as requested
by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foxegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISS~ONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNI'.JG COMMISSION, May 31, 1972 72-336
ITEM NO. 3
VARIANCE NO. 2255 (John Hopkins) - Waiver of
permitted uses to establish a retail store on ~
the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately
330 feet west of the cent•~rline of Beach Boulevard -
Request for termination.
Assist.i:~• , '+•'~~rvisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
propert: .•• -'~~~iyhed in close proximity, the requested waivers under
subjeea. , ~+:• .+n;~ the letter requesting termination of subject petition
be made •~.. .~~ = petitioner did not intend to exercise the request.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-122 and moved for its passage
and adoption to terminate all proceedings of Variance No. 2255, as requested
by L•he petitioner. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
ITEM N0. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1268 (Roy L. Pina-
Lynn Thomsen) - Request for an extension of time -
Propezty located on the north side of La Palma
Aveiiue, approximately 76 feet west of Onondaqa
Avenue.
Assistant Zoning Supervi+~:~t Don McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses establisr.ed in close proximity. previous zonii,y action on the
property. and the request for a 180-day time extension, to expire Octobe: 18,
1972; that none of the conditions of approval had been met; and tY~at staff
would recommend a retroactive extension of time be granted for the period
from April 18 to May 32, 1972, with an additional extension of. time to be
granted to expire October 18, 1972.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant an extention of time, to expire
October 18, 1972, for the completion of conditions under Conditional Use
Permit No. 1268. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM NO. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1257 (Atlantic Richfield-
Heritage Christian College) - Property located at the
southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Muller Street,
known as 1900 West Cresc~nt Avenue - Establishment of
a private, four-year lib.r:ral arts college ar.d related
facilities - Request for an extension of time.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property. uses established in close proximity, the Planning Commission action
on October 4, 1971, granting the establishment of a 5,OOC-studentr pr3vate,
four-year liberal arts college and related facilities on subject p=operty
under Resolution No. PC71-192, the time limitation having expired April 4,
1972, and no previous extensicns of time had been requested or granted; and
that staff would recommend a one-year extension of time be granted, to expire
April 4, 1973.
Commissioner Herbst o£fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTZON CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time, to expire April 4,
1973, for the compietion of conditions established in Resolution No. PC71-192,
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1257.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COI3NIISSION, May 31, 1972 72-337
I'fEM NO. 6
VA~tIANCE NO. 2297 (S. V. Huneaker, Jr.) - Property
located at the northwest corner of La Jolla Street
and the future extension of Red Gum Street -
Resolution of intent to M-1 - Request foz an
extension of time.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning on the property,
and the request for an extension of time to meet the conditions of Resolution
No. 71-203 granting Variance No. 2297: that three of the four conditions having:
a time limitation of 180 days had been completed, and all that was left was the
preparation and approval of street improvement plans; therefore, staff would
recommend a one-year extension of time for the completion of said condition.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time, to expire April 18,
1973, for the completion of conditions of Resolution No. 71-203 granting
Variance No. 2297.
TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - Assistant Development Services Director Ronald
Thompsan advised the Planning Commission that the
City Council had requested a joint work session with
the Commission and developers of single-family homes
to discuss the underground utilities policy, said
work session having been sclieduled for June 6, 1972,
at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the
meet•ing to a work session with the City Council on
June 6, 1972, at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Allred
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~%L'J~iIT/ ~~~rLC/l~e/
ANN K*.tEBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
AK:hm
0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC.
10i0 lacy A+~•. 776-3220
An.~hE~rn, C~~I~t~rn~a
0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERYICE, INC.
;nlO l;,cy A~:c. 7'o~3zzo
,^.r,,r~~. m, !:el~tn~nla