Minutes-PC 1972/06/12~
r"1
u
' City Hall
Anaheim. California
June 12. 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF TIiE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - A reqular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
MEETING called to order hy Chairman pro tem Seymour at 2:00 p•m•r a
quorum being present.
`i
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Seymour.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer (entered at 2:07 p.m•)r Herbst,
Kaywood, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSSONERS: Farano.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attozney: Frank Lowry
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGZANCE Flag.
APPROVAL O£ - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes
seconded by Commissioner
1972
31
THE MINUTES ,
,
of the meetings of May 15 and
Allred and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections:
Minutes of May 15, 1972
Pg. 72-267 - Approval of April 17 minutes, pg. 72-206, para. 1
"
and 2, lines 14 and 5, chanqe "precedent
to "precedence".
pq, ~2-2g2, para. 5: Confusing - rephrase.
dd: playground "to confine children
pq, ~y-2g2, para. 5, line a
during vehicle repair work only."
pq, 72-2gg, para. 6, lines 1 and 3: Commissioner Falano voted
anpn ;'st:'t.*~. ~
pq, 72-Zg9, para. 10, line 6 insert: difficult to 'keep under
"
)
surveillance;" (strike "surveil
pg. 72-308. para. ~0, line 2 delete: "attempt to keep them."; ,
insert "remove all the trees.
Ninutes of May 31, 1972
pq. 72-324, para. 4, line 1 add: 6-foot "masonry"
pq, ~y-3Z~, para. 6. line 2 insert and reword: "only a 2 to 3-
foot wall on the front half of the north
side with no wall on the remainder, and
assorted chain link and other partial
fences and walls on the south side."
pq, 7Z_329, para. 8 should read: "Commissioner Seymour observed
that from the photographs one could hardly
see these flags from the street; whereupon
Mr. Newhouse stated that the photographs
were deceiving and the flags were rather
readily seen £rom Orange"Avenue."
pg. 72-332, para. 6, l.ine 3 change: accountant for "the Dankers"
"
.
to accountant for "Ralph Denker
72-338
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-339
GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY
AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim.
NO. 123-A California; to consider a proposal to amend that portion
(READVERTISED) of the Anaheim General Plan consisting of an area approxi-
mately 4,200 acres locate~l generally south of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, east of the Newpc:ct Freeway, and extending
easterly beyond Mohler Drive to Weir Canyon and havirg a acutherly boundary
apgroximately along the Santa Ana Mountains ridge line, amending the densities
proposEd for that area.
Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the :neeting of May 15, 1972,
to allow time for staff to re-evaluate the densities proposed.
No one appeared in opposition.
Mr. James Barisic, representing Anaheim Hills, indicated his presence to
answer questions.
THE HEARZNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the ~ommission had discussed previously the
possible differences in densities between the Cities of Anaheim and Orange
and inquired whether this density.corresponded with General Plan Amendment
No. 123 already considered by the Planninq Commission.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Coinmission that the report
presented to the Commission had been calculated in two different ways: 1)
the gross acreage with 3reakdown~ between the Ci.ties of Anaheim and Orange
and 2) the ne* acreage, eliminating the golf course and reservoir; that the
density approved under General Plan A,mendment No. 123 for the area under the
influence of the City of Anaheim reflected a density of 3.98 dwelling units
per net acre, and the proposed land use statements of General Plan Amendment
No. 123-A indicated a density of 3.56 dwelling units per net acre, or approxi-
mately .40 per net acre reduction within Anaheim.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that it would appear that +:.here was less density
than under General Plan Amendment No. 123, and it should certainly answer any
questions the City of Orange had at the last public hearing.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission
that a copy of the Report to the Commission on General Plan Amendment No. 123-A
had been mailed to the City of Orange.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not a seismic study had been made a
part of the recommendation and if not, this study should be made a requirement
of each tentative tract map considered by the City in order to prevent the
City being held responsible in the event of an earthquake ~slide.
Mr. Thompson noted that the present requirement was to submit soils and
engineering geology reports, and that staff did not have an opportunity to
assess whether the new State law would affect'Anaheim, which was a charter
city.
Commissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 2:07 p.m.
Mr. Thompson further noted that the~s~w~n the process of working toward
a seismic study and ordinance, but this would be some ttvo years away.
Commissioner Fierbst offered Resolution No. PC72-123 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that General PZan Amendment No.
123-A, encompassing the entire 4200-acre ranch formerly known as Nohl Ranch,
be approved. (See Resolutioa Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ASSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12. 1972 72-340
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ARDEN D. AND MAVIS A. STRAND,
NO. 71-72-42 840 West Grove Avenue, Orange, California 92665, Owners;
HARRY KNISELY, 1741 South Euclid Street, Suite B, Anaheim,
Califorr.ia 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 of 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.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 1, 1972, in order to
determine if there ~ere alternative methods of approving subject petition and
for the petitioner to meet with the City Attorney to 8etermine the alternative
zoning methods that could be used, and fron the May 31, 1972 meeting because
of a tia vote snd for a full Commission.
Chairman nro tem Seymour noted that there was not a full Commission, and the
same Commissioners who had voted previously were present and inquired whether
any of the Commissioners had changed his mind - and received no response.
Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney representing the petitioners, requested that subject
petitions be continued to the next meeting far a full Commission.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification
No. 71-72-42 to the meeting of June 26, 1972, for a full Commission, at the
request o£ the petitioner.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILTOWER PROPERTIES~ 1010
PERMIT NO. 1311 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owner;
ROBERT BURGLIN AND SAM ITAYA, 14571 Brookhurst Street,
4+estminster, California 92683, Agents; requesting permission
to RE-ESTABLISH A CARWASH AND AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITHIPI 75 FEET OF A
RESIDENTIAL 20NE on pr~perty described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land
havinq frontages of approximately 180 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue
and 180 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and being located
at the southwest cornei of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, and
further described as 201 South State College Soulevard. Property presently
classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONES.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 15, 1972, at the request
of the petitioner, and from the May 31, 1972 meeting to allow the petitioner
time to submit revised plans and for a full Commission.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
As3istant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the
property, and the request to demolish the existing service station and re-
establish the carwash and service station by redesigning the entire site with
a portion of the carwash canopy remaining as a polishing area; that the proposed
carwash building, gasoline and vacuum canopies would be constructed in the area
replacing the old service station buildingt that the parking stalls would be
virtually inaccessible if the carwash were full; that the petitioner. indicated
there would be a maximum of 12 employees on the largest shift, however, only
11 parking saaces were being provided; and thst althouqh the Anaheim Municipal
Code has no parking standards for a carwash, the Commission may wish to deter-
mine the appropriateness of either requiring one parking stall per employee or
parking based on the square footage of the buildings proposed.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the revised plans, stated that the method of circula-
tion through the gasoline pump islands, the vacuum canopies, and the carwash had
been indicated, however, the revised plans did not indicate the architectural
treatment of the remodeled building, the blower area enclosure, the elevation
treatment of the carwash building, the screening, the area lighting. or the
hours of operation - all items that the Planning Commission requested and which
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIi, June 12, 1972 72-341
CONDITIONAL USE'PERMIT N0. 1311 (Continued)
had not been received at the time the report was written. However, the peti- '
tioner indicated that a colored rendering would be submitted at the public
hearing.
In summary, Mr. McDaniel noted that it would appear the plan would result in
overdevelopment of the site by placinq too many structures and buildings on
this relatively small site; that the potential conflicts of traffic circulation
to and from the streets, as well as on-site, would appear to be a significant
consideration; and that the Commission may wish to consider the use of this
property for a carwash and gasoline service station purposes to be appropriate,
however, the Commission still may consider the submitted plans inadequate for
the proposed development of the property.
Chairman pro tem Seymour requested that in order to preserve time, the petitioner
confine his remarks to those items which the Commission requested be submitted.
Mr. Robert Burglin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and presented a colored rendering of what was proposed, noting that lie had
taken pictures of the present operation on subject property which could illus-
trate the improvements proposed; that there would be virtually no more buildings
on the property wit.h the new plan than presently existed; that the Commission
requested stackability figures for the property, and from his figure~, 31
vehicles could be on the property at one time without any confusion, and if that
many vehicles were there, it would be a sign of a very poorly run operation
since in his other operations they did not allow vehicles to stack up that way;
that the blower area would have enclosures except for the entrance and exit;
that the storage building would be converted to an employees' lounge, as well
as a general storage area; that the polishing area would be enclosed, not be-
cause they intended to have much of a polishing area or business but because
the Commission expressed concern that the noise would be affecting the residents
to the west; and that he did not agree with the staff's comments regarding the
traffic flow since the customer would leave his vehicle at the vacuum area and
would not again have his vehicle until after it went through the entire opera-
tion at the exit area.
The Commission noted that very few people would be exiting to State College
Boulevard witk: ihe proposed design; whereupon Mr. Burglin stated that State
College Boulevard had a tra£fic volume of 35,000 vehicles per day, whereas
Lincoln Avenue had only 17,000, and the exiting on Lincoln Avenue would be
easier because of the right-turn lane.
Mr. Burglin then noted that the sound-deadening device, accord~ng to folders
from Industrial Acoustics, manufacturers of bricks with holes to absorb the
noise, would effectively reduce noise from the blowers; that there were also
duct silencers on the blowers and modular sound panels; that when they opened
their Brookhurst and Hazard facility in Westminster last July 26, they had
complaints from the neighbors reyarding the noise problems. and they had spent
$15,000 to $20,000 to rectify this problem, however, they were proposing to
build this in at the start to avoid any problems; that the average sound in a
quiet office with people talking was 65 decibels and on a street with normal
traffic and noise, could reach 75 decibels; that there was not a carwash in
Anaheim that could meet the 60 decibel requirement if the ordinance were en-
forced; a3:d that there would be considerably more noise from traffic on the
street than would be coming from the proposed facility.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the petitioner that the decibel reading
in the ordinance was directed toward mechanical equipment on the site and had
nothing to do with voice or traffic sounds.
Mr. Burglin stated that he just wanted to illustrate that a 60 decibel reading
was a very low frequency.
Commissioner Rowland inguired of staff what the criteria was that staff used
to develop the acoustical standards; whereupon Mx. Lowry stated that these were
standards established by the national association and was the recommended,
nation-wide sound control level, and that it was a model ordinance which existed
in hundreds of cities throughout the United States.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-342
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1311 (Continced)
Commissioner Rowland inqui'red whether or not there was anyone on the staff
qualified to speak on the difference between 60 and 70 decibels - if that was
to be tl;e criteria for approving or disapproving, then the Commission would
need more information to make a valid study.
Office Sngineer Jay Titus state3 he was not a sound engineer, however, he had
read a pamphlet from the Division of Highways regarding noise on highways and
freeways.
Chairman pro tem Seymour stated he would like an answer to Commissioner Rowland's
question, if the Commission felt this use would be a violation of the sound
decibel ordinance in approving subject petition, was it also germane to the
Commission's action.
Mr. Lowry stated that the ordinance existed on the books, and the Commission
could not waive this code requirement - not even the City Council unless the
ordinance was repealed.
Mr. Burglin stated the increase in decibel readings would be intermittent, with
each car having the blower on for approximately thirty seconds, and there could
be a cessation of the blowers for about three to four minutes before they were
turned on again.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the petitioner would indicate his
hours of operation; whereupcn Mr. Burglin stated these would be 8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m.. subject to review in one year.
Commissioner Rowland stated that the former storage building in the photograph
appeared to be 3 feet higher along the west wrare single-family homes were
located, therefore, it could be assumed that the petitioner planned to lower
the height of this structure; whereupon Mr. Burglin replied that the building
was there, and they planned to retain the same height, however, they proposed
to place some faci.a around it, such as dark colors, and that tfie wall at that
poin~ was up to the roof of the building.
Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether the plot plan subinitted met both the
City's charter and State law requirements, or must the Commission, consequently,
depend upon a verbal explanation.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that as far as he could determine, the
'petition was complete.
Commissioner Rowland inquired whether site plans, elevations, etc. were not a
requirement of the conditional use pesmit; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that
these were generally the type of exhibits that were required by the Planning
Commission, however, this was only a policy and was not part of the ordinance.
Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion t1~at the plans submittF;d were zncomplete
and were reminiscent of a use which would be coming up under Reports and
Recommendations.
Mr. Burglin then presented renderings of their other facilities, noting that
staff indicated this was adequate.
The opposition indicated that he had nothing further to say regarding the
proposal than what had previously been presented.
THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he was of the opinion that aaintai.nin3 the hours of
operation to B:00 p.m. would be af£ecting the residents to the west since noise
traveled considerably after heavy street traffic died down and would be much
more pronounced, even in the parking lot across the street, and the uses across
the street would be subjected to higher decibel readings than during the day.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June 12, 1972
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1311 ~Continued)
72-343
Commissioner Gauer observed that most of the comniercial uses would be closed
after 5:00 p.m., and the use proposed would have the blowers directed away
from the residential uses to the west.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that a member af the staff was now present
who could present his experience in sound readings, if the Commission so desired.
Commissioner Rowland stated that although this might not be germane, he would
like to hear from the sta£f inember who was knowledgeable in sound readings,
and then inquired how the criteria was established in the ordinance regarding
sound readings on-site.
Planning•Aide Robert Kelley appeared before the Commission and stated that a
violation of• the ordinance depended upon the backqround noise, and in order to
be in violation, a sound level must be at least 5 decibels above the background
noises - this must be taken into consideration if there was a violation.
Commissioner Gauer then inquired whether this would be 5 decibels more than the
noise on State College Boulevard, or 75 decibels; whereupon Mr. Kelley replied
affirmatively.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether staff had taken any decibel readings
of other carwashes within the city limits, and if so, were any violations found.
Mr. Kelley noted that staff had taken readings at Ball Road and Anaheim Buulevard
the site of a propose3 carwash-service station operation, at the request of the
City Council during the busiest time of the day, and these readings were about
70 decib::ls; that the readings later in the eveninq or early in the morning, or
even on weekends, would vary considerably and a sound level recorder would have
to be set up to record it, and it could be considerably less, or in the range
of 55 to 60 decibels.
Commissioner Rowland inquired what the difference was between a 60 and 70 decibel
reading; whereupon Mr. Kelley replied that it would be approximately 10 times
greater than the amount of sound energy.
Commissioner Rowland then observed this was not 1/6th but 10 times the noise.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that the applicant had suggested that the
Anaheim Municipal Code regarding sound decibel levels was outdated and claimed
there were violationa at every carwash in the city, however, what Mr. Kelley
suggested was that the sound level could not exceed 5 decibels over the sound
level of the street.
Mr. Kelley stated that the ordinance indicated it would be the average sound
level, there£ore, i£ the street noises :~ere above 60, then the noises of the
mechanical equipment on-site could not range moxe than 5 decibels above this
level.
Commissioner Herbst observed that perhaps this was the reason most carwashes
closed early, because the level of sound decibel reading would be above the
noise level of the street noises, and if this facility operated until 8:00 p.m.
or later, it could exceed the decibel reading cf the vehicles on State College
Boulevard, therefore, he might have to close down completely.
Commissioner Gauer stated he could see no reason why subject petition should
nut be approved since tne existing uses could re-open the next day on the
existing zoning action on the property; that offices located on State College
Boulevard would be closed in the evening, therefore, the decibel noise level
snould not affect them; and that the applicant had an agreement with the adjoin-
ing neighbors that this facility would be reviewed in one year. Furthermore,
the Anaheim Municipal Code regulated the maximum allowable decibel reading, and
the petitioner had no recourse but to meet this Code requirement, which could
set the Y:ours of operation at 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m-
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-344
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1311 (Continued)
Commissioner Rowland noted that he had voted against subject petition at the
last hearing primarily because he felt the Commission would be waiving the
Code'ssound requirements, which was not within the prerogative of the Planninq
Commission, therefore, with the statements made by staff, this had been
eliminated. Secondly, the petitioner previously had not submitted plans that
were complete or adequate for the Planning Commission to make a sound judgment,
however, the plans now submitted were somewhat more adequatc and demonstrated
the intent of the applicant, therefore, he would withdraw his opposition.
Furthermore, he would agree that the parking should not be considered a problem;
and that from his observations of workers in carwashes, they did not have any
vehicles.
Commissioner Herbst stated he had no objection to a carwash operation, but he
did feel the hours of operation should be established since the Commission
could not waive the sound decibel maximum permitted, which would require
closing of the operation if the noise exceeded this maximum.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-124 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditiona.l Use Permit No. 1311, subject to
the ICPS&Gw conditions, subjecc to the hours of operation being between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m.~ subject to review in one year, and subject to sketches and draw-
ings submitted this date. (See Resolution Book)
M. Lo~rry a3.yised~the Com~issiori\that in the event the oise 1eve1 wemt abo~ve~
the acc~ptable~limit'a~pon b ing ch~Fk\e~d by~he Zor~i,~g ~n cement Offic'e~r, t`hen
the urs~€ ope~ation uld ve to e chang d to al~ate th e n~ises. ~
..~~~ ~, y~k'~. ~.~--s"~'r^~,~ .~u:-<~.~ ~~ ~~ ~c~f ~ a=2~-c-.Ua-,t.a-c~ ~ '
On roll call the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Aerbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN BIBLE SCHOOL,
PERMIT NO. 1312 1345 South Burlington Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90006,
Owner; HOWARD M. ULBERG, 1934 Queen Anne's Walk, Pomona,
California 91767, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIUN WITH WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (2) MINIMUM SETSACK FROM RESIDENTIAL 20NE TO
THE PARKING AREA on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 4.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately
337 feet on the west side of Western Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 618 feet, and being located approximately 345 feet south of the center-
line of Orange Avenue and further desr.ribed as 631 South Western Avenue.
Property p=esently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
Subject petition was continued from the May 15, 1972 meeting to allow the
petitioner time to submit revised plans.
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. Howard Ulberg, Secretary of the Board of the California Lutheran Bible
School, appeared be£ore the Commission and stated that the plans were revised
by relocating the library and gymnasium, and that in reference to the comments
by staff regarding the setback adjacent to the R-1, they would be very happy to
set back the required 20 feet. in addition. staff's suggestion that landscaping
be provided in the parking area, this, too, would be acceptable to them.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether the petitioner was suggesting that
Waiver "b" was no lonqer needed.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, June 12, 1972
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1312 (Continued)
72-345
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that if the petitioner would
stipulate that the buildings would be relocated 20 feet from the single-family
homes along the west property line, this waiver could be eliminated, however,
even though the buildings were indicated as 10 feet hiqh and if this petition
were granted, it would be the assumption that the buildings would be only 10
feet high, but if the buildings were proposed at 12 feet, then the petitioner
should not withdraw this waiver.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding the waivers, staff
noting that the waiver of the required landsr.aping would still be necessary
since the petitioner stipulated to providing on:y lanc?scaping as staff suggested
rather than the required 10-foot strip.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1312 subject to ICPS&GW recommendatians and stipulations by the
petitioner that the building adjacent to the res!.dential uses to the west would
be set back 20 feet, and that the landscaping in ihe parking area along the
south would be provided in accordance with staff's ~tuggestions.
Further discussion was held by the Commission and upon its conclusion,
Commissioner Rowland stated that the petitioner could develop subject property
within the confines of the Code, therefore, he felt the waivers requested should
b= denied since no hardship had been proven due to size and shape of the parcel.
Commissioner Allred then amended his motion as follows: Commissioner Allred
offered Resolution No. PC72-125 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant
Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1312 for the use only and denying the
waivers requested on ttie basis that the property could be developed in accordance
with the Code requirements, and that no hardship had been provea because of the
size and shape of the parcel, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
Or. roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Roccland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. IiORACE E. MORELOCK~ ET AL. 264
PERMIT NO. 1313 Granada Street, Long Beach, California 90803 AND GEORGE A.
COLEMAN, 16651 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, California
TENTATIVE MAP OF 92686. Owners; PALM DESERT BUILDERS, INC., 5435 West 76th
TRACT N0. 7876, Street, Los Angeles, California 90045, Agent; requesting
REVISION N0. 1 permission to ESTABLISH AN 80-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF ~1) LOT FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED
STREET, (2) MINIMUN BUILDZNG SITE AREA~ (3) MINIMUM SUILDING
SITE WIDTH, AND (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE SETWEEN BUILDINGS on property described as:
A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.7 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 528 feet dn the north side of Orangethorpe
:,venue, having a maximum depth of approximately 510 feet and being located at
the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive. Property presentl
classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition and tract map were continued from the meeting cf May 15, 1972,
to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans.
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.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted ti:at at the 3ast public hearing the Commission
suggested that the plans be redesiqned, but according to a review of the plans
at a work session, it would appear that these were the same plans as submitted
previously except that two units had been eliminated, therefore, rather than
having further consideration of this petition and tract, he would suggest that
the petition be continued.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-346
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1313 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7876, REVISION
NO. 1 .(Continued)
Mr. James Baur, representative of Palm Desert Builders, Inc., developers of the
project, appeared before the Commission and stated he thought the architect was
to have met with staff and worked out these plans.
Assistant Zoring Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that the staff
had reviewed an alternate plan with the architect, which met the criteria
established by the Commission, however, the architect had informed staff that
the alternate plan was unacceptable to the developer, and that the altPrnate
plan ~eviewed by staff indicated 70 units rather than the 78 units proposed on
the plan Ysefore the Commission.
Mr. Baur stated that he could not see why they should be forced to cut down the
yield on subject property from the former 240 units to 70 units.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that this was not a requirement of
staff but was a policy of the Planning Commission and City Council as to
planned residential developments, and both bodies had indicated previously
that they would approve planned residential developments where the density
was no more than 8 to 12 units per acre.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that when subjevt petition and tract were
considered previously, there were two points of concern expressed by the
Commission, namely, the fact that the Commission did not approve PRDs with a
d~;nsity greater than 12 dwelling units per acre, and secondly, the fact that
the project did not provide pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation
adequately; and that it was the Commission's understanding from staff that the
architect did have a plan that would solve these problems, but that the density
did not meet the developer's criteria.
Mr. Baur then stated ..ut he would be willing to work with staff to resolve
these problems.
The Commission noted that plans would have to be presented to staff by Friday,
June 16, 1972, in ~rder to ~e considered at the next Fublic hearing; whereupon
Mr. Baur stated these plans would be submitted by that time.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration o£ Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1313 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7876 to the meeting of June 26.
1972, in order for the developer to submit revised plans in conformance with
the :;ommission's suggestions.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM~ INC.,
PERMIT NO. 1314 Attention Gary A. Clarke. Vice President, Bank of AmErica
(READVERTISED) Building, Suite 505, 300 South Harbor Soulevard, Anaheim,
California 92605, Owner: VONOLA CUTTER, Leasinq Representa-
tive, Bank of America Suilding, Suite 505, 300 South Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; requesting permission to ESrABLISH
A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION (LAW SCHOOL) IN AN EXISTING OFI'ICE BUILDING
WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER CF PARKING SPACES on property described as: The
entire block bounded by Harbor Boulevard, Broadway, Helena and Elm Streets, and
further described as 300 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified
C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, 20NE.
Subject petition was continued from the May 31, 1972 meeting to allow tir~e to
readvertise the petition to include waiver of the minimum number of parking
spaces.
One person indicated her presence in opposition.
Assista.nt Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
propert:y, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the
property, and the request to establish a law school having a maximum of 50
students in the basement of the existing office building; that the school would
~
•
MINUTES, CITY PLANN=NG COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-347
CONDITIONAL USE_PERMIT NO. 1314 (Contiaued)
occupy approxi:nately 1820 square Eeet of floor area and would consist of two
classrooms, an office, a reception area, a library, and a lounge; that based
on the number of students. 50 parkinq spaces would be required; that if this
space were used as a typical office use, the amount of floor area would require
6 parking spaces; anil that this would result in a net increase of the parking
required for the entire building of 44 parking spaces.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, stated that the existing bank build-
ing had exactly the number of parking stalls required for their anticipated
office uses, and the inclusion of the school would render the existing parking
facility inadequate; that the applicant stated the existing law school would
be operating initially on a nighttime basis only, and it was anticipated that
the majority of the offices in the bank building would be clesed, thereby
providing an excess of available parking stalls for students at the school;
that in the event the use were to be converted or extended to a daytime use
and parking would present a problem, the existing parking structure was designed
so that an additional level of parking could be provided - this additional level
providing apprr..;imately 99 parking stallst and that if the Commission considered
the use for a Fus-ti~~n of the basemen~ of the bank building for a law school to
be appropriate, thc Commission may wish to require an annual review of the
school to determir,e whether or not sufficient parking was being provided and
whether or not it would be appropriate to add an additional level for parking.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Cha:nber at 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Gary Clarke, 24322 Apollo Lone, Fountain Valley, Vice President of the
company owning and operating the Bank of America building, appeared before,
the Commission and stated that the new school was not operating in Southern
California, but they had appeared before the State Education Commission and
had received approval to establish an accredited law school; that they did not
want to place themselves in the position of leasing additional space if they
would jeopardize themselves; that there presently was a similar school in the
City of Orange which had an enrollment of over 600 students at night, and the
activity was centered around nighttime usage; that there wexe several staff
operations during the day, and this operation had worked out satisfactorily as
it pertained to parking with the other tenants of that oomplex; that since this
was a new operation, they did not want to have this under a strict limitation,
and if this were successful. !-h~y wanted the school to have the advantage of
expanding in their success; and that the director of the school was present to
answer questions.
Mrs. John Slota, 402 west Elm Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion, stating she also represented Mrs. Batenhorst of 726 South Helena Street -
noting that they were not in opposition to the school 'but in opposition to
waiver of the required parking since the parking situation was chaotic in the
neighborhood, and the entire neighborhood was opposed to any more street parking;
that the existing parking structuse was never more than half full because the
employees did not want to pay $5.00 for parkinq in the structure; that there was
one-hour parking in front of her home, but people still parked there all day;
that she and the Batenhorsts even had people park in their driveways and in
front of their driveways, and some even parked in the United California Bank
parking lot, walking across the street to their place of business; and that it
was not very desirable to have such a larqe building with all of those people
employed there because of the undesirable parking situation on the street which
had been created through their parking policy for the parking structure.
Commissioner Gauer expressed his sincere apologies to the residents of the
area near the Bank of America building, stating that when the Commi~•sion
approved this, they thought they were providing free employee parking, but
when he had talked with Dick Gay, manager of the bank, Mr. Gay had advised him
that the bank did nct own the building, and emplayees could have parking in the
parking structure by paying $5.00 per month.
Mr. David Livsky appeared before the Commission and ntated that he was the
director of the law school made up principally of e!ght attorneys; that this
school would be a nightt~me operation 99+t of the time, and Mr. Clarke indicated
the building was deserted at night and parking would be open, and that there
would be one class during the day with about 10 to 15 students.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12. 1972 72-348
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1314 (Continued?
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. McDaniel, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that the
existing office building had exactly the number of parking stalls required
for office use, however, the law school would require more than a typical
office use, or 44 additional parkinq spaces.
A lengthy discussion was held by the Commission regarding the parking problem
for employees of this building, and the parking charge being levied these
employees wanting to park in the existing parking structure, and the fact that
the Commission approved the building only because it was thought that the
employees would have free parking.
Mr. Clarke noted there would be no charge in the evening after 6:00 p.m., and
that they were providing 100 parking stalls, which would be free to the students.
Commissioner Herbst indicated he would be in £avor of "no parking" signs oii the
street; that the Commission had talked at considerable lenqth regarding parking
for employees when the bank high-rise building was considered, and the lack of
said parking; that the Commission at that time was not in favor of waiving the
required parking - as a matter of fact, the City requires every building,
whether commercial or industrial, to see that parking was being provided for
people using the buildinq, and this included employees, therefore, the rental
agents in their rental program could allocate a given number of parking spaces,
making it a part of the lease payment, thereby providing each leased office a
given number of parking spaces since the parking structure, according to the
agent for the building, would have to be paid for out of the rent'ed parking
spaces. In addition, he would suggest that there be no parking on any of those
streets for some time in order that parking would be provided by the provisions
of the parking requirements as the Commissi~~n c,riainally intended for both
employees and customers.
Commissioner Gauer suggested a two-week continuance to allow the rental agent
time to subm~t a plan for parking for the employees and. customers.
Mr. Clarke responded by stating there was a problem n that the law school
wanted to start classes in September.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired what would be required to provide free parking
for employees and everyone connected with the law school.
Mr. Clarke responded by stating that the initial projection on the building was
the cash flow in paying for this parking structure, which was very important.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that if the parking structure was vacant and no
one was using it, there was no cash flow anyway, and this had created a rather
disastzous parking situation in the entire neighborhood.
Commissioner Gauer observed that this was difficult to comprehend as to cash
flow, and that this had been discussed at length when the high-rise building
was considered, particularly when someone had his parking ticket validated,
this could be considered as being cash flow.
Mr. Clarke replied by stating that a given number of validations per month were
allowed to the bank and to the telephone company, and anything above that given
number would be paid by the bank or telephone company - this, then, represented
income.
Commissioner Herbst noted that this was where the cash flow should be derived
when the offices were rented - Banlc of America, telephone company, and other
ofs'ices - if the rental agent would ask each lessee the number of spaces he
would need and then made this a part of the lease, this could resolve the cash
flow and deficiency of parking, as well.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-349
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1314 (COntinued)
Mr. Clarke stated that they were in competition with other offices in the city,
and even the City provided free parking; and that there was available parking,
since they had tried to market the parking at $5.00 per spsce.
Commissioner Herbst tnen stated it would appear that Mr. Clark expected the
employees to park on the street, and if this were so, then the Commission
would never again approve a building unless parking for employees was nrovided
free of charge.
Mr. Clarke stated that he had not been prepared to discuss the entire parkinq
problem under subject petition; that there was a very important time problem,
particularly with an appeal period included, and in order to get the law school
open by September, eight to ten weeks were necessary.
Commissioner Herbst stated that perhaps Mr. Clarke's problem appeared great to
him, but parking was a greater problem to the neighbors, and before he could
vote on subjec~ petition, the parking problem would have to be resolved.
Commissioner Allred noted that since the existing parking was not being utilized
tvJ$, the petitioner could provide the parking now, but upoa complete leasing of
the building, the necessary parking for the school could not be provided.
Mr. Clarke replied by stating that since this would be primarily a nighttime
operation with very limited daytime use, parking could be met, but he did not
want the school to be restricted to nighttime operation - even though the
ir..structors would be primarily there at night, being fully employed durinq the
day in their own law offices, and most students would prefer night classes.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that there could be a greater deficiency if this
school decided on daytime classes, and from the way slie read the Commission,
the Commission would not approve this petition unless parking was resolved.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and D;OTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Seymour voting "no" and Commissioners Farano and Rowland
being absent), to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1314 to
the meeting of June 26, 1972, in order for the leasing agent for the buildiny
to resolve parking problems as reguested by the Commi.ssion wherein some alterna-
tive could be presented so t!~at free parking would be provided for students 3nd
employees of this building.
Commissioner Seymour, in votiny "no", stated he was not in agreement with the
phi.losophy of the motion, but he was in total agreement with uncluttering the
parking situation in the residential area because he felt the Commiss£on could
not regulate parking facilities, and if no parking were permitted .t~he treet,
this would force permitting parking in the structure because the ex~MP~:s~e~~~ould
complain that they did not want to pay $5.00 to park in the parking structure,
and the Bank of America then would ha~ye tP~,t,~ake care of their parking problems
because that would be running their e~;pp~a~s off of the premises by charqing
f~r parking space; and that the market would solve the parking problem with
~s going elsewhere.
`t-r,r,~.L~cc~t+.u~
V
VARIANCE NO. 2368 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MAGIC LANTERN, INC., 1030 West
Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner; MC CLEAN
& SCHULT2, ENGINEERS, Attention: Howard Parsell, 2000
East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, California 92631, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF
MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 39-UNIT MOTEL TO 74 UNITS
on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a
frontage of approximately 150 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having
a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet and being located approximately 390
feet west of the centerline of West Street, and further described as 1030 West
Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the May 15 and 31, 1972 meetings to allow
time for the submission of special parking study data.
•
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-35G
VARIANCE NO. 2368 (Continued)
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that staff had indicated the petitioner wished
to withdraw the petition and inquired whether a letter had been received to
that effect.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that sta£f had nct
received the letter and Nould suggest that subject petition be removed from
the agenda and readvertised at the petitioner's expense at such tia~e as he
wished to have the petition considered, and that if said letter of withdrawal
was received, the petition could then be terminated as an item under Reports
and Recommendations.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, saconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRiED, to remove Petition for Variance No. 2368 from the agenda, and
at such time as the petitioner wishes to reactivate the petition, that it be
readvertised at the petitionPr's expense for consideration at a public hearing.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: CALPROP CORPORATION, 1900 Avenue of the Stars,
TRACT NO. 7875 Los Anqeles, Calif~rnia 90067. ENGINEER: T.T.N., 2301
Campus Drive, Irvine, California 92664. Subject tract,
consisting of 11 acres located on the west side of Imperial
Highway, 700 feet north of Nohl Ranch Road on the southwest
corner of Avenida Bernardo South and imperial Highway, is
proposed for subdivision into 79 R-2 zoned lots.
Chairman pro tem Seymour waived reading of the Report to the Commission.
Mr. Phillip Ringel, representing the developer, Calprop Corporation, appeared
before the Commission and stated, in response to the request by Chairman pro
tem Seymour, that comments be directed toward the berming of the property along
Imperial Highway, the area af concern of the Commi~sion; that they were in the
process of obtaining approval of their plans by the Development Services Depart-
ment and the Engineering Division for Phase I. Mr. Ringel noted that although
Tentative Map of Tract No. 7875 was in Phase II, he would like to show the
Commission how the landscaping and berming was to be handled on Phase I.
After review of the plans, the Commission expressed the opinion that the 20-
foot setback area should have been entirely bermad and heavily landscapedi that
the berm was intended to protect residences of these homes, and the proposal
just presented was a most undesirable alternative to what the Commission expected.
It would appear this was only an afterthought because the Commission complained
at a recent public hearing where the applicant had requested a waiver for the
one-story height limitation for subject tract; and that the Commission assumed
that by waiving 30 of the required 50-foot buildinq setback along Imperial Highwa
that a very attractive berming and landscaping treatment was to be provided.
Commissioner Allred inquired as to the height of the berm as indicated on the
plan; whereupon Mr. Ringel stated the height was between 2 and 3 feet.
Commissioner Herbst stated that the plans presenteci were a very poor example of
what the petitioner proposes in exchange for the 50-foot setback.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised that there were several points
of clarification, namely, the approval of the berming-landscaping plans for
Phase I was given on the basis that these were conceptual plans and that the
plans were approved subject to final inspection in the field to determine
whether there was adequate screening and whether additional landscaping should
be provided.
Mr. McDaniel further noted that the submitted plan appears to be the only
practical alternative to providing a berm of sufficient height to screen the
residence from the highway based upon the fact that the existing buildings.
slopes and setback preclude the origi.nal proposal for berming.
Commissioner Kaywood expressed concern that it would be impossible to provide
dr~se lanc?scaping if there was not adequate space available.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12. 1972 72-351
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7875 (Continued) '
The Commission inquired whether the existing walls of the structures were heavy
enough to block out noises from the street; whereupon Mr. Ringel stated these
were fourplexes, and those units that did not face Imperial Highway did not
have windows on the Imperial Highway side, and on those that faced Imperial
Highway it would seem illogical to require a masonry wall screening off the
front yard from the main street.
Commissioner Gauer stated the developer could provide double glass as well as
additional sound buffering in the walls of the units.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the requiz•ement of the Planning Commission was
very clear ~hat in lieu of the SC Zone 50- o- setback and wall along Imperial
Highway, the developer would provide a~ ry heavily landscaped berm.
Mr. Ringel noted that he did not remember reference to the wall, but he did
remember the dense landscaping, and when they reviewed the conceptual plan
originally presented, they found errors because of terrain wherein the units
were not level with the street, and if all units were level with Imperial
Highway, the grade made it considerably steeper. Therefore, there were some
units that are higher and some units are luwer than the street after the
building sites were leveled out, therefore, the sound problems would appear
to be resolved since sound would bounce off the bank below upper level units
and travel over the lower level units.
Commissioner Seymour stated he did not feel the 2-3 foot high berms would be
of any value to the homes fronting on Imperial Highway, and perhaps the units
would be better off with a wall.
Mr. Ringel replied that the berm height would add to the noise factor deterrent.
Commissioner Seymour noted that there had,been an exchange of setbacks for
berming and landscaping without thought given by the Commission as to topo-
graphy, and if the City had to live with that, he wanted to see the best
possiblp solution made, however, he did not feel that the proposed 2-3 foot
berms were adequate, particularly with units next to Imperial Highway.
The Commission then inquired as to how much right-of-way was involved on
Imperial; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that the classification of Imperial Highway
had been changed after dev~lopment was under way and a modified cross section
was made - there being only a 3-foot parkway from the curb face to the property
line.
Commissioner Seymour noted that this would place a li~•i.ng unit only 23 feet
from a heavily-traveled street.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired what the developer uroposed to do with Phase II.
Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 3:40 p.m.
Mr. Ringel, responding to Commissioner Kaywood's question, stated that they
felt they knew the topography of the land and that they had now resolved the
problems with this land.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the tract map indicated a 20-foot setback, and
in lieu of what had been presented as a solution for Phase I, she would ask
that a 50-foot setback be provided.
Mr. Ringel noted that an alternate plan to the 50-foot setback was presented
in order to keep from having a straight line; that only one building was set
back 20 feet and another 28 feet, the latt~r unit being up on a bank about
6-? feet above Imperial Highway and would appear to preclude the requirement
of a berm; and that none of the units would have front doors onto Imperial.
Commissioner Rowland noted that tha most critical position was where the
development was level with grade.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12. 1972 72-352
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7875 ~Continued)
Commissioner Herbst noted that when he considered this and waived the required
50-foot setback, the bPrm was intended to provide sound barriers and that sub-
stituting landscaping was not his original intent in approving thist that the
developer was not providing a desirable li*•ing environment for rAsidents in
these units but was placing the homes too close to a high-speed highway.
Commissioner Gauer observed that with these units so cloae to the highway and
facing the highway, after the chi:dren of these residents were grown it was
quite possible that they would be requesting commercial zoning because of the
undesirable living environs~ent; however, if the 50-foot setback had been pro-
vided, there would be less of a chance of this happening.
Commissioner Allred noted that the petitioner should provide very heavy land-
scaping as well as a wall on the first phase, and the setback w~uld be some-
Lhing the Commission would have to live with, but the developer would have to
either provide a 50-foot setback on the second phase or provide the correct
amonnt of bern:ing and landscaping together with a wall - perhaps the tract
map should be redrawn.
Mr. Ringel, in response to a question by Commissioner Gauer,stated •that there
were four units that faced Imperial Highway in the oinwhPel design of the first
phase.
Commissioner Seymour inquired whether sta£f ha~9 some recommendations on the
first phase.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Rober~s stated that the only way the sound could be
buffezed from imperial Highway was through the treatmeat of landscaping since
there was no place to provide a wall where it would be effective because of
the terrain the wall could be placed in the middle of the slope, therefore,
the only way would be through adequate use of shrubs and trees as Mr. McDaniel
indicated, and that aporoval would have to be in the field since the landscap-
ing plan was only aonceptual, and that final appsoval would be done by field
inspection on the first phase only.
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the developer should present a plan
to the Commission of what they intended to do, because~ they knew the topography
the drawings should indicate what they proposed in lsti~"of the berm, since the
City granted waiver of the 50-foot setback - and nothing had been received in
return as protection for residents of these units; that at the time the devel-
opers were pouring the concrete slabs they knew what the setback and grade was,
not after the buildings were completed - the~ could provide the fence and land-
scaping - therefore, he would like to see their plans on paper prior to any
field inspection by the staff engineer.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether this request of Commissioner Herbst
would be too much of a delay t~ the developer; whereupon Mr. Ringel stated that
Condition No. 8 of staf£'s recommendations required that prior to approval of
a final tract map plans for treatment of the setback along Imperial Highway be
submitted to the Planninq Commission and City Council.
Mr. Roberts noted that the tract before the Commission was different property
than that already developed, which was Phase I, and perhaps the City Attorney's
representative could advise the Commission whether conditions could be attached
to this tract map governing some other property.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted for the Commission that the matter before
the Commission was a tract for Phase II, and in view of the fact that both
Phase I and Phase II weze considere3 originally as one parcel under Conditional
Use Permit No. 1202, as well as the Commission's concern of what had not taken
place, he would suggest that there were appropriate administrative remedies
that could be used to carry out the Commission's concexn regarding Phase I, but
he could not see how approval of subject *.ract could carry conditions governing
a previous tract map.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-353
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRRCT NO. 7875 (Continued)
Mr. Roberts, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that i£~the
petitioner was bound to the 20-foot setback it would be by virtue of the fact
that a conceptual plan was approved under the conditional use permit; said
plan indicating Phase I with 20-f~ot setbacks.
Commissioner Rowland noted that ar.cording to Mr. Riagel something had changed -
primarily the fact that Imperial Highway had an increased width with the obvious
increase in traffic, but the 20-foot setback could only be justified on Avenida
Bernardo or the interior streets; that a cursory examination of the tract map
revealed that those lots have a great flexibility in location from the :srreet,
and Lots 61-71 could be redesigned without losing any density or anything, and
it was quite apparent there was 15 or more feet flexibility on the reax lot
lines; however, Lots 70, 71 and 72 were only 20 feet from arterial trai'flc,
which was quite significant from an environmental standpoi~t; therefore, the
Commisaion would have to determine if this represented the community values as
they presently existed.
Commissioner Rowland offered aGA otio seconded by Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CARRIED, to approve~ntati~ap of Tract No. 7875 subject to the
following conditions, provided that no lot be located closer than 30 feet from
the right-of-way along Imperial Highway:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7875 is granted subject
to the approval of Reclassification No. 70-71-13.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be subnitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That all lors within this tract shall be sezved by underground utilities.
4. That a final tract map of subject property ~hall be submitted to and
approved by the C~ty Council and then be recorded in the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be snbmitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval
of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, condi-
tions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final
tract map.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that
is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
8. That no lot proposed to be `.iocated along Imperial Highway shall be closer
than 30 feet irom the right-of-way line of Imperial Highway. ,
9. That prior to Council approval of the final tract map, final specific plans
for the proposed townhouses, including the treatment of the setback along
Imperial Highway, shall be submitted to staff and approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council, said plans to indicate that adequate environ-
mental protection for lots abutting Imperial Highway, such as berming and
~-ag,~Lh~~ been provided.
~ ~,e.d.~'~
RECESS - Chairman pro tem Seymour declared a ten-minute recess
at 4:15 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman pro tem SPymour reconvened the meeting at
4:26 p.m., Commissieners Farano and Rowland being
absent.
~
~
tTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI.ON, June 12, 1972 72-354
CONDITIONAL USE - PUSLZC HEARING. THE WICKES CORPORATION, Attention Roger
PERMIT N0. 1315 K. Hall, Vice President, 515 North Washington Avenue,
Saginaw, Michigan 48607, Owner; DON KOLL COMPANY, 1901
Dove Street, Newport Beach, California 92660, Agent;
requesting permission to ERECT A 150-FOOT HIGA LIGHTING TOWER on property
desc'tibed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
Z1.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 889 feet on the east side of
Magnolia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 605 feet, being
located at the southeast corner of the Santa Ana Freeway and Magnolia Avenue,
and further described as 1256 North Magnolia Avenue. Property presently
classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 4:28 p.m.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McLaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the
property, and the proposal to construct a 150-foot high light standard in ~.he
parking area of the furniture store; that the light stazdard would exceed
50 feet the maximum allowable height in the M-1 Zone; that the applicant indi-
cated the Wickes Corporation used this light at all of their furniture stores
to illuininate the parking lot and as a distinctive mark of identification; that
the applicant indicated the light would be located in the center of the parking
area along the Santa Ana Freeway; and that the lights could be directed so
that no light would spill over onto the freeway or adjacent properties.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that it would appear from the
information submitted, the light from this 150-foot light tower cuuld be
directed so as to prevent glare of illumination onto adjacent properties and,
more impoztantly, onto the freeway to the north; that staff, in fact, had
received a letter from the State of California Division of Highways indicating
that this type of lighting with a 10-degree cut-off was not expscted to create
any glare or distraction for the nearby freeway traffic; that the primary
question~, consequently, would appear to involve the exact puipose of the 150-
foot light tower; that it would appear, as the applicant had indicated, one of
the purposes of the tower was to provide a distinctive mark ~~f identification
to this retail sales faci.lit;~; that if this was a distinctive mark of identi-
fication, this miqht be considered to be a sign, and the maximum height per-
mitted would be 75 feet, or one-I~alf of the proposed'height; that by comparison
this light stdndard would be approximately half again as high as the Bank of
America build:tng located at Harbor Boulevard and Broadway; that the cone of
light distributed from the tower to the ground would definitely provide a mark
of identification for travelers along the freeway, as well as adjacent arterial
highways in all directions; and that the Commission might wish to question the
applicant concerning the function of this structure as an identification symbol
to determine whether there was any intent that it serve as an additional sign
or whether it was, in fact, just a parking lot light, however, it should be
pointed out that if this conditional use permit were to be denied, the applicant
could, as a matter of right, erect a structure 100 feet high,
Mr. Vern Gibble, 1500 Skokie Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, appeared before the
Commission, representing the petitioner, and stated that the stores built for
this company from coast-to-coast were the result of a series of studies which
made this one of the moGt efficient manners of lighting the parking area; that
it was his opinion that the pole tower was the most efficient way to light the
site; that the lighting pole as was being requested to be installed was the
result of studies by electrical engineers and lighting consultants of consider-
able repute, and as a re~ult, they were attempting to install these everywhere.
Mr. Robert Sharp, representing California Computer Corporation. 2411 West La
Polma Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated their
property ran from La Palma Avenue to the freeway and from Gilbert Street on the
west to the La Palma Avenue industrial center; that to the north was Electrical i
Motors, of which part was the wickes Corporation; that they had tried to develop
their property in a low key manufacturing site; that the property owner to the
west had indicated to him that they proposed to develop in a similar manner;
•
s
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1315 ~Continued)
72-355
that they had gone on record at the time Wickes Furniture Store was approved
as wantir.g to discourage any commercial use of the industrial property, and
he did not want to see commercial development extending down Magnolia Avenue;
that the proposed operation was entirely commercial within the industrial area;
that he was concerned w?th the identification means of this pole and whether it
was meant to be a sign, particularly as it would appear in the daytime; that
they had a four-story building adjacent to this property, and the top three
floors would be viewing thie light towers that the top three floors, which
were their executive offices, market and sales office, would be viewing this
light tower because they were in ?. glass-enclosed building which would have a
full view of this sita, and they would object to any kin3 of flashinq or light-
ing sign operatinq during the daytime; and that he would like to know what type
of structure was being proposed.
Mr. Gibble, in rebuttal, stated that the light standard consisted of a pole
with a basket on the top in whi~h were 24 individual light fixturesf that once
the light was set up, it would remain forever; that there would be no stray
lighting going elsewhere than on the parking lot; that the light did not rotate
and did not flash on and off and was only lit after dark, remaining lit until
the store closed at 10:00 p.m.; that this was a constant light source rather
than an intermittent source; tbat he felt this was a very distinctive light;
and that the company had become well known for the manner in which their park-
ing area was lit.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since Orange County was not smog free, what
would happen on a foggy night when the fog would be below the light; whereupon
Mr. Gibble stated that the light would be reflected a great deal.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether the light would penetrate the fog -
would it accentuate the fog?
Mr. Gibble replied that since fog had a reflective characteristic, the light .
.would be someWhat reflected.
Commissioner Gauer observed that during a foggy night the lights were glowing
at the stadium, and then inquired what staff ineant in the ~teport~ t"µo thye~~ ^V~~
Commission that the otrnctnre could b• built a~c a heiqht of 100 fast.
'Cos~isaio_~.:~.:.:.Wt;~:w~.......:~Y_:,.~._u~~.~,.:c:,~,.~.~~~----°-z...,:.M..._._.,:..e,....... - _ . ~.
nar Rowland notad that a 150•-foot toNer would hane a somewhat different
impact than conventional outdoor liqhting. If anyoae wanted to mount the liqhts
at that height on a buildinq, the City vould relcoa~ the project. xMT:.,_T,~~~~a
..~,~....<.,..,.v .,.,T.-.~.,,~.....<..«........~,.,,....._-....~.~,,.,-w._„
Zoainq~8upeivisor Cliirles Aobeits not~d that if this light tovar Msre construct-'"~
ed as a light structure and not as a sign in the M-1 2one, they would be per-
mitted to have a 100-foot high structure without benefit of a conditional use
permit, however, the petitioner proposed to erect the tower at 15u Eeet.
Commissioner Allred observed that the petitioner also stated this was an
identity for the Wickes Corporation.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since no similar lighting was used throughout
the County, what would be the difference in viewinq this at 150 feet high down
the freeway since he could visualize the Chevron sign or the big orange ball
that would appear for gas stations as a symbol for them; whereupon Mr. Gibble
stated those would be signs that would be illuminated in the interior and were
for the sole purpose of an identification mark, whereas the lighting they
proposed would be a controlled lighting to shin.~ inward.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired what the purpose of the pole was other than
to be viewed; whereupon Mr. Gibble replied that the height was needed in order
to be able to control the lighting since if the light were lower, it could
possibly shine into the peoples' eyes.•
~
~
MINUTES, ~ITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, June 12, 1972 72-356
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1315 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst then observed that this pole would serve as a symbol of
identity, as admitted by Mr. Gibble, with people recognizinq thxs symbol and
associating it with the Wickes Corporation.
Mr. Gibble replied by stating that people would recognize the company no
matter what it was intended, but his interpretation of this was that it was
intended to solve the parking lighting area and while solving this problem,
it also gave identification to the companyt and that he would hate to see the
buildings he designed not being easily recognized as his particular design.
However, what they were attempting to do was direct the lighting to stay within
the perimeter of the Wickes' property, and the higher the light, the better it
was to control the light.
Commisszoner Kaywood observed that when the original petition was considered
,*..y the Planning Commission for the warehouse and furniture store for Wickes
Corporation, the applicant then stated there would be no problems of signing
of sny kind; that they would be happy to live with all of the sign requirements,
but about a month ago a variance was considered for signing with the petitioner
statin this was a re uest to permit the standard Wickes' sign, and now this
4 4 u/t~ s v,yr c'r~ie,NRT~e A~~-
petition was requesting an/~ f-~anti~~at~u s~gn or light. Therefore, it would
appear to the Commission that when the petitioner originally came in that he
knew what was planned, and, in her estimation, the proposal was a sign and not
a light standard~AN~ d.~.~.sluvr'uW~'~'0n'T ""'7 P'~`F"`~"T"'~ e.:.,~S.Dr,~ µr~e,v.
Mr. Roberts noted that the original drawing submitted indicated a light tower
was proposed in the middle of the parking lot, but there was no mention of
height or type of standard, and there were no notices which indicated on the
oriqinal plan that this would be primarily retail uses.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-126 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1315 on the basis
that this was a sign identif.ication of the use with a light; that there was
adequate provision in the Siqn Ordinance to identify this use without permitting
a 150-foot tower; that the applicant knew in his original proposal what he
planned for this facility rather than presentinq this light tower under a
separate petition.
Commissioner Rowland asked that certain findings be included in this denial,
namely, that there was a question of zoniaq of the property since it appeared
this was primarily retail with incidental warehousing; that the plan did not
consider the impact on the environment of the neighbors, one of whom indicated
they developed as a low key indixstrial firm, buic, in reality, this industry -
California Computer Corporation - was one of the briqht lights of industrial
development in Anaheim and particularly in this immediate area, and the fact
that they went along with the use proposed rather surprised him because Cal-Comp
was setting the standard by which the City could look with pride, and when
they object to an idea of a light tower this size - and he, too, did not like
this idea of a light tower - even though the petitioner presented his case very
well as to economics and site distance, lights could be seen above the ground,
and maybe everybody would have these lights in the future, but in order to
protect the neiqhbors, he would be against this proposal.
Commissioner Herbst stated he could foresee a precedent being set, and the City
could expect similar light standard requests in the parking lots with a multi-
tude of lightinq, and if the Commission approved this request, they could not
deny similar requests.
Commissioner Rowland Eurther indicated that when an ancillazl facility is
appreciably more than the facility on the site, one could lssume L•ais would be
to attract business, and this light at a height of 150 feet was sigi~i£icant -
it becomes apparent that this would be recugnized a~ a part of their operation
rather than representing the parking function of lighting; that this could be
applied in sample tests or. most any structure in the area - like the Matterhorn
dominated the Disneyland skyline, which became very distinctive in its own
element; and that this held true for the "Space Needle" in Seattle, a landmark
even though it was a restaurant.
•
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-357
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1315 (Continued)
Commissioner Allred then amended his motion to read: Commissioner Allred
offered Resolution No. PC72-126 and moved for its passage and adoption to
deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1315 on the basis that the
proposed use would adversely affect ttie adjoining land uses and the growtii and
development of the area in which it was proposed to be located; that the peti-
tioner had not demonstrated that approval of the requested use was necessary
to enjoy ~ substantial property riqht enjoped by others in the area and denied
to the petitioner; that the proposal is considered to be a sign rather than
simply a light standard because the Commission has determined that when an
ancillary facility on a given site is more significant than the primary facility,
it is for the purpose of attracting attention; that the lighting of subject
pruperty can be accomplished adequately without the need to waive the site
development standards of the M-1 Zone; that granting this proposal would permit
the establishment of a use that would be inconsistent with the development
standards of the surrounding industrial uses; and that the granting of this
petition would set an undesirable precedent for similar requests for other
commercial uses throughout the city. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENr: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. KATHERZNE CASTLEMAN, 3672 Oakwood Place,
PERMIT N0. 1316 Riverside, California 92506. Owner; LYLE ANDERSONr 2739
North Lincoln Avenue, Surbank, Califorr.ia 91504, Aqenti
requesting permission to ESTABLISH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE
IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A rec-
tangularly-shaped parcel of land haviny a frontage of approximately 312 feet
on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately
147 feet, being located approximately 190 feet south of the centerline of
Broadway, and further described as 315-319 South Magnolia Avenue. Property
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
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.
a,~.u•i/ Cc~u.~ 'me.....~.~+/,
Mr. Don Withrow,~r-eg~e~~^+;^q Withrow Steak and Lobster House and representing
the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated they
proposed to have on-sale beer and :vine in conjunction with the serving of food.
The Commission inquired whether or not the p.etitioner was proposing to have a
bar or stools, and i£ not, would he stipulate that there would be no bar or
stools; and that the serving of alcoholic beverages would be only an incidental
part of the serving of food; whereupon Mr. Withrow stipulated to there being no
bar or bar stools and that the serving of beer and wine would be in conjunction
with the serving of food.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
C~mmissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-127 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1316, subject to
conditions and the finding that the petitioner stipulated there would be no
bar or bar stools and that the serving of beer and wine would be in conjunction
with the serving of food. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Gauer, Herbst, ?:aywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-358
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MARION LINDSEY, c/o Rutan & Tucker, 401
PERMIT NO. 1317 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California 92701,
Owner; NEWPORT INVESTMENTS, INC., P. 0. Sox 1905, Newport
Beach, California 92660, Agent; requesting permission to
ESTABLISH A 124-SPACE TRAVEL TRAILER PARK on property described as: A rec-
tangularly-shaped parcel af land consistinq of approximately 5 aczes, having
a frontage of approximately 330 feet on the east side of West Street, havinq
a maximum depth of approximately 660 feet, and being located approximately
330 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTDRAI•, ZONE.
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. Howard Miller, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated Y.hat although they agreed basically with the Report to the Commission,
there were a few minimal differences which could be handled as a condition of
approval, since they wanted to start development of the park as soon as possible
due to the seasonal need for this use, and did not want a delay.
Mr. Royal West, 9202 Edison Circle, Huntington Beach, designer of the project
and representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated that for clarification purposes wheze staff referred to a convenience
market, this was not so since they only intended to have vending machines; that
the undefinable building mentioned in Finding No. 7 was to be a 620-square foot
washing and sanitary facility building for the campers and recreational units
not having such self-contained facilities; that they had not shown any of the
planting, although they intended to meet and exceed the proposed Travel Trailer
Park Ordinance since the developer proposed to plant a tree on each padt that
reference made as to no guest parking - the developer felt this was not needed
because people would be coming with their trailers to visit the area; that they
did not show the trash area location since they proposed to have trash containers
at the ends of the rows of lots; that reference made to the usable recreation
area - it was proposed to have this a part of the main building in the front
where it was proposed to be well maintained; that within the interior streets
there was approximately 13,000 square feet, and in addition, approximately 1.600
square feet was near the site of the washroom £acilities, which would result
in 9,710 square feet in the front area alone; that they had no opposition to
the staff's recommended conditions other than the 6-foot wall along the east
property line, because there already was a windowless, tilt-up, concrete uuliding
therefore, a chainlink fence would appear to be more appropriate; and thac t:iey
proposed the same type of wall along the west property line that was approved
for Vacationland across the street from subject property.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 4:55 p.m.
Mr. West further stated that they preferred to have the wall in accordance with
the plan along the front ~roperty line, and that they would stipulate a lanu-
scape architect would prepare the landscaping plans that would be submitted to
the Commission for approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Commissiuner Herbst observed that this was a very deep lot, and the petitioner
was providing all of the services at one end, and if a camper did not have self-
contained facilities, this would be a rather long way to go; whereupon Mr. West
stated that these facilities were within 330 feet of a particuZar area, whereas
State law permitted a maximum of 400 feet.
The Commission then inquired why these facilities could not be placed more in
the center of the park, particularly the recxeational facilities, since people
who were parked to the rear of this lot would find it difficult, particularly
for parents to let their children play in the recreation area while they were
busy getting the trailer ready for the night or preparing a meal, since most
parents wanted their children nearby so that they could keep an eye on them.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1317 (Continued)
72-359
Mr. t7est advised the Commission that in order to ma;ce this development finan-
cially feasible, it was necessary to have 124 trailer spaces, and to split
this layout in order to provide recreational facilities, would require reduc-
ing the front recreation area, limiting this to a registration center, which
to them would not be attractive.
Commissioner Allred noted that the last time the tr.avel trailer park representa-
tives of the property on the west side of West Street appeared before the
Commission, they advised the Commission that there was a need for more recrea-
tional facilities, and the proposal had no recxeation area on the property that
was readily accessible.
Mr. Miller advised the Commission this would have to be a mangement problem
by assigning spaces for trailers having children nearer the recreational area
since many people without chi3ren did not want to be next to such an area.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that the arohitect indicated that the developer
needed 124 spaces, however, staff also noted there was inadequate recreational
facilities and inquired whether it was~possible that the developer wanted to
get too much on the ground.
Mr. Miller stated the density of their facility ::•~ttld be less than on Vacation-
land.
Chairman pro tem Seymour then asked if the density was less than Vacationland,
why did the architect state it was difficult to relocate the recreation area
so that people could make it availabl~ to themselves.
Mr. Miller replied that it was his feeling a recreation area should be super-
vi.sed, therefore, they wanted this near the front area where it could be over-
seen from the office, particularly when people were busy doing their house-
keeping chores and the children needed to be somewhere and still be supervised;
that he wanted to kee~ the noise away from the people without children; and
that it would take people in charge of management to keep some type of order.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the proposed ordinance indicated where the
deficiencies were, namely, that the petitioner was only providinq 4,000 square
feet of recxeation area, while 6,200 square feet was needed; that the Commis-
sion recognized that this was the Disneyland area where considerable commercial-
reoreation was located, and these types of particular facilities, where one
builder found it necessary to have more recreation facilities, was a must in
this type of operation where the bulk of the children would be cominy from
camper-trailers, and unless this type of facility could provide recreational
facilities in accordance with good planning. people would not be staying at
this facility.
Commissioner Gauer noted the Commission could continue subject petition and
request that revised plans be submitted for the next Commissi.on meeting.
Mr. Miller indicated he did not agree with staff since he felt they had half
acain as much recreational area as required.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that staff in their calculations
did not include the 20-foot landscape setback along West Street, nor the green
lawn area between the 3riveways since staff did not feel this could be considered
as recreational area, therefore, the actual recreational area was indicated.
Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that since the Commission haci approved two
similar facilities in this area and the developers had indicated their plan had
the same percentage of play area - recreation area as two previously approved
uses - perhaps the Commission could approve this subject to meeting the required
recreational area.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue ccnsideration of Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1317 to the meeting of June 26, 1972, to allow the
petitioner time to submit revised plans indicating more recreational area.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-360
CONDZTIONAL USE_PERMIT NO. 1317 (Continued)
Considezable diecussion was held by the Commission regarding this motion in
which the following was determined: 1) the proposal was not in accordance
with the required guest parking; 2) the proposal did not meet the minimum
required recreational area; 3) the petitioner should be given the same treat-
ment other travel trailer park developers had been given if he can comply
with the same requirements other parks mett 4) when would the City reach the
saturation point for travel trailer parks in this area; 5) waivers had never
been allowed in other travel trailer parks; 6) a travel trailer park was a
good interim use of the.land since it would not be difficult to remove the
impr~vements if a more desirable development was proposed; 7) the commercial-
recreation area presently was adequately developed with motels and hotels,
and the need for these facilities appeared to be greater; and 8) the need to
be assured that there would be no run-down buildings in this area.
Upon conclusion of this discussion, Commissioner Allred withdrew his motion.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether subject petition could be approved
subject to the petitioner's meeting all of the requirements of the proposed
Travel Trailer Park Ordinance and whether this could be done administratively.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advise3 the Commission
that this could be done.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that it would be better
to require submission of revised plans which would reflect the conditions that
the Commission would like to impose, particularly in view of the fact that the
Travel Trailer Park Ordinance had only been approved by the Planning Commission
and had not gone to the City Council as yet.
Commissioner Herbst of£ered Resolution No. PC72-128 and moved for its passage
and adoption to yrant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1317 subject to
conditions and the requirement that the petitioner submit revised plans to the
Planning CommiSSion by June 26, 1972, reflecting the changes recommended by the
Planning Commission regarding landscaping, and subject to the stipulation by
the petitioner that there would be no convenience market proposed for this
facility. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votA
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Seymuur.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PACIFIC LIGHTING PROPERTIES~ INC., P. O-
PERMIT NO. 1319 Box 60043. Los Angeles, California 90060, Owner3 SANDMAN
MOTELS, INC., attention of Raymond C. Smith, Pr.esident,
2082 Business Center Drive, Irvine California 92664, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTASLISH A 62-UNIT MOTEL on property described as:
An L-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres, having a
fro^tage of approximately BO feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and 100
feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, and being located approximately
363 feet west of the centerline of State College Soulevard and approximately
2].0 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Property presently classi-
fied M-l, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
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. Marshall Smith, representing Sandman Motels, Inc., aqent for the petitioner,
appeared before the Commission and noted they were a division of Pacific Light-
ing Propertiee, and that they were in agreement with the recommended conditions.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-361
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1319 (COntinued)
The Commission inquired about the parcel which was left out on the corner
as to whether it was intanded to be proposed for a service station site -
since tl:is was M-t property and a service station was permitted by right,
the Commissibn did not want to isolate this parcel to where it could become
a commercial parcel, and that the Commission was quite concerned about service
stations since there was approximately a 259r service station vacancy factor in
Anaheim.
Mr. Smith replied that it was their intent to develop that property with a
service station and a restaurant.
The Commission further noted that the property to the west was also owned by
the petitioner - did the petitioner have plans to develop this £or commercial
uses7
Mr. Smith stated it was the intent of the owner to develop said property for
industrial purposes. ~
Chairman pro tem Seymour nc~:ed that the pla:ia indicated the property as being
commercial; there£ore, why did the petitioner state the property would be
developed for industrial purposes when it was labeled commercial7
Commissioner Herbst noted that the General Plan projected this property for
commercial-recreation uses - wonld the requested use be illegal - to which
staff stated there would be no conflict.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that she could see a problem with the frontage
along Katella Avenue wherein the petitioner could claim a har6ship, requesting
a larger sign than would be permitted by Code because of the narrow frontage,
claiming there was considerably more land to the rear oi• the restaurant and
gas station which should be taken into consideration.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that Commissioner Kaywood inferred that the
petitioner would be requesting signing in excess of that permitted by Code
because of the manner in which the property was being divided; whereupon
Mr. Smith stipulated that signing would be in conformance with Code.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that Mr. Smith did not
appear to have the authority of the board of directors of the company as being
binding in the stipulation to the resolution; whereupon Mr. Smith replied that
he did not have that authority, but in buil3ing these motels they were developed
in accordance with the signinq of the zone.
Cnmmissioner Allred was of the opinion that all tenants for this and the "not
a part" parcel should have their signing on one standard rather than requesting
another sign.
Commissioner Herbst noted he was not opposed to a motel in this area since
there was none located there, but he was concerned about the i~plicstions on
the drawings that the adjoining property was a commercial site, and this should
be clarified with the developers of this facility - if this were M-1 zoned
property and the plans indicated commercial zoning, whatever happened on the
motel site would be setting a precedent; and that since this was an L-shaped
parcel, more evidence was needed to establish that the petitioner wz ~•t
intending to develop the adjoi~ing property for commercial usep whe_~ :,n
Mr. Smith replied, all he was requesting was a conditional use permit ior the
motel now.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the Commission was always in favor of land I
assembly. and by dividing this parcel, this would be contrary to ths Commis-
sio*~'s desires, and it would make it a hardship parcel, leaving no alternative
but to have a service station, even though she knew they were permitted by
right in the M-1 Zone, she was still opposed to a service station at this location
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-362
~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1319 (Continued)
Mr. Smith replied by stating it was their intent to have a combination motel,
restaurant and service station at this site.
Commissioner Herbst continued to express concern about the fact that the plans
for the motel indicated conmercial zoning on the adjacent parcel, particularly
since the property was also owned by the petitionerr Whereupon Mr. Smith
stated this may have been an error by the architect reqarding the zoning of
the property.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether it would bso~thatatheoCommissionrwouldt
that plans be submitted for the entire property
know what was proposed for the property by being deleted from this request.
Mr. Smith replied that there were two different companies involved, ':.he~~~.
he did not know ' ,~y~,,~~~, 4•,
Commissioner Herbst off red xesolution No. PC72-129 and moved for its pnssage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1319, subject.to
conditions and the stipulation of the pEtitioner that the property to the west
was proposed to be developed £or industrial purposes and the commercial desig-
nation on the plans was in error; and that the petitioner further stipulated
that there would be no hardship in meeting the require:aents of the Sign
Ordinance. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COFIMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer. Herbst, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
Commissioner Gauer stated tnac he would hate to see a service station in that
area since there already were two service stations, and he would hope that
there would not be four service stations at that intersection even thouqh
approval of subject petition would be tantamount to projecting this site for
a sasvice station,
~,~,.,,.....,-:.~,n~~...~._.:, .~~.~:;:_.........._~.,.:.....4.:_....„,.._.:.-,=:.>,~::~, -_._._~..__-_
Coaaissioner Herbst ofPerad a aotion to dizsct ~taff to proceed with the stu y o
the sernice station ordinance and set for public hearinq requiring service sta-
tions to be approved by conditional use permit in any zone, and further requestin
to find a method of removinq.vacant.service atations that have been closed six
months or longer. Commissionar Gaues aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRtED.
_ __. tp,~,~..~-~..~.~•.~,~.....>...,..-,.-,.~ne..,..~ __ __ - -..-----_.____.._
VARIANCE N0. 2376 - PUBLIC HEARING`: LPII~LIAM P. VISSER, 701 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; requesting
WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, (2)
MINIMUM LOCAL STREET SETBACK, (3; MINIMUM REAR SETBACK~ AND (4) MINIMUM SIDE
SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL GREENHOUSE on property described as: Two
par.cels of property described as Parcel 1- A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land having a frontage of approximately 107 feet on the north side of Lincoln
Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 127 feet and being located at
the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Resh Street, and further described
as 701 West Lincoln Avenue; Parcel 2- A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
having a frontage of approximataly 50 feet on the west side of Resh Street,
having a maximum depth of approximatel~ 125 feet, being located approximately
166 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as
115 North Resh Street. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZONE (PARCEL 1) AND P-1, AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONE (PARCEL 2)•
Two persons indicated their presence in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of =ubject
property, uses established in close proximity, and the waiver requests, noting
that the petitioner was proposing to remove the existing single-family unit on
the northerly portion of the property in question and construct an approximate
3000-square foot greenhouse to be operated in conjunction with the existing
^
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-363
VARIANCE NO. 2376 (COntinued)
florist shop on the southerly property: that the submitted plans indicated the
building would abut the entira ,length of the northerly property line and wculd
abut approximately half of the east and west property lines; that the wall
heiqht was proposed to be 17 feet along the northerly property line and stepped
down to about 10 feet high alony the east and west property lines; that the
applicant had indicated 6 parking stalls on the portion north of the alley and
15 parking stt~lls on the portion south of the alley.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the waiver for the minimum
number of parking stalls provided was being requested because the petitioner
was providing 21 stalls, whereas 28 stalls would be required; that the appli-
cant indicated that since the majority of his business was done by telephone
and delivery, the number of stalls provided had proven to be more than adequate
for this type of opera~ion; that it should be pointed out, however, that staff
had receiaed complaints from adjacent property owners in the area indicating
that there was a parking shortage as tlte facility now existeds and that Resh
Street was often lined with on-street parking. Furthermore, Waivers b, c, and
d were being requested because the applicant was proposinq to construct the
building on three of the four property linest that it wonld appear inappropriate
to build a building with a 17-foot high wall, especially along the northerly
property line abuttinq the existing single-family home; that it would also seem
inappropriate to allow construction on the front pr~perty line along Resh Street
in light of the large setbacks provided for the single-family homes on both
sides of the street to the north; that the Commission was aware that the P-1
Zone allowed for, in addition to the primary permitted use of automobile -.'~k-
ing, the construction of apartment complexes subject to the R-2 and R-3 stand-
ards; that there were several alternatives that would appear to be more accept-
able than the proposed plan, the first being revising the layout and location
of the building so that it would occupy the westerly half of the property,
providing the easterly half for parking - this would place the 17-foot hiqh
wall for the greenhouse in the rear setback area of the adjacent single-family
homes and would provide an open parking area alonc; Resh Street; that a second
alternative would involve relocating the proposed qreenhouse to the property
upon which the small, old greenhouse existed and locating all of the parking on
the P-1 praperty north of the alley - this alternative could be accomplished and
more closely conform to the existing C-2 and P-1 zoninq requirements; and that
the Commission might wish to consider this request to be inappropriate as pro-
posed and request that the applicant submit revised plans that would confc-m
more closely to Code requiren:ents.
Mr. Bill Visser, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he
was the owner-operator of the florist shop; that he was very surprised to find
out that he did not provide all the necessary papers until three days ago when
he had been informed he would have to dedicate 3 feet for alley widening pur-
poses; that he was desirous of establishing a greenhouse in conjunction with
his florist shop; that he could not understand why the neighbors were complain-
ing about his parking since 65$ of his business was done by telephone, and of
that 65$, 30+t was out-of-town; that he proposed to construct the greenhouse in
the same manner as his other buildings had been constructed, except that this
would extend along the west side of Resh Street; that he had never economized
when it came to construction of his facilities, and this greenhouse would not
be a redwood building - it would be a credit to the community; and that he
proposed to increase the existing parking by almost 50$ with parking adjacent
to the proposed greenhouse for his employees, and he was not like the Bank of
America because he did provide parking for his employees.
Mr. Visser advised the Commission that he had been trying to build a greenhouse
in the City's C-2 Zone for ter years but had been told there was no way this
could be done in Fire Zone 1; that five or six years ago he had been told that
he should place the greenhouse across the alley, and finallx he had acquired
this property across the alley but was again running into difficultiess and
that he did not know that he would be permitted to construct a greenhouse in
the C-2 Zone.
Mr. McDaniel stated that staff's ~tatement in the Report to the Commission was
not intended to mean that a greenhouse was nermitted in the C-2 2one by right
but was an alternative sinc:E that more closely matched the proposal than
permitting it to be built in the P-1 Zone which was limited to parking and
multiple-family development.
~..
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-364
VARIANCE NO. 2376 (Continued)
Mr. Visser noted he presently had a small greenhouse in the middle of his
parking lot, but he had five trucks and was planning to purchase another truck.
The Commission then requested clarificationt whereupon Mr. ~'isser stated that
although he presently had a small greenhouse, he had been told if it was
removed he could not again build said greenhouse, and that his plans indicated
a SO+t increase in the proposed parkinq by removing the existing greenhouse an
providing parking in that area.
The Commission inquired if the petitioner were to build the greenhouse along
the Lincoln Avenue frontage, how much area would be needed; whereupon Mr. Visser
stated that when he had been advised previously that he could not build the
greenhouse in Fire Zone 1, he had leased out a portion of the existing building
to a photographer, therefore, he could not go through the photoyrapher's office
to gain access to a greenhouse if it were located on the Lincoln Avenue frontage.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner was requesting fi~~e waivers from
Code and was proposing to build in the P-1 2one with the greenhouse creating
zero building setbacks, and this would appear to be more of a problem since
this greenhouse would be abutting a single-family home with a 17-foot wall and
would be interferring with the health, safety, and general welfare of these
homes; and that he would be opposed to such a wall construction because this
would be an invasion of privacy of these adjoining residences.
Mr. Robert Rees, 123 North Resh Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion,noting his home was the second to the north of the proposed greenhouse,
however, his elderly mother lived immediately adjacent to subject property;
that the zoning was originally changed to P-1 because it was thought it would
be needed because of the high school; that anyone who went down Resh Street
would note that there was considerable on••street parking, and if a resident
of the area left the parking apace in front of his home to go to the store,
he would find the parking space gone upon his return; that the homes were very
old homes with long-time, older residents in them - his mother having lived
in her home sixty years; that he had purchased his home recently, and it was
sixty-two years old, and they planned to stay in this home the rest of their
lives; and then presente3 a petition of opposition signed by 2F nearby residents.
Mrs. Robert Rees, 123 North Resh Street, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and stated that prior to the legal notice having been received by
the adjoininq property owners, the petitioner's employees parked on the street,
but in the past week they now wer~ parking on.the premises; that she had
counted 16 to 18 vehicles on the lot which had formerly parked on the street,
and when she would see them park on the street, it would make her very angry
since it was impossible to park one's own car on the street between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. because people working in the area parked their cars there, which
made it very difficult for these elderly people residing on this street who
would be driviny to the grocery store and upon return they could not even park
in front of their homes in order to carry groceries into the house; that they
had purchased their home only one year ago, and they did not intend to move
during their lifetime; that most of the people living on that street had been
there for many yearsj and that the feeling regardiny parking was shared by all
cf the residents on thi.s street.
Mr. Visser, in rebuttal, stated that he had 14 cars which were parked on the
property; that the City Council asked him to remove two old homes, and since
then, other people had been parking on his property from the high school, etc.;
that he would have had a ticket every day if his cars were parked on private
property; and that he wanted liis customers to be able to park on his property
because of the one-houz parking limit on the street.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner could construct the qreen-
house at its present location, placing the parking on the lot across the alley;
whereupon Mr. Visser stated that he needed a place for the trucks to be loaded,
and it would mean leaving ari air-conditioned shop to go through an 80-degree
greenhouse before reaching the truclcs. Furthermore, there would be some
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~•MMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-365
VAP,IANCE N~. 2376 (Continued)
nroblem with lighting for the greenhouse in the present area; that he had
engineers trying to solve his probler,~ as to location and light; and that there
was another problem regarding trash trucks leavinq the alley, and he just
wanted to keep the alley wide open.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether or not the City would permit abandon-~
ment of the alley; whereupon Mr. Visser replied that he had been advised by
the City that if he owned property on both sides of the alley, then the alley
could be abandoned.
Chairman pro tem Sey~^.our inquired whether the alley could be tee'd off at the
westerly end since there was only one house to the west, and if this could be
done, then the petitioner could redesign his prrpo;~al so that the adjuining
property owners would not be faced with a 17-foot high wall; where'upon Mr.
Viaser s*ated that a ceriain amount of air was peeded, otherwise the plants
would not grow - the greenhouse.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission and the petitioner regarding the manner
in which the proposed greenhouse could be constructed, whether the Commission
should consider continuing subject netition to allow the petitioner time to
submit plans, or whether the Commiss?on was desirous oE having a 17-foot high
wall adjacent to res:.dential uses; whether the property on which the green-
house was proposed should be developed with a commercial use since the P-1 Zone
permitted only parking ~r apartments, particularly since chis was a C-2 use
beittg requested abutting the R-2 prooerty line, which had not been permittedj
that the proposed use could be blocking off the .line of sight for people along
this street when residents uf thc a':ea used their front yards, and although
the homes might be old, the owne,.~ of the homes tried to preserve t`:e residential
integrity of the area; that if the adjoining properties were developed eventual-
ly for multiple-fan~ily residential use, a wall the height proposed would be
er~-^mely harmful to tha potential use of the property; that the petitioner was
r. ~:•unding a problem with the neighbors; and that cnless the petitioner agreed
,. .. conti.nuance and subsitted revised plans, relocating the greenhouse,
suh~ect petition should te denied.
Mr. Visser ~~ted he had been attempting to receive approval of a.greenhouse in
the C-2 Zo:.~• for a number of years, but he was told this was impassible because
of the Fire Zone 1.
Commission~r Herbst observed that the petitioner had ,tever had a petition before
the Comm~:;sion requesting a greenhouse in the C-2 Zone', however, the use would
be an appropriate use with the existing floral shop; nevertheless, the petitioner
with his proposed plans was encroaching un the rights of the residents adjacent
to him.
Mr. McDaniel indicated that when this was presented to staff five years ago,
propoFing a greenhouse in the C-2 7,one, the petitioner's plans would have had
no off-street parking provided.
Chairman pro tem Seymoux noted that from the expressions of the Commission, the
petitioner should either have a continuance or the petition should be deniPd,
and he would suggest that the petitioner work with staff regarding relocating
the greenhouse building.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CAxRIED, to zeopen tha hearing and continue consideration of Petition
for Variance No. 2376 to the meeting of July 10, 1'~72, in order to allow the
oetitioner time to contact staff and to submit revised plans relocating the
greenhouse.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-366
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. A. B.'COX AND MARY COX, c/o Mrs. Helen
N0. 71-72-49 Wright, 9899 Church Road, Grosse Isle, Michigan 48138,
Owners; LOREN J. MEYERS, 11952 Jacalene Lane, Garden Grove,
VARIANCE NO. 2370 California 92640, Agent; property described as: A rec-
tangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of
approximately 120 feet on the west side of Euclid Street,
having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet, being located approximately
230 feet north of the centerli.ne of Orange Avenue, and further described as
505 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE.
RE9UESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF ~1) REQUIRED PARKING LOCATION TO THE REAR OF
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE~ ~2) MASONRY WALL ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL ZONE~ AND (3) PERMITTED SIGNS TO CONVERT
AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
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. Laren Meyers, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission an3
noted that since filing the reclassification petition, he had purchased subject
property; that it was his desire to improve the property for commercial uses
in two phases, however, he had not identified one phase in this petition, one
to convart the use of the residence into a use as a commercial office space; and
that a timetable was not firm, but it was his intent within four to five years
to remove the existing structure and build a commercial building, which would
result in maximum uti:ization of the property.
Commissioner Gauer observed that this property was part of an area d~velopment
plan on which the Commission had spent considerable hours.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Commission had spent consider-
able time studying this property and the adjoining properties under Area
Development Plan No. 95, which was to provide a means of secondary access so
that a multiplicity of acr.ess points to and from Euclid Street could be avoided;
that this area development plan limited the access to three points with a private
alley to serve these properties; and that the plans indicated alleyways would
be provided as the need existed and the City demanded.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether the petitioner understood that one of
the access points would have to be closed; whereupon Mr. Meyers stated that it
was his understanding that this would be subject to actual improvement on the
alley.
Mr. Roberts noted that on the access situation Mr. Meyers was correct, that all
of these properties were to be allowed to have direct access to Euclid Street
until such time as the access to the alley was provided, but the northernmost
driveway serving the garages now would not be used.
Mr. Meyers stated that this could be used as a parking slot, backing out onto
Euclid Street, however, the Engineerizg Department might want this closed.
Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that the Engineer'ng Department would prefer
that this driveway be closed since it would be vei~ danqerous to permit vehicles
to back out onto Euclid Street, a hiq:ily traveled thoroughfare.
Mr. Meyers inquired whether the condition of approval meant that he would have
to remove the driveway apron; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that the driveway apron
would have to be removed and replaced with regular c•srb and gutter and the side-
walk also re,-.~laced.
Mr. Meyers :n response to a question by Commissioner A11red, stated that he
planned to c~nvert this residence for light offzce use, using a portion of the
•
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-367
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-49 AND VARIANCE NO. 2370 (Continued)
structure for his own professsional office except that this would be more than
he would need for his initial office, and he might sublet a portion of the
property; that he had E3 parking spaces available; and that the possible uses
would probably be a real estate office, income tax office, insurance agent,
etc., however, there would be no medical or professional offices proposed.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst inquired why it v:as necessary to have such a large sign;
whereupon Mr. Meyexs stated that this was the maximum size desired, however,
he would actually have a sign no more than 50 square feet and was just asking
for the maximum in the event he wanted or needed a larger sign.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the sign request was out of proportion to any
signing permitted in this area.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that after the petitioner brought the property
up to the C-1 standards, then the sign waiver would not be necessary.
Mr. Roberts advised the Commissioa that if sufficient chanqes were made to the
building to bring it up to the C-1 standards, the petitioner would be permitted
to have a 240-square foot sign.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether any cf the alley had been developed to the
present time, and how many people had indicated they would improve an alley.
Mr. Roberts stated that two of the businesses had been developed, one an animal
clinic and the other a real estate office, and on the animal clinic property,
they had just paved in the rear whera the alley was to be placed, but the real
estate office had not installed the alley, and the petitioner did not intend to
do so - that nothing from Orange Avenue no.rth had been developed; that th~r~st
three lots were owned by Union Oil Company or, which an ambulance service•~ 't'
located on the northernmost lot; that the are~ the petitioner intended to use
for parking was blacktopped, but the alley was not improved, and he would be
required to install the alley when the need was apparent and other properties
developed along Euclid Street for commer..ial purposes; that according to the
area development plan, there was one more property ta the north between the
animal clinic and subject property, and when the property to the north developed,
this would be the first leg of the alley; and that the area development plan
required development accordingly, and when the City felt the alley was needed,
however, since this would be a private alley, there would be no dedication for
alley purposes to the City.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-130 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 71-72-49 be approved, subject to conditions, with the added condition that
development shall be in accordance with Area Developmpnt Plan No. 95 and that
the northerly access point of subject property be blocked off, the driveway
apron re!.~ved and reconstructed with standard curb and gutter and sidewalk.
(See Res~iution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kayw~od, Seymour.
NOES: COMMIS3IONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
Commissionez Seymour,pffered Resolution No. PC72-131 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2370 in part, denying Waiver
No. 1-c on the basis that the sign size proposed was far in excess of that
permitted and signing should be in accordance with the commercial use of a
residential structure, and subject to conditions, with the additional condition
that subject property shall be developed in accordance with Area Development
Plan No. 95. (See Rasolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: Allred.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Para.no, Rowland.
~+
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 ~2-368
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GLADYS L. BOREN, 1838 Mountain View
NO. 71-72-52 Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802, and WM. T. AND ETHELYN
W. SAMWAYS, 11491 Plantero Drive, Santa Ana, California
CONDITIONAL USE 42705, Ownersj SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 3423-A East
PERMIT N0. 1320 Cksapman Avenue, Oranqe, California 92669, Aqent; property
described as: An irregular.ly-shaped parcel of land having
frontages of approximately 118 feet on the east side of
Mountain Viea Avenue and 36 feet on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue,
having a maximum depth o£ approximately 357 feet, being located approximately
410 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way, and itlrther described as
1638 South Mountain View Avenue. Property presently classified R-A. AGRI-
CULTURAL AND M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONES.
REQUEoTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN 81-UNIT MOTEL WITH WAIVER OF ~1)
MINIMUM LOCAL STREET SETBACK, (2) MINIMUM SETSACK
ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE~ (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITHIN 150 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE~ AND (4)
MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SIGN FROM
ABUTTING PROPERTY.
One person indicated his p~•esence, noting that he had a question reaarding the
proposal, and that he would waive reading of the Report to the Commission.
Althcugh the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a uart of the minutes.
Mr. KarL C. Le Suer, representinq the agent for the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and stated he had talked with some of the neighbors who requested
that the swimming pool be ze].ocated from the south property line, possibly to
the north property line, since the noise from a swimming pool would be quite
undesirable to them; that they had stated the height was no problem since the
height would allow them to request C-1 zoning in the future, therefore, he would
stipulate to relocating the swimming pool adjacent to the commercial property
on the north.
Mr. Charles Frank, representing the mobilehome park to the south of subject
property, noted that the residents of tiie mobilehome park objected to the
proposed location of the swimming pool and requested that it be relocated.
The Commission noted that only one kitchen was proposed, and. this would be in
the manager's oifice.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that the frontage on Manchester Avenue was quite
small.
Commissioner Herbst observed that the sign proposed on the plans was within
Code except for its location from the abutting property lir.e, and then inquired
whether access was to both Manchester and Mountain View; whexeupon Mr. Le Suer
replied that their main access would be to Manchester ?.venue,.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst oEfered Resolution No. PC72-132 and m.:•ved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification
No. 71-72-52 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed ;~y the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-133 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1320, subject to
conditions, and the stipulation and condition by the petitioner that the
swimming pool shall be relocated from its existing location on the plan~. to the
north property line adjacent to the commprcial property. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foreqoing resolution was _assed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMTSSIONERS: All~ed, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-369
REFORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS R-S-5000 20NE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -
Clarification of a"pad" and reconsidAration
of setbacks.
Assistant Development Services Direator Ronald Thompson noted for the Planning.
Commission that the R-S-5000 Zane site development standards recommended for
approval by the Cnmmission had been referred back to the Commission because of
the information presented by Grant Corporation at the City Council public hear-
ing on May 30, 1972, and requested that the Planning Commission report back to
the City Council their findings on the information. Furthermore, the Council
requested further clarification of the term "pad" and additional consideration
be given to the front setbacks.
Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission had been presented with the recommended
changes by their body, the recommended changes suggested by Grant Corporation,
the analysis by staff of the recommendations submitted by the Grant Corporation
as well as their letter, and the cover memo which indicated that the major areas
of concern appeared to be the coverage, open space, and pad requirements, as
well as the proposed front setback requirement where "straight-in" drives are
utilized. In addition to that a copy of the staff report regarding the proposed
changes to the front setbacks in the R-H-10,000 Zone had been submitted.
Mr. Thompson also noted that representatives of Grant Corporation were desirous
o£ presenting slides to il~ustrate some of the statements made by them before
the City Council.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired whether Grant Corporation's concarn was
regarding Anaheim Hills - the 4200 acres formerly known as Nohl Ranch - did
they plan R-S-5000 for the Hills?
Mr. Toman, representing Grant Corporation, stated that it was a possibility,
but that they were developers of homes while Anaheim Hills Corporation were land
developers, and they wanted to give the City some input into the zone change
because they were builders of homes outside of the ranch, and that the approach
they were attempting was to try to illustrate some of the effects of a set of
hard ~nd fast rules on development if developers were required to maintain the
25-foot front setback, giving up more land for parking a car when it was really
needed in the rear yard, and they would suggest that some flexibility be per-
mitted than requiring the 25-foot front setback.
Mr. Toman then presented colored slides of several of their housing developments
which indicated the flexibility of setbacks and the manner in which the addi-
tional land was utilized for a much more attractive rear yard area.
Mr. Toman noted that the requirement of 25 feet for a front setback still would
not solve the prob:.em, particularly when one noted a motor home parked in a
25-foot driveway which was encroachinq into the public right-of-way.
Mr. Toman noted they would prefer either mai.itaining the setback at 6-10 feet,
which would not permit parking in the driveway, an:9 would force parking the
vehicles on the street or in the garage, or 23 feet or more which would be ample
to clear the public right-of-way preventing any overhang, since this would
expose the vehicle parked to a citation.
The Commission inquired as tu the width of the lots where only a 6-10 foot set-
back was proposed; whereupcn Mr. Toman stated that the lots were 68 feet wide.
Commissioner Herbst observed that there was not the same type of density in-
volved where the lct widths wexe 68 feet, but when one applied the same principle
to a 50-foot lot there would be room to park only one vehicle. In addition,
t:ie Commission had tour~d various developments in Anaheim and had noted very
undesirable and dangerous situations, particularly because people did not pull
their cars into their garages, nor did they park them without hang3ng into the
public right-of-way and where there were more than two cars to a house, there
would not be sufficient area on a 50-foot wide lot for all this additional
street parking.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972
ITEM NO. 1 (Continued)
72-370
Mr. Toman noted that if one drove through the developmer.t where the 6-10 foot
setback was located, he doubted very much that there would be three cars parked
on the street. Maybe that was because most of the homes had automatic garage
doors since people disliked to get out of the cars to open the garage doors.
Furthermore, where there were carports, people generally parked in the carports,
far more than where garages werQ provided.
Discussion was continued by the Commission regarding the slides presented and
the request by Grant Corporation, the fact that even where a two-car garage
wab provided, people were prone to use only one parking area while parking the
other cars in the drivewa7 or the street; that the City of Anaheim had no public
transportation, therefore, there appeared to be more cars per family, and as
such, the car problem had to be solved - perhaps the builders were attempting
to overbuild the lots; that one of the seasons the Commission had recommended
that the setbacks be at 25 feet was because of the fact that where 20-foot
setbacks were permitted there appeared to be too many of the vehicles hanging
over into the gublic right-of-way, particularly when one coasidered the length
of cars such as Lincolns, Cadillacs, and stationwagons; that door openers only
solved parking if there was sufficient space for the number of cars, but if
there were more cars, the door openers would not solve a parking deficiency.
Commissioner Kaywood expressed extreme shock that the R-S-5000 had been referred
back to the Planning Commission, particularly after the Commission and City
Council held a joint work session, and after viewing the pictures of vehicles
overhanging the public right-of-way. the Council had declared a 45-day moratorium
to resolve this problem in the R-S-5000 Zone, and then inquired where the Grant
Corporation was when the Commission had held public hearings on these revisions.
Mr. Toman stated they would like the flexibi2ity of a certain percentage of the
6-10 foot setbacks since they did not like the grid pattern established in most
subdivisions.
The Commission notad that developers :seemed to miss the point that the R-S-5000
2one did permit a variable width of l~~ts which would allow a developer a lesser
setback where a swing-in drive was pr~aosed, and that the Commission also did
not like a grid pattern, however, these variables were available if the develop-
ers cared to use them, but he could not see any reason for packing a lot,
particularly with a seven-bedrou.n home. Finally, the study the Commission made
and the recommendations made for amendments did give the flexibility that Mr.
Toman stated they needed, and the variables could also be accomplished by pro-
viding variable lot sizes, not necessarily all 5000-square foot lots where the
maximum coverage was attempted - now the developers were asking that the set-
backs be changed in order to provide additional area in t;ze rear, rather than
reducing the size .,f the homes and providing more open space.
Mr. Toman noted that they did n~t always end up with requests for given si~e
lots or homes.
The Commission further noted that the R-S-5000 2one changes did give the devel-
oper flexibility by permitting three-five bedroom homes, however, for anythinq
over three bedrooms, additional lot size was required.
Mr. Toman noted that they had never built five-bedroom homes on 5000-square
£oot lots, nor had they developed 5000-square foot lots in Anaheim.
The Commission noted they also had not expected a developer to construct seven-
bedroom homes on 5000-square foot lots, and this was the reason for these
ahanges.
Chairman pro tem Seymour aoted that the R-S-5000 Zone was permitted whese
property had R-2 or R-3 zoning or where the General Plan indicated it was
appropriate for low-medium or medium density in order to keep down the price,
thereby providing housing for the average worker, but some developers chose
to prostitute this - maybe not the Grant Corporation or Ponderosa Homes.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972
ITEM N0. 1 (Continued)
72-371
Mr. Toman suggested that perhaps the City could give staff more authority to
approve or disapprove development plans so that overdevelopment did not occur -
the developers needed same flexibility of development, and they could work with
staff to achieve this - staff indicated that the City Council was reluctant to
give this authority to the staff.
Chairman pro tem Seymour then inquired whether the exhibits displayed on the
wall did not provide the necessary flexibilityj whereupon Mr. Toman stated
they did to a certain degree, but when he filed a tract map with several hundred
lots this would leave him with a pre-sized lot and house, and perhaps he would
not have a market for certain sizes - this would then mean refiling of a sub-
division map.
The Commission then requested that Mr. Toman elaborate oa why they did not know
what size lot and house they would be needing when they started to build;
whereupon Mr. Toman stated they did know the size houses, but they did not know
how many three, four, or five-bedroom homes would be purchased, and with the
£ormula suggested by the Commission it would necessitate refiling a subdivision
map to provide the additional land where four and five bedrooms were proposed.
Thus they would be virtually locked in on given lot sizes when either smaller
or larger homes seemed to be in demand.
Mr. Toman then presented exhibits which illustrated what made him express con-
cern regarding the pad siz_ - at the request of the Chairman - noting there
were three conditions to consider - flat lot, up-slope, or down-slope - making
some allowances for decking or patio space where a down-slope was encountered,
os terracing in the up-slope situation - they would step down in the hillside
for 3-4 feet then flattening out - they would thus suggest that the Commission
consider requiring a minimum 15-foot rear yard where the down-slope would allow
for balconies or patio rather than a flat pad requirement on a 5000-square foot
lot.
The Commission then discussed the exhibits presented at langth, with Mr. Toman
noting that FHA required a minimur. 15-foot rear yard.
The Commission then inquired whether the illustration was for a 100-foot pad;
whereupon Mr. Toman stated that the first illustration gave a 100-foot flat pad,
the second a 100-foot lot with an 85-foot pad.
Mr. Thompson noted that he had checked with a number of engineers in the County
as to the definition of a pad - and the following was qenerally agreed to
represent an engineer's definition: "A pad is referred to as the level, total
buildable area, including any required setbacks, but excluding any natural or
manufactured slopes."
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that from the definition just stated it would
appear that the exhibits presented by Mr. Toman would be an 85-foot pad.
Mr. William Stark, representing Anaheim Hills, stated that where condit...ons
would dictate a balcony - the definition just stated would not be particularly
desirable.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the gurpose of the R-S-5000 Zone being
before the Commission was for the purpose of reporting back to the Council, and
if so, he could not make a decisio~i unless the full Com~rission again reviewed
this.
Ch-ir,r.~n pro tem Seymour stated that although Commissioner Rowland was not
pr ser.••: now, he had relayed this thoughts to him prior to leaving, and these
thoi.gAirs were very clear that the recommendations for amendments should stay
just a: the Commission presented. However, Chairman Farano was still out of
the cauntry and, therefore, the Commission should make some decision now.
Commissioner Herbst observed that the Commission had held several public hear-
ings on the amendment, and a number of private citizens as weJ~ as represer.ta-
tives of homeowners groups in the canyon had preaented their opinions and had
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 ~2'3~2
ITEM NO. 1 (Continued)
accepted the manner in which the Commission had =CCOmmended the changes, and•if
the Commission was n~t going to consider continuing this with the sarne manner
of hearing changes, the Commission would not be giving the opposition an
opportunity to review these recommendations and express their opinions.
~omntissioner Gauer concurred, stating this wa~ a change of venue, and it was
against his rrinciples to go over this without a public hearing, even though
the Council had requested th'.~ the Commission review this and report back to
them.
Mr. Larry Matzick, representing Ponderosa Homes, appeared before the Commission
and stated he was a builder ot homes on 5000-square foot lots, and his concern
was the recommended setbacks as well as the requirement of additional land where
homes had four bedrooms; that most of the builders knew who had built the six-
seven bedroom homes or 2600 square feet; that the new proposais would not permit
him to build a single-story home in Anaheim since c~nly 1250 square feet was
permitted for coverage while FHA requised more covered space, and he would have
to throw away most of his plans for single-story homes.
Chairman pro tem Seymour inquired as to the amount necasca~y Eor coverage~w~
be needed; whereupon Mr. Matzick stated about 54 square feet more to be used in
the garage as storage space; that the lot coverage would not permit this; that
he hoped their humes were a good product in Anaheim since they had designed
their homes for the people of the City who dictated what they wanted in their
homes.
Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the additional percentage needed over the
1250 square feet for a one-story home; whereupon Mr. Matzick stated approxi-
mately l+k for four-bedroom homes - this was the largest single-story home which
they built in Anaheim and did not include the 456 square feet in the garage.
Chairman pro tem Seymour noted if that were placed on the pad Mr. Toman talked
about, there wou].d be a 50$ coverage factor.
Mr. Matzick stated that he had never had more than 40+8 coverage and provided a
minimum of 20 feet for the rear and front yard setbacks; that he was discussing
a very successful project - one of his house designs having won a gold medal
from the Pacific Coast Building Associaxion - a home that now could not be built
in Anaheim.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that if 35+t coverage were granted, this would
permit 1700 square feet.
Mr. fhompson stated that the percent coverage could be changed or the lot could
be increased from 100 to 102 fEet in depth.
Mr. Matzick stated this would still eliminate two of the homes, or he would be
required to build two-story homes on these lots which were intended to provide
housing for a certain salary range purchaser; that their buyer profiles indi-
cated that people usually purchased the four-bedroom homes not to use the fourth
bedroom for its intended use but as a den, sewing room, etc., since they were
usually too small for a regular bedroom; that the family size was decreasing,
people had more money, more leisure time and did not want to spend their week-
ends taking care of their yards, but. wantied to take part in other sports, such
as tennis, bicycling, joining special groups, etc.
Nr. Matzick then presented a rendering of what they proeosed with 40~ coverage
with a maximum of four bedrooms, having a minimum 15-foot rear yard and a 23-
foot front setback - this would give him something that he ~ound acceptable.
Mr. Matzick then reviewed the coverage of one of their latest developments,
noting that the three-bedroom wauld not comply with the proposed standards;
that one model was 35$ coverage, another 39$ coverage; that his one-story homes
were very popular.
Commissioner Herbst noted that many of the builders had a tendency to forget
ecology in the flat land, and it appeared there was more and more blacktop
and buildings being placed on the land, aad if these builders did not take
into consideration that oxygen was made from the greenery, there wou.i.d come
a time when there would be no peoole to live in these homes because of the
lack of oxygpn.
•
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-373
ITEM NO. 1 (Continued)
Commissioner Gauer stated ~j, at h,e ~toured thc Villa Park area and came
away very depressed; that E~h'ir"~"~'`~~-Y`e~"tablished nothing but a grid pattern cf
homes after seeing what could be done in Villa Park - Anaheim could have had
a very attractive number of developments instead of what was now being faced
- *y1 S.Q.O.O~ O. ..~:Y~I+4~W.0~. LV...,TI NA ~ ~ . .'"'~'.._ia,•'= "".a.:..,~_:.,~
~o~~'ies~'o`ner K~~~~`~~Re~A'~$~~-'~~n excerp~~rom ~~ie San Fianciaco ~h-ronica"7 vhera
'tha Santa Clara County Chamber of Commerce Director had resiqned and stated:" Ne
are the victims of our own successes", "They discovered 20 years too late the
consequences of growth for growth's sake - the once-verdent valley is beset with
traffic strangulation, dense smoq, soarina taxes, burgeoring unemployment and
welfare rolls. The county is in deep financial trouble. He deplores the deter-
iorating quality of life. Obviously growth must be brouqht under control or it
will destroy the community, the region and ultimately the earth". Anaheim should
be more concerned than it has in the past, before it's too late for the econogy
and environment in our City.
Mr. Matsick stated he, too, had n concern with Ar.aheim; that it aould appear that
the onl eo le who could urchase tha homes would be thnae earninc~ S2.000 a montl
=^>1ae Com~ia~sl~n-~cnnn-~inqurrga-•wnac=°pzrce-•ran~qa~T•nvmea•~•aaa~~ae-~serl^,-a V<rA'a~0•K~sMRP'+~4'i~'T
the price ranqe of salaries of people purchasing his hoia?
Mr. Matzick stated his homes at 525,000 required a payment of 5250 per nonth,
which woul~ mean a salary range of about $1,000 per month; whereupon Commis-
sioner Seymour stated that if the purchaser had other bills to pay, this salary
range could reach to $1,500 per month or almost as much salary as Mr. Matzick
stated he was not gearing his homes to.
Mr. Matzick stated he had three tracts started about a year ago and something
seemed to happen along the line - the latest was the $285,000 to cover cost of
construction of a storm channel. The developers, rather than have a drainage
district with the City, were working together to provide this channel - now
that this had been resolved, the new standards were facing the developers.
The Commission noted they could only apply zone standards for the general public,
not for individual builders.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to advise the City Council that after having reviewed the
alternatives preser*..ed by Grant Corporation, listening to other builders
they would recommend that the amendments as recommended in Resolution No.
PC72-80 be retained except that the lot coverage be increased from 33~ to 35+t
to allow a builder to meet the coverage requirement of FHA; and that the
definition of a pad was as follows: "A pad is referred to as the level total
buildable area including any required setbacks, but excluding any natural or
manufactured slopes."
R-H-10,000 Setbacks
Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission might wish to defer consideration of
the recommendations ot staff on the R-H-10,000 2one as to building setbacks
so that the Commission could have the benefit of the Council's action regarding
the 6 to 1Q feet or the 23-foo*_ setback and whether or not this would be
appropriate in all zones; that the R-H-10.000 woulfl permit a straight-in drive
with a min~mum of 10 feetj and that at the time the City Council considered the
R-S-5000 amendments, the Grant Corporation had submitte3 recommendations to the
City Council regarding the front setback, therefore, the Commission miqht wish
to consider the Council's action in theix action on the R-H-10,000.
Chairman pro tem Sey~rour noted that it might be a good idea to defer the
Commission's ~onsideration of the R-H-10,000 building setbacks in the canyon
since he wanted the benefit of the Council's thinking in the types of buildings
in the hills.
Commissioner Kaywoed offered a motion to continue consideration of garage set-
backs in the R-H-10,000 Zone to the meeting o:' June 26, 1972, to permit action
by the City Council on the R-S-5000 Zone and ror a full Commission. Commissioner
Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
~1
u
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72-374
ITEM NO. 2
Environmental impact Statement regarding the
proposed expansion of the Crill Water Spreading
Facility (Anaheim Lake).
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the documentation presented
to the Planning Commission from the Orange County Wa.~=er District regarding
the environmental impact statement on the proposed expansion of tY~e Crill
Water Spreading Facility known as Anaheim Lake, and ::~tcd that insoPar as the
proposed project was located in County territory, the ~~range County Planning
Commission was the planning agency that was charge~a with the responsibility
for reviewing the project and determining whether it conformed with the
County's General Plan, therefore, the District's request to the Anaheim
Planning Commission was largely a courtesy request for review; and that th.e
Anaheim General Plan indicated that water uses were appropriate for the
property being considered for the proposed expansion. In addition, since the
surrounding land uses were primarily industrial, the Commission might wish to
recommend that any structures proposed in the project conform tu the City of
Anaheim M-1 setbacks and that landscaping shall meet the minimum M-l standards.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the Orange County Water District that the
proposed expansion of the Crill Water Spreading Facility known as Anaheim Lake
is in general conformance with the land uses set forth in the Anaheim General
Plan; however, because all the surroundi~g land uses are either projected for
industrial development or are pr2sently developed with industrial complexes,
that the District is urged to develop in accordance with the minimum setback
and landscaping standards of the City of Anaheim's M-l, Light Industrial, 2one.
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 817 (GEQRGE AND ELAINE
SMITH-N. J. NELSON) - Request for termination -
Property located at 118 North Bro~khurst Street -
Request for existing nonconforming child nursery
expansion.
Assistant Zoning Su~ervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, the request to expand an exist-
ing nonconforming child care nursery granted by the Planning Commission on
February 28, 1966 in Resolution No. 1952, Series 1965-66, and the indication
of the.petitioriez that he no longer intended to build the addition for wiiich
the cor.ditional use permit was required and had requested tliat the boad posted
to insure installation of imprcvements be released; that the City Council
authorized release of the bond subject to termination of the conditional use
permit at their regular meeting of April 22, 1969; and that staff would
cecommend termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 817 and said bond be
released.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-134 and moved for its passage
and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 817
on the basis that the petitioner no longer intended to construct the addibion
for which the conditional use permit was required. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the folluwing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst. Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
ITEM N0. 4
Orange Caunty Zone Change t~o. ZC72-42 (GRANT OF
CALIFORNIA) - Property located soutnwest of Walnut
Canyon Reservoir between and adjacent to the Southern
California Edison Easement and the southerly boundary
of the City of Anaheim - Request for RHE, Residential
Hillsicie Estates District.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed for the Planning Commission
the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the
requested zoning, and previous Planning Commission action for property immEe9i-
ately adjacent to subject property in which waivers of the R-A Zone were
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 12, 1972 72•-375
ITEM NO. 4 (Continued)
approved; that the smallest lot approved was .5 acres, while the averaqe of
the lot sizes equaled one or more acres; and that the requested zoning would
permit 10,000-square foot lots which may be inappropriate adjacent to Anaheim's
R-A zoning in this "equestrian estate area".
Mr. William Stark, representing Anaheim Hills, appeared before the Commission
and stated that they had decided to develoF this property under the jurisdic-
tion of the County, and the only zoning that appeared to be applicable was
the RHE District; however, he wished to assure the Commission that development
of the property under ZC72-42 would be the same as was being proposed on the
tracts immediately adjacent in the City of Anaheim.
Discussion was held by the Commission and staff as to the manner in which the
Commission could recommend that the County Planning Ccmmission be urged to
require development with the same density and lot sizes as the property located
in the City of Anaheim immediately to the north of subject property.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION .:ARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission be urged to consider requiring that development un3er
property proposed for rezoning in Orange County Zone Change No. ZC72-42 be in
conformance with the dev~lopment immediately to the north in the City of
Anaheim, retaining the "equestrian estate area" environment, on the basis ~~hat:
the represeztative of the developer stipulated to the Anaheim Planning Commfo-
sion that development would take place in the same manner as property appraved
by the City in Tract Nos. 7587 and 7558, wherein a minimum of .5 acres per lot
with an average lot size of one acre had been approved.
ITEM N0. 5
County of Orange Harbors, seaches and Parks District
acquisition of title of the County's regional parks
(Yorba Regional Park).
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed a letter from the Orange County
Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks District indicating that the County
Counsel had ruled that because the new Harbors, Beaches and Parks District
would be acqciring title to the County's regional parks, it must ,:omply with
the environmental impact legislation, in that a statement m~xst be obtained
from the Anaheim Planning Commission indicating that the transfer of County
park property to the District would have no substantial negative impact and
that no irreversible environmental change would occur. Furthermore, the
property within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim would be the new
Yorba Regional Park.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner G~.uer and
MOTION CARRIED, to advise the County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Par'r::
District that the transfer of Yorba Regional Park within the juris3iction
of the City of Anaheim and as depicted on the Anaheim General Plan will hcve
no substantial negative impact and that no irreversible environmental change
will occur.
ADJOURNMEN~ - There being no further business to discuss, Commissione~
Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner I
Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~ihe meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfulll submitted,
G~~ ~~-~.
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
AK:hm
u;t ~ 0 MICfcQFILMI!,G SERVICE, INC.
~~•~ ia~> ;,:,, ~~o.3r.o
:.n~~hu~,ir., ~.,~', ~rnin