The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1972/06/26~ Ci*_y xall Anaheim, California June 26, 1972 r, RE;GULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANN7NG COMMISSION ?tEGULAR - A regule.r meeting of the Anaheim City Planaing Commission was liBETING ~a=1ed to order by Chairman Farano at 2:10 p.m., a quorum being present. Pi2ESENT - CHAIRMAw: 'arano. - COMMIS",TONnRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSENT - COMMYSSIONERS: Nune. PRESENT - A~sistznt Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson i~eputy ~ity Attorney: Frank ~owry OFficP Engineer: Jay Titus .~s~i_•••_ani: 2oning Supervisor: Don McDaniel C~~mm~:~sion Secretary: Ann Krebs PLBDGE OF - Cammissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEI;IANCE Elag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes o`. the meeting of June 12, 1972, wa3 THE MINLTES d~f~.rred to the meeting of ~7uly 1Q, 1972. AREA DEVELOI'MENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAF:ING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY :~N t30. ii0 PI PLANNING COMD!ISSION, 'LO" East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, , California; t• consider oirculation and access for an area bounded on the north by Santa Ana Canyon Road, cn the east by Anaheim Hills Road, on the scuth by Nohl Ranch Road, and on the west by Imperial HighwaY. RECLASSIFICATICN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAR7NG. H. L. BUDLUNG, 20046 Santa Ana 71-72-34 NO Ca:~3'in Road, Anaheim, California 92806 and R. ~O.:EPH MAAG, . 1761 Ladera Vista Drive, Fullerton, California 92631, T'!tiL MAP OF TENT Owne~s; ~NACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P. O. Bor. 3668, :. TRAC2 t~U. 7769 Anaheim, California 92803, Agent: property dascribed aa: - A rectangularly-shaped parcel :.f land aonsisting of app.~oximately 34 acres, having a frontage o.*_' approximately 674 feet on the so uth si.4e of Santa Ana C%~nynn Read, having a°ifr ~f P u approximateLy 2,39 of east et 0 feet ~nd being locatec+ c:Y~roximately 1,100 the cer~terline of 7.mperial Highway. Propex':y preser.tly c'a~sifi=:1 R-A, AGRICUL~:URAL, 20N^ . QEQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000~ ONE-FAMILY. ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUBST: DEVELOPER: S& S CONSTRUCTION ~:OMI~F.NY; AE57 West p;ympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, :alifornia 90211. ENGINE~R: Anacal Engineering Company, P. 0. Bax 3668, Anaheim, CaJ.ifornia 928G."; proposing sub- divis':.on of 34 acres into i87 R-2-5~00 zoned lot~• Sui.;ec~ area deve:opment plan and petitions were continued fz~m tY.e meetinqs of March 6, May 1 aad 31, and June 12. 1972, for preparation of an area development plan and for the submisoion of revised plans in light of Council acti~~n on site de~•elopment standards of the R-2-500~ '•o-~e. 72-3%6 ~ ~J MINU'PES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 ~2'3~~ AREA DEVELOPMENT PI.AN NO. 110~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-34 AND TEIGTATIVE MAP uF TRACT NO. 7769 (Continued) _ Chairman Farano noted that the petitioners had again requested z two-week continuance of subject petitions and arpa development plan, and inauired whether a representative was present. Mr. George Putnam, renresenting the ap~licant, advised the CommisFion that they were desirous of a two-week continuance. Commissioner Herbst noted that subject petitions had been continued ,:umerous times, thezefore, ther.a should be some assurance that this request would be adequate. Chairman Farano inquired of ~•Ir. Putnam whether the petitioner waa aure he would be rPady, willing and able to present all facts to t:~e Co~missicn at the July lOth meeting. Mr. Putnam noted that the Commission had held public hearing on the R-2-5000 2one and had further reviewed the requpst of the Council on the setbacks at their last public hearing, and since the petitioner/developar did not know the final results of the requirements of the new standards, they had requested the previous continuances, however. they had now refiled for R-1 and a new tract had been filed as well, which was now available fur the next public hearing. Commissioner Kayaood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Area Development Plan No. 110, Reclassification No. 71-72-34 end Tentative Map of Tract No. 7769 to the meeting of July 10, 1972, a>:'reqL:ested by the petitioner in order to allow time to advertise for the R-1 Zo;1e on the property. VARIANCE NO. 2355 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER REVOCABLE TRUST, RCA Building, Suite 700, 6363 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, California 90028, Owner; JOHN L. OSBORNE, 1881 TQest Lincoln Adenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Agent; requesting WAIVER O]F (1) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AREA OF SIGNS, (2) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF F`REE-STANDING 'IGNS~ (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING 3IGNS, (4) MINIMUM HEIrHr OF FREE- STANDING SIGN~ AND (5) MAXIMUM AREA OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTING SIGNS AS CONFORMING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of. approximately 10 acres, having a frontage of approximately 800 feet on tktP n~rth side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 570 feet and being located between C,rescent Way and Muller Street, and further described as 1681 West Lincoln Avenue. Proparty presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the May 1 and 31, 1572 meetings to allow cime for the submission of revised plans. Chairman F'aiano noted that the petitioners had requested a two-week continuance and inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Chairman Farano inquired whether the petitioner was present and received no response. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue Petition fo~: Variance No. 2355 to the meeting o: July 10, 1972, as reqvested by the pet:itioner, however, if the petitioner is not prepared to present his case at tnat time, the petition would be removed from the agenda and when the pet.itioner was ready to present information, the petition would be readvertised at the expense of the petitioner. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLT.VNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 ~2-3~8 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HORACE E. MORELOCK, ET AL~ PERMIT NO. 131: 264 Granada Street,'Long Beach, California 9Q803 AND G03RGE A. COLEMAN, 1G651 Yorba Linda Boulevard. Yorba TENTATIVE MAP ~F Li,ida, California 92686, Ownersj PALM DESERT SUILDERS, TRACT N0. 7870, INC., 5435 West 76th Street, Los Angeles, Calif~rnia REVISION NC.2 90045, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN 80-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) LOT FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET~ (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA~ (3) MINIMUM-BUILDING SITE WIDTH, AND (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUIiDINGS on property describ..d as: A rectangularly-ahaped parc~l of land consisting of approximately 6.7 acres, having a frontage of approximately 528 feet on the noi-th side of Orangethorpe Avenue, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet and being located at the northeast corner of Orange- thorpt Avenue and Kellogg Drive. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: PALM DESERT BUILDERS, INC., 5435 West 76th Street, Los Angeles, California 90045. ENGINEER: Millet, King & Associates, Inc.. 1335 ~ West Valencia Drive, F~zllerton, California 92633. Subject property is proposed to be subdivided into 73 R-3 zoned lots. Subject petition and tract were continued from th2 meetinqs of May 15 and June 12, 1972, to allow time for the submission of revised plans. No one appeared in opposition at tl~is meeting. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is xeferred to an3 made a part of the minute.s. Mr. P.ay Kiter, 211 Walnut Street, Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission, representing the petitioner as the designer of the project, and reviewed the revised plans submitted. THfi HEARING WA~ CLOSED. Chairman Farano noted that the second set of revised plans now met the Cummis- sion's intent as it pertained to a condominium or what would be best for the City, and expressed the Commission's appreciation for the developer's cooperation. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the setback along Post Lane and as to the type of barrier that was proposed as we11 as landscaping; whereupon Mr. Kiter replied that the setback would be 15-19 feet, and that shrubbery and trees would be provided along Post Lane. Commissioner Gauer then observed that since the plans before the C~mmission d'.d not indicate the landscaping, it should be made a conditioa of approval. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-135 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1313, in part, granting waivers of the requirement of lot frontage on a dedicated street, minimum building site, and minimum building site width only, since the revised plans have eliminated the remaining waivers, and subject to the condition that a 10-foot strip of landscaping shall be provided along Post Lane with precise plans for said landscapinq to be submitted to the Development Services Depart- ment for approval. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the forego3ng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ .~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-378A CONDITIC"~L i7SE PERMIT NO. 1313 AND.TENTATIVE MAF OF 'L'RACT NO. 7876~ REVISION NO. 2 (Conti.iued) _, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7876, Revision No. 2) subject 1o the following conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7876, Revision No. 2, is granted subject to the approval o£ Conditional Use Permit No. 1313. . (2) That s.iould this subdivision be developed as.more than one sub- division, eact~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta- tive form for approval. (3) That all lots wi*hin this tract shail be served cy underground utilities. (4) That a£inal tract map of subject groperty s:iall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Oranqe County Recor6er. (5) That the covenants, conditi~ns, and restrictions shall be sub- mitted to and appXOVed by tha City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That the ox~~ers of subject property shall pay to the City cf Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid ati the time the building permit is issued. (7) That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer which shall include construc- tion of a storm drain in Orangethorpe Avenue from Post Lane to Kellogg Drive in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. • ~ s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-379 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM, INC., PERMIT NO. 1314 Attention Gary A. Clarke, Vice President, Bank of America Suildinq, Suite 505, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; VONOLA CUTTER, Leasing Representa- tive, Sank of America Suilding. Suite 505, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Califoraia 92805, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE EDUCATIONA INSTITUTION (LAW SCHOOL) IN AN EXISTING OFFICE DUILDING an property described as: The entire block surrounded by Harbor Boulevard, Broadway, Helena Street and Elm Street, and further described as 300 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently cla :.fied C-O, COMM~RCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the May 1, 1972 meeting at the request of the petitioner in order to readvertise the petition to include the parking waivers, and from the June 12, 1972 meetinq for the submission of agreemen*_s zegarding parking and to resolve on-street parking. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and one person indicated her presence. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:20 p.m. Assistanc Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that the only additional information in the Report to the Commission that had not been presented at the last public hearing was the information submitted b~• Canal- Randolph reqarding the basic agreement for the purpose of guaranteeing free parking for the law school students; that a flyer was being circulated to the vehicles parking on-street indicating that for the summer months the park- ina fee would be reduced to $2.50 for fourth level parking, the number of employees in the building, and the customers utilizing the parking facilities. Mr. Gary Clarke, project manager for Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc., indicated his presence to answer questions, however, the inforTOtosedsusaidtagreement Report to the Commission was substantially as they p P providing for parking for daytime students while the nighttime students would be able to park in the garage free of charge; that there was both storage and volume parking needed for Bank of America and Pacific Telephone customers; that there were 6-7 other leases which were being negotiated which provide parking for both the tenant's employees and justomers; that for the past six months they had tried to include provision of parking in the negotiated leases; and that they wanted to give something commensurate to the lessees because of the free parking being provided by other o`fice buildings in the area. Mr. Clarke, in response to questions by thr: Commission, stated that the coffee shop was not intended for the general public since there was only a small sign indicating the location of the caffee shap; and that the reason they were only proposing 2~i months of half-price parking was that it was hoped the employees would like the convenience so much they would continue at regular prices. Mrs. John Slota, 402 West Elm Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion and stated that she would just like to refer to her comments made at the last public hearing on subject petition; that she had several other comments to add to her previous opposition, and that was that the petitioner should urge customers to use the parking garage if their parking tickets were being validated by the bank and the telephone companyt that the City of Placentia required that employees of concerns in large offices are required to have their employees park in their parkin? facilities, although she did not know whether the ordir.ances of the City u~ Anahaim could require the same; that siie had also talked with Mr. Cutler of Canal-Randolph, suggesting that they provide an unloading zone because the truck de:,ivering to the variousosedatostheso parked in the residents' driveways; and that they were not opp school, just the waiver of the required parking, which she hoped the City would do something about. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-380 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1314 (Continued) The Commission requested that the representatives for the petitioner explain what was mzant by validation books purchased by tenants - how was the employee parking handled presently? Whether the representative had any idea as to the number of employees in the building and how many of these employees parked in the building; that the Commission was not too concerned as to customer parking, however, since the City codes required industry and commerce to provide off- street parking for their employees, this information would be of importance. Mr. Clarke replied, stating that each validation book contained 100 validations; that there were 166 employees in this bvilding who were using the parking build- ing; that the building was approximatel~• 608 leased; that Bank of America had between SS-100 employees for their con~.iderable floor space, which he felt would be under-utilizing their required par~:ing ratior that approximately 30.000 square feet of the balance of the ruilding was leased, of which 90$ parked in the parking structure; and that he would imagine that the Bank of America employees' parking would have to be leased. The Commission noted that this was a problem facing the Commi~sion since the lessees were renting the parking space but were not utilizing the parking for its intended use - and if there was something wrong with the City's ordinances perhaps this should be studied; that the purpose of the parking structure was to remove the vehicles off of the street; and that although the petitioner's representative indicated that one-half price would be charged for parking for the next 2~j months, the intent of required parking was for a long time, not short term. Mr. Clarke noted that the second level rented for S10 per month with about one- half being subscribed and 60B leased; that there were considerable clerical people in the bank; that the third level was somewhat inconvenient, and he did not know whether it would be possible to get the employees to park on the fourth level and wfiether this would be at no cost to tha employee. The Commission noted that according to the brochure submitted by the petitioner, there appeared to be about 132 parking spaces not leased, and this would be more than adequate to take care of the Bank of American employees since the agent stated that there were between 85 and 100 employees in the Bank of America; whereupon Mr. Clarke stated that there was still 40$ of the building to be leased, and a portion of the remaining parking would have to be assigned to new lessees. The Commission stated that employee par.king would have to be removed from on- street parkxng now existing - even though parking was permitted on Harbor Boulevard, none was permitted on the south side of Broadway and on Elm Street, and only one-hour parking on Hlena Street. Furthermore, tlnited California Bank on the north side of Broadway had street level parking which took care of both the employees and customers; and that when the hiqh-rise building was constructed with the parking structure, it was supposed to take care of all the required parking as it related to the square footage of the high-rise, however, the petitioner had created his own parking problem. The Commission also noted Y.hat when the high-rise office building and parking structure was first considered by the Commission, the Commission had expressed their concern regarding the parking and thought it was questionable, however, the petitioner had stated that if parking became critical, they would stipulate to developing the parking structure so that an additional floor could be added; that the parking structure was built to take care of the parking created by the high-rise office building which included the employees, and when the leasing agent leased space to a tenant, then parking should have also been 7.eased for employees of these tenants whether charged in the lease or not. Mr. Clarke was of the opinion that the SS per month was a reasonable charge for parking, and was almost a requirement for going to work these days; that the stalls were available;that the City provided parking next to the church, but this was inconvenient, and church members had the third level for parking purposes, which was a service; that eventually it would be necessary to provide ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-381 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1314 (Continued) parking on the fourth level, whether it was free parking or not; and that all of the tenants were very much concerned with providing parking for their em- ployees since during the past ten months the tenants had been providing parking for their employees in the garage. Chairman Farano noted that an employer would have to pay his employees extra for the parking fee or provide the parking through the lease, although he did not know if this was within the spirit of the ordinance to make parking avail- able at a fee. Chairman Farano further noted that the petitioner had indicated that the law school would be oper3ting basically in the evenings and on weekends, and inquired whether this was what was intended; whereupon Mr. Clarke stated that initially it would be an evening law school operating Monday through Fri.day from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. and on Saturday until 4:00 p.m.; that the law school instructors were made up primarily of practicing attorneys who had other daytime commitments, as did most of the students, however, the operatore train- the school would like to eventually develop some type of para-legal typ ing school - legal secretaries, etc., which could mean daytime classes; and then in response to a question by the Chairman, stated the term of the lease was five years. Chairman Farano observed that after seeing other similar law schools enjoying such success, he could visualize that there would be a substantial increase in the enrollment, perhaps from 50-75 students, and this would mean 50-75 students driving their cars to school - where did the petitioner propose to have these students park in the event the school started having daytime classes. Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission and the representative relative to the possibility of a vast increase in enrollment and possible parking problems, and at its conclusion, the Commission inquired whether the petitioaer would stipulate that there would be only nighttime students. Mr. Clarke requested some time to consult witn the prospective tenant - which the Commission granted. (See Page 72-385) RECLASSII'ICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINOranAeDECaliforniaA92665, Owners; NO. 71-72-42 840 West Grove Avenue, 4. HARRY KNISELY. 1741 South Euclid Street, Suite B, Anaheim, California 92802, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4 acres having frontages of approximately 177 feet on the west side of Glassell Street and 513 feet on the south side of Frontera Street, being located at the south- west corner of Glassell and Frontera Streets be reclassified frum the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 1, 1972. 3n order to determine if there were alternative methods of approving subject petition and for the petitioner to meet with the City Attorney to determine the alternative zoning methods that could be used, and from the meetings of May 31 and June 12, 1972, for a full Commission (tie vote). Commissioner Rowlan3 returned to the Council Chamber at 2:50 p.m• Chairman Farano noted that subject petition had been continued for two meetings for a full Commission, however, in the interim, the Commission had received a lettes of opposition from the owners of Villa Frontera - the multiple-family development to the west of subject property - requesting that the Commission recommend denial of the petition and to retain the present zoning of the land use designation as established on the General Plan; that since the hearing was closed and this was the first opposition, would the Commission care to reopen the hearing. The Commission was of the opinion that although the hearing was closed, they could still consider the letter af opposition since the previous motions were both for approval and denial. . ~ • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-382 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-42 (Continued) Chairman Farano then read the letter of opp~sition. Chairman Farano indicated that he was the Commissioner who had not been present at th~='previous two meetings, however, he had been at the public hearing when subje~t petition was originally presented to the Commission, and that he had revi~.wed all the documented information and the minutes and had also viewed the property since the first public hearing and felt he was qualified to participate in the decision. Commissioner Herbst stated he, too, had viewed the property even after the last public hearing, and he was still opposed to M-1 zoning for the property since he felt this would be spot zoninq. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend disapproval of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-42 on the basis that the use proposed would be "spot zoning"; that access to and from the property for heavy truck traf'fic would be on a street serving the multiple-family unit to the west; and that there was adequate M-1 property north of the freeway - the natural boundary between M-1 and other zoned uses. The Commission discussed whether they should be voting on the original motion; whereupon Commissioner Herbst withdrew his motion. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that since both motions at the previof'~s meeting failed for a majority vote, that a new motion was in order. Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission on the proposal regarding the ~roposed use of the property; that although the petitioner indicated that these hould be light industrial uses planned for the buildings, since thiossibilit reclassification and the zoning went with the land, there was the p Y that less desirable industrial uses could be established that would be detri- mental to the adjoining land uses, particularly since truck traffic would be traversing in front of the apartments; that there was no access permitted from the Glassell Street oPf-ramp to subject property; that perhaps the geographic boundaries might indicate this property not suitable for apartment zoning; that Frontera Street wzs considered a secondary arterial which would permit truck traffic, although it was anticipated more residential traffic would be utilizing the street; and that the City could be subjecting the area to a much less desirable use for the area by approving a blanket M-1 Zone since the City did not at the present time apply deed restrictions when granting a zone on the property. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-137 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council disapproval of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-42 on the basis that the geographic boundary of the M-1 Zone was north of the Riverside Freeway; that this would be spot zoning; that the requested zone, although light industrial uses were proposed, could inject less desirable industrial uses with heavy truck traffic intermingling with the residential traffic of the apartments to the west, since the property had no access from Glassell Street to the east; and that the land uses that have been developing to the west have been residential, therefore, said use should continue along this frontaqe road. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AfES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-383 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBi,IC HEARING. HAROLD M. WILLIAMS, .'•;i~RTIN S. ROBERTS~ NO. 71-72-53 AND FRED M. KAY, c/o Fred M. Kay, 220 Laguna Road, Fullerton, California 92632. Owners; BUTLER HOUSING CORP., 2283 West Lincoln Avenae, Anaheim, California 92801, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 785 feet and being located approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue be reclassified from the County A1. AGRiCULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and two persons indicated their opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to reclassify the property to the City of Anaheim R-2-5000 Zone. Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the preliminary sketch presented by the developer proposes the subdivision of the property into 41 lots in addition to an approximate 175x390-foot oil well site in the north- easterly corner of the property; that the General Plan projects this area under consideration as being tippropriate for low-medium density residential develop- nent, thus the requested zoning would appear to be appropriate; that the sub- mitted sketch would indicate several deficiencies in the proposed method of development; that the preliminary title report submitted with the application indicates a 10-£oot easement for road purposes over the easterly 10 feet of the property in question and subdividing the property, providing fences across the road easement, could provide problems to the owner; that the plan was also incorrectly dimensioned and would indicate therooertbiwere correctlyedimensioned; yield than would actually be possible if the p P Y that based on the submitted sketch and the floor plans also submitted, it would appear that the applicant would not be able to meet the new RS-5000 subdivision or zoning regulations as adopted by the Council; and that the applicant would have problems with the maximum coverage allowable as established in that new ordinance. Furthermore, from the sketch it would indicate the possibility of a landlocked well site at the northeasterly corner of the property; that no provision had been made for a street to the well site; and that it would be difficult to develop the we11 site if in the future the site were abandoned. In addition, the major concern would be the allowing of development for RS-5000 zoning without consideration to the adjajent parcel tc the west sinae said parcel is located at the intersection of two arterial highways and was of insufficient size to b~e subdivided into single-family lots independent from ~ther parcels in the area; that said owner may feel the property was appropri- ate for other than residential development, and whis would be particularly true if this subdivision and zoning were approved; that the Commission may wish to have the applicant give serious consideration to providing a subdi- vision layout that would provide for the eventual development of the parcel to the west for single-£amily homes; tha~ the Commission may wish to consider the location of the railroad right-of-way to the south of the proposed single- family development, since a letter from a resident of the adjacent tract indicated that the noise was so intense that it made living in that single- family tract virtually unbearable, therefore, the applicant could be well advised to consider appropriate screening or buffering measures for his pro- posed single-family tract; and that the Commission may wish to consider the appropriateness of approving the request for,R-2-5000 zoaing in light of the above-mentioned problems. Mr. McDaniel, in conclusion, noted that the developers had submitted revised plans since the Report to the Commission was written which indicated a stub street was being provided to the well site, making it possible to subdivide this property in the future. Mr. Walter Keusder, representing Butler Housing Corp., the proposed developers of the prupert.,;•, appeared before the Commission and stated they would like to cover several points mentioned in the report; that they had developed similar subdivisions to the east some time ago, which ~~ere based on the R-2-SOGO Zone, which they felt was a good subdivision and a credit to the city; that they were now proposing a similar development for subject property having smaller houses with a price range of 530.000; that they had contacted the property owner of the property to the west, mentioned by staff, however, the owner had stated he was not interested in selling or subdividing his property since he had L~lenty ~ ~ ~ M3NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-384 RECLAS3IFICATION NO. 71-72-53 (Continued) of access to both Orangethorpe and Lakeview Avenues; that they did not feel it was their responsibility to help work out what should be done with the adjoining property; that the road easement would be similar to an Edison ease- ment; that the railroad noise factor presented in the letter of opposition indicated by staff was something that they had not heard of from homeowners of the tract to the east, however, they did plan a wall and shrubbery in additicn to the required setback £rom Orangethorpe Avenue as set Eorth in Tit?e 17, howevex, they wou13 research this possible problem further-. Mr. Keusder noted that the new RS-5000 Zone had not had first reading of the ordinance, and he did not know how their proposed development would meet these requirements as it pertained to the four-bedroom houses; that if they were required to meet Code, they might have to construct two-story homes instead of some of the plans which called for one-story; that there were a substantial number of lots that were more than 5000 square feet, and this could be averaqed out to comply with the new ordinance, however, if they could develop within the old R-2-5000 Zone, they would be more in conformance with the adjoining tract. Mr. Jerry Edwards, 101 Santa Rosa Way, Placentia, appeared in opposition and stated he was particularly interested in the possible influx of children from this proposed tract onto his property, which was an avocado grove located to the north of subject property; that there also was a pumping oil well to the rear of the property in question which would require some type of access; that if a road from the subdivision wer~e proposed, this would encourage children to enter his groves from the subdivisioni that the property immediately north of subject property was a 4-acre, abandoned orange grove consisting of weeds and dust; that his property fronted on Orchard Drive and extended to Lakeview Avenue; that the property owner to the west of subject property presently had his home there; that the access to the oil well was from the west through his property, and the County had cut the road for the oil well; and that if subject petition were approved. hp would request that a rather high fence - or some solid barrier - be provided to prevent the children from using his property. Mr. Keusder, in rebuttal, stated that he did aGt know about the road mentioned, but there could be easements for access to the property to the north; that they had sub~itted an alternate plan which indicated there would be vehicular access to the well site; and that it would be of no consequence whether they were required to construct a wall or not. Mr. Richard Ganony, 2307 Myrtle, Bakersfield, representing his wife as executrix of the Myrtle Koch estate property to the north of the proposed subdivision, noted that the proposed subdivision would be adjacent to an oil producing well #16 of Texaco and inquired whether this met the requirements of the Orange County oil code in that it would appear that some of the residences were within the 150-foot radius of the well site. Mr. McDaniel, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the re~~ised plans took into account the requirement of being more than 150 feet from a well site. however, staff was under the assumption that this was a proposed well site, not an active well site. Commissioner Gauer, in reviewing the revised plans, noted that the homes were approximately 175 feet from the well site. Mr. Keusder advised the Commission that there was one well proposed and one well existing, but the revised plans took into consideration both well sites. Mr. Hugh Halderman, engineer of the pr~Qosed development, stated that if the Commission would place the two exhibits over each other, then the well site could be aliqned properly as to the distance between the homes and the site, and that the well site was so oriented that exiting would be northerly. Mr. Keusder advised the Commission that the original well site aas on their study plans and the proposed well site auperseded the existing one. however, the distance between the well site and the residences was within the require- ments of the oil code. Mr. Ganong advised the Commiss.ion that Mr. Edwards' property was to the north of their property, and the oil well road was along the northerly property line of their property; that the new Glenview School and new sbudivison were to the east, and for all practical purposes, the Lakeview extension left the property • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-385 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-53 (Continued) submerged - this may be a County problem - but the Commission may wish to have a study made of thi~ entire area as to possible development of the area to its highest and best use rather than permitting one subdivision which has some opposition; that he urged the Commission to consider these problems since he would like to see this area develop in an orderly fashion. Mr. Keusder advised the Commission that they would be happy to stub the street into Mr. Ganong's property. Chairman Farano stated that with so many problems and vagaries to a proposed development, he could not vote for a project; that the Commission should have all of these problems resolved before being presented at a public hearing, and he would not vote for this proposal until the problems' solution were more clearly delineated; that the problems presented by Mr. Ganonq should also be looked into and the Commission should have suff~cient information for all the properties in that area rather than the original plan before the Commission. Continued discussion was held between the Commission, staff, and the proposed developer regarding the many deficiencies in the proposal, and upon its conclu- sion, it was determined a continuance was in order to resolve these problems presented by staff and the opposition regarding the off-site well site and zoning and on-site well site, as well as the property to the north. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seoonded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-53 to the meeting of July 24, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to present revised plans and try to resolve all problems presented by staff and the opposition. Commissionex Rowland inquired why the Commission even considered a public hearing on subject petition since there was insufficient information for the Commission to make an intelligent decision. Chairman Farano noted that staff had no choice when these petitions were filed and advertised but for the Commission to hear what the petitioner had to say, but he would suggest that these not be brought before the Commission if the problems had not been solved prior to public hearing. Mr. McDaniel advised the Commission that the pe~_itioner had everythinq required by Code to qualify for consideration at public hearinqt whereupon Commissioner Rowland stated that perhaps the Zoning Code should be amended to avoid these problems. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1314 (Continued from Page 72-381) The Commission was of the opinion that something should be done to enf.orce thp one-hour parking limitation on the streets surrounding the parking structure since residents in the area needed parking for guests and emergency purposes, such as doctors, nurses, and ambulances. Chairman Farano stated that the Commission should restrict the number of students even if they did not expect to grow - if the school were successful, it could grow to 150 students or more. Mr. Clarke advised the Commission that the prospective tenant was concerned with stipulating to no daytime studAnts; that they would stipulate that students at day classec would be required to pay for their parking with their tuition; that the day classes would function with an enrollment comparable to the number of parking spaces *_nat would be available to the students; and that they did not intend to have day classes for at least two years. Continued discussion was held by the Commission and the agent for the petitioner regarding the need for assurance that adequate parking would be provided if daytime students were anticipated; that the Commission was aware that if this were a succe~sful school that in all likelihood there would be daytime students, and under the present number of parking spaces available, there would be in- adequate parking unless another level r~as provided; that the agent for the petitioner stated he did not have the authority to stipulate that another level would be provided; that a time limit should be established for the petition with night classes only to determine if there were any detrimental effects from the additional parking, with the possibility of allowing the use for two years ~ e .~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 5une 26, 1972 72-386 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1314 (Continued) or sooner befare a review since the petitioner stipulated that for the first two years there would be nighttime classes only; that the deteriorating parkinq situation around the tower building would have to be remedied; and that if day- time classes were to be held, then additional parking would have to be provided by the owner of the building. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-136 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1314 for night- time classes only for a period of two years or soones, at which time the Commission will reviEw the parking prob.tems surrounding subject property to determine whether daytime classes may be permitted provided the petitioner provides parking and subject to conditions and the parking agreement submitted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the f~o.regoing resolution was passed ksy tY.e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: ^.OMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: ~OMMISSIONERS: Noae. A • ASSTAIN: COMMISSIO E~ Rowland. . ~ (:~fArWa~.s.~rrNi ~~~ ~~~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC~NG. MURIEL R. :.ENZ, 930 South State College NO. 71-72-54 Boulevard, Anaheim. California 92806, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con- TENTATIVE MAP OF sisting of apprax.imately 1.6 acres having a frontage of TRACT N0. 7877 approximateiy ~115 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, havinq a raximum de~th of approximately 660 feet and being located a~proximately 542 feet south of the centerline of Wagner Avanue. Property presently classified R-A. AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATZON: R-1~ ONE-FAidIS,Y kESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: S& S CONS'T.RUCTION COMPANY~ 8857 West O~ymgic Boulevard, West Los Angeles. California 90211. ENGINEER: ~T.nacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lin,r.olrl Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805. Snbj.:ct pr~perty is proposed to be subdivided into Ei R-1 zoneo lots. 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. Georgs Futnam, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and inquire~3 whether the reclassification petition was tied into the floor plans submitted; whereupon Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel stated that Condition No. 3 so indicated. Mr. Putnam inquired whether adjoining properties were required to provide irrigation facilities as set forth in the conditions of approval of the tract; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that the subdivision to the south, as well as the church to the north, was required to provide the same irrigation facilities. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-138 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-54 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On soll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 ~2'38~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-54 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7877 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered a moL•ion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, to approve T•antative Map of Tract No. 7877, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7877 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-54. (2) That should tnis subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivisi~n `_hereof shall be submitted in tenta- tive form for approval. (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the west property line separating Lot No. 1 and State College Boulevard, subject to the approval of the State Division of High~ays. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the un- cemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for s~..id landscaping to be submitted to and 5ubject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installa.scion and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (4) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (5) That a fina). tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (6) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu £ees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at tne time the building permit is issued. (7) That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. VARIANCE NO. 2377 - PUBLIC HEARING. IRENE CHANCELLOR, 211 East Valencia Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; ALAN CHANCELLOR, 953 South Pepper Street, Anaheim, California 92802, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (2) MINIMUM LOCAL STREET SETBACK, (3) VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN ALLEY ONLY, (4) MINIMUM INTERIOR SETBACK~ (5) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS~ ~6) MII~IMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES~ AND (7) PARKING AREA SCR:ENING TO MOVE ON A DUPLEX IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE DWELLING on prc~erty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a front~ge of approximately 47 feet on the east side of Claudina Street, having a maximum depth of appror.imately 155 feet and being located at the northeast corner of Claudina Street and v~lencia Avenue, and further described as 211 East Valencia Avenue. Propert 2resently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Althouqh the Report to the CommiSSion was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Alan Chancellor, 953 South Pepper Street, agent for th.e pe'•itioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed duplex as noted on the photo- graph was of recent design and recently constructed, which would provide a considerable iniprovement for this substandard lot measuring only 47x155 feet, which was rather difficult to improve without requesting numerous waivers; that the plan would indicate that there was very little wasted space and ample closet and storage rspace for the 750•-sauare foot units; that access was being requested ~-om Valencia Avenue to the three-stall carport; that the existing unit was located to 'che rear of the property, and it was impossible to provide access for vehicles from the alley because of the existiny home occupyinq the major portion of the width of the lot; that all propesties along Valencia Avenue had access from the street, and this included a recent construction in the area which had similar variances as were being requested; that the proposed addition would be , ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-388 VARIANCE NO. 2377 (COntinued) in harmony with the General Plan as to density; and that this would provide an improvement to the area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired whether the waivers requested were the result of the proposed move-on structure; whereupon Mr. Chancellor stated that it was both the move-on structure and the location of the existing structure because the L-shaped existing building was set back from the property line oaly 6 feet, which precluded the construction of a driveway from the alley. Commissioner Seymour n~ted that although the petitioner was proposing to bring in another structure, the applicati~,n indicated that this would upgrzde the area - but the petitioner was creating all the waivers being requested - which were too many to consider favorably. Mr. Chancellor replied that one of the problems was the fact that the lot was substandard in size. The Commie~sion then noted that perhaps a solution would be to remove the exist- ing structure or to move on a different structure that would not create all these waivers - the petitioner could not have his calse and eat it tooj whereupon Mz. Chancellor stated that his mother did not want to move out ar tear down the existing home; and that tk:ere presently was no parking on the ~roperty, whereas he would provide three parkinq spaces with the proposed move-on. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-139 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2377 on the basis that the pro- posed development would increase the development problems of similar parcelsj that approval of the number of waivers would be setting an undesirable precedent~ that the proposed development would not provide for the necessary amenities to residents of these un?ts; and that the petitioner had not pr~ven a hardship existed, or that he was being denied a privilege enjoye~~ by others in Lhe area. (See Re~olution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutioa aas nassed by the fallowing vote: AYES: COMMIS3IONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECESS - Commissione.r ~ierbst moved for a ten-minute recess at 4;03 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED. RECOtv~zENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:15 p.m., all Commissioners being pxesent. VARIANCE N0. 2378 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES R. KARDIAK, 1054 Wayside Street, Anaheim. California 92805, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE RE2UIRED GP..RAGE FOR PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW USE OF THE GARAGE SPACE AS LIVING SPACE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 53 fee~t an the east side of Wayside Street and Bassett Way and further described as 1054 Wayside Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RE.SIDENTIAL, ZONE. A showing of hands indicated two persons present in opposition and four person~ present in favor. In the interest of expediency, Chairman E'arano waived reading of the Report to the Commiasion, although it is referred to snd made a part of the minntes. Mr. James Kardiak, the petitioner, appoared before the Commission and stated he was requesting a variance in order to provide additional living spao=t that he did not know that a variance was ;equired for cY.anges to the inside of a house; that he had converted a portion of his garage two years ago, and the garage door was still operabi~ as a garage door in order that he might get tools out to cut the lawn, etc..; that the room was now a recreation roofi which was needed for extra space for his familys that there was available par.king in the driveway, and many cars alonq the street were parked both in the driveways and .T' • e • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-349 VARIANCE N0. 2378 (Continued) on the street; that there was no change in the outside appearance of the home, . therefore, he did not feel that l~e had really violatE~ snythingt and that prior to this conversion they had never parked their vehicles in the garaqe but kept them on the driveway in order to use the garage for working purposes. Mrs. Darla Davisson, 1838 Bassett Way, appeared before the Commission in oppoai- tion and stated she resided next door to the petitioner; that the petitioner did not consistently park the family's vehicles in the driveway; and that she ISad Qubmitted a letter explaining her reasons fos opposition and a petition which had 22 siqnature4 of people in close ,proximity, also opposed to the conversion of the garage. The Commission Secretary then read Mrs. Davisson's letter of opposition. Mrs. William Chowan, 1018 Wayside Gtreet, appeared in favor, representing four pezsons present also in favor, and stated she also planned to apply for a variance; that she lived about nine houses away from subject property; that she felt the opposition's complaint was the result of a vindictive person who, after having a quarrel with the petitioner, wanted the Commission to resolve the problem. Chairman Farano advised those in favor that the Commission considered land use and not personal differences between neighbors. Mrs. Cho~ran then stated that there were nine other homes in the tract which had the same type of conversion, but the opposition had not complained about those homes; that the lots in this tract were small, and with homes having faur bed- rooms, it would be extremely difficult to construct an addition; that when the tract was approved, the City had granted variances f.rom the required lot size; that by conversion of the garage this would be a very reasonable way to accom- plish enlarging a home without too much expenditures; that the taxes for these homes were very high; and that she had never seen the petitioner park his vehicles in the street, nor were there cars of other residents parked in the street. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Farano inquired of the petitioner whether he had constructed the garage changes himself, or did a contractor do itt whereupon Mr. Kardiak stated that he had done most of the work himself, and a friend had done the electrical work, and none of the work was done by a licensed contractor. Chairman Farano then inquired whether the petitioner was aware of the fact that permission was required for %ny modification; whereupon Mr. Kardiak stated that he did not think this was necessary where the remodeling was done within the building. Commissioner Herbst noted that granting the variance would be grantinq something that went with the land, and the property owner could not obtain a loan or sell the property without an1 alterations having be~n approved by the City; and that in order to grant a variance, the petitioner must prove a hardship existed in that he was deprived of a use enjoyed by his neighbors. Commissioner Gauer stated that many contractors did not want to obtain a build- ing permit, and he knew this from experience, therefore, the residents of the city should be informed in some way that anything done in the form of remodeling or additions would require complying with the laws of the City, and that if.t:te petitioner could park his vehicles off of the street, perhaps this would be acceptable. Commissioner Herbst then noted that the City's zoning ordinance required that each dwelling must have two covered parking spaces, either a garage or carport, and that the granting of a variance ahould only be done where a special hard- ship had been proven, and then inquired of the petitioner whether he would like to see all of the people on the street do the sane thing, particularly since there were many R-1 areas in town, and if this were permittede the Commission would be negating the ordinance because it would be difficult to grant this vsriance and deny other similar requeats throughout the city. ^ ~~ ~ u MINUTES, CITY PLAI.NING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 .72-390 , .. ,.n _.. ' VARIANCE NO. 2378 (Con~inued) Mr. Kardiak replied by statinq that the ordinance did not require people to gark in their garages, and that he cculd remove the barrier, but he would still tise the garage for the use presently existing. Chairman Farano noted that the ordinances alao did not require people to live in their homes, nor would people live in tents on the premises. Commissioner Seymour then ~tated that the point which Commissioner Herbst was trying to emphasize was the fact that if subject petiton would be granted, then other people in the area and throuqhout the city would be requesting the same permission to convert their garages, and before long the developers of tract homes would be requestinq waiver of the required two spaces in the garage, because 10+k of the residents of homes in the city did not use their garages for the purpose they were intended - this would then create a hodge- podge in the city; and that where the Commission in the past has appruved conversion of a garage for living quarters, this was only done because the peti*_ioner had sufficient space on the lot to provide adequate o£f-street parking. Mr. Kardiak replied that although he was r.ot using the garage for pasking, he was using it for something much more useful, and yet his neighbors were never usinq the garage for its intended purpose. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-140 and moved foz its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2378 on the basis that approval would be establishing a precedent by not requising covered parking; that this could affect future new construction in the city as well as existing single- family tracts wherein inadequate parking would then increase on-street parking; and that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed. (See Resolution sook) Prior to roll call, Commissioner Allred noted that there was more than adequate open area for the getitioner to construct an addition to meet his space demands, however, it was considerably cheaper to convert the garage. On roll call the forevoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Fa~ano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2379 - PUBLIC BEARING. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, P.'0. Box 31, Long Beach, California 90806, Lessee; AMERICAN PERMIT SERVICE, P. 0. Box 364, La Puente, California 91747, Agent; reques~ing WAIVER OF MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ERECT A MONUMENT-TYPE SIGN on propert~~ described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having frontages of approximately 160 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and 150 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, being located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and further des- cribed as 501 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. ?~lthouqh the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part uf the minutes. Mr. Carl Radeheaver, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared befose the Commission and stated that because of changes which they had to consider, they would request permission to withdraw the petition and terminate all proceedings of Variance No. 2379. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant the petitioner's request to withdraw the petiti.on, terminating all proceedings thereto. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1~~%2 72-391 VARIANCE NO. 2380 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALFRED D. PAINO, 711 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92804, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOCAL STREET SETBACK, (2) MASONRY WALL ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND (3) MINIMUM 28 INTERIOR PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING TO ESTABLISH A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of .land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres having a frontage of approximately 140 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 402 feet, being located approximately 1,320 feet north of the centerline of Sall Road and further described as 727 South Beach Boulevard. Property classified C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. 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. Alfred Paino, the petitioner, appeared befare the Commission and stated that he concurred with the statements made in the Report to the Commission. Chairman Farano requested that the petitioner explain why the waivers were necessary since the Commission needed proof of hardship for granting a variance. Mr. Paino replied that the 5-foot setback along, the west property line was requested to be waived because the setback would be isolated from the balance of the property, and it vsould be difficult to maintain it; that it would he an area that would collect all types o£ debris, and that he could better use the extra 5 feet as part of the landscaping of the golf course; that they proposed to have considerable landscaping along the west property line both to protect the R-1 properties as well as prevent onlookers across the wall; that the property to the north was being used as a commercial nursery, although the .property was zoned R-A, and since it would eventually convert to commercial uses, he felt it was unnecessary to have a wall; that he would prefer that there be no wall between the parking area to the north end his parking area since this could be a considerable savings of money; that the property to the south was presently being used for residential purposes and was zoned R-A, however, the City Council had required that he post a bond to insure the installation of the wall in the event the property was converted to a residen- tial zone other than R-A; and that he would withdraw the requested waiver of the required 2$ landscaping in the parking area and would stipulate to provid- ing said landscaping. Assistant Zoning Suoervisor pon McDaniel, in response to a question by Commis- sioner Herbst, stated that there were two areas of residential properties where the petitioner did not propose to provide the wall, one on the north and the other on the south; that the bond Mr. Paino referred to was suggested when revised plans had been submitted to the Citp Council for approval, and from a legal aspect, this waiver was advertised in order that the bond could be legally required as a conditi~~n of approval with bonding rather than being waived. The petitioner noted that he proposed to have a wall from the parking area to the rear property line and was just requesting waiver of the front 100 feet; then in response 'r.o Commission questioning, stated that if he placed screen landscaping in place of the wazl, he would reduce his parking area. Chairman Farano suggested that rather than waive the wall requiremeni along the north property line, it be bonded to insure future construction if required since it would appear that the petitioner had some future laced the wallPalongty to the north; whereupon the petitioner stated that if he p the property lines as required, the ad~oining property owners would benefit from the wall at no expense to them; and that he was now proposing to con°cruct 500 feet of wall to improve hi~ property, and £uture C-1 uses would not be required to have a wall to separate them. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner proposed to construct the wall on the west at the top of the berm; whereupon Mr. Paino stated he would construct the wall at the sidewalk level and would have heavy landscapingJ and that he had presented his plans, which the City Council had approved, to the neighbors to the west and none had indicated any oppasition. Commissioner Kaywood then stated th~at the wall at the level of the sidewalk would not be at:ractive to the homes along Hayward Street. ~ ~,. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 7z-392 VARIANCE N0. 2380 (Continued) Mr. Paino, in response to a question by Chairman Farano, stated that he had an option to purchase the property to the south. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-141 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2380, in part, granting the petitioner the right to withdraw Waiver 1-b since he stipulated to providing the required 2$ interior landscaping; that Waiver 1-a was granted on the basis that the petitioner proposed to incorporate the required 5-foot setback within the recreational use which would be more appropriatet that Waiver 1-c is granted on the basis that the petitioner stipulated that the wall would be constructed along the north property line except for the easterly 150 feet adjacent to the propoQed parking lot; and that the required wall along the south property line had been previousiy reviewed by the City Council, wherein the wall was required to be constructed along the westerly 152 feet and a bond was required to.be posted to insure the construction of said wall along the easterly 250 feet in the event the property to the south was retained for residential use; and subject•to conditions, amending•Condition No. 6 to require that the interior parking area shall be landscaped in accordance with the site development standards as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Row 1 an d . NOES: COMMISSiONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE t50. 2381 - PUBLIC HEARING. Q. M. ANAHEIM, ZNC., 11161 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, [~laryland 20904, Owner; Heath & Co., Inc., 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles, California 90031, Agent; requestir.g WAIVER OF MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO ESTABLISH AN ADDITIONAL FREE-STANDING SIGN FOR A RESTAURANT-LOUNGE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acres having frontages of approximately 331 feet on the west side o£ Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 446 feet, being located at the soizthwest corner of Ilarbor Boulevard and Convention Way and further described as 616 Convention Way. Property classified C-R. COMMERCIAL- RECREATION~ 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. Eugene Breisemeister, representing the aqent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that Mr. Bill Long and Mr. Ray Fott, repre- senting the Three Greenhorns Restaurant were pres~nt if the Commissiun wished to ask questions, notinq that this particular siqn was a necessity because this was a new restaurant in town with offices in Canada; that they had an international image to maintain with this signing; that when the initial sign- ing was considered for the motel, it was not anticipated to have an outside company as lessee of the restaurant, therefore, no signing was considered or included for the restaurant, which would have been part of the motel complex; that the proposed restaurant needed some identity toward Harbor Boulevard since Convention Way had little or no traffic, and the traffic up and down Harhor Boulevard was quite fast and in order for the restaurant to be seen above and beyond the shrubbery, bushes and other signs aiong the street; that this would be a small sign with only a logo and name of the restaurant; that the sign could conceivably be placed on Convention Way, which had ample £rontage, but this would not give it the proper exposure to the restaurant since the building was set back approximately 150 feet from Harbor BouTevard, therefore, he felt there was ample justification to approve this siqn since no signing was pxoposed along Convention Wayj and that the motel tower sign was already constructed. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 VARIANCE NO. 2381 ~Continued) 72-393 Chairman Farano inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate that there would be no further siqning on the property since there was adequate area along Harbor Boulevard rather than requesting approval of variances; whereupon Mr.. Breisemeister atated that the existing sign was constructed at a consider- ahle expense and would be rather difficult to relocate without more expenditures. Commissioner Herbst advised the petitioner/agen_ ~hat the City had been having under study requiring that all signs in the commercial-recreation area that did not meet Code to be nonconforminq, and if this sign were approved, this would be another nonconforming siqn - tharefore. he wanted the petitioners to be aware of the fact that this sign could be subject to amortization when all signs in this area were declared nonconforming. Mr. Breisemeister replied by atatinq the restaurant needed identification to insure its establiahment as a buslnesa; and that if all nonconforming signs were to be amortized in the commercial-recreation area, then they would go along with this requirement, however, thef had not previously been informed about this when the oriqinal tower was approved for the motel. Deputy City Attorney Prank Lowry noted thzt the agent for the petitioner reEerred to the fact that his company was not advised o£ the problem in connection with tnia sign or the original sign, but a representative of his company spent one hour with him, and he at that time told the representative about the legality of the sign ~r the necessity of having a variance approved, therefore, hA wanted the Commission to be apprised of the fact that prior to any construction of any signs, the appiicant was fully informed as to signing. Mr. Breisemeister stated that he had talked with the City Attorney about the proposed siqn after the firsC sign went up, and asked him if there was any other way, at which time he had been informed that a ten-year lease might solve this. • Mr. Lowry stated that this statement was made at a second meetizg; not at the original meeting. Commissioner Allred inquired why the sign could not be incorporated with the existing signr whereupon Mr. Breisemeister stated that there was no place to attach the new siqn; and that the operators of the restaurant wanted to get their business established to let the customers know where their business was developed. Commissioner Gauer inquired why the advice of Mr. Lowry was not followed. Mr. William Scott of Heath & Company appeared before the Commission in refer- ence to the statements made by Mr. Lowry and stated that although questions were asked, the negotiations with Quality Motels and the restaurant in question did not come into consideration until everything else was designed; that about a month ago - since he was the salesman for Three Greenhorns - he had talked with Mr.' George xorton, the manaqer of the motel, and told him there was a problem, who.had suggested that the large sign on Convention way would be forgotten if this variance was approved, therefore, ic no additional large tower sign was proposed, the proposed sign should take the place of the permitted sign along Convention Way; and that there was no idea of subterfuge - the restaurant came in after the motel sign was planned. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Aerbst noted that perhaps the petitioners had property alonq I Convention Way on which another free-standing sign would be permitted so long as it conformed with the Sign Ordinance, but how could this be controlled when all the sign people would have to do was go to theBUilding Department for a sign permit - such as had happened three to four years ago, thereby creating signing contrary to what the Commission indicated if subject petition were approved and the sign would be in lieu of the permitted sign on Convention Way - there was also the possibility that the operators of the motel could change. Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that it would be conceivable that the Commis- sion could grant the petition in lieu of further signing on Convention Way, but it would be difficult to enforce eince thare would be no way to check iti because the Buildinq Department would issue the permit as a matter of righC. ~ ~ u MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-394 VARIANCE NO. 2381 ~Continued) Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Petition for Variance No. 2381 subject to the stipulation of the petitioner that there would be no additional signing on the property both for Harbor Boulevard and Convention Way. On roll call the foregoing motion lost 4-3 with Cammissioners Allred, Gauer, and Seymour voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, and Rowland voting "no". Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-142 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2381 on the basis that the petitioner had not ~roven a hardship existed since there was ample area on the property to provide signing in accordance with the Sign Ordinance when siqning for the property was first considered; that if subject petition were approved and the City proposed and adopted amortization of all nonconforming signs in the commercial-recreation azea, then the proposed siqn would become a nonconforming s~gn and would be s?ibject to amortization, in which case the petitioner could claim a hardship existed, that a variance had been approved and considerable money had been expended For said sign; and that consideration should have been given to all signing for :he property at the time plans for the existing sign had been considered. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE, - PUBLIC Y.EARZNG. LEONARD G. MUSKIN AND DONALD T. LEAHY, PERMIT N0. 1318 7805 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90046, Owners; JAMES W. READ, JR., 172 Colleqe Park Drive, Seal Beach. California 90740, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTO RENTAL AGENCY on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 140 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 20C feet, being loca±ed approximately 508 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2144 South Harbor Boulevard. Property 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 t~~~~e~~~~~ A ,~ 1~~.~~/ (L.~/u 1~~ ww~~~ Mr. James Read, Jr.,~agent for the petitioner, ap eared efore~the Commission and stated that the property was zoned C-l, although the General Plan called for a heavier use for the property; whereupon Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the CommisSion and the agent that the General Plan did not differentiate between commercial uses. Mr. Read, in reviewing the recommended conditions, state3 he would prefer to have access to Acama Street for exiting to Orangewood Avenue - a signalized street which he felt would be better than using Harbor Boulevard since it would improve traffic flow, and that there were no residential structures facing onto Acama Street but the rear of the garages for the apartment complex, and rather than requiring dedication of access rights, he would prefer that this be reviewed in six months as to whether there were any detrimental e£fects; and that there would be no more than 25 spaaes for renL-al of automobiles, and he would stipulate that at least 9 spaces would be reserved for employees and customers. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-395 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1318 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the petitioner proposed to have flags, banners, etc. to attract business in this area; whereupon Mr. Read stated they planned to have an identification sign and nothing else, nor would there be any searchlights. Commissioner Allred inquired whether the petitioner anticipated the sale of vehicles after they became older; whereupon Mr. Read stipulated that they would not sell new or used vehicles on the premises. Mr. Read, in response to questioning by Chairman Farano, stated that at the present time they planned to rent only passenger automobiles, and in the future they might consider leasing trucks, but they would deliver these to the customers rather than having them parkeed on ~he premises; and that they would be operatinc similarly to Hertz Rent-A-Car. Chairman Farano inquired whether the petitioner anticipated to do any servi of *_he vehicles~; whereupon Mr. Read stated they would like approval for ue ~ the rental or leased vehicles, and that no other servicing was planned n the premises. Mr. Read, in response to questioning by Commissioner Allred, stated that they intended to have camper-motor home leasing or rentals but they would noc be displayed on the premises, and these vehicles would be delivered directly to the clients' homes; and that he would so stipulate. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that this would be similar to other automobile dealers' rental or leasing o~ cars, and if appro~ed, the City could be opening the door to another pzoblem. Chairman Farano reviewed all the stipulations made by the agent for the peti- tioner as follows: maximum number of vehicles for lease or rent on the premises would be 56; that there would be no wash racks; that no new or used vehicles would be sold on the premises; that there would be no servicing of the vehicles except for gassing the vehicle; that there would be no display of campers-motor homes on the premises and leasir.g of these vehicles would be deliver directly to the customer; and that there would be no display of flags, banners, or flood- lights, etc. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-143 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1318 subject to no more than 56 vehicles to be displayed for rent or lease at any time on the property; that there~would be no car wash or servicing of the vehicles; that there would be no new or used vehicles displayed for sale; that there would be no display of campers or motor homes on the tremises; and that there would be no flags, banners or other temporary signs dis~layed on the premises except as provided by Code - all as stipulated to by the petitionez; and subject to the recommended conditions with the added conditions that there be no more than 56 vehicles displayed for rent or lease at any time; that there be no car washing or servicing of vehicles on the pr~mises; that there be no new or used vehicles displayed for sale nor any display of campers or motor homes on the pre~mises, and that there shall be no display of flags, banners, temporary signs or £loodlights except as permitted by Code. (See Resolution Book) ~Jn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Kaywood. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-39b CONDITZONAL tISE - PUBLIC HEARING. LAWFiENCE HOROWITZ, P. 0. Box 1108, Newport PERMIT NO. 1321 Beach, California 92663, Owner; DON RYAN, 2584 Westminster Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California 92627, Agent; requesting PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A BEER BAR on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 1.5 acres havin a frontage of approximately 170 feet on the west side of ICnott Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 390 feet, being located approximately 216 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and further described as 951 South Knott Street. Property 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. Mr. Don Ryan, agent for the petitioner. appeared before the Commission and stated tha~ he proposed to operate a nice bar; that there were very few nice bars where a man could take his ~a~£¢ to enjoy an evening out; that he hoped to build it up later on; and that he planned to have his wiie ~ork with him. ~a~iJ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired about the pool tables and 'other equipment that might be planned for the bar; whereupon Mr. Ryan stated all they planned was to have some pool tables, a small area for dancing, and a piano bar. The Commission then reviewed the number of times subject property had been considered before the Commission and inquired why the agent felt the Commission should change its attitude from that in the past - this was the same shopping center and the same owner - nothing had changed in the area. Commissioner Kaywood observed that in viewing the property it was her opinion that the center was very run down, and she could not see how anyone would patroni.ze the bar. Mr. Ryan stated that the owner planned to renovate the buildings and then rent the stores out; that there was to be a new dance school located~in one of the stores; that the alley was proposed to be cleaned up and new signs placed on the center; that one of the reasons a similar use was denied previously was because of the Electric Circus, but the t_pe of use he proposed would be geared toward older people - even the music would be from bygone years of the 1940s and '50s; and that later he planned to serve food. The Commission noted that if it was planned to have a kitchen, this existing facility would be too small and another portion of a store would be needed; whereupon Ms. Ryan stated that the food area would be located where he presently proposed pool tables. Commissioner Seymour inquired of staff if the use were approved for Mr. Ryan and the premises were vacated, could the use such as the Electric Circus move back in; whereupon Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel stated that this was possible since this was a conditional use permit. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission would then have to look at this for possible future tenants, not necessarily the use Mr. Ryan proposed. Mr. Ryan noted that the old Electric Circus was out of business, and the owner of the property also owned most of the equipment from that facility. however, the location oE that facility was several doors away - evidently the owner repossessed the equipment for back rent. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-144 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1321 on the basis that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located; • • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-397 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1321 (Continued) that the proposed use was incompatibie with other uses in the small shoppinq center in that traffic from the proposed use could be detrimental to pedestrians that although the petitioner might be operating a very respectable establish- ment, the use went with the land and there was no assurance that the business would remain under the present operator's jurisdict~on and could be leased to less desirable tenants. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. E. D. JOHNSON & COMPANY, P. O. Box 10040, PERMIT NO. 1322 Santa Ana, California 92711, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTO AND TRUCY. LEASING FACILITY on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con- sisting of approximately 1.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the west side of East Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 331 feet, being located approximately 188 feet north of the centerline of South Street and further described as 633 South East Street. Property classified M-1, 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. Robert Johnson, Vice President of E. D. Johnson Company, appeared before the Commission and stated that they had moved their company to larger facilities and proposed to lease the er.ist~..y property to a national leasing corporation leasing automobiles and small trucks to fleet operations of industry and commerce; and that they proposed to use the existing building and proFerty with some renovation of the property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the amouat ~f noise that could emanate from this use since it was across the street from a number of homes; whereupon Mr. Johnson stated there ~would be less noise than the previous use since these would be new cars and trucks that would be delivered to the companies leasing them, and that there would be no servicir.g of these vehicles on the premises except to gas up the new vehicles. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-145 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Per.mit No. 1322, granting Waiver 1-a on the basis that the use was proposed on an existing site which was adequate fc~ said proposed use; ~nd subject tu con3itions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 ~2-398 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE P£RMIT N0. 1136 (Melrose Abbey Memorial Properties, Ina.) - Request for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval - Proper.ty located on the west side of Manchester Avenue suuth of Orangewood Avenue. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity and previous zoninq on the property, notinq that the petitioner has had no previous extensions of time granted, and that ataff would recommend that a one-year extension of time be granted with a retroactive extension of time to expire March 22, 1972 for the completion of conditions of approval in Resolution No. PC69-193 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1136. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a retroactive extension of timfl from March 22r 1970 to March 22, 1972, and a one-year extension o£ time for the completion of conditions of approval in Resolution No. PC69-193 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1136, said time extension to expire March 22, 1973. ITEM NO. 2 VARIANCE NO. 1372 (R. E. Williams) - Request for an extension of time for existing use - Property located at 1829 South Mountain View Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established i:+ close proximity, previous zoning on the property, the number of extensions granted for the existing use on the property, and the previous recommendation by staff that the use be reviewed yearly since other uses were being established in this general area, and that the most recent extension of time expired June 26, 1972. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time, to expire June 26, 1973, for the continued use of subject property as an office and outdoor storage and repair of equipment and vehicles. 0 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 ~2-399 ITEM NO. 3 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS-71-4) - Expansion of Olive Area Water Spreading Ground - 10-acre parcel at the triangle formed by the Riverside Freeway, Tustin Avenue, and the Santa Ana River. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed for the Planning Commission the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the proposed acquisition by the Orange County Water Diatrict of property to expand the Olive Area Water Spreading Ground. Mr. McDaniel advised that this property is to be used to increase the District's ability to recharge the groundwater basin; that future water-oriented recrea- tional uses were envisioned; and that acquisition of the property would preclude potential private land use which could conflict with the overall Santa Ana Canyon Greenbelt concept. Furthermore, staff would recommend that the project be approved in accordance with the remedial measures proposed in the report, and further subject to providing landscaping along the public streets in accord- ance with the provisions of the City of Anaheim's M-1, Light Industrial, Zone. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, to recommend that the City Counci]. find that the expansion of the Olive Area Water Spreading Ground is in accord;~:-~:e with the Anaheim General Plan; and, further, that the project be approved in accordance with the remedial measuses proposed in the report, subject to landscaping baing provided along public streets in accordance with the site development standards of the City of Anaheim M-1, Light Industrial, Zone. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. ~S Reconsideration of garage setbacks for RS-5000 Zone. Commissioner Herbst noted that he had discussed the City Council action on the RS-5000 Zone with Councilman Thom and inquired whether the Council had placed any restrictions that would limit the percentage of homes in a tract that could be built with the 6-10 foot front setbacks for garages; and that Mr. Thom stated that the Council had not considered that restriction in their considera- tion of the zone's site development standard changes. Commissioner Herbst further stated that because this had not been considered by the Council, he could foresee the developers presenting plans which would eliminate all off-street parking by construction of entire tracts with garages only 6 feet from the sidewalk. He would strongly urge the Planning Commission to send a recommendation to the City Council that they review this obvious discrepancy as he did not think this was the intent of the City Council. Furthermore, this reconsideration should take place prior to the first reading of the ordinance changing the s~.ta development standards of the RS-5000 Zone, and perhaps the Commission should recommend to Council a percentage of the lots in a tract that would be appropriate with 6-foot setbacks. Chairman Farano inquired why this should not be referred back to the Commission; whereupon Commissioner Herbst noted that iY. had been referred back to the Commission, however, the Commission had reaffirmed their original recommendation of a 25-foot building setback where driveways were proposed for straight-in garages. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the Council had not taken into consideration the Commission's reaffirmation. Commissioner Rowland noted that since the Council had refined the ordinance, II he 3id not feel it should be referred back to the Commission for study - the Council should go ahead and finish the job. Commissioner Kaywood stated she would further recommen3 that the City Council take another ride throuqh the Wagner Avenue-State College Boulevard area to view the R-2-5000 tracts where 20-foot setbacks had been provided. This devel- opment was what instiqated the entire amendment consideration in the first place. In addition, almost every home in the city had more cars than they had garage space, therefore, she would suggest that the Council reconsider permit- ting 6-10 foot garage setbacks. ~ ~ N.INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-400 ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) Commissioner xerbst further noted that it should be emphasized that where a lot measuring only 58 feet wide in the RS-5000 Zone with the home on the lot having four bedrooms, the family having two teenage hcys and bot;~ husband and wife working, this would mean four automobiles in that fami.ly, and with the 6-10 foot setbacks, there would be no room to park the extra two vehicles except on the street. This would make it extremely difficult for anyone to gain access through the street, particularly where these 6-10 foot garage set- backs were on cul-de-sac streets, and that emergency vehicles woulc, have a difficult time maneuvering in a street with vehicles parked on both sides. Commissioner Kaywood noted that part of L-he entire plea for 6-10 foot qarage setbacks was based on the statement of one developer who indicated that people did not want large yards to take care of, but they appeared to contradict themselves by stating that if they were required to have 25-foot eetbacks for a garage, they would have no rear yard area~ therefore, if they place their driveways on a 6-foot setback. then they could have a larger rear yard - she was hearing two things, and they contradict each other. Therefore, she would su3gest that if the developers wanted to provide a nice rear yard area that they placc the home on a larger lot and stop trying to "s~ueeze people in like sardines". ' Cammissioner Herbst offered a motion; seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that prior to the first reading of the ordinance for amendments to the RS-S000 Zone, consideration first be given to limiting by percentage or number of lots within a tract that can be developed with 6-10 foot garage setbacks on straight-in drives, and to consider all t e comments made by the`~~ }n in this report. ~ `'~,~.~.,~` ~ ITEM N0. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1317 (Marion Lindsey) - Approval of revised plans - Property located on the east side of West Street south of Ball Road - Proposing to establish a 124-space travel trailer park. Assistant 7~ 'ng Supervisor pon McDaniel presented revised plans of the pro- posed trav ..railer park to be lacated on the east side of West Street south of Ball Road, noting that the plans submitted were required by the Planning Commissi~n as a condition of approval, and that the plans now more clearly indicate. what was being proposed, and that more landscaping had been provided. Furthermore, although the petitioner indicated some form of landscaping on the north property line, the exact type was not indicated, therefore, the Commission might wish to require a precise landscaping plan to be submitted prior to issu- ance of a building permit. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve recised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1317, marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3, subject to the submission of a precise landscaping plan to the Development Services Department £or approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Farano and Rowland abstained). ITEM N0. 6 Underground Utilities - Consideration o~ under- grounding 12kv lines in all new subdivisions. Commissioner Herbst noted that he had made a recent trip to Fresno and had spent several days with his brother-in-law, who was employed by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., and had asked him whether or not they had any underground utilities such as 12kv lines. He was then taken to view two very attractive single-family tracts where the utilities had been placed underground, and it was a pleasure to see the sky unobs,:ructed with overhead lines, since not even distribution feeder lines leading to the tracts were overhead. ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 26, 1972 72-401 ITEM NO. 6 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst further not~d *hat he had been advised that PG&E placed three cables in an open ditch anu cc,vered them up, noting that this was much more economical and it cut down on the maintenances and that he also had been informed that the technology was available for undergroundinq everything - PG&E were even proposing to underyround 57-67kv lines. Therefore~ the City of Anaheim might be at a point in time where this information could be presented by the Planning Commission to the City Counc:l regarding the under- grounding of 12kv distribution feeder lines within the community. Commissioner Rowland noted that the Public Utilities Department had recommended that the 12kv go underground. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that consideration be given prior to voting on underground utilities to undergrounding the 12kv distribu- tion feeder lines where new development was to occur, based on information received at the joint Planninq Commission and City Council work session, as well as that presented by Commissioner Herbst that un3ergrounding was now being done in other cities and the recent methods and technology are economi- cally feasible. Furthermore, the technology appeared to be available for undergrounding even 57-67kv lines in many instances. ITEM N0. 7 VARIANCE NO. 2100 -'Two and three-story apartment complex located west of Pearl Street north of Wilshire Avenue - Request for analyzing of plans to determine if development in accordance. Commissioner Rowland requesxed that staEf review the two and three-story apart- ment complex being constructed north of Wilshire Avenue and west of Pearl Street which was located south of the Westmon<.: tract, since it would appear from plans that the Planning Commission approved an agreement of the neighbors that the plans and the development were not the same since this complex appeared to be a gross intrusion; that the residents of the area felt that the Commi~sion action was a community action, however, when it qot to the City Council-.':::-e appeared to be a big difference from that considered at the Commission le~_r: and the Council level in plans approved; and that from a cursory observation, it would appear that the structures were located 13 feet f.rom the property line. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised Commissioner Rowland that the final plans were approved by the City Council, however, staff would review the plans against the actual construct,i,/on~ and~ advise him later in th e week . ~ . . ~ A/ _ ~ ~/ 17t~~~ ~~'~ ~~~~+•C~ !L a~ ~~~~~~'~M~ ~"~ / ADJO MENT There be ~~J o~ further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissiuner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~%~~"'' ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. ~o;o i:~~;~ ~.~~. r;~ azzo Acnham. Celiforn~a