Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/07/10e rr July 10, 1972 City Hall Anaheim, California A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Farano at 1:55 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: FARANO. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland (who entered the Council Chamber at 2:03 p.m.). Seymour. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Titus Office Engineer: Jay Charlea Roberts 2oning SuF~ervisor: Don McDaniel Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Ann Krebs Commission Secretary: PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaytvood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLE6IANCE Flag. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Ass~.stant 2oning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel advised the Commission that although said statement need not be considered at a regular public hearing, the Commissio had been presented material which reflected the =nvironmental Impact Study due to the Exp-ansion of the Convention Center; and that Engineering Representative Victor Rollinger, assigned to environmental requirements would be available to answer questions. Mr. Rollinger noted that he was the head of the Environmental Study section of the City's Engineerinq Di.vision, and that he could add nothing more than was presented to Planning Commission, however he would be glad to answer the Commission's questions. Mr. Rollinger further noted that he was aware that the Commission did not have an opportunity to review the recommendations, but he could give the Commission a general idea of what was involved; and then in response to a questian by Chairman Farano stated that the report would be presented to the City Council on July 11. Lengthy di~cussion was held bp the Commission summarized as follows: 1. A report of this nature should not be submitted to the Planning Commission just priur to expecting a decision, since the Commission was desirous of reviewing the implications in detail, particularly s~nce it was the Convention Center. 2, Would th?s create a distraction or nuisance to the residenta in this area7 3. Would the City require any additional land for parking purposes7 4. Would the expansion create a greater parking problem than presently existed, and how many parking spaces would be taken up by the expansion. 5. What kinds of changes would occur in the traffic on adjacent public streets? Mr. Rollinger in response to questions presented stated that there would be no homes affected hy the expansiont that the City presently had land to the west that was used for overflowrovidenfcrntheh50U spaceslbeinqed not paved or blacktopped which would p used for the expansion area and which would provide an additional 200 spaces. Furthermore, the City was also contemplatinq the purcY.ase of zdditional property at the southeast corner of West Street and Conven- tion Way when a projected increase of 200-300 cars was anticipated by 1982. 72-402 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 72-403 In addition, the City had also given some thought to construction of a parking structurer but analyzation of the costs would indicate that acquisition of land would be more economically feasible. Chairman Farano then stated for the record he would like to read to the general public some of the statements made in the report presented to the Commission, and then proceeded to read excerpts from said report. Mr. Rollinger in xesponse to Commission questioning stated that it would be slightly less than a year before the expanded portion would be com- pleted; and that the building contract had not been let, however, the archi- tectural contract had. Commissioner Gauer inquired why the Planning Commission was now presented with this - it would be after the fact - other bodies had already made the decision to expand the capacity by doubling it; that there were many issues that needed answering~ and that although he was not oppos~ed to it, the environmental study group was requesting approval on something over which the Commission had na control. Chaisman Farano was of the opinion that more information was needed even though the graphs were good, but the Commission had not had an opportunity to review these graphs and supporting data. Mr. Rollinger then explained the figures presented in the graphs in re- sponse to questioning by the Commission, noting that the projected traffic count had been related to the existing traffic count; that if there were 3000 att.ending the Center presently,with the expansion this would in- crease to 3250 and even more with large cunventions, but in general 150 venicles would be produced for every 1000 conventioneers, and it was anticipated that there would be a max_imum of 250 vehicles per day increase, and if this increased because of peaks then it was anticipated to acquire additional land as mentioned before. In addition, the City had budgeted for this fiscal year extention of Convention way easterly of Harbor Blvd „ and for the extension of Clementine Street as well, which would relieve the heavy traffic along Convention Way. Chairman Farano inquired what the study indicated if Convention Way was extended and the effects this increase in traffic would have on the resi- dents on the west side of West Street as well as thase on Orangewood Avenue to the south; whereupon Mr, Rollinger stated that the traffic increase would be more preva].ent on Harbor Soulevard and Katella Avenue, but the increase on West Street would be very small when one considered that it was anticipated an increase of 250 vehicles over that presently using this facility. Commissioner Rowland noted that this would mean a car every six minutes, but the most significant thing before the Commission was not the expansion or lack thereof, but an environmental impact statment prepared by the Engineering Division was before the Commission. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the City Council that the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the expansion of the Convention Center has been presented to the Commission and no comments were to be forwarded to said Body. Continued lengthy discussion was held regarding the proposal. Mr. Mc Daniel advised the Commissien that he did not think Commissioner Rowland's motion would cover the action necessary for Council response. The consensus o£ the Commission after lengthy discussion was that a~~ environmental impact study should be presented by a 7.and owner/developer whenever something was proposed £or change in the City. Commissioner Rowland then amended his previous motion as £ollows: Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise ~the City Council that the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the expansiori of the Convention Center will have no substantial negative environmental impact on the area and that there would be no negative irreversible changes involved. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ MINUTES, .^.ITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-404 g LECTION OF - Chairman Farano advised the Commissior~ that with the new fiscal OFFICERS yAar, election of officers was in order, and he would enter- 1972-73 tain a motion for a temporary chairman. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to elect Commissioner Gauer as temporary chairman, Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTTON CARRIED. Temporary Chairman Gauer stated it was in order to entertain nominations for Chairmar. for the fiscal year 1972-73. Commissioner Herbst nominated Commissioner Seymour as chairman. Commissioaer Farano seoonded the motion. Commissioner Rowland moved the nominations be closed, and a unanimous ballot be cast. A unanimous ballot electing Com- missioner Seymour was cast. Chairman Seymour then stated that it was in order to nominate a Chairman pro tem for fiscal year 1972-73. Commissioner Rowland nominated Commissioner Kaywood as Chairman pro tem. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. Commissioner Farano moved the ~ations be closed. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion,and that a unanimous ballot be cast. Commissioner Kaywood was elected Chairman pro tem by a unanimous ballot. Chairman Seymour noted it was in order to elect a Commi~sion Secretary for the year 1972-73. Commissioner Rowland nominated Ann Krebs as Commission Secretary, Cr issioner Allred seconded the motion and requested a unanimous ballot be cast. Ann Krebs was elected Commission Secretary foz the fiscal year 1972-73 unanimously. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve the Minutes THE MINUTRS of the meetinq of June 12, 1972 Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion, subject t~ the folloaing corrections,MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano abstaining): Pg.72-339, para. 10, line 4 should read: "City beinq ... an earthquake or slide." . para. 13, line 1, should read: "Mr. Thompson further noted that the County and staff....;; Pg. 72-344, para. 4 delete and add the following: " The applicant was advised of the City decibel ordinance." pg. 72-349, para. 9, lines 9 and 11 "employees"instead of "customers." pg.72-351, para. 3, line a~,hould read:"Highway....a 20-foot very heavily landscaped berm." Pg. 72-352, para. i, line 3 should read:"the drawings.... in lieu of...." pg. 72-353, para 3, line 2, should read:"MOTION CARRIED, to approve in concept...." para. 12, line 5 should read: "mental protection .._,._ ,,,.~... . .. s:.e: ~:u.' ~..--_,.z. _<..............sucha:.as>.b.exmi.n.9..:.~nnd/.o.r:,_masonsY.:.,.wa3~1~"...._,, , .._...~~..._.w._.~ _ pg. 72-355, pars. 8, line 3 should read ss Pollo~s: "a 150-foot to~er ~ould hsve s some+l~t diYterent imp~wt thsn oonventionsl outdoor lighting. If anyone wanted to mount the lights at that height on a building, tUe City Would Weloome the projeot." ~ ' .... ..~_._,,.._ .n_..-,..,...,-- „. _.n _,.... ,. .~...~._. _...,_ ..__ ._...__...._ ~~..• . 3g6~ para. 3. liae ? stiould read. pe£3t"3:on"'vraa-..=equesrs.-ng=-,_.; ~',.,9 ~ ,,_. Rickes distinctive national .... line lU should read: "a light standard, and does not warrant any preferential consid- eration." Fg. 357, para 7, line 1 should read: "Mr. Don Withrow, part~ ner and manager, ...• .~. ~ •~w. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-405 pg. 362, para. 3, line 3 should read: "know what was proposed. (delete balance of sentence) 9, line 4 ahould read"stations....in any zone, and further request to find a method of removinq vacant service stations that hava been closed 6 months or longer. Coramissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. pg. 72-367, para. 8, line 6 ahottld raad: "three lots.... service had been" pg, 72_3~Z, para.4, line 1 next to last word insert "that" pq, ~2_373, para.l, line 2 should read: "away vezy depresseds that Anaheim established...." para. 3 line 3 should read: "per month.(delete the remainder) para. 5, line 4 should read: "range could reach to $15,000 per year.... para.2, line 2 and subsequent lines should read: "where the Santa Clara County Chamber of Commerce Director resigned, saying: "We are the victims of our own successes . They discovered 20 years too late the consequences of growth for growth's sake - the once-ver- dent valley 4.s beset with traff.ic strangula- tion, dense smog, soaring taxes, burqeoning nnemployment and welfare rolls. The county is in deep financial trouble. He deplorea the deteriorating quality of life. Obviously growth must be brought under control or it wil destroy the community, the region and ulti- mately the earth." Anaheim should be more conaerned than it has in the p~st, before it's too late for the ecology and environ- ment in our City." Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED to approve the Minutes of the June 26, 1972 meeting with the followinq corrections: pq, 72-386, insert paragraph after vote on CUP 1314: "Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED that staff review the parking situation around the Bank of America." pg. 72-394, para. 9, line 1: should read: "Mr. James Read, Jr.. vice president and part-owner of Orange County Rent- a-Car Inc., agent .... " Pg. 395, para 4, line 2 should read:"of the vehicles;.... like approval for a pump for fueling" Pg. 396, para 4, line 4 delete word "wife" insert "son" Pg. 400, para 3, line 5 should read: motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioners Farano, Kaytvood, Rowland abstained?. pg. 401, after para. 3, insert the following paragraph: "A request was made of staff by Chairman Farano for an Environmental Impact Study for Anaheim Hills." RESOLUTION OF -Chairman Seymour offered a motion to recommend to the City Council COMMENDATION thatthe previous 1971-72 Planning Commission Chairman Farano be commended for the additional time, effort, and energy put Eorth during his tenure as chairman of the Anaheim City Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-406 VARIANCE NO. 2355 - CONTINi7ED PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER REVOCABLE TRUST~ RCA Building, Suite 700, 6363 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, California 90028, Owner; JOHN L. OSBORNE, 1881 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801r Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AREA OF SIGNS, (2) M:~XIMUM NUMSER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ STANDINGMSIGNISANDC(5)EMAXIMUMRAREATOFDFREESSTANDING'SIGN TOMESTABLISHFTHEEE- EXISTING SIGNS AS CONFORMING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres, having a frontaqe of approximately 800 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maxi- mum depth of approximately 570 feet and being located between Crescent Way and Muller Street, and further described as 1881 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the May 1 and 31, and June 26, 1972 meetings to allow time for the submission of revised plans. No one appeared in opposition. Although thE Report to the Commission was not read at public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the Minutes. Mr. Richard B. Cole, 1881 West Lincolr Avenue, representing the agenc for the petitioner appesred before the Commission and stated that with the revised plans, only two waivers were still being requested - those being tiie number of free- standinq signs and distance between free-standin7 signs. TY.E HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-146, and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2355 in part for waiver of the maximum ~umber of free-standings to permit two free-standinq signs, and minimum distance between free-standing signc only to permit 190 feet between signs, subject to conditions, on the basis that revised ~lans submitted have deleted the three remaining waivers originally requested.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2376 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM P. VZSSER, 701 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Owneri requesting WAIVER OF (lj MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES; (2) MINIMUM LOCAL STREET SETBACK; (3) MINiMUM REAR SETBACK~ AND (4) MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL GREENHOUSE on property described as: Two parcels of property described as Parcel 1- A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 107 feet on the north side of Lincoin Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 127 feet and being located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Resh Street, and further described as 701 West Lincoln Avenue; Parcel 2- A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of Resh Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 125 feet, being located approximately 186 £eet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 115 North Resh Street. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCEL ].) AND P-1~ AUTOMOBILE PARKING~ ZONE (PARCEL 2)• Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 12, 1972 in order for the petitioner to submit revised plans relocating the prapased greenhouse. One person indicated her presence in opposition. • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-407 VARIANCE N0. 2376 - (continued) Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the loc:ition of subject property, uses established in close proximity, reason for continuance noting that the revised plans indicate that only two waivers were now needed, namely waiver of the minimum required parking stalls and the operation of the commer- cial greenhouse in the C-2 Zone; that the Commission at the previous meeting had suggested several alternatives that would be acceptable, and the revised plans now propoae the greenhouse to be adjacent to the florist shop Wltetill parking proposed on the P-1 prcperty north of the alley; and that the p tioner's revised plans indica+_e abandonment of the alley, which would still have to be accomplished. Furthermore, plans also do not provide for the required setback from the right-of-way line along Resh Street for the wall. Mr. William Visser, the pet'itioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the revised plans would indic~te that he had followed the Comacesl~that sugqestions and as a result there were three additional parking sp staff indiaated that there be a 3-foot setback for the wall along Resh Street, however, he would prefer th,3t the wall be constructed at the property line and the landscaping planted behind the wall so that it could be maintained properly, particularly when one considered the papers and debris dropped by passersby; that there now was only a 6-foot masonry wall along the north property line; and that the neaiest huilding would be located 60 feet away. Office Engineer Jay Titus, in response to Commission questioning regarding abandonment of the alley, stated that he could see no problem in said aban- donment for a portion of the alley subject to providing public utility ease- ments that may exist at the present time. Mr. Visse.~ noted that the sewer lines presently existed within the alley. ~ but according to his plans there would not be~ any buildings built over this alley area - it was only proposed for automobile parking; that many children used the alley now for "hot-rodding", and with the abandonment of a portion of the alley this would discourage this activity. Mrs. Robert Rees, 123 North Resh Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, and stated that the petitioner had partially explained her con- cern regarding tl;e 6-foot wall; that she was quite concerned that the trash trucks would be unable to make a right turn in the alley with the abaondonment of a portion of the alley, and these trucks could take a corner of the garage away; and that although she did not want to belabor the subject, the alley had been in existence for a number of yeaxs. Mr. Titus, in response to Commission questioning regarding the existence of a structure, stated that he was not aware there was a structure there, but it would not be removed, since trucks were able to maneuver these alleys in the past. Mr. Visser, in rebuttal, stated there was a structure on both sides of the alley, and if these trucks could make left hand turns there was no reason why right hand turns could not also be made, since there was a 3-foot setback for both buildings. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission as to whether or not the wall should be at the property line or setback; that landscaping could be more adequately maintained; however the City of Anaheim's standards required the wall to be setback from the property line primarily for aesthetic purposes, so that the passersby could view the plantings, and these could not been viewed if they were planted on the opposite side of the wall; that the petitionez had not given a good reason for waiving this requirement other than papers being I strewn by children - a common problem throuqhout the City; and that if the requirement had not been waived for other commercial buildings, there was no apparent reason to waive the petitioner's request. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-147 and mevPd for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance rlo. 2376 in part granting waiver of the required number of parking spaces on the basis that the petitioner stated 65B of his business was derived by telephone, and haiver of the permitted uses to per~it the commercial greenhouse as revised plans indicated, and sub- ject to conditions - requiring that the wall be set back 3 feet along Resh Streel and landsca~in~ b~vid~ ed.bet~en the wall and the property line fo_ aesthetic ~..,..~. .r~ ~~,~, ~~~ , purpose ~ ee esolution Bookf ~~w'K'~~`~'~'N~ ~ s .~^ > ~ 72-407a MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10, 1972 VARiANCE NO. 2376 (cont'd) On roll call the foregcinq resolution was passed by the.following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEkS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, SEYMOUk. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. AHSENT: COMMISSZONERS: None. ~ ~ s MINUTES~ CITY PLA 72-408 NNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 AREA DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Znitiated by the Anaheim City to consider PLAN N0. 110 Planning Commission, 204 East Lincoln Avenue ded on the north b oun circulation and access for an area the east by Anahei.m Hills d RECLASSIFICATION , on by Santa Ana Canyon Roa the south by Nohl Ranch Road, and on the west by NO. 71-72-34 Roadr on Imperial Highway. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING.(READVERTISED) R. JOSEPH MAAG~ VARIANCE 1761 Ladera Vista Drive, Fullerton, California 92631, '92806 Ca aheim NO. 2391 . , g, L~. BUDLONG, 20046 Santa Ana Canyon Road, AR Anaheim, SOX 3668 , Owners, ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P. O. A rectangularly- TENTATIVE MAP OF California, Agent. Property described as: 4 acres 34 TRACT NO. 7769 . shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately id h REVISION NO. 1 e s having a frontage of approximately 696 feet on the sout i - of Santa Ana Canyon Road, havin~ a maximum depth of approx mately 2380 feet and being located approximately 1160 feet east of the centerline of imperial FIighway. Property presently classified R-Ar AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSI FICATION: R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE REQUESTED VARIAN CE: WAIVE ~l) MINIMUM LOT WZDTH AND (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA TO ALLOW A 162-LOT SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: S& S CONSTRUCTION, 8857 West Olympic California 90211; Hills . Doulevazd, Beverly ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, P. O. Box 3668, Anaheim, California 92803; proposing to subdivide subject property into 162 R-1 2oned lots. Subject petitions and tract were continued flansthfromeMang31~f1972chat the May 1, 1972, for the submission of revised p Y request of the petitioner and from June 26, 1972 to be readvertised. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed Area Development Plan No. 110 as follows: The area encompassed by this area development plan is bounded on the north by Santa Ana Canyon Road; on the south by Nohl Ranch Road; on the west by Imperial Highway; and on the east by Anaheim Hills Road; that the area develop- ment plan had been initiated as a result of development proposals, both public and private, within the study area, and the purpose o£ the study was to investiga~e the potential circulation and vehicular access problems within the area, and to explore alternative solutions to these problems. Mr. Mc Daniel, in reviewing the background of study area noted there were three single-family residential subdivisions already developed within the study area; that four additional t.ract maps had been approved within the area; and that another tract was being considered in conjunction with the area devel- opment plan; that the 40-acre site at the southeast corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road had been selected as a future high school site and plans were currently underway to develop the property to that use; and that the property to the north of Nohl Ranch Road between Imperial Highway and Anaheim Hills Road was being considered for the development of several City facilities, however,after further investigation by various City departments, only the Parks and Recreation and Library Departments found the area to be suitable for their purposes. Mr. Mc Daniel then noted that the primary objective of the study was to establish a safe, practical, and efficient system of streets which interrelate between public facilities, existing and proposed subdivisions, and possible future developments. With this objective in mind, consideration was given to: (a)'extension o£ stub ~treets from existing subdivisions into proposed develop- ments; (b) provision of stub streets at appropriate locations to provide good accessibility to the proposed library and park site; (c) provision of stub streets at appropriate locations to provide access to the vacant 17.6 acres located immediately south of Tract No. 5058 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7003; and (d) place a reasonable limitation on the number of street inter- sections with Nohl Ranch Road. ~ ~ •' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10~ 1972 72-409 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 110 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-34, VARIANCE NO. 2391, AND TRACT NO. 7769,(cont'd) Mr. Mc Daniel further noted that the traffic engineer evaluated the access and circulation situation in the area and concluded that there should be only two street intersections with Nohl Ranch Road between Imperial Highway and Anaheim Hills Road. One intersection had been established approximately 900 £eet west of Anaheim Hills, where a street exits Tract No. 6734. The most logical loca- tion for the second intersection would be where Street "C' extended from its proposed terminus at the south boundary of Tract No. 7769, would intersect with Nohl Ranch Road. The extension of this street would provide good access from the north and east to the park proposed at the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road, and would also provide access to the proposed library site that was r.ecently approved for acquisition by the City Council. Although this street extension would bisect the proposed park site, the Parks and Recreation Department has stated that this would not adversely affect the park. Mr. Mc Daniel then reviewed ~.he alternatives prepared ~y staff as follows: ALTERNATIVE A: This alternative demonstrates coordination of strePt patterns within existing. approved, and proposed subdivisions, and provides for the *wo access points to Nohl Ranch Road as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. The easternmost access point is located south of Tract No. 6734, and the westernmost access point is located south of the proposed Tentative Tract No. 7769. The location of the westerly access point would provide good vehicular circulation to the south and west from the tracts to the north and east, and would also provide yood accessibility to the park and library sites proposed in the area. The north- sout;i street that is part of the westernmost access point would bisect the proposed park. This alternative further demonstrates how the vacant 17.6 acres south of Tract No. 5058 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7003 could be developed in as many as three separate phases if the property owner desired thaC much flexibility. ALTERNATIVE B: This alternative is essentially the same as Alternative "A" with the exception that the westernmost access po'nt to Nohl Ranch Road has been shifted several hundred feet wqst from where := is suggested in Alternative "A". The street that constitutes the westernmost access point in Alternative "A" would not run through the park site, but would be cul-de-saced. This ~.lternative reduces the efficiency of the total circulation system. ALTERNATIVE C• This alternative differes from "B" in that the westernmost access point to Nohl Ranch Road is shifted even further to the east and would be only 500 to 600 feet west of the easterly access point. This alternative is even less efficient than Al:ernative "B"• Mr. Mc Daniel concluded his review by stating that it would appear that the Planni.ag Commission might wish to determine that Alternative "A" p~ovides the most logical and efficient circulation system in that it accomplishes the objectives of the Traffic Engineer; provides easy access to the paLk and library sites from all residential tracts in the area, and provides for the development of the vacant 17.6 acres south of Tract No. 5058 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7003. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland observed that Area Aevelopment Plan NO. 110, Exhibit "A" was probably preferable but the only disadvantage to that plan would be that it would separate a 1-1/2 acre portion from the park site which would undoubted- ly decrease the utility of the park, but considering the topography existing in the area, he did not feel the park would be similar to the neighborhood parks developed in Anaheim westerly of the Newport Freeway. Mr. Mc Daniel noted for the Commission that just prior to the public hearing, a communication was received from the Parks and Recreation Department which indicated that Exhibit "A" was satisfactory to ~hem and their reason was the ~ .~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10~ 1972 72-410 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 110 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-34. VARIANCE N0. 2391, AND TRACT NO. 7769 (cont'd) fact that it was proposed to have the park site extend along the northerly side of Nohl Ranch Road almost to Anaheim Hills Road. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-148 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to adopt and recommend to the City Council adoption of Area Development Plan Nn. 110, Exhibit "A" as a guide for the establishment of a coordinating street system to serve the area bounded by Imperial Highway on the west, Santa Ana Canyon Road on the north; Anaheim Hills Road on the east; and Nohl Ranch Road on the south. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Several persons indicated their presence in opposition to Reclassification No. 71-72-34 and Variance No. 2391. Mr. Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, reasons why subject petitions had been continued previously, and the newest proposal to reclassify and subdivide subject property into R-1 zoned lots with waivers of the lot width and lot area, whereas the previous request had been for R-2-5000 Zoned lotsj that the revised plans indicate the provision of an access street to Santa Ana Canyon Road approximately at the location of Access Point No. 6A established in Area Development Plan No. 109 and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council; that the plans also indicate streets stubbing into the adjacent properties, particularly to the south and east; and that they v~ould be providing circulation for the proposed development in accordance with Area Development Plan No. 110, Exhibit "A". Mr. Mc Daniel, in evaluating the proposal, indicated that the General Plan designated this area under consideration as being appropriate for low density residential development and the R-1 2one, without waivers. would be one of those zones that would implement said designation, however, it should be pointed out that the northerly 13 acres of subject property had a resolution of intent to the R~3 Zcne which could be c~.eveloped, theoretically, with an apartment complex pending approval of specific building plans; that it could be reasoned that the combination of the two densities, low and medium, could average a density thaL would be higher than the proposed method of 3evelopment of developing the entire property with R-1 Zoned lots with the lot width and lot size waivers; that this present proposal now met the requirement of having streets running parallel to Santa Ana Canyon Road being not less than 300 feet away; snd that the previous proposal did not indicate stub streets to the adjacent parcel to the east, whef~as the revised tract map provides for these street extensions. In addi- tion, the Subdivision Ordinance would require 150-foot deep lots or 50-foot building setbacks and a 6-foot high earthen berm along Santa Ana Canyon Road and the applicant has indicated that he is aware of those requirements and was willing to comply with them. Mr. George Putnam, representing the petitioners and the developer.ropriateness before the Commission and stated staff s comment regarding the app of 6,000 square foot lots was the basis for consideration before the Commission; that they had had meeting's with staff regarding development of the northerly 13 acres on which a resolution of intent to R-3 was established when the prop- erty was annexed into the City, and although they had thought of developing said 13 acres with apartments at 18 units per acre with the balance of the property being developed with 7200 square foot lots, it was their opinion that their proposal of 6,000 squaze foot lots was mora appropriate because of sub- division development in the area and the environment established in the area; that they could "live with" the homes which they proposed ranging in size from 1300-2400 square faet which would be the same homes that had been constructed in this area except their homes would range in price up to $45,000 something which would be more expensive than the homes in the area- ortionethere/would they developed with the zoning approved on the northerly p be a total cverall density and number of people far greater than with 6,000 square Poot lots; that if the northerly 13 acres were developed with a density of 10 units per acre this could mean 120 uTOteT~ndthas1woutdetota1~208 homes could be developed on the balance of the p P y lots. compared with their proposal of 162 lots with 6,000 square foot ~ ~ ~ MINUTEE, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-411 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 110 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-34, VARIANCE N0. 2391. AND TRACT NO. 7769(cort'd) Mr. Frank Raczek, 5917 Hadrians Crescent appeared byfore thj CommTS~seT~ in opposition and stated he lived in the tract easterl of sub'ect p P Y% that he represented the Santa Ana Canyon Home Improvement Assoc.,and then noted there were two very important matters which had taken place befosoutheof1Santa Council recentl,y at which time the Council stated that anything Ana Canyon Road and east of Imperial tiighway would be developed with a minimum of 7200 square foot lot sizes, and on June 20, 1972 the City ~TOnosedddevelopved R-1 6000 square foot lots on the Danker property east of the P P Council ment but north of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Therefore, since the Cityro osal had gone on record as being opposed to 6,000 square foot lots the p P would be contrary to their recent statement. In addition, althoTesentinPuthem stated these homes would be $45,000, Mr. Tom Sifferman, also rep 4 these~homeslwouldtbe theasametasgthosehinhCanyoneAcres whichorangedtinepriceat from 535,000-38,000.00. Mr. Phillip Joujon-ROChe, 21527 Mohler Drive,president of the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association, appeared before.the Commission in opposition and stated he would like to support statments made by Mr. Raczek, and wished to further statel that the General Plan designTOValtofsthese waivers wouldtbehates with minimum 7200 square foot lotsr and app variance with the General Plan. Commissioner Gauer inquire3 what would be the oppositions' pesition if the petitioners proved uF on their resolution of intent to R-3, where possibly 18 units per acre could be developed - this could mean up 216 families in that area. Mr. Joujon-ROChe admitted that the opposition was "over the barrel" and what was before the Commission was the lesser of Tooe~~ilWashstillrR-Aeeven though opposed to the waivers requested; that tso ertP for a number of years, however, a reso~ution of intent had been on the p P Y one could say the Commission and City had a change of minds since the R-3 was originally approved,howaver to termiuate this R-3 resolution of intent would be up to the City Council. A letter of opposition was read to the Planning Commission. Mr. T'utnam, in iebuttal, stated that ~he letter made reference to thro~osalum lot drea and lot width, but if the Commission had noted under this p p there would be a decrease in the density; r~aerty toutheasouth had beenlution of intent was still valid, but since the p P uare foot lats; acquized, their presence this date was to consider the 6.000 sq that the minimum lot width and area did not determine the va15e000 square foot that the area would be turned into a slum area, because many lots had $50,000 homes, and the relationship of size of lots could be developed into very poorly planned homas on the property, if the developer did not create a good environmental home. In addition. Mr. Raczek indicated that they wanted to retain the 7200 square foot lots and this related back to his first argu- ment in that this proposal was a total reduction of the overall density, and the lot size and width was a tooi for establishing development in the community and that the main thinking behind the lot size was the control of density. Commissioner Farano observed that this could be possible if the land lent itself to development in that manner. ro ert Mr. Putnam replied that they would have no difficulty in developing the p p Y at 20 units per acre, and plans had been presented to staff £or 18 units per acre for condominium-type development but this was withdrawn. Commissioner Herbst stated that first the petitioner was requesting F-2-5000 Zoning, now he was requesting R-1 with waivers with the statement that they could build apartment units on the northerly 13 acres, however he would conside R-2-5000 lots on the northerly portion1and the balance withuareOfootalotsoon lots, but he would not be "blackmailed'into giving 6,000 sq the basis of the R-3 resolution of intent on the northerly 13 acres, since the 6,000 square foot lots did not conform with the intent oi the Commission for that area, and what the homeowners associations had been assured would be developed south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10, 1972 72-412. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 110 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-34, VAP.IANCE N0. 2391, AND TRACT NO. 7769(cont'd) Commissioner Kaywood inquired of the developer what was proposed as to the number of bedrooms; whereupon Mr. Putnam stated there would be up to five bedrooms for these hocnes. Commissioner Kaywood observed this would be the same pYOblem the City had been faced with in the 5,000 square foot lots where five to seven bedroom homes had been built, and with 5 bedrooms this could mean up to six automobiles. Mr. Putnam noted that Mr. Razcek had indi.cated the homes were proposed to range in price from $33,000-38,000 such as those built in Canyon Acres, however, the homes they proposed on subject property would not be built that way. but would be at the options requested by the purchaser. Mr. Mc Daniel noted that the R-1 subdivision to the east had the lot width waived but the lots were 7200 square feet while on four of the homes abutting Santa Ana Canyon Road were granted waiver of the setback from the local street because of the setback requirement along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Gauer observed that if the northerly property were developed with apartments and the southerly portion with R-1 7200 square foot lots this could mean a density of 301 units while the peti.tioner was proposing 162 units, the difference being 6,000 square foot lots by reducing the lot size and lot width, yThile Commissioner Herbst stated that he would consider R-2-5000 on the norther- ly •13 acres. Commissioner Herbst noted that the developers must have made a survey or study which indicated that only single family homes would sell better, therefore he did not want to jeopardize sales on the northerly portion by building apart- ments. Furthermore, the City had a commitment to the h~meowners in the area because of the recent action by the City Council. Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission had exgressed considerable con- cern about R-2-5000, about the number of bedrooms permitted, side yards, etc., now the Commission was faced with a request of waiver of the lot size which was only 20$ greater than that permitted in the R-2-5000 Zoner but still the problem continued as had been experienced under ::he R-2-5000 Zone with 5-7 bed- room homes on smaller lots and some of the lots in this proposal had only 31-foot frontages; that he could speak from zxperience regarding 4-5 bedroom homes with three teenagers, there were 5 cars in his family an3 with the Dro- posal before the Commission the situation could be considexably worse than he had :,n his much larger lot; then in answer to a question by Commissioner Gauer, stated that the developer would still have to construct the project so that the units would sell or rent, and he would suggest that he could not imagine anyone taking this expensive property and building the cheap high density R-3. Mr. Putnam advised the Commissicr. that the plans submitted to staff and wh~ch had been withdrawn were 18 units per acre which could sell as condor..iniums ranging in price from $19,000-28000, and that they had built something similar in San Diego with 16 units per acre. Chairman Seymour noted that the Planning Commission and City Council had never approved condominiums with a density greater than 12 units per acre. Commissioner Herbst offer.ed Resolution NO. PC72-149, and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition tor Reclass- ification No. 71-72-34 subject to conditions (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Kaywood requested that for clarification purposes the house plans should be made a part of the approval under the recla~sification; whereupon Commissioner Herbst amended his motion to include the condition that house plans be submitted to and approved by the City Council. On roll call the fcregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Fa~ano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland noted that if subject property did develop to the classifi- cation of the resolution of intent it would have access thru single family property to the south, now zoned R-A, otherwise the circulation as proposed ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-413 AREk~ DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 110 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-34, VARIANCE N0. 2391, AND TRACT NO. 7769 (cont'd) under the Area Development Plan could not be completed, and if this circulation were elimir.ated then the R-A parcel would have access only through the proper- ties to Solomon Drive, thus said property would nave no "window" for marketing purposes whatsoever. Furthermore, if r.he property under consideration were not treated as o~ie parcel, and the northerly parcel developed far multiple family residential, this would create a landlocked ~arcel with access south thru the future City parking, making said property virtually worthless even though the northerly property might provide a better living environment with development of the property for R-3 rather than the 6,000 square £oot lots. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-150, and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2391 on the basis that the proposed lot sizes and widths would not be in conformance with the development in this general araa and would establish an undesirable and dancjerous precedent for similar requests for development throughout the Santa Ana Canyon; that although the northerly 13 acres of the property had a resolution of intent for R-3 zoninq approved in 1967, the petitioner ha.a not complied with the conditions that would complete the reclassification; that as a result of evidence which had been presented to the City, the Planniny Commission and City Council have recently reaffirmed their thinking as to the General Plan designation of low 3ensity residential development for this area in the Santa Ana Canyon; and that to grant subject petition ~voulfl be granting a privilege not enjoyed by other developments in thi.^. general area; and that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed ~n developing this property. (See Resolution sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Herbst o£fered a motion, Seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARZED TO deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7769, Revision No. 1 on the basis that the existing zone on the property would not permit subdivision of subject property in the manner proYcsed, and that since the Variance was denied the property could not be developed under the zoning recommended for approval. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED to recommend to the.City Council that Reclassification No. 67-68-21 be terminated on the basis that the proposed zoning did not meet the intent of the Plenning Commission and City Council for development of the property on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, since many changes had taken place from the time the property was annexed into the City of Anaheim in 1967. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10~ 1972 72-414 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: RAYMOND SPEHAR & J- LIBERIO, 1720 Wegt TRACT N0. 7419, La Palma Avenue, S•site A, Anaheim, California 32801. REVISION NO. 3 ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue. Anaheim, CaliFarnia 92805. Subject TENTATIVE NiAP OF - tracts c~nsisL•ing of 28,6 and 22ar'es, respectively. TRACT NO. 7470, and located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon REVISION NO. 2 Road east of Walnut Canyon Road is psoposed for subdivision into 170 and 1~5 P.-2-5000 2oned lots. Chairman Seymour waived the reading of the Report to the Commission, but reference is made to said report in the Minutes. Mr. Ca:. Queyrel, engineer for the tract and representing the deve:Lopers, appeared before the Commission and stated that these were the same tract maps that had been presented previously, but because they had acquired a small parcel not included in the previous tentative tract maps they had to refile the two tracts. Chairman Seymour noted that the Report to the Commission indicated that it would be difficult to develop these tracts in accordance with the revised standards of the RS-5000 Zone, and inquired what the develoger intended to do. Mr. Queyre.l advised the Commission that the developer proposed to delete some of the lots at the time development occurred, in order to comply with the new standards, since this was now the new ordina:ice. Commissioner Rowland noted that due to the location of the freeway and the Santa Ana River, together with the size of the proposed project, there, undoubtedly, would be high voltage transmission lines, thus would not this be of signi£icance to the environmental impact for the canyon; and that the type of project proposed miq'it create some concern because both the State ond Federal Governments were very ~oncerned about the environmental impact statements for projects of this nature. Commissioner Rowland. in response to a question by the Commmission as ta whether he was suggesting underground utilities~ stated he had been encouraging underground utilities long before he started serving on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Allred then stated that although he may have voted for R-1 zoning on property in this area in the past, he now was of the opinion that this property between the freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road should be retained for agricultural purposest that the Commission should not subject purchasers of these homes to have their homes in a hole which was not a very attractive environment, particularly when one viewed the existing homes betwean the Newport Freeway and Imperial HighwaY% further, that it was much more notiq4able from a 2ti.~`~^.r elevation and it was a blight to the area. Commissioner Allred also~noted that although therE had beer. very few severe storms for the past few years, further development could create extreme havoc and hazard for those homes already existing and any future homes in the event of a severe storm. Chairman Seymour noted that the Planning Commission had never approved R-2-5000 on the properties easterly of imperial Highway and south °lcted the Riverside Freeway, but had only approved low density as was dep' in General Plan Amendment No. 122. Commissioner Farano concurred with Commissioner Rowland regarding the environmental impact and indicated that this was the reason he had expressed his concern previously; and that subject property was one area which should be given serious consideration as to the environmental impact.of any development, particularly single family residential. Commissioner Gauer noted that after having viewed the problems thainionlthats had in the East because of the severe rainstarms, he was of the aP the City should reassess all the properties that were within the flood olain and had higher densities approved; and that during Anaheim's 1938 flood there were many homes where people had all •their furniture ruined and mud and water several feet deep to remo~e. Furthermore, while everyone was thinking that Anaheim would never again have tnese problems. the City should do everything to prevent any loss of life as well as property due to flood conditions. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-415 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7419r Rev. No. 3& No. 7470 Rev. No. 2 Commissioner Farano noted that when the City Council approved R-2-5000 2oning on the properties on both sides of the Santa Ana River, one of the conditions of approval was the requirement of a favorable flood hazard letter from the Orar_ge County Flood Control District, and he would like to know what this meant to the City oi Ar.aheim. pssistant 2oning Superv~herOCFCDMwasasafetydfromdat100cyearsfloodshthaththe acceptable standard by freeway would provide protection from a 100-year flood because •this was part of the dyking between the river and the prop~Q~ected from a~300-yearhe freercay, however, these properties would not be p or standard project flood. Commissioner Gauer observed that the properties in northern California which had been dyked against L•he river waters had the dykes break, and there was no assurance with a 100-year storm that the dyking of the river banks in Y~~ Santa Ana Canyon was adequate to withstand debris an~. extensive water p. 'ure from the north and east, particularly since the OCFCD had narrowed the channel and bridges spanning the Santa Ana River; and that if there was a rainstorm with continuous rain yielding 15 inches in a few days, he did not know how anyone could get out of this area safely. Commissioner Rowland stated that the only thing the Commission should recommend to the City Council, in the event the Commission denied these tract maps, and the City Council approved them, was to request that some consideration should be given to requiring the developer to submit an environmental impact statement. Commissioner Herbst noted that the only reason he might consider these tract maps favorably even though he had recommended 7200-square foot lots, was that since the RS-5000 site development standards had been amended and adopted by ordinance, and the developer had stipulatedresultmplying with these standards, perhaps a better development might Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7419r Revision No. 3, subject to the recommended conditions. Mr. Mc Daniel inquired whether the Commission wished to recommend ulans the tract map approval an ad3itional condition that precise house p be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to approval of a fina~ tract map; whereupon Commissioner Herbst amended his motion ~ovalcofde submission of precise house p.lans to the City Council prior to app a final tract map• On roll call the foregoing motion lost for a majarity, Commissioner Herbst being the only one voting Aye. Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposal with niost of the Commission being of the opinion that development should not be permitted where there was danger of flooding, even though the Commission had been preempted by the City Council in determining the severity of possible flooding conditions in the canyon; that the Council should reconsideartiving the entire Santa Ana Canyon area affected by the river reassessed, p cularly since the Commission was.not qualified to assess the problems of flood hazard potentials. Office Engineer Jay Titus, in response to questioning b~~ the Commilvenna stated that those properties on the north side of the river were g' letter from the OCFCD stating that portions of the properties were subject to a 100-year flood, and this meant that t'TOtectetheepropertyhfromta 1001year and grade the area or construct dykes to p storm before he could build on the property. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Herbst voting "no" and Commissioner Rowland abstaining) to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7419, Revision No. 3, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7470. Revision No. i, on the basis that the Commission has consistently recommended low density R-1, 7200 square foot ~ ~ e '7Z-416 NINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10, 1972 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7419 Rev. No. 3& No. 7470, Rev. No. 2 lots for all the properties south of the Santa Ana River in conformance with General Plan Amendment No. 122, and the proposed tract would be inconsistent with the Commission's previous findinga; furthermore, if the City Council determines that approval of the tracts is in order, that consideration should be given to requiring the develop2r to submit an environmental impact state•- ment regarding this property, since it would appear that recently enacted State of California law required submittal of an environmental impact statement. RECESS - Chairman Seymour declared a 10-minute recess at 4:10 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 4:23 p.m., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE NO. 2383 - PUBLIC HEARING. KEITH J. MAHONEY, ET AL, 543 South West Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners; HERMAN R. GALLARDO, 17272 Meadowview Drive, Yorba Linda, California 92686, Agent, requestinq pesmission to WAIVE (1) PERMITTED USES, AND (2) MINIMUM PARKING AREA TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO REPASR GARAGE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maxi- mum depth of approximately 150 feet, being located approximately 244 feet north of the centerlir.e of North Street and further described as 816 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. A showing of hands indicated four persons present in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize the existing building on the property as an automobile repair garage, and noting that the submitted plans indicated that the existing building would be converted by the construction of a 1Ox14-foot overhead door in the front of the property and providing a new concrete drive for access to Astalls within and that the applicant had shown three 9x22-foot parallel parking the existing building which were in addition to the three repair bays in the existing building and five repair bays in the proposed addition. In reviewing the evaluation. Mr. Mc Daniel noted that waiver of the permitted uses was being requested since an automobile repair garage was not permitted in the C-2 Zone; that the area along both sides of Anaheim Boulevard were currently being used for various automobile oriented uses, most of which had been established by variance; that the use of this property as an automobile repair garage wholiy within a building may appear to be appropriate; that waiver of the required parking was necessary because the applicant was pro- viding off-street guest parking; that although plans indicate three 9x22-foot parkinq stalls witY.in the building, it could be anticipated that these stalls could be used as repair bays, since they were within the building; that the C-2 Zone required 66-2/3$ of. the total lot area to be devoted to off-street parking, and this 7480-square foot lot would require 4981 square feet of off- street parking area; that in the past, the automobile repair bays had b~an counted as parking stalls t~ward the required number in cases where a variance had been necessary; that this particular site ciesign provided no outside off- street parking. and in the event that the use were cqnverted at a later date to atiother use permitted in the C-2 2one there would~~ nsufficient off-street parking for that use; and that although this might appear to be the apprcpri- ate location for an auto repair garage, it woularcelo appear that there was too much building proposed on the SOx149-foot p Mrs. Herman Gallardo, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared bef~re the Commission and stated that they had changed their plans in which the building would be narrower and would be located on one side of the lot. Chairman Seymour inquired whether any revised plans had been submitted; whereupon Mr. Mc Daniel stated that sL•aff had not received any revised plans, and this was the first they had known about revised plans. Chairman Seymour then inquired whether the Commission was desirous of pro- ceeding with this petition in light of the statement that there were revised plans. ~ ~ ~z-ai~ M2NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 VARIA~N~E N~• 2383 - (cont'd.) Commissioner Farano stated that the Commission should not spend time for the planniny of a development, particularly with such a lengthy agenda; and that staff should review the revised plans and inform the Commission as to any significant chanqes. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance No. 2383 to the meeting of August 7, 1972 to be scheduled as the first item on the agenda, to allow time for staff to review the purported revised plans. ~ommissaoner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2387 - PUBLIC HEARING. BERT P. AND NORMA J. BOYNTON, 626 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, 92802, Owners; ANTONY CHIOTIS, 269 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California 92602, AGENT; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ESTABLISH A TAILOR SHOP on property described as: A rectangularlp-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 64 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum deptb of approximately 97 feet, being located approximately 352 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue and further described as 626 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-O~ COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report ta thP Commission was not read at public hearing, it is referxed to and made a part of the Minutes. Mr. Antony Chiotis, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was desirous of using subject property to establ.ish a tailor shop. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired whether the petitioner/agent was proposing a retail store in conjunction with a tailor shop; whereupon, Mr. Chiotis stated that he proposed both the tailor shop and sale of ready-to-wear clothes; that he did not measure the customers unless they were very difficult in size to fit; that at the present time he did not plan to sell shirts or shoes, but planned to only sell suits and slacks; and that on his application he had requested permission for both the tailor shop and a store. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc DanieZ advised the Commission that the application indicated both the tailor shop and retail sales of inen's clothing, but that there would be no manufacture of clothes or suits on the Premises. Mr. Chiotis, in response to Commission questioninq, stated that he did not at the present time own the property, but the sale was contingent upon approval of the request. ~ommissioner Gauer was of the opinion that there was insufficient parking and ingress and egress for the patrons. Mr. Chiotis replied that there was space for nine cars to be parked in the rear, and that they only had two to three cssstomers at a time, and that parking would be from the alley. Commissianer Farano was of the opinion that this proposal was no different than uses that had been established in the downtown area, but that there was more parking than the downtown area had. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-151, and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2387, subject t~ cor•dition~. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10~ 1972 72-418 VARIANCE N0. 2390 - PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. RICHARD KAMPHEFNER, 929 South -Caplan Street, Anaheim, California 92802, Owners; request- ing WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACKj (Z) MAXIMUM PROJECTION OF EAVE INTO FRONT YARD; AND (3) MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD TO PERMIT A ROOM ADDITION IN ~HE REQUIRED FRONT YARD on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land haviny a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the west side of Caplan Street, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 107 feet, being located at the southwest corne.r of Caplan Street and Vermont Avenue and fur.ther described as 929 South Caplan Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel advised the Commission that Mr. Kamchefner had been in the Council Chamber prior to 2:00 P.M., and had informed him that he had a two o'clock appointment at the hospital for surgery. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that the Commission should not consider subject petition unless the applicant was present, but since the applicant had advised staff that he had an appointmeni to enter the hospital this date, then in view of the request, this was a typical room addition considered numerous times in the past. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-152 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2390, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2389 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAKE J. & ALICE WESTRA, P. O. Box 5970, Buena Park, Cali.fornia 92620, Owners; CA7.IFORNIA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT, 1082 Business Center Drive, Suite 215, Irvine, Cali£ornia 92664, Agent requesting WAIVER OF (1) REQUIREMENT THAT CARPORTS BE ENCLOSEDi AND (2) RE4UIRED STORAGE CABINETS IN CARPORT TO ESTABLISH A 56-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately two acres having a frontage of approximately 270 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 316 feet, being located approximately 846 feet east of the center- line of Magnolia Avenue and further described as 2520 West La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTUR~L ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the Minutes. Mr. Dennis Martin, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the petitioners were requesting two waivers namely, requirement that the carport storage area be within the carport itself and requirement of the enclosure o£ carpoxts on three sides; that they had in the past utilized open carports, and had placed the storage area close to the unit since this appeared to be the logical location for the storage area; that the staff had indicated in the report that there would be 288 cubic feet of storage with each unit w.hile only 100 cubic feet was required for each unit; that they planned very heavy landscaping and the open carports would afford the tenants an opportunity to view this landscaping; that along the west and south where many of the carports were located there was also a 6-foot masonry wall or fencing and the grade level was one foot lower on the south giving the effect of a 7-foot wall. Mr. Martin then presented slides showing the comparison of their open carports and the required enclosed carports, indicating to the Commission that the slides depicted their Orangethorpe A~enue and Walker Street apartment complex in La Palma, and they planned the same arc'~itecture and landscaping on subject property. ~ ~ CJ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10, 1972 72-419 Commissioner Farano expressed concern that the rear ends of the vehicles may protrude considerably into the drive approach according to the pictures, and then inquired whether the trash storage area was covered on the top; whereupon Mr. Martin replied that there was a latticework covering in order to provide circulation of air; and that the length of the carports was 20 feet. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether this would not create odors from the garbaye; whereupon Mr. Martin replied that the odors were better taken care of by letting the air circulate, however, the managers of these units were instructed to make sure that the covers were on all the receptacles so that the odors did not soread. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano observed that the proposed development wa~ one of the best in appearance that he had seen of open carports. Commissioner xerbst stated that open carports could be developed very attrac- tively, but carports with tin roofs would be most unattractive; and that if this open carport concept was approved by the Commission, it was not to be construed as setting a precedent for similar requests for waives of enclosed carports, each development must stand on its own merits. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-153 and moved for its p ss~ e, and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. ~389 subject to conditions; ~ and that a finding be made that approval of subject petition did not establish a precedent permitting open carports for all future carports proposed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer. Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOF.S: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DE WITT R. LEE, ET AL, Attention of Bob PERMIT NO. 1324 Walker, P. O• Bok 3698, Anaheim, California 92803, Owners; MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Attention M. A. Shea, 9901 South Paramount Boulevard, Suite 101, Downey. California 90240, Aqent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A SELF-SERVICE AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIOIV INCLUDING SALE OF ASSORTED GROCERY ITEMS WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDE'.ITIAL STRUCTURE IN AN R-A ZONE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a£rontage of approximately 177 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 188 feet, bein3 located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue ana further described as 2580 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the Minutes. Mr. Mike Shea, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and submitted pictures of their proposal, noting that the customer would drive to the pump island order his gas via the communication system from the operator sitting at the console, and then place the gas pump hose into the tank of the car, after which he could check his own oil and water, and perhaps wash the windshield and win@ows. Then he would procede to the sales office to pay for the gas. In the sales office would be located the convenience items - six in all, which the customers could buy, namely mzlk ltems, bread items, beer, soda pop, potato chips, and motor oil. Mr. Shea noted that this proposal would be something positive for the City because it was a needed service and was a very convenient location, in addition, it would increase the tax base by 1/3 over the original proposal which was approved in February, 1472s that the structure they proposed was designed by a renowned architect and was very attractive, with clean and simple lines with ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10, 1972 72-420 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1324 (cont'd) landscaping that would be maintained since these facilities would be retained by the oil company - thus contributing to the safety of this intersection by having only a small building; that the noise would be virtually eliminated because there would be no repairs; that the bell announcing a customer would on.ly ring in the sales office; that since there would be no mechanical repairs there would be no junk cars, no patrons han ing around or any debris, but it would be a very clean and attractive servic~ station which would be a benefit to the City. Commissioner Gauer noted that the agent had stated there would be no sales of tires and batteries, but if the operation was not as great a success as was anticipated, these items could be included in the items that would be sold; whereupon Mr. Shea replied that the petition was so worded so as to take care of this possibility, in addition, the office was too small to take care of any bulky items, and they did not want to have a large inventory, but wanted to sell items that were fast moving and items that a wife could have the husband bring home after work; that they hoped the items they proposed to sell, being convenience items, would sell readily, however, he wished to assure the Commission that it was not their intent to go into the grocery business. The Commission further inquired whether the petitioner proposed to have self- service signs such as were on the Mobil station at Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road; whereupon Mr. Shea stated that the only signs they proposeR would be those indicated on the picture, and if the ~igns the station referred to were in the sales oEfice window this was not part of their normal signing; and that this site referred to was a franchised station. The Commission also noted that another self-service station had similar sigiling as the one on Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard, so there was the ossibility of similar signing on subject property; that there was a 7-11 store located across the street from subject property that was oper. 24 hours a day, where these con- venience items could be purchased, and i£ the oil companies intended to expand the types of items for sale on the premises, regulations should be adopted as to signing, and rather explicit guidelines as to what could be displayed. The Commission inquired as to the method proposed to advise potential customers of these convenience~ items; and what was the marketing area anticipated that would patronize this station with convenience items. Mr. Shea replied that customers would acquaint themselves with the fact that these six items were available; and that they projected a one to two-mile area for customers that would patronize their facility; furthermore, since this was a heavily traveled arterial, they would rely on local transient traffic using this street as a commuter street, however, it was difficult for anyone to pin down the marketing area from the standpoint of residents. Mr. Shea in reply to Commissioner Gauer's question stated that these self- service stations were being built in specific areas, one being located in Garden Grove, anotk.:er in Texas, and others throughout the United States. Commissioner Farano inquired whether this proposal represented a change in philoscphy in servicing cars, whereupon Mr. Shea replied that it did to a degree, and in return the customer serves himself purchasing his gasoline and at the same time reducing his cost by about 2~ per gallon. Commissioner Farano noted that he had seen this system work in other countries, and it was not a bad idea, since there were stations that could repair and replace tires to which customers in need of this service could go, but if this was a change in philosophy, then perhaps the petitioner's representative could work with staff to review this change with the thought of establishing proper guidelines within the framework of the Code, since the City of Anaheim had some very unhappy experiences in the past with service stations; and chat this might be the area in which Mr. Shea could be of invaluable assistance. Mr. Shea stated that this proposal was a change in the thinking of the company, in trat they recognized there was a definite mark;:t for this type of service station, but he personally felt there was a need for the conventional service station for the people who needed to be waited on in the servicing of their vehicles. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. r~ L ~ ~ 72-421 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1324 (cont'd) Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether approval of subject petition could be establishing a precedent wherein every other service station in the city would bP requestin3 the same permission, and previousZy the small neighbor- hood grocery. store, had requested permission to sell gasoline together with the sales of grocery and sundry items; that he felt appoval would be creating considezably more problems, since the city could not discriminate by allowing one oil company a privilege not enjoyed by other oil companies, and this could further lead iato dual commercial uses throughout the city. However, he did not feel that the City of Anaheim was yet ready for this type of business. The Commission then inquired what type of guidelines should be considered without seeming to be ridiculous, since the operators could make revisions to their plans and be in direct competition with the small grocery stores. Assistant Toning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel advised the Commission that the agent had stipulated to six specific items, however he had expanded on two of the items b7 referring to rhem as "milk and bread items" which encompa~sed a great variety o£ supplies, but this would eliminate the possibility of expanding the number of items without further consideration by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Herbst observed that perhaps this would be a company operated station for the present which was quite prevalent with most gas stations, and there was no stopping leasing the facilities to individual dealers, who in turn, could increase the number of saleable items because of the need to increase the revenue - how would this then be controlled by the oil company? Commissioner Kaywood inquired of the agent whether more signing would be placed on the station, if the station and the convenience items appeared not to be a success? Mr. Shea replied that they would want signing for the grand opening, but beyond that point they would abide by the sign ordinance. Commissioner Kaywood noted that there were already three service stations at this intersection with a 7-11 store open 24 hours a day,in this block, and a large supesmarket within a block, all competing for the small convenience items proposed by the petitioner. Chairman Seymour inquired whether the agent knew the number of vacant service stations that~existed in Anaheim; whereupon Mr. Shea stated he had no idea, but he was sure that none of the vacant ones were Mobil gas stations, then in response to further questioning regarding the cYosed service station at the northwest corner of Brookhuzst Street and Orange Avenue stated that they had constructed the new station because the old one was considered a lesser type and the oil companies had no control over improvements on the property which they had not built. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1324 on the basis that both uses were permitted in the C-1 Zone; and that the building proposed was outstanding from the standpoint of an architect. On roll call the foregoing motion lost with Commissioners Allred and Rowland voting Aye, and Commissioners Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, and Seymour v~~ting' No:' Mr. Shea further noted that his company was no longer signing leases where they had no control over the improvements on the property and that if this control had been established on the station at Brookhurst Street and Orange A~~enue, if it had been a difficult station to improve they would have been able to remove the structure. After lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding the proposal and the fact that there was no assurance that this station would not be leased to an individual and Mr. Shea responded to continued questions, Chairetition. Seymour stated he would entertain a motion for action on subject p 0 w ~ 72-422 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1324 (cont'd) Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-154 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1324 on the basis tha': approval of subject petition would establish an undesirable pre- ceden~i wherein other self-service stations would be requesting similar approval, th_teby establishing secondary uses in presently vacant service stations; that the proposed use would be similar to previous requests from neighborhood gr :y stores to permit qasoline sales in conjunction with the grocery items salea - previously denied,t that there were both a supermarket and a small neighborhood grocerl store open 24 hours a.day that could ade- quately provide these small convenience items proposed to be sold; and that although the agent for the petitioner indicated that this station would not be leased, there was no assurance that this would not be done and the lessee could, in all likelihood, increase the number of sundry items to a regula- tion grocery store. (See Resolution Sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymaur. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, R0~7iAND. ABSENT: COMMISSIONEF..~: None. VARIANCE N0. 2388 - PUBLIC HEARING. BROOKHURST INVESTORS, In care of Grubin, Horth and Lawless Properties, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94104, Owners; TARA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COM2ANY, Attention of Mike Shatsky, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90212, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AREA OF "FOR LEASE" SIGNS, (2) PERMITTED SIGNS~ AND (3)ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT TO ALLOW DISPLAY OF SIGNS~ FLAGS AND BANNERS IN COhJtINCTION WITH AN EXISTING 228-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 463 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 1242 feet, being located approximately 480 feet south of the centerline of Ball Ruad and further described as 1250 South Erookhurst Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Chairman Seymour inquired of the Commission whether subject petition should be considered. Commissioner Farano expressed opposition to considering this without a representative being present to answer questions, since if subject peti- tion were approved, this would set a dangerous preced_nt. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the apartment complex at Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue liad not 12 flags as was indicated for subject property, but 19 flags, and this was another violation that should be investigated. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2388 to the cr.eeting of August 7, 1572 to allow time for the petitioner to be present to answer questions. Commissione :,'vwood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Commis~ion directed sta£f to advise the petitioner to remove all flags and banners from the premises lr~iar o~~~'iawa-iw~~:~+~~~- ~ • • 72-423 MINU•~`;5~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 VARIANCE NO. 2384 - PUBLIC HEARING. PRIMUS HOLDING COMPANY, 9889 Santa " Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90212, CONDITIONAL USE ANACLARA PROPERTIES, 1880 Century Park East, Los PERMIT NO. 1323 Angeles, California 90067, Owners; JACK LOVE ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED. 4341 Birch Street, Newport Beach, Calif. 92660, Agent; property described as: PARCEL 1: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 18 acres having a frontage of approximately 860 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1050 feet, being located approxi- mately 440 feet east of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard and further described as the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Shepard Street. PARCEL 2: A rectangularly-shaped paxcel of land consisting of approximately 4 acres having a frontage of approximately 286 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximateiy 595 feet, being located approximately 1165 feet east of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard and further described as the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Shepard Street. Property presently classified PARCEL 1- R-A, AGRICULTURAL ZONE PARCEL 2- R-A, AGRZCULTURAL AND M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NES. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER (1) PERMITTED USES~ (2) REQUIRED SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL ENCLOSING OUTDOOR USES~ (3) PARKZNG AREA IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS~ (4) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS IN THE 50-FOOT SETBACK, (5) MINIMUM ~ISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (6) MZNIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (7) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SIGN FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY TO ESTABLISFI A RECREATIO;~AL VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE COMPLEX. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTASLZSH A P.ESTAURANT WITH CGCKTAIL LOUNGE. Two persons indicated their presence in opposition, and the Commi.ssion Secretary indicated three letters were also received in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to estab- lish a recreational vehicle sales and service complex to exhibit, sell, and service recreational vehicles, providing an outdoor supermarket of areas designed with flexible boundaries to fit the space requirements of manufacturers, dealers, and product exhibitors; that applicants indicated they lioped to attract regional attention by p=oviding visitors the oppor- tunity to examine and compare products, see and try products in a recrea- tional park setting; furnish rental and service use of products; and the purchase of products; that the hours of operation were intended to be geared to the leisure shopping time market group, mainly after working hours and weekends; that it was intended to provide a private,.scenic road and walkway area with general parking areas, a lakeside park, playground, special display and common area for the benefit of the public and the exhibitors; offices, shops and service facilitie~ which will be "frontier town" type erteriors cr.aintaining the vacation and natural out-of-door . theme; that supplementaryrecreational vehicle service was proposed to be provided such as recreational vehicle rentals~, towing and ii~surance service, repair parts and accessories both wholesale and retail, fuel and supplies, customizing and accessory installatiun, general repair and tool rental, and supplies, camping, hiking, etc. In addition, the majority of the recrea- tional vehicle display areas, the lake, administraticn building and lounge will be provided on the 18-acre parcel, and the restauran*, and cocktail lounge will be provided on the 4-acre parcel; that the driveways throughout the project would be AC paving, ind the display areas would consist of decomposed granite, with parking areas to be grassed; and that a 5000-square foot recreation vehicle store and five-bay ssrvice center in addition to a dump station were shown t~ be located at the southwest corner o£ Shepard Street and ~a Palma Avenue. Mr. Mc Daniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that there was no specific zone and no specific development standards established for PPiylvery unusual use; that the d.evelopment standards of the M-1 Zone would a 1 ho~o~~iate- the first ar.d primary question to be considered was that of the app p• ness of i:.`.is 7.and use in the industrial area; that while this particular area of the industrial zone had recently been in somewhat of a state of transition~ considering the approval of the miniature golf course to the east, and the approval of the recreational vehicle service center to the • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ .7uly 10~ 1972 VARIANCE_NO. 2]84 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (cont'd 72-424 south, a primarily retail use had not been established in this area as was proposed; that the approval of the service center to the south was based primarily on its heavy service nature and would differ in that respect to the proposed wholesale-retail aspects of this current proposal. another consideration was thai of site development standards, since it would appear that the submitted plan ~ould develop °rovisionbof decomposedsgraniteadis- to the proposed development; that the p play areas and grass pazking areas could create dust and dirt for the ~ur- rounding industrial cornplexes; that waiver of the minimum distance between signs was being requested because the applicant proposed to place two signs 160 feet apart along La Palma Avenue; tTetuestedlbecauselthensignfadjacentsed sign to a property line was also being 4 ro ert to the Riverside Freeway would be within 12 feet of the easterly p P Y line, whereas 120 feet would be required; that the outdoor character of this use would require a 6-foot high masonry wall surrounding it whereas the petitioner is proposing a 6-foot high chainlink fence; that a conditional use permit was being requested for the cocktail lounge in conjunction with the restaurant at the southeast corner of La Palma Tvenue and Shepard Street would also have to be considered, but the industrial area currently contained restaurants and cocktail lounges at similar locations. In conclusion, Mr. Mc Daniel noted, the Commission would wish to determine the overall impact of this recreational vehicle sales and service center on the entire Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Jack Lover 4341 Birch Street, Newport Beach, president of Traveland, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposal had no precedent as to having been established in the City, and then reviewed the numerous recreational vehicles beinq sold throughouTOteTtUnwasaselectedabecauseaitl cular in California, noting that subject p P Y ro ert met their requirements and it was the highest and best use of the p P Y~ because it was freeway oriented and recent developments adjacent to the property made it compatible with these uses. Mr. Love further noted that this proposal would bring prestige to the recreational vehicle industry and to the City of Anaheim%thistproposalntos had been spent with the City's staff prios to presenting the Commission; that they proposed to create a showcase entrance into the Northeast Industrial Area which would be a definite asseTOter~he sinceestate values in the area; that there was an abundance of M-1 P~ ra~o~al would industrial purchasing of land had leveled off; and that the p P be a combination of retail and industrial uses. Mr. Love then reviewed the proposal noting it was necessary to have flexi- bility to meet changes in their requirements; that they had an dPoxy chem- ical that would keep down the dust proble:~; that they proposed to have railroad ties instead of concrete car stopo~enint dae ofkthisdfacilityPlthat they proposed would mean instant greenery P recedent had been established the variance approval was necessary because no p for this proposed use; that with the flood contrTO sednto havecantopentarea west instead of constructing block walls, they p P where the public could view the scenery instead of '_ooking at the walls; that they proposed to serve food to 200 or more employees in addition to the general public from both a restaurant as well~ia take-out food; that 80-908 of the recreatiunal vehicle business was done on the aTO oseds thaththisy and on weekends; that they would agree to signing as p P proposal was not unlike trade shows at Anaheim Stadium with the exception that they would be in an outdoor natural setting with the front having a redwood fence that WOelsignshathatlcustomers wouldwbetcomingmfromaas far natural park-like typ as Arizona and Neva2-, spending se~resentlyg otentialrcustomersPofcrecrea- their recreational vehicles; that p Y P tional vehicles had to travel over several cousoiosed~toehavelallethefdifc'er- recreational vehicles on disPlace;wthat therePw uld be a considerable sales en~ makes and models in one p tax return to the City of Anaheim which would contribute to the economy of tha City, as they, too, would be contributing to the economy of the City; and that 'Praveland representad a $2,000,000 investment. s . ~~ • 72-425 MINUTES, CITY PLANNIL~G COMMISS70N~ July 10~ 1972 VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT NO. 1323 (cont'd) The three letters of opposition from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Industrial Division; North American - Autoneticsj and the Northeast Industrial Association were read to the Commission. Mr. Carl Shrader, 5521 Burlingame Avenue, Buena Park, rep~esenting the proposed operators of the recreational vehicle service center south of subject property. apceared before the Commission in opposition, and stated their proposed service center for recreation vehicles would be immedi.ately adjacent to subject property and when their proposal was approved by the Planning Commission May 15, 1972, the Commission expressed concern that they might be planning primary sales in conjunction with their service facility which could set a precedent, and at that time he had indicated that they did not intend to engage in such sales; therefore, he was presenting his opposition to this sales ~.i~~ e~or o ejlt facility they had received approval previouslp~as n-b'£' eing in eeping with the zoning policies of tne City of Anaheim. Mr. Dave Kinney, owner of the miniature golf course adjacent to subject property, appeared in opposition to the proposal because of its proposed rustic appearance which might not be muintained and which could create a dust problem since it was very difficult to maintain this particular type of facility such as Autonetics maintained their facility and which was an asset to the area as well as their own facility; and that he was also concerned that with so many individual lessees in this facility. there would nat be adequate maintenance; then in response to questioning by the Commission as to whether he was opposed to the use, stated he was further concerned with the liquor proposal, since his facility was geared toward family-type entertainment. Mr. Love, in rebuttal, stated tha` they would not be opposed to the recreational-vehicle service center selling vehicles; that if they had a problem as to maintenance they had budgeted for this problem; that they would have Chrysler and General Motors as exhibitors who would not stand for poor maintenance of the property; that he felt some of their customers would uti].ize the miniature golf course, although they provided a play area for the children of their customers; thar thWithltheebarnproposalhlthey type bar; and that although he was not too happy wanted to serve their potential customers with every convenience. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano inquired whether the petitioner had indicated all the exhibit areas (50) where the manufacturers' sales personnel would display what they manufactured such as campers, travel trailers~vehiclesowere dune bugg~es, boats, snowmobiles, etc - if so, then how many planned to be displayed in that particular area, knowing that some of the vehicles required very small display areas, while motor homes could utilize 30-foot long display areas. Mr. Love replied that there would be approximately 15 vehicles per display area or approximately 750 vehicles at maximum on the property;and then in response to further questioning stated there would be a 5,Q00-square foot supply and accessory store that would be operated by a national concern; that there would a a 5-day a week service garage in the event someone needed towing and repair s~rvice, it was available; and that they also had plans £or a 2,000-square foot lounye for meetings. Commissioner Farano noted that since he was talking from experience, he felt it could be extremely diffibult to maneuver a travel trailer back into the space originally assigned to it after having test-driven it on the freeway or street, and inquired how this would be accomplished, if there were so many vehicles on the display area. Mr. Love replied that there could be 5 models each of'the same make of vehicle, and although he stated there could possibly be 750 vehicles on display, from past knowledge, ne would assume there would rarely be more than 150 vehicles on display. Commissioner Farano noted that since there were only 10 stalls available for repair work what would happen if this facility had a busy weekend with 15 recreational vehicles brought in for repair; whereupon Mr. Love stated ~ o MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMI53ION, July 10~ 1972 72-426 VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (cont'd) that if theze was insufficient room to take care of all the vehicles, the excess vehicles would have to be muved elsewhere. Mr. Love in further response to questioning by Commissioner Farano, stated that their repair facility was screened of£ from the balance of the complex thus vehicles awaiting repair work would not be viewed by tha general public. Commissi~ner Gauer was of the opinion that the Commission had spent con- siderable time on yL~'etition that was so complex it should be continued cc~ allow the Commi~sion time to study the entire proposal as to its impact on the area, and any traffic problems that might be encounteredj furthermore, the miniature golf course was allowed by the City Counci_ on the. basosalhat it was aMinterim or temporary use of the property, and that the prop now be£ore the Commission w2s not very different from any other commercial operation. Commissioner Allred noted that the petitioner had nct demonstrated the necessary findinqs r.equired as to hardship existing on the property to warrant consideration of a Variance; that the petitioner should be required to conform with the site development standards of the zone in which it was proposed; that he wzs not sure that this was the logical location for the proposed use, even though a portion of the area had been broken down with the approval of the golf course - when wa~ this breakdown going to stop; that the Commission had recently denied a coiimercial venture in this same area; and that he would suggest that the agent look in the commercial- recreation azea of Anaheim to locate this type of use. Chairman Seymon•. agreed that subject petition should be continued, but he was also concerned with the gradual erosion of t;,e area, `irst the golf course, then the movie studio, later the recreational vehicle service center, and if this erosion was proposed to continue, perhaps the Commission should re-study the Northeast IndustriaY Area and redraw the boundaries of that area - this would also mean a possible change to the General Plan, since withir~ the past nine months too many ~otally commercial uses had been pro- posed for the area; that•he had been opposed to the golf course which opened up this area; furthermore, the City must consider the integrity of the City as it pertained to the industrial area, particularly for the industries that had spent millions of dollars in that area, since this could block off the N..°..I.A. with commercial uses oF' one of che main entrances to the industrial area. In addition, if this were to be considered a showcase and the use was primarily recreati~n orientpd, 'it should be iii the commercial- recreation area because it did not belong '.n the industrial area. Cha`.rman Seymour noted that the recreational-vehicle service center was approved because the petitioner had stated he did not intend to sell the recreational-vehicles, thus the next thing the City could expect was a reqaest from the lessee and aqent for that petition for the same privilege which was being requested by the agent tor subject property; and that with industry spending millions of dollars, he felt the City should back up these industries already developed in the N.E.I.A. Commissioner Rowland noted thaL there had been a~ot sa~d about the pro- tection of the industrial area and the integrity of the City of Anaheim was at stake to which he would agree, but he would also agree with the chairman that perhaos the industrial area should be re-evaluated, not on the basis of what had been happening to Anaheim, but what was happening world-wide, and in the United States in general, which was moving away from heavy industry to more service oriented industries as was the commercial activities turning taward service oriented busi;ieGs. Furthermore, i£ the Planning Commission were allowed to plan then they should G~i it in an area where there was an impact - assembling from statistics not necessarily economics, but the Commission could investigate trends of industrial land uses in the U.S.; ani that he thought that a continuance would be in order even though there appeared to be a consensus ~y some of the Commission that the psoposed use did not fi*_ the City's present thinking of what should be permitted in the industrial area, but if the study proves that industry would not be coming into the City as was previously anticipated, then this thinking would have to change. Commissioner Farano statEd that perhaps the Commission should do more research on the questions raised, and maybe new lines should be dr,~wn, but ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-427 VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDITSONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (cont'd) he would rather wait until more definitive information was available and recommendations could be made. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that he doubted seriously that a study in the depth requested by the Commission could be accomplished in four weeks. because it was quite complex with considerable research and corresponding with other cities in the U. S., since it would appear from comments by the Commission that this should be a detailed study. Commissioner Allred r,oted that opposition had been expressed by industries in the area with additional people personally expressing their opposition, therefore, would thi~ study do any good - let's keep the commercial uses out of the industrial area. Mr. Roberts noted that it would take six to eight weeks to compile the study requested. Mr. Love advised the Commission that he would not like his project to be held up because of a study; that he was in the real estate development busi- ness, particularly industrial development, and just recently a parcel of land which he had sold four years ago in this general area for a warehouse had defaulted because of lack of development of the property, and the land was now back on the market at $7,000 less per acre than it was sold .for four years ago; and that he felt there was sufficient acreage in the area for the Commission to project their future industrial demands. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson then noted for the petitioner's information as to what might be expected of him, was it the Commission's ir.tent to have an environmental impact study prepared by the petitioner, so that staff could study it and report to the Commission, in addition to eliminating some of the waivers requested. Chairman Seymour noted that it urould depend on what the Commission/w nt, but to tell Mr. Love to do this or that would mean opening the door to his pro- ject, and until he was convinced that this was the type of project the Commission wanted, he did not want to open that door. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, and MOTION CARRIED to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Variance No. 2384 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1323 to the meeting of September 6, 1972 to allow time for staff to prepare an in-depth study of the potentials for the Northeast Industrial Area and to determine whether new boundaries or guidelines should be established for types of uses that should be permitted in the industrial area. VARIANCE N0. 2335 - PUBLIC HEARING. GILBERT U. KRAEMER, JR. P. O. Box 274, Placentia, California 92670. Owner; JOHN G. VALENTINE, 635 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California 92666, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF: (1) PERMITTED USES, (2) REQUIRED SOLZD MASONRY WALL ALONG RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY~ (3) REQJIRED SOL7:D MASONRY WALL AROUND OUTDOOR USE~ AND l4) PERMITTED SIGNS TO F.STABLISH AN AUTO RACE TRACK WITH VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE AND RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.4 acres having a frontage o£ approximately 526 feet on the south side of La Pa].ma Avenue, having a maximum d~pth of approximately 690 feet and being located approximately 2800 feet we:t of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the Planning Commission had no other alternative but to continue subject petition until the study the Commission Yiad just requested of staff, rather than hear this proposal. Cnairman Seymour inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether a ccn- tinuance would create any problam in his proposal; whereupon, Mr. John Valentine stated that he felt there was a significant difference between his proposal and the previous proposal as it pertained to sales; that he had discus~ed his proposal with staff, who had advised him that there was no existing zone in which the proposed use could be placed; that with the impact of more leisure time by Americans, the industry that would be most affected would be recreation oriented facilities. 0 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 72-428 VARIANCE NO. 2385 (cont'd) Chairman Seymour noted that since the Commissior. had directed staff to study the entire industrial area in which subject property was located, it would appear that subject petition should be continued. Commissioner Gauer suggested that the report requPated should indicated all the uses that should be permitted in the industrial area. Mr. Valentine noted that an 8-week continuance wauld jeopardize the project, particularly since there was no zone in which the requested use woul8 be permitted in Anaheim. Chairman Seymour noted that in light of the action taken on the previous petition, if the Commission took actionthis date they might deny it with a strong recommendation that the Commission was studying the entire area, and any action by the City Council would be recommended to be delayed for the results of this study, particularly since the Commission had opposed establishment of commercial-recreation oriented uses in the industrial area. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commisr~ioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED TO CONTINUE consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2385 to the meeting of September 6, 1972 to allow time for the staff to prepare a study of the Northeast Industrial Area. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FLORIENE SANDERSFELD. 525 North Gilbert NO. 72-73-6 Street, Space 150, Anaheim, California 92801, Owner; PETER S. GIOVANNONI, 1784 West Alomar Avenue, Anaheim, CONDITIONAL USE California 92804, Agent; property described as: A PERMIT N0. 1325 rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 1.4 acres having a frontage of approximately 207 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 371 feet, being located approximately 665 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue and furtlier described as 9621 Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified County of Orange 100 C1- 10,000 District. REQUESTED CLFISSIFIdATION - CITY OF ANAHEIM C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. 20NE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PORTION A- ESTABZISH A 58-unit MOTEL PORTION B- ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH COCFTAIL LOUNGE Two persons indicated their presence in opposit'.on. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses~estab'lished''in~~close'piokimity, existing zoning on the property. and thc proposal to split an existing parcel into two parcels to construct a motel on the southerly portion and a restaurant and cocktail lounge on the northerly portion, with each portion containing the required number of parking stalls by Code for the uses; that the General Plan projected the area along Brookhurst Street in which subject property was located as being appropriate for commercial uses, and the proposed reclassification would implement this land use designation; and that the proposed motel and restaurant would also appear to be appropriate in light of the adjacent land uses. Mr. Mc Daniel then noted that subject property had been involved in recent months before the City Council wherein the owner was desirous of annexing to the City of Anaheim,and the proposal at that time projected a motel with all kitchen units. The annexation was denied primarily on the basis of the pro- posed land use;and that the petitioner now proposed only six of the 60 units to have kitchen facilities which would be within the Commission's policy of allowing 10$ of the motel units to have kitchen facilities. Mr. John Swint, representing the petitioner and the designer of the project appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioiier was not request- ing any waivers, but was proposing to develop within the site develugTent standards of the C-1 Zone. The Commission inquired whether a kitchen was proposea for the restaurant and whether it was planned to screen any bar from the view of the diners in the restaurar~t - a requirement of the Commission in other similar restaurants in . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 72-429 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-6 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1325 (cont'd) the past. Whereupon Mr. Swint stated that it was their intent to comply with the Commission's requiraments, since he was fully aware and familiar with said requirements; and that the plans before the Commission indicated a very small restaurant, therefore they did not propose to have a bar. Mr. Peter Olden, manager of the Brookside Winery located at 711 South Brook- hurst Street, immediately to the south of subject property, appeared before the Commission in opposition and atated that he was not opposed to the pro- posed use but to the fact that he had been required to hava a building setback of 60 feet from the right-of-way line of Brookhurst Street; that most of his parking was to the rear of the propertyi and that they maintained rather exten- sive landscaping on the front of the property; however, the petitioner was only proposing aNll-foot setback which woul.d mean the motel units would be over.look- ing his property. Furthermore, if the petitioner would propose to increase his building setback as well as desigr.ing the units so that they would not over- look his property this would enhance his property more; and that they had spent considerable money on the development of their property and had a very profitable ?~usiness which had been started from scratch in 1962-63, when they had to comply with all the regulations of the City. Mr. Ray Glanz, Sherwood Realty Co. 9701 S. Broo}•hurst Street, appeared in opposition and noted his property was immediately south of the winery property at Bzookhurst and Ston~ybrook; that approval of the prop~~sed setback would cut off the view o~ motorists traveling southerly on Brookhurst Street of both his and the winery property; that the motel to the north of subject propety was only a one-story structure while the proposal was two story, therefore he would request that the Commission require the same setback for subject property as was imposed on his and the winery property. Office Engineer Jay Titus, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the setback requested by the opposition would be to the rear of the dedicated portion on Brookhurst Street. Mr. Swint, in rebuttal, stated that the people visiting the winery would not be viewing a blank wall with the proposal,and the proposed motel units would be facing outwards being oriented toward the winery while the westerly end of the units would be facing easterly. The Commission noted that the entrance of the winery was not from Brookhurst Street but from the side of the property. Commissioner Farano inquired why there appeared to be a difference in the building setback of the proposal and the•ainery facilities; whereupon, 2or.="ng Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the winery was developed while the property was under the jurisdictio~~ of the County and at that time a 60-foot building setback was required. Mr. Swint, in response to questioning by the Commission stated that if the building were reversed then the motel guests would be looking at ano*_her motel, while th~y proposed to give them a better view. The Commission observed that the view of the winery would benefit the motel; however, it would not appear that the proposed motel would be a benefit to the winery. Mr. Roberts noted that the primary consideratic+n before the Comission was the reclassification to C-1 and if the Commission felt that the zoning request was appropriate and the City Council concurred, then the only standards which would have to be met would be the C-1 sY.andards which would permit a 10-foot building setback; and that the only other alternati~e available to the Commission was to request that the Fetitioner provide a greater setback tying the reclassification ir.to specific plans. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that the p~titioner and the adjaining property owner should get together to try to resolve ',e differences expressed. Commissioner Gauer requested. that if revised ple:~s w submitted they should reflect that the bar be separated from view fr~,:: .he u~ing area. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10. 1972 72-430 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-6 AND CONDITIONAL USE_pERMIT NO. 1325 (cont'd) Commissioner Herbst requested that any revised plans reflect something that would not he detrimental to the adjoining property, and that the petitioner should reconsider reversing the plan as the Commission suggested. Cammi si~~ Wo _yras of the opinion that the Commission should not jeopard- ize t~ uc e '1'ness operation. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED to conti.nue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-6 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1325 to the meeting of Auqust 7, 1972 to allow time for the petitioner to meet with the adjoining property owners to resolve development problems and to submit revised plans. RECESS - Chairman Seymour adjaurned the meeting for dinner at 6:30 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m., all of the Commissioners being present. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GREGG T.& LAUREL M. PAMSON, 12341 Delta PERMIT NO. 1327 Street, Garden Grove, California 92640, Owners; HAI C. TAN, 4100 West Commonwealth, Fullerton. California 92633, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE SCHOOL ALONG WITH A SINGLE DWELLING~ AND P.N ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS WAIVING (1) MAXIMUM SUILDIUG HEIGHT; AND (2) PROHIBITED USE OF SInSYARD FOR PARKING on property ~ described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a front.age of approximately 135 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth o£ approximately 230 feet and being loca*ed approximately 700 feet west of the centerline of Gilbert Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel advised the Commission that subject property had been incorrectly advertised, and that it would have to be re- advertised for the next public h`earing, on July 24, 1972. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLAc1NING COMMISSION, N0. 72-73-7 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim - reclassification; and ANAHEIM HILLS/TEXACO VENTURES, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, CONDITIONAL USE Anaheim, California 92806, Owners - Conditional Use Permit; PERMIT N0. 1326 JAMES BARISIC, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel TENTATIV~ MAP OF of land consisting of approximately 50 acres having front- TRACT NO. 7915 ages of approximately 1670 feet on the south side of thru 7918 Serrano Avenue and 1150 feet on the north side of Serrano Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1080 feet and beinq located approximately 1200 feet east of the center- line of Nohl Ranch Road. Property presently classified R-A~ AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFZCATION: R-2, MULTZPLE FAMILY RESZDENTIAL~ ZONE REQUESTED CONDITITIOPIAT_, USF.: CONSTRUCT A.svl-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAIVING (~.) LOT FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET, (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA~ (3) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH, (4) MAX~MUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE~ (5) MINIMUM SETHACK FROM LOCAL STF2EET, (6) MINIMUM DISTP_NCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS~ AND ~7) REQUIRED STX-FOOT SOLI' MASONRY WALL ABU'."TING R-A ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: No. 7915 - 6~ R-2 2oned lots No. 7916 - 111 R-2 Zoned lots No. %917 - 78 R-2 Zoned lots No. 7918 - 109 R-2 Zoned lots Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel advised the Commission that there was a letter on file from the petitioners requesting that subject petition~ and tracts be withdrawn. Com:nissioner Rowland offered a motion to qrant the petitioner permissior. to withdraw Conditional Use Permit No. ~37~6 and Tenta~.iye Map og T act os. 7915, 7916, 7917, and 7918 as reaues e by the petitioner and t~iat t e reclassification petition initiated by the Planning Commission also be with- drawn. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the moti~n. N~OTION C'r:RIED. ~ .w~ .~ MINUTES, CITY PLADINING COMMISSION, July 10, 1972 72-430a RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. V. L. DAUSER & KATHRXNE K. DAUSER~ 2880 N0. 72-73-4 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92804 AND SHU YING WONG & MARGARET WONG. 56 Addington Road, Brookline, VARIANCE NO. 2386 Massachusetts 02146, Owners; THOMAS M. YEDOR, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California 90067, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 305 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 660 feet, and being located approximately 1020 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as the s~utheast corner of Ba.ll Road and Fern Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIFLE-FAMILY RESIAENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF ~l) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A 114-UNIT~ ONE AND TWO-S'SORY' APARTMENT COMPLEX. 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 Yedor, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property was immediately adjacent to an existing apartment complex and was proposed to be developed in the same manner; that they also proposed to h.ave the same height restriction waiver; that the proposed reclassi- fication would be compatihle with development along Ball Road easterly of Fern Avenue; and that the waiver of the height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 was based on the fact that the City of Stanton required only a 75-foot setback for two-story, however, they were complying with the City of Anaheim-::equire- ment of the one-story within 150 feet of R-1. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the waiver of the minimum distance between buildings was based on the fact that the petitionar was pro- posing a lattic:e-type roof in the patio area. Mr. Yedor, in i•Psponse to Commission question~.ng, stated they proposed to set back 20 feet from Ball Road. Commissiorer Kaywood observed that because aall Road was so very heavily traveled, she felt the developer should try to provide some protection for prospective tenants of the apartments. Mr. Wilbert Chestnut, 1051 Fern Avenue, inquired whether or not all the apart- ments would be facing Ball Road; whereupon Mr. Yedor stated that not all the apartments would be facing Ball Road. The Commission suggested that Mr. Chestnut review the plans with the developer. THE H'+•:ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-155 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 72-73-4 be approved subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Parano~ Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution t1o. PC72-156 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance ::o. 2386 subject to conditions on the basis that waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of a siiigle-family residential zone be granted Por the southerly boundary since the City of Stanton requires only a 75-foot setback to two-story, multiple-family units, and for the northerly boundary on the basis that the large R-A parcel will develop in a manner other than single-family residential. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ~he following vote: AYES: COMM`SSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: CON' '3IONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 1Q~ 1972 72-431 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CLARK WALTER & NANCY JANE WINGERT~ JR., NO. 72-73-1 P. 0. Box 24, Vida, Oregon 97488, Owners; J. W. Y.LUG DSVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPO RaTED. 4540 Campus Drive, VARIANCE NO. 2382 Newport Beach, California 92660, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of ~.and consisting of TENTATIVE MAP OF approximately 12.7 acres having a frontage of approximately TRACT NO. 6569 475 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, having a maxi- mum depth of approximately 119C feet and being located approximately 715 feet north of the centerliae of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classi£ied R-A, AGRI~ULTURAL ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION B- R-2~SMULTIPLE-FAMILY,RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA ON PORTION "A"; WAIVE ON PORTION "B" - ~1) PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES; (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20NE; ANC MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT IN FRONT YARD TO PERM7T A 16-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION AND TO PERMIT A 70-UNIT STATUTORY CONDOMINIUM ALONG WITH A 14-SPACE RECREATION VEHICLE STORAGE AREA. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: NewportRBeacn11Cam 92660ur161R32?SOOOmzonedrlots and 1 R-2 zoned lot. A showing of hands indicated appr.oximately 30 persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity and the proposal to subdivide the property into two portions - Portion A to be 16 R-2-5000 zoned lots, aad Portion B tu be a one-lot, 70-unit statutory condominium complex; that the petitioner was also proposing to establish a 14-space vehicle storage area on Portion B; that the two portions would be separated by a public street which would enter from Sunkist Street, proceeding easterly through the property and tying in with Shakespeare Street to the north; that one tier of R-2-5000 lots was proposed along the north side of the proposed street and which would be located adjacent to the existing single-£amily residences; that the remainder of the circulation pattern for the project would be via private streets which would serve the duplex-style condominium units; that each build- ing would have a combination of one and two-story bcilding; that each duplex unit would contain a two-car garage; that guest parking had been distributed throughout the private drive system; and that the submitted plan also indi- cated a 5-foot higiz earthen berm and 5-foot block wall and fence along the freeway boundary to the east for the multiple-family portion of the project. Mr. Mc Daniel, in reviewing the evaluation stated that the General Plan designates tne area in question as being appropriate for low density resi- dential development and the proposed zoning would not implement that desig° nation which would be more appropriate for low-medium density residential development; that the multiple-family development '~ the south of subject property was constructed with one-story units within 150 feTO ertthwouldPbe erty in question in obvious anticipation that the subject p P Y developed for single-family purposes; that the density of the low density residential category of the General Plan projects a yield of approximately 4 units per acre, while the condominium proposal projected a density of 8.6 units per net acre and the R-2-5000 lots would be approximately 8 units per net acre, or an overall density of approximately 8.3 units per net acre, twice the density projected on the General Plan for ~ubject property. Mr. Mc Daniel then noted that the petitioner was requesting waiver of the permitted accessory uses in order to provide a recreational vehicle storage area along the orange Freeway separating the condominium portion of this com~:lex from the single-family portion and said storage area was propo~ed to be surrounded by a 6-foot high masonry walls that waiver of the maximum building height within 150 feet o£ a sinqle-family zone was being requested for two units along the northerly boundary that would separate subject property from the R-A Zoned parcel to the ^.orth and for eight units along the proposed street which would sepa.rait the R-2-5000 2one from the R-2; that in light of the action of the Cominission and Council on the adjacent property to the south, the waiver for the maximum height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone would appear to be very significant. The Commission. consequently, may wish to consider the request inappropriate. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLI~NNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-432 RECLASSIFICAT30N NO. 72-73-1, VARIANCE N0. 2382, and TRACT N0. 6569 (cont'd Mr. Mc Daniel further noted that the waiver••of the maxi.mum wall height in the front setback was being requested because the applicant was proposing to pro- vide 6-foot high, solid masonry walls surrounding the patios of the R-2 units, and these patio £ences would be encroaching within the 20-foot front setback along Sunkist Street for the five rnits that would abut Sunkist Street and for seven units that would abut the proposed street in this project; that the waiver for the minimum floor area per dwelling unit was being requested because this particular area in east Anaheim had a minimum floor area of 1525 square feet whil^ the developer was proposing 1235-square foot floor areas for the propose:l R-2-5000 lots, Y,owever these square footages would be in conformity with the new RS-SOOU standards for development. Mr. Mc Daniel, in summary, stated it would appear that the proposed reclassi- ficatior and the requesten waivers were unsuitable for the property in ques- tion; and that the Commission may wish to consider the requests inappropriate i light of past actions in this vicinity and in light of the General Plan d~signation for this property. Mr. John Klug, representing the developer and agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that although the Report to the Commission did not appear to be encouraging, they had taken considerable time to anaLyze the layout for this particular property; that they also had devel- oped a portion of the petitioners' property on Rio Vista Street with both single family and multiple family units, and this appeared to be a very attrac- tive development which he felt would be the same as they were now proposing; that during all the meetings with staff during the past several months, they were of the opinion that the proposal was proper, particularly in that they projected sing?e family homes adjacent to the existing single family to the north; that their plan was similar to that on the east side of the proposed Orange Freeway; that the condominium buildings would be two-unit buildings laid out in random fashion to give the appearance of single family homes and would not be the stereotyped duplexes; that there would be a private swim- ming pool and recreation area, and these together with the fence and private streets would be naintained through a homeowners association; that the appear- ance of these duplexes would be similar to $50,000-60,000 homes even though two families would be living in them that the duplexes to the south of the proposed duplexes had multiple family residential units adjacent to them; that the single family homes they proposed would be in the price range of $27,U00-32,000, while the condominiums would range in price from $25,000- $30,000; that the proposed condominiums would generate less children per unit, thereby making less demand on the schools than an R-1 development, parti- cularly since most people owning condominiums either were older couples with or without children with the children being teenagers, or younger couples with no children; that it was proposed to have very heavy landscaping with plantings to have the appearance of having been there a lon3 time; that another asset in the proposal was the recreational vehicle storage area which woulA remove these vehicles £rom the public right-of-way; that it was the develop~r's opinion that their proposal was the proper use of the property since it was located between single family and multiple family residential, toqether with the fact that the Orange Freeway was located to the east, and a secondary highway separated the proposed development from the single family residences to the west. Mr. Charl~s Bengochea, 2582 Seville Avenue, appeared before the Cc~mmission in opposition and stated his property reared onto the proposed R-2-SG00 lots; that he had a petition signed by 75 homeowners and he would have obtained more signa- tnres except that some of the single family homeowners on the west side of Sunkist Street and on War3 Terrace did not receive a notice; that many of the residents did not see the legal notice that was posted on the propertyt that he was also submitting a copy of the City Council minutes of September 26, 1967 which indicated that the Council permitted tt_e R-3 development south of Ward Terrace with the understanding of the rouncil and the opposing property owners that future development of subject property nor.th of the single story apartment development would be R-1 and the petitioner of subject property, who was also the owner of the property to the south as well as the developer of the R-3 mentioned in their presentation that they personally felt that subject property should be developed for single family; that because of these statements he had added a family room to his home which now had over 2000 square feet; that to compare the value and appearance of his property to ayR-2-5000 development would be considerable because his lot had 850G square feet and a lot width of BO feet; ~ ~ 72-433 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIIvG COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 RECLASSIFICATION NO 72-73-1, VARIANCE NO. 2382,_ AND TRACT N0. 6569(cont'd that there were only 10 homes on his street while the proposal would have 14 homes backing these 10 homes; that he would like to see the property develop and would be willing to concede to 65-foot wide lots but not the 50-square foot lots, particularly with the small homes proposed for the lots; and that it was very difficult for h~ and his neighbors and friends to comprehend, as home- owners in the area, to even consider 5,000 square foot lots, therefore, he would appreciate a development as was being proposed to be disapproved. Mr. Don Thomsen, 2425 Oshkosh appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he owned two of the 4-plexes on Ward Terrace, and whenhe had purchased these properties he had been assured that the vacant property to the north would be developed with single family homes; that even though he had 4-plexes, he did not feel projecting the type of development proposed was fair to the people of A:tahezm, particularly the proposal to build small homes adjacent to the large homes built in the area to the north and west; and that a 1200-square foot home would not suffice for his family since he had three children. Furthermore, to permit two-story condominium would be creating n undesirable thing for the neighborhood, since the existing single story apar*.ments were built as a buffer between the R-1 to the north and the R-3 to the south. Dr. Howard Garber, 306 North Sunkist Street appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating he represented the Ana.heim-Sunkist Property Owners Assoc- iation, noting that five years ago the Commission had denied the apartment com- plex request; that at that time people lived in the area for 12 years, and they had seen tk;e area being developed more and more in a congestec'. manner, and wondered why Sunkist Street farther south was developed diffe:~ntly with only single fami].y homes; that there were three elementary schools on Sur.kist Street which created more confusion for the street during the day, and it was becoming a"main drag" with cars speeding by; and that as a parent he was very concerned about the children in the area. Dr. Garber then stated that the Baker, ~rump, Kirkland, Stein, Barobee, Sturgis and Bill Silver families had not received a legal notice; that another indivi- dual had advised him that the sign was posted regarding the public hearing, but was taken down by someone shortly afterwards; and that even though the meeting was after a very long holiday, there was a very good representation, and every- one he had talked with indicated they were not in favor of the proposal. Dr. Garber then reud from his letter addressed to the City Council for their meeting of September 26, 1967, in which he had mentioned four reasons for opposing the R-3 development to south of subject propertyr noting that these same reasons were applicable to subject petition; that he was fully aware that the Planr.ing Commission had recommended denial of the previous R-3 project and that at that time when the City Council approved the,R-3 a promise was given by the owner aad developer that the remaining vacant property would be used for R-1 single family homes, and the residents of the area had a right to expect that the property owner keep his word - these promises appearing in the City Council Minutes. Furthermorer the residents of the area were desir- ous of retaining the East Anaheim area as an attractive low-density residential area, and many of these residents had constructed additions and swimming pools to their homes, therefore, one could no longer consider tr~ese to be 1500-1600 square foot homes, but 2,000 and over square foot homes increasinq in vslue from $30,000 to $40,000 to $50,000 homes, and to anprove this request would be a total lack of consideration of the residents and the type of development in the immediate area. Mr. Mc Daniel, in response to questioning by the Commission r.egarding the lack of notification, mentioned by the opposition, stated that the City was required to notify by one of three methods, advertising in the newspaper, posting the property, and legal notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property under consideration, but he would have to r.eview the file to determine whether the property ocaners mentioned had been overlooked. Mr. Joseph Cyprien, 219 Solomon Drive, representing his mother who lived at 121 North Milton Street, the or._ acre site a1: the north end of the proposed development along Sunkist Street, noted, thzt the developer did not realize there was a 25-£oot drainage ditch along the north pr~perty line which the ~ ~ 72-434 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 RECI~ASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-1, VARIANCE NO. 2382 AND TRACT N0. 6569 (cont'd) city maintained until such time as the southerly property was to ~e developed, then the drainage ditch would be converted back to Mrs. Cyprien; t2.=t the developer was further not aware of the fact that he would be requirEd to put the drainage ditch back in shape in the manner in which the property .•as form- erly; and that he would like to have a postponement on this petition, so that he could meet with the developer and the City of Anaheim to resolve the problem on Mr.s. Cyprien's property. Mr. Mc Daniel advised the Commiseion that a quick look of the property owners listing of those notified indicated that about 5 or 6 property owners on the west side of Sunkist Street Y.ad not rec.eived a notice. Chairman Seymour then noted that it would appear that the staff had tried to notify everybody. although several had been missed, all three metk:ods of not- ification were used as would appear from a statement by one of the opposition that the property had been posted, and others appeared to have received notices since there was a good representation present in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that from comments made by Dr. Garber, it would appear that all the people had be~hatrallnthose~lotslwere projectecleCoSbenR-lt 7200 ~also their understanding square foot lots. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that he did not think there was a copy of the Council minutes in the previous reclaseificaCion file, but based upon the physical construction of the units on the lots to the south on the north side of Ward 'Perrace, that anythilimitinh it toeoneastoryt development would be developed for single family by 9 since the code required one story within 150 £eet of single family zones. Commissioner Gauer observed that the apartment development to the south of subject property had been approved by the City Council because the property was adjacent to the freeway offramp, as we.ll as bein3 bounded on the east by the proposed freeway; and that the Cor~mission had trie~l to retain the entire area for R-1 development, and this included subject property. Furthermore, the City should be bound by their word to the people in 1?67 the.t subject property would be retained fer R-1. Commiysioner Farano noted that the General Plan projected subject property for low density. Furthermore, he was rather surprise3 by they developer's comments that he was being misle~d, since if he were aware of the City's Loning ardinance he should not have had any other impression regarding what c~uld be developed on the propPrty; that the proposed development was contrary tu everything that rad been said and done previousiy, and then inquired whetlier the developes felt that staff had misled him into thinking that this was the groper development for the propErty. Mr. Klug replied by stating that staff did not say this wcc13 iaeeL- the Commis- sion's approval but it would appear that during the first mPetinqs hei3 with staff - and he did not have a record of what transpired in 1967 - nor was he aware of the comments made at that rime. - but if the staff had said there was no chance the proposed request would go thru, he would not have pursued it. Commissioner Farano noted he was sure the developer knew of the Anaheim General Plan, since he had appeared before the Commission before and was fully aware of the Planning Commission and City Council adherance to the one story height limitation within 150 feet of single family property, but on~ thing he would like clarified was the fact that under the City's zoning ordinance one of the I basis upon which property is reclassified would be if there was a materia'1 and substantial change which had taken place to justify said reclassification, and frcm comments made by Mr. Klug he had not heard any reference made to the fact that a change had taken place to justify a higher density than the General Plan projected, and that the developer would have to present very substaniiating evidence of a physical change in the area to justify the reclassification, before he would vote in favor of the proposal. Furthermore, the Code was very speaific and required certain findings an~l showings as to why a variance shoul.d ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-435 R~CLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-1, VARIANCE N0. 2382, AND TRACT N0. 6569(cont'd be granted that would not be in violaticn of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of t.he City in this general area, and unless a very substantial hardship could be proven he could not consider the variance favorably; and that if the developer had any other evidence the Commission might be considering, perhaps the hearing could h:: reopened to hear any new evidence, since the developer knew the issues could not be sidestepped. Mr. Klug re»lied and stated that he did not feel the propFrty was sui.t.able for agricultural purposes, but he would agree that subjec~ ps~perty couid be devel- oped for single family homes and meet the density of the Gen:=~~1 Plan, but hc would question having 4-5 bedroom homes compared to the C:ao-bedro~m units that were proposed - a much less density people-wise; that his compan,y had construr,- ted similar developments in other locati~ns; and that he thought ne was doina what was best for the property because of the land use change co the south where apartments had been developed. Chairmz.n Seymour noted that the proposed development was ve~:y attractive, and he would like to see it developed in ~i~:a.heim, but it was proa~~seZ :or the wrong area; that the General Plan projectei~ this area for low d~-nsity;anc~ that the 4-plexes developed to the south of subject propesty as single-story was done in recognition o£ this low density projection. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-15% aac; move~ i~or its oar~aqe and adoption to recomrend to the City Council disappxoval of Petition for Reclassification No. 72-73-1 on the basis that the prc1os.~d reque:zt • low- medium density residential was not in conformaace witli the land use ~esignation of the General Plan; that the proposed reclassificatian was not necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and.proper developmen.t of the community; that the proposed reclassification of subject property iioe:; not properly rel:•te to the zones and their permitted uses locally establishe2l in close proximity ~~ subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally estal+:ished throughout the community; and that when the property to the south, also owned at that time by the present petitioner, was considered for reclassiEication the developer was required to develop single story apartments abutting subject property, and it would appear that it was the intent of the City Counci.l to retain the low density single family designation for subject property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. 72-158 :nd moved for its ~assage ~ and adoption to deny Petition for Varianae No. 2382 on the b~asis that since the reclassification was recommended for disapprovel, tl:e propoe~ed petition could not be utilized within the development standards of the existing zcne; and that consideration of the Planning Commission and City c:ouncil acti~~n on tY,e adjacent property to the south waivers requesced would be tatally inappr~;,riate. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo'e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rcw].and, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, ~ind MOTION CARRIED, to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 6569 on the basis that the existing zoning on the property would not permit subdivision in the manner. proposed, since the Reclassification of the property had been recommended €oz disapproval. • • ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 72-~36 RECLASSIFICATIUN - PUBLIC HEARING. ADOLPH W. LEN~KE, 12522 S1 Roy Drive NO. 72-73-5 Santa Ana, California 92705, Owner; K AND W. DEVELOPMENT ~~RPORATION, P. O. Box 176, San Dimas. California 91773, VARIANCE NO. 2392 Agent; property describpd :.s: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ oL• app=oximately 12.5 acres TENTATIVE MAP OF having a frontage of app':oximately 1325 feet on the north TRF.CT NO. 7911 side of the Riversid~ Fcee«%•y, having a maximum depth of approximately 680 feet a.nd ^~.i,:g locatad a~;proxim•~cely 1500 feet easterly ci L%.:;.c~v..~w Avenue. Property presently classified R-A. AG:tr~:'!LTURAL~ T.ONE. REQUESTED C:~A~'=IFICATION: R-1, ONE Fr:ti',1.°• ?ti:5':~ENTIAL~ ZONE REQUESTED VAK17Jil:^•: WAIV~ (:! ).1.' ei:AfUM LOT WIDTH ANLI (2) MTP]ZMUM LOT AREA TO ALL~'~v A 50-LOT SUBBIVISION TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: E11GIN~ER: HA~,L & FOREMAN. ZNCORPOR11rED~ P. 0. Br;x 11667, Sainta Ana, California 97i.~1 5l) R-1 2on~:d lots. On? person indicated his ~rr:.-enco ~n upposition. and ~_~ person indicatc>1 has presence partially in favaz of the proposal. Assistant ',:oning Supervisor pon Mc paniel reviewed ch~~ location of. subject property, uses establis}ied in c].ose; proximity. ~reviois zoning sction on the property and the proposal to rr:c.la.ssif~~ the pcoperty to th~• R-:i. zone to de~+ lop a 50-lot sing'.e ~:amily resi?=_itial subdivision wit'i~ waivecs of the lot wic:ch and lot area; tkiat the submi~ted glan indicates acns:s~ *'~ tre tract was being provided by means oi Maychalle Drive, an existing s•:.=eet stubbing in„o .lessl~ct propert7 £rom the west; that 4C`9s or 20 of the lots H•ere proposed to than 7200 square feet; i-hat F6~ or 33 uf the lots contained frontages of less than 70 feet; that the petitioner was providing the 150-foot lot depth along the Riverside Freeway as requ.'_red in the Scenic Corridor; and tizat the average lot area of the tract was 8430 square fee*- t+lr. Mc Daniel in reviewin~! the eva1L'~t'_~i. noted tnac the General P'ar_ had designated the area as b~_ing approprir'.e for low d~:n:city rasidential devE7op- ment, an.ii the proposed :-eclassifieati..ci would be in oaFOrmance with said desiqna?~ion; that the T<-1 2one i:ypically would allot•+ approximately foL.r .sni*_; per a:re i:~ a 7200-sqv.are fo~t lot subdivision; that the. proposal rrovides said f.our units per net acr" ~ven though th~ Te~ueci. was for reducti~a of t:he Ict. width oncl the 3~L area i~r a. percen~age of t`+P lcts; that th!: odd ehape ~f ':his oro~ert:y ar.~ its ]r.~:ation in the Scen•~c ~~L~idor re.-.ders Tar_y of *he '. . largpr t;ian 72pq s~~u~;'° feet; that the ap:.l.ica~t was requesting waive cf che minimum lot widtn in order to provide: iut wic.ths ranging in dimersion from 57 tc q;cf•:etuaredfeht of]lottarea;tthat the waiverwofVthe provide apprcximtely .,0 sq minimum le•+_ ,irea was being requestec~ for 20 of the 50 lots, and. due to the average loY. srea bei»g 8450 square Eeetr the Commission may co:•~sid~r. the request Eor reduction in lot width and lo: area to be suitable for this parcel; and that the Commission may also wish to consiciar the propo:aed z,oning on the property to be appropriate as well. Mr. Jerry K1iae, develope.r of the project and representi:^, the agert £~r the petitioner, appeared befor.. the Commission ai~d stated 'T~aertheWas~backed by ~eclassific~t~on appeared ta be reasonable; that the ~+ P Y the P.iverside ~'reewly and th.~ Santa Ana River and formed a trian~+le; tnat it was boundt8 ~e ~.he west by siaale family subdivisioasi that the dacretythat nosed dould/s.n accorriance wzth _he General Plan - fou.. uiiits p:.• the waiver request f.or lot width affec`ed two lots propc~ed at 57 fePt ancl one lot ai S9 ~°P-`- with :he balanr.e being o~ feet, hc~•*p~'e.r, tht aver.age square fuotage of those lots was ovez 9,000 ~quare L•aet due to the shape of the lots a~ well as the confilgu~ration of t`.e property and the drainage easement, che Riverside Freeway and the River; that about 20 di the lots w::re under 72~0- ;auare foot 14ts a.1d the balance were over 8,000 square feet, making these lots substantially larger than requ?red.bsubJect a,ro ertt asetheVtractrto the inter3e~. to build the same type homes ] P? Y south ~sino~: they werc built by him. Furthermoz:, Larry Thomas of the engin- rerinq firR. was present to answer any technical questions. ~Sr. William 31oss, 4863 Maf chel,le Drive, appeared before the Commission and statau iiis homr: was •Emmediately adjacent to subject property; that although he would like to see subjFC* prop~rty developed with a subdiv~sion, access ~ ~ ~ MII3UTE5~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jul} 10~ 1972 72-437 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-5, VARIANCE NO. 2392, AND TRACT NO. 7911 (cont'd to this tract would be extremely difficult and the tract would be completely isolated since there wossld be only one streat °or prospective residents in these 50 homes to be able to gain access to the~e lots; that he felt the developer shoulci make some attempt to exit easterly and to McKinnon Drive, or purchase two hom~.i.n order to gain more access to and from this property, in order to reduce a traific hazard for the tract to the wAft which would have to handle the traific from the proposed tract. Mr. Robert Mc Queerz, 4~31 McKinnon Drive, presifient of the Santa Ana Canpon I~~provement Association, appeared before the Commission and stated subject property was in the center of an area of prime interest to their association, al.though they were interested in development throuqhout the Santa Ana Canyon; tnat the proposed development would be just east of his home; that he would like add s~me comments and confirm comments made by Mr. Bioss; that he had alkay. .een opposed to development of less than 7200 square foot single family h•;mes both before the Planning Co:nmission and the City Cauncil because of what had deve?oped at the west end of the canyon, and ~c appeared that requests for less than ';200 square foot lots had stopped; that although the tract was pro- ~osed with some lots having less than 7200 square feet many of the lots were more than 7200 square feet and larger, and the Yorba Woods tract to the west !?ad lo*..s averaging Br000 to 13,000 square feet - his lot being 13,000 square :e=.t - thus many of these lots would be camparable in size to the lots to the wes!:; that because of the wedge angle of th~ property it woLld be extremely d:.fficult to develop under regular code requirements, and members of the association were surprised that anyone would attempt to develop subject property sticking out on a wed3e between the Rivarside Freewey and the Santa Ana Rivez; that the developer wou~.d be unable to build the tract until the river channel was reinforced which was supposed to ha~ae started in July - and he had seen a "Cat" along the river just this date; that seference was made to access into this area anQ Y,e would like to discuss this as we11,..='ince there were 63 homes ;n that section of Yc~rba Woods that would have to coma off McKinnon Drive, which he ~anderstood was an undedicated street - a temporary one - which was cut thsuugh the Mucke^thaler and Sherwood properties to gain access to the lower part of Yorba Wonds when the freeway closed their other access; that the Mucken~halers had p:.3nned to develop to the west, but had delayed this until after tha river re~nforcement project was completed; and that if a route was cut £rom Mayclielle to Lakeview this cc.Lld be a second access. Mr. Kline, in rebut*_al, stated he %~id not think 113 homes was too much for one access since he lived in a tract of 169 homes with only one access; that an access was proposed from Lakeview in the futurP, but he did not feel this was :~~. real problem; and that he did not think the traffic or engineering staff of the City felt this was a real problem. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Tha Commission noted that t;~e developer coul.3 eliminate one lot and add this squar~: footage to the lo`s that were only 6,04~ square feet, this then would eliminai~ that pori:io~i ~f the waivers whi~e keeping the lecs at a minimum of 7200 square f~~~; tha~: 1:he petitioner nad not 9emonstratr-.d a hardship existed becausP irom the Commission's abservation r.`.e property coulft be developad with 7200 square foot lots; whereupon Mr.. Klin~ stated ~.~~ he had demcnstrated a hardship because of the size and shape of t.he parcel, tha requirements of the Scenic Corridor, the f_eeway and the river which made it extremely diffi- cult to design the lots; i:hat some of the lots •aere cansiclerabl.y more than 7200 square feet; that they were trying ~o get some lot yield which would make this development economically pos:ible; and that a furtl:er ha;:dship would be the drainage c:Y.annel that existed imme?iatel~t adjacent t~ the pro~erty line on the Riverside Freeway property right-•±f-~~ay. Commissioner Herbst ~vas of the development proble:a.s, the rity have less people, particu.izrly Mr. Kline stated that '.:h.ey had Plan. opinior. t'r,•+t wl~en a parcel pres~nt :d difficult should try to keep peopla or.t of the area - where there was limited access; whereupnn che same density as was require2 by the General r_omi;~issioner Farano notr~ that the developer was cutting up the property to gain an over.all average ot 7200 square foot lots, however, the ordinance did not say anything about averaging th~ ].ot size in a given tract; that the Commission might consider just a few iots of less Lhan 7200 square feet, but not 40+t of a tract having less than code requirement; that the developer was building in h:.s own hardship by the ma;<<iez in whica the property was being ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIN6 LOMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 72-438 RECLASSIFICATI.ON NO. 72-73-5, ~ARIANCE N0. 2392, AND TRACT N0. 7911 (cont'd subdivided; that the petitioner stated the Riverside Freeway and tlte Santa Ana River made this a hardship parcel and this was possible, but this tonld also mean that perhaps the property should not be developed even though the devel- oper was planniny some of the lots in excess o£ 8,060 square feet. Mr. Kline replied that most of the lots under 7200 square feet were 6500 ta 6800 squa:e feet and these were on a cul-de-sac. The Commission observed that some of these smallzr lots were also along the River as well as being adjace::t to the adjoining subdivision; that s~me of the lots along the freeway were required by the Subdivision Ordinance as part of the Scenic Ccrrido.r to have a 150-foot lot or a setback of the home, there- fore these large size lots would have been a requirement from which the peti- tioner could not request a waiver - what the develoPer was'proposing was decreasing the size of some of the lots and increasing the size of others, therefore, this could not be considered as establishing a hardship to pack nore people into this area. Mr. Kline stated that the 7200 square foot lot establisred the density set forth in the General Plan; that the homes on the south side would permit large rear yards on which they planned either 3-4 bedroom homes, while the smaller lots were proposed with 3 bedroom h~mes. The Commission noted that although the City had broken the line on a number of code requirements, tht: City did not have an ordinance periaitting 6,000 square foor lots; and that the Commission for sometime had argued against pertiitting ~,000 square foot lots in the car.yon area. Chairman Seymour noted that with the SC Zone and development which was con- sidered appropriate in the Santa Ana Canyon, this was an attempt by the Planning Commission to hold the line, and if subject property were to be developad, tben so*.ie consideration should be given to waivers requested. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that a 40$ deviation from tY.e code was what the C~mmission should consider, particularly when one of the lots proposed was nat even 5200 equare feet; and that he did not object to giving ~ome relief because of the size and shape of the parcel, but what the develop- ers were requesting was far in excess of what he could consider. Furthermore, there were other alt4rnatives which could be considered, however, the Commis- sion w3s not sittinq in public hearing to design a project. Chairman Seymoir then inquired of the 3eveloper wheL'ner he would consider a continuance and try to r.educe the number of waivers requested; whereupon Mr. Kline stated he did not think they could bring in another p2an, because they had studied tha property for some time and they did not feel they could develop it in any other way. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the number of l~ta that could be gained by appruval of the variance, whereupon Mr. Kline stated that a 46-lot yield for subject property did not work out, and he requested that the Commission consider their development as presented. Commissioner aauer was of the opinion that this was a problem parcel; that he had vieweu ti.a traat map and knew there were some smaller lots, but it would appea.r that the developer in trying to develop ingress and egress and circulation had a real r.eason for requesting the variance. Lengrhy discussion was held by the Commisaion xegarding what was considered grounds fo~r granting a variance; whether consideration should he given to an overall destsity cf 7200 square foot lot coverage since code did not so state; whethex granting a waiv~r for 40$ of the lots should be considered a hardship; and whether, the hardship could be related to the nature of the development of the property,. Furthermore a bet~er living environment was provided for some lots by sacriPicing other 1ots; and perhaps the reclassification of the property should not even be recommended for approval, since the petitionar had not given grounds as t~ the validity of the proposal. Commissioner Gauex offered ResulLtio-, No. PC72-159 and moved for its passage an3 adopted to reconmend to tha City Counci.l approval of Reclsaification No. 72-73-5, subject to conditions.(See Resolution Hook) On roll call the foreqoiny resolution was passed by th~ fol2owing vote: ~ # e ~ O MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION, July 10~ 1972 72-439 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-5, VAP.IANCE N0. 2392, AND TRACT NO. 7911 (cont'd) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrec~, Farano, Gauer, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbs::, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: No~:e. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlanel. Commissioner Gauer offered a mo~tion to grant Petition for Variance Na. 2392, subject to conditions. On roll call the foregoing motion lost f.or a majority, Commissioners Seymour, Allred and Cauer voting Aye and Commissioners Kaywood, Herbst, and Farano voting "No". Commissioner Rowland in abstaining stated that he did not feel he could vote for development in the Santa Ana Canyon where the flood problems had not been xesolved, and :iince subject property ab•:tted the Santa Ana River he felt he was not qualifi.~d to determine the implications of flood conditions if the Army Corps of Ergineers and the Orange County Flood Control Distri.ct was unable to arrive at an acceptable decision. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission since there was a tie vote, and the explanation given by Commi~~ioner Rowland did not appear to be valid in this instance, however he mould consult the Anaheim Municipal Code to determine whether or not Commissioner Rowland's explan.ation of his absten- tion was acceptable. (LATER IN THE HEARING) Commissioner Kaywood stated ~:hat she would like to make one comment - for a11 the .rea~ons that were stated as to hardship and the need for a variance - the property was located in a hole between the £reeway and the River and had still other problems. All she could say was this was no fit living environment for people, and the property should be retained for agricultural purposes; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Seymour stated that she had voted in opposition to reclassificatien of subject property to R-1. De•~uty City Attorney Fiil~nk Lowry noted that the Cummission had taken action c ythe reclassification and failed to reach a verdict on the variance with a tiz vote; that there was no provision in the Anaheim Municipal Code that would farce a Commissoner to vote against his better judg~ment and ~, therefore, Lt would be his opinion that this should go to the City Council on the basis o£ the reclassification with a full report of the Commission's inability to reach a decision as required by the Zoning Code aad allow the Council to rPSOlve this stalemate. Cocnmissioner Farano requested permission to make a few statements before final action was taken, since he wished to offer a motion for denial for the reason that the Anaheim zoning ordinance requires that an applicant make various showittgs -- something which the Commission was well aware of - but he would liY.e to remind the Commission that the ordinance reads as per Section 16.68.0301 (and then read the require3 showings) and he did not recall of any instance in the Santa Ana Canyon or in the City of Anaheim, for that matter, since he had been a member uf the Commission that the Commission had voted for a 6,000 square foot lot or a deviation from the 7200 square Eeet on the basis presented to the Commi~sion by the petitioner; that the Commission's previous action has been diametrically opposed to any deviation of the 7200 square foot lot on the basis that it was a violation ~f the General Plan as amended a number of times and also discussed a number of times; that the petitioner had presented no showings to fulfill the re~uired showings and it was a burden on the applicant to see that these showings be presented; that there wasn't any other property of this nature in the Santa Ana Canyon that the Commission has considered a similar question and he felt t:zat there isn't any precedent on subject property, but he wanted to bring this to the Commission's attention that he would grant that there was a hardship on the property, but he did n~t feel there was any legal precedent that would require a haruship to establish a showing for a higher density - the hardship that exists on this property should lead away from higher density toward lower density - the hardship is on the location of the property itself - on the type of living enviror.ment to which the people will be exposed ~ who w~uld live in this area, and it uras a hardship that was related to the economic problems of this or any other applicant; that another showing which the Commission is fully aware of was ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 10~ 1972 72-440 RECLASSIF3CAT7.ON NO. 72-73-5 "~RIANCE NO. 2392, AND TRACR N0. 7911 (cunt'd that relating to the proposal being detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property was located; and that it was his opinion *_hat this would establish a dangerous precedent for 6,000 square foot lots, variances and deviation from the 7200 square foot lot requirement was a matter of degrees and expression by the Commission; ~hat if there was just a minor variance from that require- ment on a per lot basis, not on an overall avarage basis, since the ordinance did not so state, he would go along with that, ho~:ever, where there was a substantial and material deviation on a number of lots and some perpetuated by refusal or inability to design the property in a more appropriate manner, maybe he would lose only four lots, but the tract map did not take this into consideration. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution ?VO. PC72-160 and moved for its pa~ssmqe and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2392, on the basis that ti~e petitioner had not met the required s'howings to grant a Variance; that al.though the retitioner proposed a density permitted in the R-1 Zone it would appear that there was too much density considering the limited a::cess to the parcel; tt~at in the event of an emergency such as a floo3 in this area due to its p~:oximity to th~ Santa Ana River, it would be extremely difficult to vacate . taese residents, since the only way out of the tract would be thrv another tract to the west; that due to this limited access it would be extremely difficult for emergency vehicles to gain access; and that the petitioner should comply with the site development standards of the R-1 Zone thereby reducing the number of people who would be residing in this rather inaccessible parcel. (See Resolution Book? On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIOI3ERS: Gauer, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: N~ne. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONSRS: Rowland. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTYON CARRIED, (Commissioner Rowland abstaining) to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 7911 on the basis that the Variance petition was denied, and sub- division of the property could not be accomplished as proposed in the R-1 Zone. Commissioner Rowland stated that perhaps he should offer the Commission a better explanation of his abstention in voting; that he realized that the Commission ha~l deliberated a long time on the flood problem or lack thereof, and the Commission did not come to a decision bec~=use of conflicting reports by staff, the Orange County Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers, ar.d no one had any better understanding that he had. and the City Council had preempted that decision by stating tbat they would pass this along to someone w:~o was knowledgeable, by requiring that a favorable flood hazard letter be submitted; the City Council did not make the decision, and no one could beggar their decision, but he felt ti~at the planning decisions started with the Commission, but the Commission had made zo further recommendations because no further information was available that was concise and clearly worded. Lacking that information, he could not, in good concience vote to allow people to live in a flaod plain area. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES E. JORDAN, 420 South Euclid Street, NG. 72-73-2 Suite E, Amaheim, CaliEornia 92802 Owne=; K. V. DILLS, 420 South Euclid Street, Suite E, Anaheim, California VARIANCE N0. 2393 92802, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 103 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximv•-: depth of approximately 234 feet and keing located approximately 580 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Property presently classi- fie~i R-A, AGRICULTURAL ZONE. REQUESTED CLASS='FICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAZVE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A COMBINATION RETAZL AND COMMERCZAL OFFICE BUSLDING. ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION~ July 10~ 1972 72-441 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 2393 (cont'd) Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner had requested a c~ntinuance of subject petitions in order to readvertise additional waivers, and inquired if there was anyone present in opposition. Mr. Robert Winkwood, 2224 Judith Lane appeared before the Commission an3 ir.quired what the C-1 Zone would F~erm:.t; whereupon Assistant Zoning Supervisor Don Mc Daniel advised the opposi.2ton there were a number o£ C-1 uses permitted, ,:nd then proceeded to read the k~'3s of uses permitted. It was also noted that t`~e petitioner had filed specific development plans with the petition which ~ndicated the first floor would be occupied with commercial stores, while the second floor would he devoted to offices, and that perhaps the revised plans would also indicate the same proposal, since the additional waiver being requested was for parking. Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-2 and Variance No. 2393 to the meeting of July 24, 1972 at 7:30 P.M. to allow time ta readvertise subject petitions. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. THOMAS E. YELLIS, 510 North Brookhurst NO. 72-73-3 Street, Anaheim, California 92801, Owner;requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.7 acres, having a fronta< of ap~aroximately 603 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Striet, having a maximum depth o£ approximately 270 feet, being located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue and further described as 510 North Brookhurst Street, be reclassified from the R-a, AGRICULTURAL ZONE to the C-1 GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish a service station and supermarket on the property. One person indicated his presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Super_visor pon Mc Daniel, reviewed the location of subject property, uses ~stablished in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify the property to the C-1 Zone in order to establish an automobile service stat~on and supermazket with tlie super market being located near the southerly property line; that the majozity of the parking spaces would be provided to the north af the supermarket and east of the service station site, which would be located at the southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street; that the service entrance would be provided along Alameda Street; that the Anaheim General Plan designates the property in question as being appropriate for medium density residential development, while the C-1 Zone would not be one of the zones to implement this land use designation; and that the Commission may wish to consider this reclassification petition to establisn a service station and supermarket as being inappropriate in light of the surrounding land uses and the General Plan designation. Mr. Thomas Yellis, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissinn and stated that the dairy had been removed from the property several years ago when the multiple family development to the east had been developed and at which time he had dedicated for streets and street widening purposes as well as paying for the street imprcavgments; and that this would be the only property along the east side of Brookhurst Street between Lincoln Avenne and La Palma Avenue that was not commezci.al. Furthermore, there wa~ a neec for a market since the nearest market was at Brookhurst Street and Orangethorpe Avenue or Brookhurst Street and Ball Road; and that he had given the City S''•'..^~^ f=t dedication and improvements made in the area. Mr. Richard Neiburg, representing E1 Rancho commercial development at 421-431 North Brookhurst Street, appeared in opposition and stated there were plenty of service stations in this general areaj and that he would not be opposed to professional office buildings if this was developed on subject property. but he was unalterably opposed to a service station and super market. Mr. Yellis, in rebuttal inquired where the opposition's property was locatedj whereupon Chairman Seymour indicated the property was to the south and were the Spanish type buildings. Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that he could not see people stopping at this super market because of the heavy traffic a~.ong Brookhurst Street, however ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 10, 1972 72-442 RECLSSIFICATION NO. 72-73-3 (cont'd) this property could be developed easily with office buildings which would not create the amount of traffic a service station and supermarket created. Mr. Yellis replied that customers could use Alameda Street to exit to Crescent Avenue and then on to Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Yellis further noted that he had been in the San Joaquin valley fu~. tha past six weeks and did not have an opportunity to contact the representatives of the supermarket, who should be present; then in response to questioning by the Commission regarding the service station stated that this would be a self-service type station. Mr. Yellis then requested that subject petition be continued until he was able to have t.he representatives of the supermarket present. C~mmissioner Allred offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 72-73-3 to the meeting of August 7, 1972 as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Planning Commission consideration of "Sign Restrictions" Regulations in the Scenic Corridor Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Planning Commission a proposal by the Orange County Planninq Commission in which Sign Restric- tior.s regulations in the Scenic Corridor were to be considered by sa~d Body on July 11, 1972, noting that the proposed ordinance amendment appeared to differ from the Anaheim Zoning Code in that it permits free-standing signs for automobile service stations; that only two signs had been per- mitted in the Santa Ana Canyon SC Zone, one sign was approved because the developers of the Yorba Shopping Center had proven that they had been planning this center for a number of years, and considerable money had been expended and a number of leases would be affected if said sign were not permitted, while the other sign had been denied by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council - that being at the southeast corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue; and that staff would recommend to the Planning Commission that consideration be given to recommending to the City Council that the Oranqe County Planning Commission be urged to delete that section which oermits free-standing signs in auto- mobile service stations (Section 78.0250.3(b)). Assistant Zoning Supervis~r pon Mc Daniel advised the Commission that the County had not adopted any standards for that portion of the Riverside Freeway still under the jurisdiction of the County, and that the State had already designated that port?on of the Riverside Freeway within the City of Anaheim as a scenic highway based upon the City's adoption of the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone. Furthermore, the Cicy had a reclassification pending on the groperty within the scenic corridor, that would be under the influence of the City of Anaheim, which would apply the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone at such time as the property was annexed to the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Rowland noted that he had chaired a joint Orange County and City of Anaheim Planning Commission meeting, at which time he had asked very pointedly whether the County planned to establish the Scenic Corridor regulations for the Santa Ana Canyon, and had been assured tnat this would be done. Commissioner Kaywood noted that there were four new commissioners on the Orange County Planning Commission, therefore, the Anaheim Planning Commission should apprise these new members of the City of Anaheim's regulations o£ billboards in the Scenic Corridor. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be advised that the Anaheim Planning Commission was reaffirming the position of the CitY in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and requested that they review the circumstances by which the County adopted the SC designation; and that the Commission be further urged to delete that section of the proposed "Sign Restrictions" Section 78.0250.3(b) referring to free-standing signs at service stations in the Scenic Corridor. ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. July 10~ 1972 72-443 REPORTS AND ITEM NO. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Request for Consideration of a Flood Plain Zone f cont' d) Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to request that the City Council consider urging the Oranqe County Assessor's office to consider establishing a Flood Plain Zone for those properties which were not desirable for a adequa±e living environment in the Santa Ana Cany~n, and which were not covered by the William- son Agricultural Presezve bill, so that property owners of these flood plain acreages might realize some relief from taxes if their properties could not be developed. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ZTEM NO. 3 ~~ ~- Variance No. 2375 - amend Resolution No. PC72-120 nunc pro tunc The Commission secretary advised the Commission that in preparing Resolution No. 72-120 a tygographical error was made in the percentaqe of lots in Finding No. 4, and the omission of the words "no" and "not" in Findings 7 and 8, and requested a resolution be offered to amend Resolution No. 72-120 nunc pro tunc. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-161, and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Resolution No. PC72-120 nunc pro tunc amending Finding Ho. 4 changing the percentage to'49~ and Finding Nos. 7 and 8 by the additic,n of the word "no" in line No. 1 of Finding No. 7 and the word "not" in the first line of Finding No. 8 thereto.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISS.LONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, l~~v~ v ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim ~ity Planning Commission 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. lO:OlacyA:e. '%63?:'0 An,+he-m. r.il~!on~in