Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/12/11~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California December 11, 1972 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Seymour at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHA7RMAN: Seymour. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Fazano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMZSSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus 2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant 2oninq Supervisor: Gene "B~11" Young Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTES of the meetinq of October 30, 1972, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: pq, 72-692, para. 2, should read: "Commissionez Kaywood noted that the school district's problem was not know~ng where the money would come from to build all of the new schools needed in Anaheim. The problems go beyond the boundary linea of the city and diffesent school districts. All of the children must receive a good education." Pg. 694, para. 3, line 4, should read: "prices of enerqy for fuel and electrlcityi that this crisis was caused not only" Pg. 695, para. 1, line 2, should read: "peison wi~h these cir- culating pumps, which could cut down the need for some of the sewer" Pg. 703, para. 3, line 7, should read: "station in Anaheim~ in an area already over supplied. Furthermore.... Pg. 704, para. 8, line 7, should read: "these alternatives.... and presented in written Pg. 709, para. 5, line 3, should•read: "unattractive....inte~- ' X ""~ ~ s~ ,t,~i n. M an i~ aid~t~}e wo ~"v h c es would be d ~e ~ ~ a : u1a line 10 para. 12, sold on the premises and mo mechanical work would be done on the property." Commissioner Herbst offerefi a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 13, 1972, seconded by Coa~missioner Rowland and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corractions: Pg. 735, last para., line 6, insert: "bv" the Southern Califor- nia Edison Co., "Telephone Compeny and Louis Nohi.... Pg. 737, para. 1, line 1, should read: "people to nearby areas, i "noiae impact study, open svace and parks,...." Pg. 739, para. 4, line 1, insert: "fence, slatted, with dense" Pq. 740, para. 7, line 1: "Gerald Klein" (not "Chairman pro tem Kaywood") 72-774 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1472 ~Z-~~5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, 146 East REPORT NO. 68 Osangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Owner; ANACAL ENGINEERIT7G COMPANY, P. O. Box 3668, Anaheim, VARIANCE NO. 2461 California 92801, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO ERECT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shapez parcel of land having a frontage of aporoximately 300 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 200 feet and being located approximately 320 feet north of the centerline of Via Burton Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSxRIAL, ZONE. Commissioner Kaywood entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 p.m. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner had submitted a request for a two- week continuance in order to revise plans and in all likelihood the request would be granted, and inquired iE there was anyone present in opposition. One person indicatefl his presence in opposition, stating he would have no objection to the continuance so long as he knew the date of the conti.nuance. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 68 and Variance No. 2461 to the meeting of December 27, 1972, to allow the petitioner time to revise plans. VARIANCE NO. 2257 - PUBLIC HEARING. ADOLPH W. LEMKE, 12522 E1 Roy Drive, (READVERTISED) Santa Ana, California 92705, Owner; HALL & FOREMAN, INC., P. O. Box 11667, Santa Ana, California 92711, Agent; TE1vTATIVE MAP OF property located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon TRACT NO. 7426 Road, 900 feet east of Lakeview Avenue - TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS. Two persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young . eiewed the location of subject property and the request of the developer of the tract to amend Condition No. 8 of Planning Commission Resolutirn No. PC71-147 zo delete the require- ment of ~. decorative, 6-foot masonry ~rall alonq the south tract boundary, separating Lot Nos. 1 through 5 an3 the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company canal, said wall being a length of 490 feet, however, the petitionez proposed a 6-foot high chainlink fence; and that the affec>zd property owners had expressed opposition to the deletion of the masonry wall pxovision, contend- ing it was necessary to protect their privacy and reduce traffic noises from Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Gerald Klein, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission aad presented a small sketch of the area, stating this was the same sketch presented at the last meeting; that he was requestinq permission to erect a chainlink, living fence in lieu of a block wall which was exceedingly diffi- cult to build because of the canal; that ecologically a living fence would be better; and that there was no sound prublem except for one or two of the homes. Mrs. Robert Finn, 4912 East Gerda Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating she represented property owners of the first two lots and had a letter of opposition from one of the property owners; that their homes were so exposed as to be able to have people looking into their living- rooms and master bedrooms; that children from the school to the east traveled next to the canal. tnereby depriving them of their privacy because it was very easy to see into their propertyt that paper and dirt would catch in a chainlink fence, creating a cleaning problem; that when they had purchased their property, the City had advised them that a masonry wall would be erected; and that she felt the masonry wall would be better for the entire neighborhood as to appearance and as to a sound barrier. Mr. Klein, in rebuttal, stated that they had @one sound tests which indicated there was no sound problem; that a masonry wall would hold as much litter as a chainlink fence; that the slopes were planted and had a sprinkler system; that a living chainlink fence would be much more attractive than a masonry wall; and then in response to questioning by Commissioners Herbst and Gauer, ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~Z'~~6 VARIANCE NO. 2257 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7426 (Continued) stated he would consult a landscape architect as to the type of planting that would be provided along the living fence, or the City could determine what type of planting would be approved for a living fence, and th3t people owning the lots would have to take care cf tlie shrubs, trees, etc. on the 30-foot slope which was considered part of the3r yard, and the chainlink fence would be on their property line. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Seymour noted that one of the complaints from the opposition was the visual intrusion into their bedrooms and other rooms, and then inquired of the opposition whether they felt the landscaping would not grow fast enough for them and what was the objection to the chainlink fence together with landscaping. Mrs. Finn advised the Commission that one would still have a lot of debris that could be seen at the base of the cha?:~~^k fence; that a great deal of the papers and weeds would be blown there, and a chainlink fence would create a very untidy appearance adjacent to the propertyt that they had to maintain the slope now, wh~ch cost money to water the slope, and the sprinkles system would have to be re-arranged because it would not reach the plants along the chainlink fence, which was proposed to be at the property line, and she did not feel the property owner should have to bear any additional expanse, there- fore, she felt ~:a masonry wall would render a better appearance and would cost less than the water and maintenance of the so-called living fence. Chairman Seymour noted that several Commissioners upon viewing the property had wondered whether the earth was sound enough to build a concrete block wall because it now showed signs of erosion. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that there could be some erosion problem, but if the wall were built, it would have to be designed to the condition as it existed, and if the £ooting were sand base, it would have to be suf£icient to meet any conditions. Commissioner Farano inquired how deep would the footing have to be since the slopes were very steep and did not lend themselves too well to moving the wall back or forth. Mr. Titus noted the location would have to be near the top of the slope, and there was su£ficient room to build the footings - maybe 14 inches - and because one was not talkiiig about a massive structure for a footing, the wall could be engineered, therefore, it was not a problem. Chairman Seymour then inquired of Mr. Klein whether or not people purchasing these homes were under the impression they were goinq to have a masonry wall; whereupon Mr. Klein stated that the FHA approved plan indicated a chainlink fence at the outset when the developer found it would be difficult to build the masonry wall, and FHA had approved said chainlink fence. Mrs. Finn advised the Commission that a representative of the Development Services Departme'nt had advised her when they checked out the property before going into escrow that the masonry wall was requiredt that when she lived with her parents on Beauty Drive, they had a similar problem, therefore, she wanted to be asaured of what they would have if the home was purchased, and staff had indicated that a masonry wall was .cequired adjacent to a highway; and that she did not feel a chainlink fence was appropriate across from a school, particularly since they had paid $34~000 far their home. Commissioner Herbst noted that when masonry walls were exposed to school children, they tended to walk along and write all kinds of things on the wall; that he still felt this would be a very poor location for a masonry wall from a safety standpoint because he had seen long stretches of walls blown down by the Santa Ana winds, together with tha £act that a chainlink fence, when properly landscaped, would give better protection and privacy than a masonry wall, and if the developer provided a chainlink fence with heavy landscaping and properly irrigated, this would be bettPr for the two homes primarily affected by exposure to t'he street; and that from a safety, standpoint, the ordinance did not require that a 6-£oot wall be struct~u:-a'lly approved. ~ ~,.. 0 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72'~~~ VARIANCE NO._2257 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7426 (Continued) Mr. Titus stated this was correct, and anything over 6 feet would have to be approved. Chairman Seymour noted that if this had been brnucht to the Planning Commis- sion's attention at the time of the previous public hearing, it would not have been necesaary - otviously a chainlink fence properly landscaped would have been better, however, the opposition felt that the masonry wall was necessa=y. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that there appeered to be a slight lack of communication because in his opinion the discussion was a waste of time because the tract and variance were approved when the SC, Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was in effect, and since the portion regard- ing the 6-foot masonry wall was a part of the subdivision ordinance - Title 17, it was not waivable by the Planning Commission, and that Condition No. 8 required that the developer of the tract meet a]1 the requirements of the SC Zone - Title 17. Furthermore, the City Council could not even waive anything in Title 17 unless the ordinance for the Sceaic Corridor Overlay 2one were amended. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the subdivision section of the ordinance required the wall, and this was part of Title 17. Chairman Sey'nour then stated that since the Commission had no authority to consider any amendments in the conditions which were part of the subdivision ordinanae, Title 17, no action would be taken by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEIIRING. UNION OIL COMPANY, 461 South REPORT NO. 61 Boylston, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owner; ARNE C. BELSBY, Mini-Warehouse Corporation. 5600 Orangethorpe, VARIANCE NO. 2430 No. 704, La Palma, California 90620r ~igent; requesting (READVERTISED) WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS AND MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO ESTASLISH A STORAGE WARE- HOUSE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 5 acres, having a frontage o£ approximately 592 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet, and beinq located at the northwest corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of August 21 at the request of the petitionert September 6 and 18 for the submission of revised plans; from October 2 and 30, 1972, for the submission o': an Environmental Impact Reporti and from No~ember 27, 1972, to readvertise an additional waiver. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, i's is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission should take action on the Environ- mental Impact Report before any further evidence was presented. Comm_.ssioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-320 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 61 and recommend to the City Council that due to the nature of tha request made under Variance No. 2430, the impact upon the environment would not be significant and there was no need to make an Environmental Tmpact Statement. (See Resolutiun Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed bp the following vote: AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72'~~B ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 61 AND VARIANCE NO. 2430, (Continued) Mr. Arne Belsby, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they now planned a 6-foot slum~,stone wall along the La Palma Avenue frontage except for a 30-foot drive which would be set back 10 feet from the property line, said setback would be fully landacaped to the 30-foot drive; that there was a two-fold purpose in the 6-foot masonry wall alonq La Palma Avenue, one being to protect the exposure of the garage walls from view from the street and the other for security purposes, s_C the gate across the drive c~uld be locked at night; ar.d that parking would be parallel along La Palma aad Tustin Avenues along the 6-foot masonry wall. THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSED. Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposal to con~ struct a 6-foot masonry wall in the required setback, noting that this would be granting a privilege not permitted to other industries in the area; whether or not the wall at its location would provide the eecurity it was intended to provide; whether there would be overnight parking on the premises by lessees of these warehouse units; and that one of the main purposes of granting a variance was that the petitioner must prove a hardship, which the petitioner had not. Mr. Belsby noted that their coverage was only 39 to 40$, whereas other indus- tries had a 49 to SO+R coveraqe, and that they still would have the building set back 50 feet, but they wanted to utilize a portion of the setback. Commissioner Herbst noted that other industries in the area had the same problem, but the City had required a setback of 50 feet since the ordinance required it, and the Commissioa had been trying to relay this information to the petitioner ever since the petition was first considered. Mr. Belsby noted that one of his concerns, as well as the concern of the Commission, was the appearance of the garage doors, therefore, he felt that the wall would provide a two-fold benefit, namely, screening the garage doors and landscaping, and from plans which he had designed, the 10-foot high doors would not be seen £rom the street because of the fact there was a difference of 2 feet between the height of the street level and sebject property. Chairman Seymour noted that the use proposed was a good one, and he would like to see it developed on the site, but from looking at the plans, the petitioner could conform with setback requirements; that the parkin5 require- meats would have to be considered in a different vein and could possibly be waived; whereupon Mr. Belsby noted he wanted more security on Tustin Avenue. Chairman Seymour noted that every industry had the same problem of security, and if the City allowed this, there would be no reason to deny any future requests for the same privilege; and that there were some very attractive industries in the area. Mr. Belsby advised the Commission that he could meet Code requirements for setback along La Palma Avenue since there were eight or nine openings to enclose, and they would be required to have a gate at each one of the openings. Commissioner Rowland observed that it would appear the property was unsuited for the intended use, and although he felt there was a need for this use, he i would be willing to approve such a petition for waiver of the parking only but not for the setback, and inquired whether this could be done. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry stated the Commission could approve subject petition in part if they so desired, granting only waiver of the required parking. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that there were several changes which the Commission wanted, namely, the relocation of the masonry wall and incor- porating it int~ the building wall, therefore, he would suggest that revised plans be submitted for Commission approval. Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission did not want to re-work anyone's plans, even though they tried to help as much as possible, therefore, there were three courses of action: approval, denial, or continnance subject to suggestions made by Mr. Roberts; and that the Commission ap~eared to be amenable to the overall concept except for the 5Q-foot setback now proposed. ~ ~ 72-779 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 61 AND VARIANCE NO. 2430 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that any other use would require considerably more parking in ordlans~beerevisedefor the Commission~torrevieweand denyingworld suggest th ~t p approving its appearance. Chairman Seymour noted that subject petition had been continued for a number of ineetings, both for revised plans and for an EIR, therefore, if the peti- tioner would eliminate the masonry wall and revised plans presenwaiver °b°: staff for approval, the Commission could tak~eferlto viewethenrevised plans. whereupon the Commission stated they would p Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2430 to the meeting of December 27, 1972, to allow time for the petitioner to revise plans, reflecting tetitioner tosprovidela minimumk 50 feet from the property line and for the p of 25 feet between buildings. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:40 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND REPORT NO. 73 TEXACO VENTURES, INC.. 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners. ENGINEER: Willdar Engineer- VARIANCE NO. 2451 ing Associates, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California 92805; requesting WAIVER OF (a) REQUIREMENT TENTATIVE MAP OF THAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS~ TRACT NO. 8075 (b) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, AND (c) MINIMUM LOT AREA TO ESTABLISH A 184-IINIT, SINGLE-FAMILY TRACT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel o£ land consisting of approximately 62 acres,.having a frontage of approximately 2,600 feet o.n.both sides of Serrano Avenue and being located approximately one mile northeast of Nohl Ranch Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition and tract were continued from the October 18, 1972 meeting for an Environmental Impact Report, and from the November 27, 1972 meeting for a revised tract map. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:42 p.~. Mr. James Barisic, representing Anaheim Hills, appeared before the Commission and noted that the tract map before the Commission was the second revision of a single-family residential developmentJ that the first revision submitted was necessary because they had revised their plan to reflect some changes as to access which had taken place in Anaheim Aills; and that they had reviewed the Report to the Commission and the conditions mentioned and found them realistic and acceptable. Mr. Sarisic noted that the development they proposed for approval before the Commission reflected an R-1 subdivision of 184 lots having an average density of 3 lots per gross ajre; that the Commission might remember when Anaheim Hills first applied for their PC Zone, this area was projected for 300 units, being a portion oE the Eastridge and Lakeside Neighborhoods, and this has been reduced from 4 to 3 units per acre, making a more livable area and enhancing the R-1 areaj that they had had a great deal of response from individual builders viewing the R-1 properties, specifically in Anaheim Hills, which would provide country-type living on the fringes of an urban area along with the privacy and view potential found only in a hillside area; that the property planned for this subdivision would range from $40,000 up, and this did not include consideration of the increase of value of the view and the larger lots; that the site blended in very well with the proposed park site which was Oak Ca~ ~on and three acres at the reservoir; that they recognized hillside develo~;ment was the unique creation of pads, etc.; that staff referred to something regarding the lot sizes and on one specific item relat- inq to lot size, he would state that none were less than 6000 square ~eet, and the average lot was almost 12,000 square feet in size, with the average flat pad beinq more than 7700 square feet, and most of this was reflected in the staff report, but in hillside development one ended up with a number of cul- de-sac lots, and they had some lots that had lesser froataqe than the Anaheim • C MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~Z-780 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 73, VARIANCE NO. 2451, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8075 (Continued) Mur.icipal Code would permit; that they were aware of the deve~opment standards and what it took to build a good home on a good lotj that they would have minimum lot widths of 60 feet as was foun~.in hillside development, and they proposed 10 units with flag-lot configuration; that there were some posiEive points with flag lots because they allowed large pads and patios to the rear; that they had found with exposure to leadiiig developers that people were willinq to accept flag lot configuration - if they could obtain the other larger lots; that flag lots were permitted in the R-H-10,000 Zone ~vhere it was more restric- tive, and since they were proposing 3 units per acre, while R-FI-10,000 averaged 2.65 per acre, this would be compar~:ble and flag lots would be most appropriatet that staff indicated flag lots were more appropriate for rural neighborhoods, however, the City wanted to retain this rural nature in the Anaheim Hills, and they were trying to retain the country appearance for the City; that this proposal would give further privacy to purchasers of these lots; and tY:at he was available to ar.swer any questions the Commission had. Mr. Barisic, in response to questions by the Commission, stated that this would be the fourth development, with Parkview, Lakeview, and Northridge being the three previous ones gi~~en to developers; that one lot had a 52GU-square foot flat pad area, but it had one of the best views of the development; and that this lot also had a width of 63 feet. Ccmmissioner Rowland noted that if the developer was proposing to reduce the minimum pad size to 5000-6000 square feet, then the size of the home should be restricted, and if larger homes were proposed, then additional square footage per lot for each bedroom would have to be added. Mr. Barisic re~+lied that because of the width in the Westridge area, 63 of the homes had wider pads but shallower depthsj that they were not ready to submit homes on tbese pads at the present time but were doing advance planning rather than waiting until the last minute as had been done in the past. Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission would view any proposed lots very carefully; that the width of the lots had somethiny to do with the amount of accessi.ble open space generated on the site, but the Commission would be looking to the Anaheim Aills to supervise their own development standards in a creative and on-going way, thereby promoting th~ir own product, but the Commis- sion would ask the developer if this were presented with limited site areas, that the developer come up with some solution as was required in the RS-5000 2one, possibly by deed restrictions or whatever means the developer could arrive at. Also, excessively large homes could not be created on these excep- tionally small pads; that Anaheim Hills should take up the leadership in creativity in developing things in the canyon; that in discussing the topic of open space, one lot was indicated as having 17,000 square feet, but there was only a 6200-square foot buildable pad for two other lots, ~'!thaugh flag lots did provide some nice space for hill area living, but in t:his instance, he was not sure; that ;~e did not know how the purchaser would feel--would he maintain that slope on the other side of the man's driveway - if it was an easement, it would have to be improved, and although the map indicated this was an easement, it would appear like a paved street on the land unless there was some magic way to develop this differently; and that he would not like to see that left out. Mr. Barisic stated that they would probably not even consider placing a lot like that, even though it had a great view. Commissioner Rowland further noted that the one lot would have a neighbor on either side using his front lawn, however, it was not the Commission`s posi- tion to design the property, but this did point to the City a potential problem. Commissioner Farano inquired about the fire and trash service for that property; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated the trash pick-up would be made in fsont of the cul-de-sac; whereupon Commissioner Rowland noted that this would mean carrying the trash 225 feet. Commissioner Farano noted that the owner of Lot No. 145 wauld have to traverse Lot Nos. 144 and 143 in order to gain access to Mountain Quail Circle; where- upon Mr. Barisic noted that when people purchased these lots, they would be aware of the situation; whereupon Commissioner Farano stated that did not ~ ~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~Z-~al ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 73~ VARIANCE NO. 2451~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8075 (Continued) always help determine who w~uld maintain the easement and inquired whether it had curbs and gutters and who would maintain the slopes; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that the slope bank would belong to the property owner in three segments. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether each of the three would have equal responsibility; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that as each person on the easement would want to have that maintained so that they could have accessible use out of self interest, each individual would take care of it. Commissioner Allred inquired who would take care of it after these parcels were traded off twenty years in the future. Commissioner Herbst noted that some people could ha~e cars iz their easement every night, and he did not feel this would provide the best livinq environ- ment; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that it would not be possible to build additional lots where one would have to extend a public street. Commissioner Rowland noted that he was in favor of the least possible vehicular circulation element *_hat could be employed out there, but that lot was trouble- some in concept. Commissioner Farano stated he would like to see a minimum amount of paving; whereupon Mr. Barisic replied that the tract was laid out so that there would be a minimum amount of maintenance. Chairman Seymour referred to the square footage of the structure on an accept- able lot and inquired whether the petitioner was committed to submitting this in the final development plans of the lot - would the developer generally conform to the requirement or would they create some type of standard of less square footage on which smaller square footage homes would be built; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated they were not home planners but land planners. Commissioner Rowland noted that since the Ana:ieim Hills were selling the property, they must establish the leadership on how the property should be developed. Mr. Barisic stated they were mostly concerned within the exterior appearance, the perimetez fencing, the roof strf.tcture, exterior elevations, and had even asked individual builders to change their plans when they did not meet their criteria, therefore, they would be willing to work with the City to achieve development of smaller homes on smaller lots. Commissioner Rowland noted that there were no lots like those proposed in any previous projects, and a builder could offer a number of house plans as a package, which could mean a larger home on a small lot; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated he saw nothing wrong with putting smaller units on smaller lots. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that he was not sure of the exact verbiage of the State law, but from his understanding of it, after February l, 1973, the law would require that a final tract map be submitted to che Planning Commission, and from what he could understand of the Commission's comments, they wanted the applicant to have some type of deed restrictions as to the size of the home compared to the pad size. Mr. Barisic noted in their original element they proposed RS-5000, but decided that would not be appropriate because they knew most of the lots would be much larger. Commissioner Farano noted that 119 of the 152 lots proposed were less than 7200 square feet; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that most o£ that percentage was nearer the 7200-sqaare foot lots. Commissioner Herbst noted that if th?s were developed as RS-5000, the developer would be required to add 800 square feet for each bedroom over three, and if a five-bedroom home was proposed on this property, there woulZ be less square Eootage on the R-1 than was being required in the RS-5000, and the Commission had found out through experience that large homes on small lots did not work out because they created a problem of on-street parking. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1572 ~2'~82 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 73~ VARIi.NCE iv0. 2451~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8075 (COntinued) Mr. Barisic replied that perhaps the Commission was extracting the smallest of the lots; whereupon Commissioner Farano stated that the smalleat lots were a minute number, and he felt that there were a substantial number over and above what the Commission considered acceptable to apply a variance to, this being approximately 10$, while almost 72~ of the lots were less than 7200 square feet of flat area. Mr. Barisic noted that the ordinance did not address itself to a flat pad area. Commissioner Herbst noted that when a slope was proposed to the rear of a lot, this would not be accessible to the property owner, therefore, the Commission was discussing accessible area to a property owner. Commissioner Farano noted that he lived in Nohl Ranch, and some of those lots had virtually no rear yards, which was necessary w~th families having children, and these children could not go out into the street to play. Chairman Seymour observed that the Commission shoul3 discuss the acceptable lot size because the lots that had 5000 to 6000 square =eet could be limited to a three-bedroom home; those that were 6000 to 7000 square feet could be limited to a four-bedroom home; and anything above 7000 square feet would be a five- bedreom home, and inquired whett±.er Mr. Barisic would be agreeable to that formula; whEreupon Mr. Barisic stated that he would hate to commit himself to that formula since there were many homes in Nohl Ranch that had large homes with little rear yards. Commissioner Kaywood noted that if the developer would have retained the RS-5000 Zone, it would be no problem to build under those requlations because all they would have to do was add S00 square feet for each additional bedroom over three per home. Discussion was held between the Commission and the developer regarding the number of bedrooms per lot and size, and upon its conclnsion, Commissioner Farano suggested that the developer analyze the discussion held with the Ccmmission and then come back to the Commission with other recommendations, because if subject variance were approved, maybe it could set a precedence and perhaps it might not, but since the Commission was very concerned with whatever went into Anaheim Hills, and if the developer had not given any analyzation as to the type of homes that could be built on a given size lot, then perhaps he should look into the pos;>ibiZity of laying out a site map and warking together with the home developer rather than letting him make this decision. Commissio~er Allred observed that since the land developer was working with the builder, having made up the pads already, the builder could say that he could build a seven-bedroom house on these pads if this was not first deter- mined that large-size homes would not properly fit on sma11 size pads. Mr. Barisic then stated that he would request a two-week continuance in order to allow time for further study of this concern by the Commission, and that he would discuss this with staff. Chairman Seymour noted that during the discussions with staff, he would like that the developer consider the six side-on lotss one, in particular, was the corner at Serrano Avenue and Nightshade Lane, which appeared to him as what would be a likely commercial lot in the future. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration o£ Envir~nmental Impact Report No. 73, Variance No. 2451, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 8075, Revision No. 1, to the meeting of December 27, 1972, to allow time for the developer to present alternatives regarding pad sizes less than 7200 square feet wherein the house sizes would be governed by the pad sizes, and for further redesign of the side-on lots proposed, as well as the configuration of the pan-handle lots . ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 19'2 ~2-~83 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: CABOT, CABOT & FORBES, 2182 Dupont Drive, TRACT NO. 8079 Irvine, California 92664. ENGZNEER: Gruen Associates, 6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048; proposing to subdivide air space of a 4.3-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Romneya Drive and Euclid Street for a C-1 zoned lot as a statutory condominium for professional/office occupancies of a five-story medical arts building. Chairman Seymour noted that staff had briefed the Planning Commission on the proposed subdivision of subject property, and that the filing of a tract map was a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1356 at the Novem- ber 27, 1972 Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Knowlton Fernald indicated his presenc.~ ta answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8079, subject to the following conditions: tl) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8079 is granted subject to approval of Reclassi£ication No. 69-70-17 and Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1356. (2) That should this subdivision be develope3 aa more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (5) That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submit- ted to and approved by the City e+ttorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and £urther, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or deniai a complete synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operatirg corpora- tion, including but not limited to the articles of incorporation bylaws, prQposed methods of management, bond3ng to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to psotect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. (7} That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. (S) That a 15-foot radius property line return shall be provided at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive. (9) That the developer of Tract No. 8079 shall obtain certification from a lar.dscape architect or qualified horticulturist that the qrading required to construct curb and gutter at 14 faet south of the Romneya Drive centerline as proposed will not damage the existing Canary Island Palm trees along Romneya Drive. (10) That the landscaped median proposed in Romneya Drive at Euclid Stseet shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Tra£fic Eng~i.eer. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decem,5er 11, 1972 ~2'~84 VARIANCE NO. 2459 - PUBLIC HEARING. EMIL E. BLANKMEYER, 403 East Broadway, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; requesting WAIVER OE (a) PERMITTED USES, (b) pFRMITTED SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMMERCIAL USE OF ~1 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, AND (c) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO PERMIT A SAW-SHARPENING OPERATION IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL GARAGE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the north side of Sroadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 121 feet, and being located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Olive Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. One person indicated her presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the existing zoning on the property, and the proposal to establish a saw-sharpening operation as a home occupation; that no physical changes to the site were proposed with the exception of the establishment of two wall signs roughly 3 square feet in area, one attached to the north side of the garage adjacent to the residential alley and the second one being mounted on a hedge fronting towards Broadway and being located between the residential structure and the garage; that the garage was informally divided intc two sections, one-half of the area ~eing roughly 260 square feet and utilized for automobile parking, while the other half, 312 square feet, was being used as a saw-sharpening area equipped with a work bench and saw sharpener a:~d cabinetst that the one-car garage •aas legally established as a permitted use by right at the time of develoQment; that the varianca was necessitated by the establishment of the signs, which would essentially change the nature of the operation from a home occirpation to a commercial venture; that the saw-sharpening business had been conducted from the premises for a number of years without evidence of conflict with adjoining land uses, and the concern at this time for the installation of signs that could encourage retail commercial trade on the lot which was not improved ir. accordance with commercial standards; that the brochure submitted by the petitioner in conjunction with the application indicated that the type of equipment utilized would not create excessive noise, and the operation itself would be limited in nature and unobtrusive to adjoining properties; and that the main point of concern would appear to be the possibility of expansion of the proposed commercial use beyond the capacity of the site, such as the employment of additional help ar the utilization of additional equipment, which could be objectionable to adjoining properties, therefo.re, the Commission might wish to consider conditioning any potential approval of this application to a limitation of the use of the site to a one-man type of operation without additional employment of help or extension of facilities beyond that proposed in the application. Furthermore, two parking spaaes were being required on-site, whereas only one was proposed. Mr. Emi: Hlaizkmeyer, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he was a retired former City of Anaheim employee; that he proposed to sharpen saws and would not be truubling people in the neighborhood because there was a fence and a hedge separating subject property from the adjoining property; that he would be working from 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m.; and that this still would be a home occupation. Commissioner Herbst noted that the operation ceased to be a home occupation when a sign was requested, since the home occupation ordinance stipulated no signing could be permitted. Mr. Blankmeyec stated that he had no intention of hiring anyone and would so stipulate. Mrs. Minnie Ingram, 411 East Broadway, appeared be£ore the Commission in opposition and stated she was not in opposition to the saw operation, but she was in opposition to waiver of the required parking since there was no parking available now on Broadway because of the school administration build- ing across the street. Mr. Blankmeyer, in rebuttal, stated that the people that wor~ld patronize his operation would park on Olive Street; that the church hafl a vacant lot acroes the street if it became necessary to have additional parking; and that he did not anticipate having many people coming to his facility to create a parking problem. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72-785 VA~ZIANCE NO. 2459 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner could still operate without a sign, since he had a house number which should be sufficient in the event he was advertising his saw-sharpening businessJ whereupon Mr. Blankmeyer stated that he had just started this business ann that people could be dziving down Olive Street but would not kr.ow the location, and if they saw the sign, they could then drop off their saws for him to work on. Commissicner Kaywood noted that signing of property changed the use from a home occupation to commercial use of the property. Commissioner Allred inquired whether the petitioner would be willing to delete one sign if subject petition were approved; whereupon Mr. Blankmeyer stated that the Hobson Termite people ha~d signing on their property which was in excess to that he proposed. Chairman Seymour noted that as a home occupation, business was done by referral, and by erecti~g a sign, the petitioner would be attracting more business and creating a tr4ffic problem; that he would be inclined to approve one sign on the chainlink f~nce, but he was still concerned with the parking problem. and perhaps the Cos'nission could establish a ~ime limitation, and at conclusion of the time limitation if there were no parking problems, then this use could be extended, however, if the church expanded, this might create a parking problem on Olive Street. Commissioner Gaues offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that exemption declaration status be granted. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner SeymoLr offered Resolution No. PC72-321 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2459 for a period of one year to determine whether or not a parkir.q problem might resu].t, grantinq permission to erect one free-standing siqn a maximum of 3 square feet to be locafied on the fence along Olive Street; that the petitioner stipulated there would be no employee~ other than himself on the premises and the hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call. Commissioner Farano noted that he might vote against this motion, although he was not aa,ainst the business per se, but when a person erected a sign, it was done for only one reason, to attract business from the outside, fox the public in general, rather than advertising the home occupation, allow someone to carry on business through word of mouth, and signiag would be for the public at largej and that if this were approved, this would mean home beauty shops and other businesses requesting similar signing. Chairman Seymour noted that the intersection of Broadway and Olive Street was far from a residential area, and as long as there was no parking problem and signing would be proposed on the chainlink fence, one would be lucky to see the sign. Commissioner Aerbst noted that the Hobson Termite sign was erected there, but from the location it did not appear they had a variance granted, therefore, a precedent may have been set. On ro11 call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the follow'.n~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: hone. ~ -~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, December 11, 1972 ~Z-~86 VARIANCE NO. 2460 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES D. AND SANDRA J. MULL, 215 South Gain Street, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners; request- ing WAIVER OE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE TO ERECT A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTI2.G SINGLE^FAMZLY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west si3e of Gain Street, having a maximum depth oE approxi- mately 100 feet, and beinq located approximately 346 feet north of the center- line of Broadway. Property presently classified R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY RE~IDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appeared i.n 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. James D. Mull, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the room he was proposing would be a play room for the children which they could use rather than playing in their bedrooms; that he presently had a four-bedroom house, howeves, he had converted the fourth bedroom into a den, and because two of the boys were growing up, it was felt they needed their own bedroom; that the play area would serve the children during the winter weather; that he had a 1250-square foot rear yard, and the added room would take up only an additional 225 square feet, which would be put to better use twelve months out of the year, rather than six to eight months when adverse weather visited Southern California; that he did not want his smaller children to play in the front or on the street; and that the 1000 squase feet in the rcar would be adequate for the children to play. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred noted his primary concern was the fact that the petitioner would fir:d he had overbuilt the property by adding this room and may end up by spending considerable money and still having to sell the house. Mr. Mull replied that he worked at the Fullerton Airport as an air traffic controller and was only three miles fzom his workt that when he purchased the property, there was a lot coverage of 40+t permitted. whereas the builder had constructed only 37.9+t, and later the Code had be~o eL{nge~heredweregnohe coverage to 358; that when he had purchased the p P Yr restrictions as to adding to the home, and he was only planning an additional 225 square feet, using the patios and that he would be making use of the patio twelve months of t.he year. Furthermore, he did not feel he would be jeooardizing his use of the rear yard; that when he had purchased the property he had four bedrooms, and he had converted one for a den, having the TV set there, and now that the children were older, he needed another room, planning to use the addition as the family room; that the house contained approximately 1482 square feet without the garage; that the existing bedrooms were only 10 feet by 10 feet and were not large enc~igh for two growing boys; and that J. W. McMichael was the developer of the property. Commissionr: Kaywood inquired whether or not the developer had informed the petitioners of the fact that they would not be able to add any more square footage to their property; whereupon Mr. Mull stated that they had not been informed of that fact, and they did not want to add a second story over the garage because this would invade the privacy of adjoining property owners. Commissioner Kaywood noted that this was the concern she had regarding approval of homes on 5000-square foot lots - that there would be requests for expansion of the homes, and the size of the lots was inadequate to provide the proper living environment. Mr. Mull stated it appeared to be his fault that he had not checked with the City of Anaheim when he purchased the home, and that when the builder had started building these houses in 1968, a 40$ coverage had been allowed. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the actual coverage of the property was 37.9+k, and when the house was built, the zone permitted 4U$ coverage. Commissioner Gauer noted that the petitioner had 225 square feet covered with cement, therefore, why not permit him to roof over this portion of the property. ~ • MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~Z'~8~ VARIANCE NO. 2460 ~Continued) Commissioner Herbst noted that in order to have an additional bedroom, accord- ing to the RS-5000 Zone, it would require zTimarill~due tootheufactfthat and studies indicated why this was necessary, p Y developess had constructed seven-bedroom homes on these small lots, causinq traffic jams and injecting more children in the area than the area could support. Mr. Mull stated that he was only asking for an additional 225-square foot coverage of his rear yard and wanted to convezt the existing patio into a room. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that it was his understanding that the square footage of the room proposed was 384 square feet. Chairman Seymour noted that since there was a concrete slab already there, the only addition to this would be 225 square feet. Commissioner Allred noted that the plans indicated a flat roof was proposed, and he felt a roof comparable to that presently existing roof on the property would be more acceptable. Commissioner Kaywood expressed concern that many of the RS-5000 homes were being built with a 5 to 10-foot setback, and she was wondering whether the builder was making it clear to the purchasers that no more could be added to the structure if coverage was at 35$. Chairman Seymour noted that the difference he could see was the fact that the Planning Commission sat as a body regarding land use; tY:at they were also greatly concerned with future owners; that the petitioner had a parcel and now wanted to expand in excess of Code, and no neighbors were present in opposition - furthermore, no one would be affected except the man's own children. Commissioner Gaaer noted that the petitioner had purchased his property when the ordinance permitted a 40~ coverage and was now being affected by a change in the ordinance. Commissioner Kaywood observed that even if the coverage was still at 40+t. the proposed addition would not fall within that limitation. Commissioner Herbst notecl he felt that the petitioner had offered a good reason for his hardship, and this was the purpose of granting variancQest Furthermore, he did net feel this would change the area but would sug~ that the petitioner change his roofline and prov~de the same composition as the roof. Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposal and the reasons £or considering approval of the proposed addition. Commissioner Farano noted that the only reason he would vote £avorably £or subject petition was because the petitioner was proposing a recreation room; that if more bedrooms were planned on a 5000-square foot lot, he would serve notice that he would not approve any additional bedrooms because this would mean an incrE3se in people. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parano and MOTION CARRIED that the Plani:.ing Commission finds and determines tht~t the proposal would have no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that exemption declaration status be qranted. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-322 androvidedf~howeverasthat and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2460, p the petitioner provide a gabled roof the same as the existing roof and that the materials £or the roof would be the same as the existing roof. (See Resolution Book) Mr. Mull then stipulated to providing the gabled roof and noted that they had a rock roof. On roll call the £oregoing resoiutior. was passed by the following vote: AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72'78B RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes at 3:55 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 4:05 p.m.. all Commisaioners being present. VARIANCE NO. 2464 - PUBLIC HEARING. P. C. LUMBER COM'PANY, 17671 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California 92680, Owners WZLSON & MC HUGH, INC., 4341 Birch Street, Newport Seach, California 92660, Agent; requeating WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED USES, (b) MINIMUM LOT SI2E~ AND (C) MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW RECREATION USE AS A PRIMARY USE IN.CONJUNCTION WZTH A LOT SPLIT on property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontaqe of approximately 167 feet on the west side of Ventura Street, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 116 feet, and beinq located approximateiy 575 feet north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Gary Wilson, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the present pool site was used by the apart- ment residents because they had keysr that this was an adult pool site, and as the oetitioner sold these parcels, he offered the use of the pool site for $10 per month with option to renew it. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and MOTZON CARRIED, that the Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposal would have no siqnificant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that exemption declaration status be granted. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolut•:~:n No. PC72-323 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for ~'ariance No. 2464, subject to plans and the stipulation that th use would be foz recreational puryoses only. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, kowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMZSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD W. BONKOSKY. TRUSTEE, 600 West REPORT NO. 66 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; BEACON BAY ENTERPRISES, INC., 150 Newport Center Drive, CONDITIONAL USE Newport Beach, California 9~660, Agent; requesting PERMIT NO. 1357 permission to ESTABLISYi A MECHANICAL CARWASH IN CON- JUNCTION WITH AN AUTO SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL 20NE WAIVING (a) REQUIREMENT THAT SERVICE STATIONS BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OE ARTERIAL HIGAWAYS, AND (b) FERMITTED OUTDOOR USES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped ~arcel of land having a frontage of approximately 160 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 277 feet and being located at the northea~t corner of Euclid Street and Pampas Lane. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Five persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Younq reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct a one-story mechanical carwash approximately 14 feet in height ar.d comprising a total of 8390 square feet to be located 5 feet from the north property line adjacent to undeveloped commercial properties and also approximately 47 feet from the east ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72'%89 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 66 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1357 (Cont'd property line adjacent to a private driveway serving the apartment complex to the east; that the proposal indicated a canopy projecting from the southerly side.of the carwash buildinq to cover a gas service area containing a total of 10 gasoline pump islands and an auto wax area and trash enclosure which would extend to within 8 feet of the southerly property line adjacent to Pampas Lanet that the drying blower and vacuum units were propoaed to be located approximately 10 feet from the north property line adjacent to un- developed C-1 property, with sound buffering for the blower and vacuuming units to be from the recession of that particular area of the carwash facility 2 feet below.grade; that a masonry wall and berm extending 3 feet above qrade, with the blower unit being roof-vented which would further attenuate the soundj that vehicular access was provided by one 40-foot wide drive on Euclid Street located approxima~ely 29 feet north of the corner of Pampas Lane and two drives on Pampas Lane; that a circular vehicular flow pattern was shown extend- ing through the pump islands, around through the carwash area into an auto detailing area prior to egress tc the street frontages; and that landscaping was proposad to consist of peripheral landscaping 10 feet adjacent to the Euclid Street frontage, 8 feet along the Pampas Lane frontage, excepting at the driveway locations, 5 feet from the north property line, and 10 feet fully landscaped with 10-gallon trees on 20-foot centers adjacent to the residential accessway to the east. Mr. Young, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that a conditional use permit was require3 for the establishment of a carwash in any commercial or industriai zone, while the site location of a service station would require a set.back of 75 feet from any residential uses dLa to the potential intrusive nature of these uses by reasons of potential traffic conflict and noise from the opcra- tions; that traffic patterns for the proposed use were primarily oriented towards Euclid Street, however, some unspecified percentage of traffic would be entering from the Pampas Lane drivewaysr that the Commission may wish to determine whether the anticipated traffic on Pampas Lane would present a conflict with residential uses to the east, and the same determination would have to be made regarding the proposed outdoor waxing and polishing operation to be conducted adjacent to the Pampas Lane property line, which was within 100 feet of the apartment complex to the east; that additional consideration which the Commission might wish to consider would be the impact upon the area, and the concern expressed by the Environmental Impact Review Committee reqard- ing the secondary effect of the impact of another gasoline sales outlet on other service stations in the city, since the city had a large surplus of service stations, many of which were vacant, and the addition of another station might contribute to the clo~ing of other stations, resulting in in- efficient land use and an increase in the number of unsightly vacant stations in the city. Mr. Van Shea, representing the developers and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented photographs of their other locationa. Slides were then presented of the other locations as well, with Mr. Shea commenting on the type of constructian and adjoining land uses. Mr. Shea noted that their former budg~t on other facilities for landscaping had been $9~500; that signing with a Union Oil sign would only be 18 inchea high and would be the only sign they would request; that their signing in Newport Beach was very discrete, and although they would prefer to have a landscape sign, this would be against the City of Anaheim's reaulations; that planters were placed wherever possible to present a better environment for the customers; that they did not erect steel pre-fab structures because they did not last long and the quality was poor; that they were not in a posi- tion to build these facilities and resell them - somethina which happened in most carwash businesses - since they retained their operations and hoped to grov: further; that they had a very pleasant relationship with Union Oil and they would never ask for large siqns because they were not necessary; that because they did not sell their facilities, they apent a great deal of time and money to train people for good management of their facilities; that they reclaimed all of their wash water, and any silt occurring in their ditches would be hauled away to the dump; that they would not be putting any additional dirt or material into the sewer; that they used bio-degradable soap; that they did not reclaim the final rinse water; that staff had indicated sodidcnotesell that this facility would be another service station, but ::hey I anything other than gasoline and there would be no sale of oil or any motor .~. ~ .~.r ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~Z'790 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 66 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1357 (Cont'd tune-ups; that they were asking for only one driveway on Euclid Street, while regular service stations would require fourt that the second driveway was suggested by staff for emergency purposes and foz trash pickup but was not needed fer their operation; that they were £airly well financed, and there wottld be no problems as to closing down or selling this facility because they had a long-tarm relationship .rith Union Oil as to loans, who would be forced to come in and operate this facility in the event of its failure; that he i.id not feel this would be an unsightly faci~ity~ and that they had other similar operations at E1 Toro, Orange, and Fountain Valley. Mr. Shea, in reference to possible noise, stated tiiat Fountain Valley had a veiy difficult sound code, but they had satisfied them as to sound buffering and landscaping at that location; that they had two means to approach this sound problem in Anaheim - berming and landscaping - but in addition, they had lowered the blower~ and they could add baffl9.ng material or a concrete wall, however, they would be guided by the City as to the best approach. Mr. Richard Sherman, representing Asplan Company and Standard Shoes, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that Pampas Lane was a very small street; that they had f.acilities south of said street; that the pictures presented by the petitioner were attractive, but did not show the many cars that were always around a facility of this type; that not much could be done with the noise prob~Pm, but it was possible tbat Union Uil Company could abandon this property as many other service stations had been abar~donedt that those he represented had an investment in this area of over one million dollarss that in addition to the shoe company which employed 38 persons, there was also the Sawyer Business School and an optical company; that he did not feel the use proposed would fit in with the existing traffic flow which was presently enjoyed at this interseccion; that there were already four service stations to the north and four to the southt and that when the shoe company opened - presently haviag sales of over one million dollars yearly - they did not expect to have a carwash as a neighbor, therefore, they were opposed to any iavorable consideration of a carwash and service station. Mr. Beatty, representing the owners of the apartment complex to the east, appeared in opposition and stated that he did not feel the proposed use would be suitable adjacent to residential usest and that they were also concerned about the impact of increase in traffic flow on Pampas Lane because presently it was almost imoossible to make a left turn onto Euclid Street. Mr. Lloyd Nolen, representing the Euclid Car Wash at 1135 North Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and presented a map of the city indicating that concentration of carwashes was heaviest west of Euclid Street, and then reviewed the various locations, noting that their facility was approximately one-half mile north of subject property. Mr. Nolen also noted that Shell Oil Company had just had a carwash approved next to the freeway in Fullerton on Harbor Boulevard wherein all Shell stations will give away free carwashes with gasoline purchases, and then reviewed the locations of aZl Shell stations along Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue, noting that inetead of there being one carwash, this would represent five carwashes going up; that economically speaking, another carwash operation could not be supported in this general area, particularly when one could see the existing carwashas were not making money; that they stated that Union Oil loans them money, but there was no assurance that this facility would not be closed up; and that he could not see any reason for any more carwash facilities or service stations in Anaheim, particularly on Euclid Street. Mr. Warren Strauss, 2219 West Lincoln Avenue, appeased before the Commission in opposition an~~tated that there was a question that needed answering and that there was a need for this service in this are~~a_~~ ~d from the map that had be re~ ~~e~diw~~~; ~,t~i there~"'acTequate facilities for, carwashes~e~fo"re, was there an actual nee ~~or a carwash in the area~ Mr. Shea, in rebuttal, stated that the Commission would kave to decide on the quality and impact this use would havet that there were many carwash facilities in Anaheim and Southern California, and a free carwash attracted people, and they competed with the ~ervice station only in terms of gasoline saless that the closest carwash was on North Euclid Street, and it was more than one-half mile away - in £act, he thought it was about two miles away; that as far as • 4 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72-791 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT_REPORT NO. 66 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1357 (Cont'd concern regarding sound, he did not feel the sound from the carwash would be any greater than the noise from Euclid Street; that Union 011 Company loaned them money for these operationa, but they had no control over the operation of the facilitiea, and his only reason for mentioning that Union Oil would take over would be a step to protect their investment, but the investment his company would have would be far greater than that uf Union Oil. Commissioner Rowland stated that it was only fair to say that a recent State Supreme Court ruling stated that no city had any business to deny or grant a zoning action purely on economics. Deputy City Attorne~ Frank Lowry concurred that was a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. Commissioner Rowland then s~ated that the City Council had reaffirmed their policy that anyone had a right to go broke in the City of Anaheim, and the Commission will not base their deliberations on the number of carwashes or service stations in the City but on the land use or the quality of the opera- tion and suitability of this operation at this particular location. TH~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted that one of his concerns was the generation of traffic on Pampas Lane on the living environment to the rear, and inquired what the fiBA reading was on the rear of the property and what had been done tu attenuate this sound. Mr. Dave Hildebrand, representing Beacon Bay Enterprises, Inc., advised the Commission that it was impossible to give the exact dBA for the property along the east; that their present operation in Fountain Valley was required to have a 6-foot masonry wall and a similar blower operation such as their present operation which might affect the apartments, and that there would be approxi- mately 60 dBA's on the "A" scale. Mr. Roberts noted that the readinq could not exceed the ambient by more than 5 dBA. Mr. Hildebrand, in response to further Commission questioning, stated that the only thing that might affect these apartments as to noise from this operation would be the vacuum cleaners, and these were inside of the buildinq - even though they were located only 10 feet from the apartments. Commissioner Allred noted that these vacuums were located outside of the building in Orange. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the hours of opexation; whereupon t1r. Hildebrand stated the hours would be from 8:00 a.m. tio 5:30 p.m.~ and during the summer until 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Farano noted that the operation in 4range was open until dark, and that was until 7:30 p.m. in the summer. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that this operation would be infrinqing upon the residential use, and at the present time - unless the petitioner had somethinq new - the present carwash operations had a difficult time getting below 78 dBA, and these were located on a busy street, however, most of this operation was located away from a busy street and near the residential street so that the ambient would not be there because the operation would be more than 200 feet from Euclid Street, which might generate a higher ambient. Mr. Hildebrand si:ated he was aware of the fact that both Anaheim and Fountain Valley had very strict sound ordinances, and then reviewed the noise readings of their facility in Fountain Valley which indicated a reading of 70 dBA on the "A" scale at the property line - this report was then presented to the Commission for their perusal - and stated that they had obtained the servicea of a sound engineer in order to determine the methods of providing sound attenuation. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNliv'~ COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~2'~92 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 66 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1357 (Cont'd Mr. Shea noted that most of the readings were made within 20 feet of the property line, and most of the readings were below 70 deA's, and after the facility was opened up and the landscaping had qrown, it could reduce the reading by one or two dBA'st and that staff had augqeated that trees be planted more closely on center - and 10-gallon trees be provided which they had indi- cated on their plans. Commissioner Herbst noted that when moving the cara around at a rather rapid speed, a 6-foot wall would not do much good to reducn the noiaet whereupon Mr. Shea stated that the ambient along Euclid Street must bo great. Commissioner Herbst noted that this facility would be loceted almost 277 feet from Euclid Street. Chairman Seymour noted that one of the points which the Commission must con- sider, taking both the slides and the booklet Z-resented as further information, was the fact that this 'is a 3A facility, which could be a qreat asset to the City of Anaheim, but the Commission would have to consider the location of t.ie property, and in his opinion it did not lend itself to the sale ~f qasolinet that Pampas Lane dead-ended at a very high density of aoartments, and the property to the south was highly developed with commerclal uaes, none of which would be compatible with carwashes; that economics, accorQinq to the Supreme Court, could not be considered, but when one looked at the figurea of 198 qas stations, this was considerable; that the Commisaion aould impose a require- ment that if this facility was vacant for more than six months, it would have to be torn down - other cities had such a requirement, and ha did not aee why Anaheim could not have the same. Mr. Lowry noted that the City of Anaheim had nothing like that in the Code. but it could be made a condition o£ approval. Chairman Seymour noted that the oil companies just wrote the service stations off as a tax loss, but the cities in w.hich these vacant stationa existed were left with these rather ugly buildings which wese vacant, and he would suggest that these be torn down, if they remained vacant for a given time. Mr. Shea stipulated to tearing down the proposed building if it became neces- sary to close down f~t economic reasans. Chairman Seymour was of the opinion that the location was very poor at the intersecti..n of a residential street and an arterial - and the statement made by one of the opposition regarding the impossibility of making left turns was correct - it was totally impcssible t. make a left turn from Pampas Lane onto Euc~id Street without running the ~isk of a crash. ~ommissione: Rowland stated he felt the requirement of having a service station at the intersection of two arterials was the most important factor to consider, and not the statement that this would be competition to other carwash businesses and was not a needed facility. What was more significant was the opposition of the commercial neighhors who would have to live with the proposed facility, not only was the proposal not at the intersection of two arterials, but Pampas Lane was a "T-intersection". Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 66 without any recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council, although it was his opinion that the impact of the service station upon the immediate neighbors was significant, the impact upon the community would be miiior. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the motion, with the Commission being of the opinion that the Review Committee iiad pointed out potential problems of noise and water pollution and the secondary effect wae the impact o£ another gasoline sales outlet on the other service stations in the City of Anaheim; that one could have different interpretations as to the effect of an EIR, whether it be on the community at large or the i~rmediate areas that the ,:eport was inadequate since the petitioner had not presented alternative propcsals to take care of che traffic problemst and then inquired what the exact ruling was regardinq EIR's by the State. i • ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 17., 1972 72-~93 T'~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0._66 AND CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1357 (Cont'd Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the ruling was somewhat up in the air because of the law recently signed, a copy of which had not been made available to the City Attorney's office, but from what he could understand, the ruling was somewhat between the statements made by Commissioners Rowland and Seymour. Chairman Seymour then read from the EIR submitted, noting that no altarnatives had been set forth, but there were many uses for the property that could be proposed, and no reference was made as to the increase in traffic and the effect upon the environment; whereupon Commissioner Rowland noted that the petitioner could demonstrate that over 90$ of the traffic would be on the street; whereupon Chairman Seymour noted that although this might be demon- strated, it Was not in the report, and althcugh the Commission cou.id not deny the EIR, they could make a specific finding. Commissicner Rowland withdrew his motion for the EIR. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-324 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Envizonmental Impact Report No. 66 and recommend to the City Covncil that said report be adopted only after the petitioner had sub- mitted alternative uaes for the property and provided for mitigating measures to handle the increase in traffic and noise problem. (See Resolution Book) On rcll call the foraqoinq resolution was passed by the following ~vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herhst, Kaywaod, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMI5SIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Rowlend offered Resolution No. PC72-325 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1357 on the basis that the proposed usa would not be located at the intersection of two arterials and would have nn impact by injecting very heavy traffic loads into a residen- tial street, tte well as at a"T" intersection, creating many traffic hazards; that because of the extremely heavy traffic on the arterial, vehicles exiting the proposed use on this property would be subjected to insurmountable traffic problems, particularly when attempting to make left turns into traffic from the premisest that although the petitioner was aware of the fact that the City of Anahoim had specific limitation on sound emission by equipment, the decibel readinqs this use would produce, as stated by the petitioner, would exceed this readinq, and no evidence was presented that said noises could be mitigated to protect the residential uses to the eastt and that representatives of the adjoining commercial facilities expressed very serious concern that the proposed use would be detrimental to the existing commercial uses alYeady established in the area. (See Resolution Sook) On roll cail the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. SERVICE STATION ]?ROPOSALS Chairman Seymour offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that devel- opment of service stations be limited by conditional use permit; that a condi- tion be established in approving a service station that in the event a service station became vacant for more than six months, that it be torn down and returned to its original state. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised Chairman Seymour that the City Attorney's office had been working on an ordinance and would have presented it to the work seasion, but did not have time at said work session, and that the ordinance was under atudy and prepared and was in the Development Services Department for further review, however, he had advised Commissioner Herbst ef the statua of said ordinance at the last work session. Commiasioner Ft~rano suqqested that staff have said ordinance prepared in adequnte form so that the Commission could review it at their next work session. ~ ~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~Z'~94 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK O. LOCKHART AND BETTY L. MC LEOD~ REPORT NO. 71 5557 Paradise View Road, Yucca Valley, California 92284, Owners; HAROLD A. DOUGLAS, P. O. Box 31, Long Beach, CONDITIONAL USE California 90801, Agent; requesting permission to PERMIT NO. 1358 ESTABLISH A MECHANICAL CARWASFI IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED SERVICE STATION WAIVING MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangu- larly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet and being located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. One person appeared in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, eses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a mechanical carwash in conjunction with a proposed service station with waiver of the require3 parking, noting that the submitted plans indicated a one-story, automatic carwash buildinq of approximately 1580 square feet of gross floor area ~rhich would be located approximately 25 feet £rom the south property line adjacent to a developed motel, and 22 feet from the east property line adjacent to an existing restaurant; that the area between the two property lines would be utilized for vehicular circulation, with a 10-foot wide landscaped planter being adjacent to the southerly property line adjacent to the motel; that the drying blawer was indicated to be fully enciosed, and no vacuum units were proposed; that the south end of the carwash building would be of solid concrete bl~ck construction in order to reduce noise levels in this direction; that there would be no outdoor waxinq or polishing; that office areas were indicated to be attached to the north side of the oarwash, with the canopy on the south side extending over two gasoline pumps; that the office was proposed to serve both the carwash and the gasoline servicing function; that all structures were proposed to be constructed of sand-blasted concrete block with canopies to be of graoved redwood plywood; that velticular access was provided by one 35-foot wide drive off of Ball Road, approximately 12 feet east of the corner of West Street and Ball Road and two drives on the West Street side, one 35-foot wide drive located approximately 93 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road and one 20-foot wide drive 22 feet south of the 35-foot wide driveway; that vehicular circulation was in a circular pattern through the pump is2ands around to the east end of the site, around a 32-foot diameter planted area into the carwash facility and exiting from the west end of the site onto West Street; that the front 37 feet of the property adjacent to Ball Road was fully landscaped with a 3-foot wide land- scaped strip being shown adjacent to the south property line and a 12-foot wide strip being shown adjacent to the West Street property line, excepting, of course, for the vehicular accesswayt that peripheral landscaping on both ends of the office portion of the facility were shown, and in addition a 32- foot diameter circular landscaped area was also proposed; and that signing as proposed would be of plexi-glass and internally illuminated. Mr. Young, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that service stations were a permitted use in the C-R 2one, whereas carwashes were subject to approval under a conditional use permit; that the site had been generously landscaped and well buffered from potential conflict with adjoining properties and would not appear to be in conflict with the intent of the C-R Zone, which was to provide for and encourage the development of retail businesses directly re- lated to the business of entertaining, housing, or supplying services to the tourist; and that under parking standards for a service business in the C-R Zone, 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area would be required - this, then, would indicate a parking deficit of 4 spaces since 8 spaces would be required and only 4 spaces were proposed, therefore, the Commission would wish to consider whether the proposed use would require parking in accordance with such standards. Commissioner Kaywood offereZ Resolution No. PC72-326 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 71 and recommend to the City Council that due to the nature of the use proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 1358, the impact u~on the environment would be insignificant and, therefore, there would be no need for an Environmental Impact Statement by the City Council. (See Resolution Book) • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~2-~95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 71 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1358 (COnt'd On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMZSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Mr. Rich Shellenberg, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he was with the Bubble Machine Company, a Cali£ornia operation one and one-half years old= that he wanted to keep his comments brief, however, he felt that the staff report adequately covered their proposal, and he would just like to add in regard to the parking waiver that they proposed 4 parking stalls, and the reason for this was they would have no more than four employees on the site; that they dispensed qasoline and an exterior carwash free with a fill-up, whether 2 or 20 gallons were required; that there would be permanent signing which would indicate there was a free carwasht that the patron would remain in his vehicle from beginninq to end o'_ the carwash cycle, and at the end of the cycle it would be 95$ to 97$ dry, allowing the patron to drive off; that they did provide carwash services for $1.25 without the sale of gasoline, and upon re3uest would provide oil, but the oil was not on displayi that they would have six pumps to dispense gasoli.ne; that the very fact that this was part of their primary business for approximately the same time as an automobile could be filled with gasoline and serviced at other service stations, they would provide the fill-up and the car wash; that they proposed a concrete block building fully enclosing the wash structure except for the entrance and exit, which would consist of a 4-inch thick concrete aggregate for walls of their facility which would not be asphalted; that landscaping would be 20$ to 25$ of the site, and the landscap- ing would be maintained by a professional gardener; that because they were a California corporation they were relatively small and used Standard Oil, Arco, or Phillips 66 gasoline; that they operated their own facilities and were not franchised; ~hat all employees of the bubble machine would maintain the quality of the operation; that they had checked this location because of desiqn for the use f.or the entire area, and the use proposed was a convenience type of opera- tion providing very fast service; that the location was well suited and presently was occupied as a Standard Oil station; that they felt the proposed use would be a better use of the propertyt and that the existing structure would be torn down and rebuilt as plans were presented. Mr. Ronald B. Cameron, owner of the Flamingo Motel, 1212 South West Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that the resolution passed by the Planning Commission that the environmental impact of this proposed operation was trivial would appear to him rather inaccurate because it was quite obvious that after having examined a comparable facility at 182nd and Hawthorne Soulevard in Downey the decibel reading at the property line would not be what the City requirements were, and the blowers of that facility were farther away than the blowers proposed for subject property; that the ruling of the Supreme Court that the City had no right to grant or deny a petition based on economics would certainly affect him because he paid a considerable amount of money in taxes to the City ar,d County, and if the proposed development were approved, this would cause him to become bankrupt; that he was fully aware the existing service station was open from 6:00 a.m. to I0:00 p.m. and during the summer until 2:00 a.m.; that anyone attempting to make a right turn off of West Street when the Disneyland facility had closed would find it almost impossible, and it was incredible to him to have the proposed type of operation adjacent to his property; that he would agree the plans submitted were very nice and considerable landsaapinq was p,roposed, however, the proposed facility, he would again reiterate, would bankrupt him if located adjacent to his property. Mr. Glen Diehl, President of Automatic Carwash Association and speaking for the California and Internati.onal Carwash Association, appeared before the Commission and stated he was present to inform the Planning Commission of the stand of their association and the plans in the mill that would help the Commission in their decisions on future carwash requestst that their national organization was at odds with the City Council policy regarding the economic impact of a projected carwash or whatsoever was considered because it was of ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72-796 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 71 AND CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1358 (Conc'd prime importance, therefore, the economics should be considered because of their impact upon sociological, aesthetic and ecological facets on the areat that in htis organization's opinion there was not a carwash in the Onited States that was not an abomination; that something would have to be done, or did the City want to pile bad development upon bad development, or did they want to do sometlting. Therefore, he would suggest the Commission determine the usefulness of the project and its effects upon the community; that their organization felt boards such as the Planning Commission operated from a position of terrible weakness, listening to the pros and cons - playing Solomon - and because the Commission were not experts on all things, therefore, their decisions had to be made without full knowledge; that there presently was a change occurring in the gasoline market and the carwash industry was growing by leaps and bounds in the United States and Canada, and in many instances uncontrolled, which was to the detriment of the communities, and with this in mind, his organization in conjunction with the University of Colorado and the University of Michigan were preparing a feasibility study which would be completely ~objective, applying this study to all sizes of communities and geographical locations - said study would be ready about the first of February, 1973, and they planned to give the results of this study to any planning body having to decide on any cazwash their city would consider, since hardly a hearing passed that the Planning Commission did not consider a carwash. Therefore, he would suggest that the Commission keep in mind the feasibility study because he felt it would be a considerable help to the Planning Commission in making any future decisions on carwashes. Mr. ShellenLerg, in rebuttal, stated he would like to comment regarding Mr. Cameron's problem since he had met with him several weeks ago regarding his concern pertaining to noise, and then submitted a letter from a zoning administrator from a Northern California city where an identical facility was built, which indicated his feelings regarding said facility since the proposed facility would be as close or as far from any residential property, including a motel, as the facility in Northern California; and then noted that they were a fast, convenience-type service unlike a full carwash operation since each patron would not be at the facility more than five to seven minutes, and because they were a convenience-type operation, they wculd not be a threat to the existing traffic volumes, and no one would go out of their way just to have the exterior of their car washed because they did not clean the windows or vacuum the inside of the car; and that they had no interest in remaining open 24 hours a day. Then in response to Commission questioning regarding hours of operation, stated in the past they had been open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and they intended to close at a reasonable time, but they would like to stay open as lonq as it was profitable due to the fact that they were a~o^; *_hP main traffic flow from Disneyland, which was open until 1:00 a.m. in the summer and 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. in the winter. Commissioner Allred inquired what type of price sign was proposed, and would this facility have a self-vacuum operation for the customer to do his own cleaning; whereupon Mr. Shellenberg replied that their price sign would be integrateZ with the regular sign; that they wculd not have any self-vacuum facilities; and that if the Commission so desired, they could make that a condition ~P approval. Mr. Shellenberg, in further response to Commission questioning, stated he cou13 provide the Commission with the results of the soun~' study made for the Northern California city, however, he was aware that Anaheim's sound ordinance was more stringent. Commissioner Herbst stated that this did not answer the question since the owner of the motel was very concerned about the noise factor, and even a letter from the Zoning Administrator did not state anything specific; where- upon Mr. Shellenberg stated that the letter indicated they were a good neigh- bor and a compatible business; that they intended to meet any City regulation that was reasonable; and that he believed that they could have an ambient level as set forth in the sound ordinance. Commissioner Gauer observed that the Commission expressed concern regarding an apartment complex 150 feet away from a similar operation, while the exist- ing motel was almost next door, and he did not care what the Supreme Court ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 ~2'~9~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT_NO. 71 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1358 (Cont'd) ruling stated about going broke, because any business that went broke affected other people because of the supplies and materials sold to that person. Purthermorer it was his opinion that Anaheim had too many service stations, and he would not vote for another one even though it was praposed to be con- verted to a carwash with gasoline sales. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Seymour inquired of Mr. Diehl his opinion regarding the noise ~;~llution that the proposed operation would cause the motel alonq the south. Nlr. Diehl stated he had sat in many meetings on carwashes, and reports qiven ~-egarding sound levels which various acoustical engineers had presented - t:zey read like statistics, depending upon who read them - and it also depended upon what the person wanted the acoustica5. engineers to state as it pertained to the ambient, and i£ the cazwash industry could say that carwashes were ecologically bad at the present time, then the sound from thie carwash would create sound pollution. Furthermore, they had mailed a reaolution to cities wY;ich had been introduced into the State Legislature asking for a moratorium or, the building of carwashes until the feasibility study was completed and communities could bring some action - perhaps the State needed some help to stop spreading blight. However, the Commission was faced with the same problem that Anaheim faced four years ago regarding service stations, and there could be a day when there would be four carwashes at each intersectiont that the industry and the cities had to learn about the problems and must st_and back and look at what was being done to the environmer.t. In addition, hc: did not know about what the noise factor would be on the motel, but when c•ars were being dried by the blowers, there was considerable noise. Commissioner Farano observed that the automatic carwash industry deserved a c~reat deal of praise because they were facing up to their own problem, and ihen inquired whether Mr. Diehl would want to own this motel; whereupon 1'r. Diehl stated that he did not operate any business in Anaheim or was not gresent to complain about this facility, but it was his opinion that this u~otel would be faced with a lot of noise with which they would have to contend. Commissioner Herbst asked the agent for the petitioner what the decihel read- ing was when these blowers were in operation; whereupon Mr. Shellenberg stated that at the rear of the tunnels it would be about 57 dBA's, and with the acoustical material they propesed, the decibel reading would be about 65 dBA's, but at the front along the blowers the decibel reading farther =rom the rear could reach 70 dBA's, that he was talking particularly about their construction and their configuration on the site with the building proposed; and that they knew the blowsr was the culprit, and they were workinq on that problem. Commissioner Herbst stated that the Commission was not only concerned with the ambient level but particularly where people would be sleeping in the motel, and from a report by HUD, they stated that where there were more than 45 dBA's recorded inside of a xoom, the sleep of the person in that room would be disturbed. Mr. Shellenberg, in response to Commission questioning, stated they were not interested in operating at unreasonable hours, and they would be willing to close at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-327 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 13~8 on the aasis that the proposed use would be only 20 feet from an existing motel, and tk.~e noise from the use and traffic it wou2d generate in close proximity would be detrimental to the occupants o£ the rooms adjacent to said carwash, disturbing their rest; that the intersection of these two arterials at which the proposed use was }.o be located was too heavily traveled because of the existing commer- cial-recreation uses to permit furYher injection of local traffic using this facility; that the proposed use would have a detrimental economic impact upon the adjoining established land uses, thereby creatinq a blight in the area by the possible closing of existing facilities - a motel and restaerant~ and that a precedent could be established with the conversion of other abandoned service station sites with similar types of operation throughout the city. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72-798 ENVIRONMENTAI, IMPACT REPORT NO. 71 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1358 (Cont'd) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 5:45 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEO FREEDMAN, 2346 Kerwood, Apartment 4, PERMIT NO. 1359 West Los Angeles, Califo~nia 90064, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 111-FOOT AIGH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMSER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 470 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 660 feet, and being located south and east of the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Freedman Way. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearinq, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Leo Freedman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented financial statements of the Hyatt House Corporation, lessee of subject property, indicating the financial bacJcground, noting that he had been interested in the commercial aspect of development of Anaheim; that the Hyatt House proposed to have a large, prestige convention motel and had people experienced in the convention staff and had reciprocal agreements that they needed people to do this type of convention business; that this proposed type of facility would generate a two million dollar a year operation, which would be considerable tax income to the City of Anaheim on the 6$ bed tax levy; that they needed a high-rise hotel since Los Angeles lost many large conventions because they did not have high-rise facilities available; that the cocktail lounge would be located at the top of this facilitl; that waiver of the parking require- ment could be explained by the fact that many times they had all of the rooms filled and only a small portion of the parking area had been filled because people came to the conventions by bus and by plane; that :ie did not feel that parking was a problem, however, he did feel the widening of the Santa Ana Freeway to ten lanes was important, which then would mean that Freedman Way would be an off-ramp from the freeway; that the palm trees existing would be relocated on the property; that the interior four units to the south might have the liqht blocked out, but these would be redesigned in the interior, making them very desirable; that the reason for retaining the present 168 rooms was because some conventions could not afford the prices for high-rise rooms. Chairman Seymour noted that he would like to have some expression from the Commission regarding the Environmental Impact Report since it appeared that staff was of the opinion that one would be needed. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to request that an Environmental Impact Repor~ be required to be filed since he could not see how a development of this magnitude could be undPrtaken without some impact, even though it might be considered trivial by the petitioner, some kind of a study was necessary for the Commission to determine whether or not there would be any impact upon the environment, and the citizens of the City of Anaheim as well as the City Co•:ncil should know what impact this type of development would have on the community. Commissioner Kaywoc•d seconded the motion. Cammissioner Allred inquired why the Commission felt there would be some effect with this proposal since a motel/hotel and a high-rise already existed across the street and to the southeast; whereupon Commissioner Farano stated that this would be a substantially larger complex contemplated on the property, and there could be some form of impact as to the number of people and vehicles ';his increase in the number of units would have on the circulation, air, and noise pollution. and that it was an obligation under the existing circumstances for the applicant and the developer to go through the exercise as to what the impact would bring, setting forth these statements so that the Commission could evaluate the proposal. . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72-799 CONDITIONAL USE PERMST NO. 1359 (Continued) Com.nissioner Herbst noted that the impact statement set forth whether the proposal would be good or bad, and because this was a major project of some magnitude, it should not be passed over lightly by saying it was trivial. Commissioner Farano noted he would like to dispense with the manner in which tre Commission was handling the Environmental Impact Reports because it was either required or that it would contribute something or nothing to the community. Commissioner Herbst noted he felt this proposal would have an impact upon the area. Mr. Freedman then inquired whether or not his exemption status statement would not suffice; wheseupon Chairman Seymour stated that the petit:oner had requested an exemption from the requirements for filing, and the Commission had made a determination that one should be filed. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that since the Commission was desirous of having an impact report filed, it would be appi~priate for the City Council to make this decision as to whether one was needed or not. Mr. Freedman then requ~sted that the Commission take action on the conditional use permit in order that it might reach the City Council for their further action. Mr. Lowry noted that the Planning Commission did not have the power to approve or deny an Environmental Impact Report, and before any action could be taken on the conditional use permit, it would be necessary for the Commission to have either an EIR filed or the City Council rule an exemption status could be granted. Mr. Young noted that Mr. Freedman's representative had filed a request for exemption staius from the EIR; that there had been some disagreement with the representative; that the Assistant Development Services Director, the 2oning Supervisor, and a representative o£ the City Attorney's office had evaluated this request, at which time it was determined that one would be required. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that an addendum had been filed to the exemption status request; that this addendum address~d itself primarily to the parking question based on tkie actual hotel occupancy for a qiven week, but did not answer the specific question on traffic congestion, however, even after said adAendum had been filed, it was the opinion of the Develo~:ment Services Department that an EIR was necessary, and the agent for the petitioner had~been advised at the outset that one would be necessary. Chairman Seymour noted that he wanted to coouerate in every way possible with the developer and the architect, therefore, he would suggest that an ETR be filed so that in the event the City Council determined that one was necessary, the Commission could take action on December 27, however, he could not conjure in his mind that there would be any adverse effect upon the environment, but the Commission still felt one should be filed. Commissioner Farano withdrew his motion for a request for an EIR. Commissioner Kaywood withdrew her second. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to request that ths City Council dPtermine whether an exemption status under Conditional Use Permit Nc. 1359 should be granted or whether an Environmental Impact Report should be required. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1359 to the meeting of December 27, 1972, to allow time for the City Council to determine whether an exemption status should be granted. ~ ~ ~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72-800 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DAVID DOERING, 1203 West Lincoln Avenue, PERMIT NO. 1360 Anaheim, California 92801, Ownes; requesting permissi~n to ESTABLISH A COCKTAIL LOUNGE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 200 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 105 feet and being located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Three persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uses establishe3 in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the request to establish a cocktail lounge by converting the existing pet shop having approximately 1260 square feeti that there would be a seating area £or 28 seats with 15 bar stools and restrooms, storage area and a manager's office; that the front of the building would be improved, subati- tuting rock veneer for the existing glass store front; that a single-family residence was developed across the rear of surject property, but it was de- tached from the commercial buildings by approximately 5 feet and extendiag to within 9 feet of the property line adjacent to a residential alley; and that the existing structure to the west of the proposed cocktail lounge would be removed to provide for parking. Mr. Young, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the primary concern before the Commission would ap~,ear to be the compatibility of the proposed use with the existing residences in close proximity, not only those homes located across the alley to the north, but the dwelling unit proposed to remain on-site; that a parking deficit of 9 spaces would be experienced if interpreted under present standards; that a deficit would also be experienced by the lack of parking area for the residence which i~ proposed to remain on-site; and that one addi- tional point for Commission consideration was the existing alley to the north which was only 14 feet in width. Commissioner..ierbst left the Council Chamber at 6:15 p.m. Mr. Dave Doering, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the proposed cocktail lounge would benefit both the city and himself since it was proposed to improve the area by removal of one of the very old houses; that he would be improving his property, utilizing the one lot where the old house would be removed for parking purposest that this cocktail lounge would serve the neighborhood since the restaurant next door served only beer and wine; that the restaurant next door rented additional parking space from the gasoline station; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated he had no plans to have an entrance to the restaurant - that might be some day in the future after the existing 2ease ran out; and that he proposed to change the existing pet shop into the cocktail lounge since there was no cocktail lounge for a distance of ten blocks. Mr. Frederick appeared before the Commission stating he represented his son who owned property in the same block; that his main question was parking and the waiver being requested since when the existing restaurant adjacent to subject property had been occupied by Armstrong's there had always been a parking problem with people parking down the street in front of the store and walking back to Armstrona's to partake in a meal; that this particular lot was very heavily covered in addition to the house with an ~~artment above the house at the rear; and that his primary objection to the proposed use would be a possibility of a reduction in the on-street parking when customers of his son's establishment would be deprived of being able to park within close proximity. Mrs. Ray Sullivan, 1122 West Diamond, appeared b~fore the Commission, noting she represented neighbors on Diamond Street, most of whom were retired, elderly people who were reluctant to get up and talk in public; that they were not opposed to on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with the restaurant, but they were opposed to a cocktail lounge; that she had constant disagreement with the neighbors because of the beer and whiskey bottles that were always thrown on her property, having spent one and one-half hours one night trying to clean up trash thrown on her garage doors; that she did not feel a cocktail lounge would improve the rather untenable situation of left-over food, whiskey and beer bottles throwr. into the alley nor the possible noise from inebriated customers ~eaving the facility; that a former establishment known as "The Hangout" in this area would have fights at least three times a week, and the ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 11, 1972 72-801 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1360 (Continued) police would be called bE~ause these elderly people were frightened, and eventually this facility was closed; that there was a serious parking problem - people residing in the apartments parked on hsr eice of the str~zt, and these people acted as though they ownad the three streets in this general area, making tlie owners and residents of the properties t.hese feel as though they were the transients rather than the actua2 homeown.ers. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the petitioner was aware of the fact that there was a recommended condition of dedication for alley widening purposes; whereupon Mr. Doering stated that although he had no objection ~o dedication, he did not know how this alley could be widened because one build- ing was all the way to the alley:now; that reference made to the opposition's concern regarding parking for the upstairs apartment, this was used for offica purposes only; that they intende3 to tear dawn the old house and use the entire lot for parking; that since the Armstrong restaurant was no lonqer in operation, there was no need for concern as to the parking problem; and that the reason why there was such a problem with people in this area was the fact that they were people on welfare, and these types of people who rented homes were of the lower class and were the type that would dri.nk and cause trouble, and he would hope to gear his operation to a better class.of people. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the hours of operation; whereupon Mr. Doerinq stated they would be from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. the following morn- ing, and if this was not feasible, he would cut down to what he felt would be feasible. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not this was going to be a special "go-go" type £acility with entertainment; whereupon Mr. Doering stated that it was not intended to have that type of operation. Commissioner Gauer noted it would appear there was a parking problem in the proposed operatioa. Commissioner Allred inquired of the petitioner what he intended to d~ with the rear pcrtion where the house was presently located; whereupon Mr. Doering stated that there was one home located behind the existing building which they intended to retain, while the one to the side of the existing building would be torn down to make room for parking. Commissioner Allred noted that this was a nonconforming use on commercial property, and if the petitioner would remove the house proposed to remain on the rear of the property, he might give favorable consideration to the request, however, to permit the house and C-2 uses as well on the property would be granting the petitioner a privilege and right not enjoyed by other C-2 uses. Chairman Seymour noted that since this was an old and changing area where people with lower incomes were now living, he felt they sY.~uld be afforded some kind of protection, and a cocktail lounge was not the most desirable use adjacent to these residential uses. Chairman Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-328 and moved for xts passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1360 on the Lasis that the propased use would be incompatible with adjoining residential land uses and would be more acceptable if proposed in conjuncti~~n with a restaurant operation; that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located; and that the size and shape of the site ±roposed for the use was not adequate to allow the £ull development of the pruposed use in a manner not detrimental to the area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSZONERS: None. ABSEN'C; COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland. • ! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, December 11~ 1972 ~2-802 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE NO. 2292 - Property located on the north side of Miraloma Avenue, approximately 1650 feet~ east of the centerline o£ Kraemer Boulevard - Request for termination. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that fuzther research had to be done on the requested termination, and, therefore,.he would recommend that this be continued to the meeting of December 27, 1972. ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1072 - Request for an extension of time - Property located at the south- east corner of Haster Street and Manchester Boulevard. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establiah a bus depot in an existing structure, which was granted by the Planning Commission in November of 1968, with the finding that it be reviewed yearly to determine any problems regarding parking; that three previous one-year extensions of time have been granted by the Planning Commission; and that a field inveatigation by staff indicated there were no apparent deleterious effects from the existing use on the property in the area; that parking appeared to be adequate; that the Enqineering Division had indicated no dedication for Haster Street would be needed at the present time since the ultiinate alignment of Haster Street had not, as yet, been determined by the City and the State Division of Highwaysi that the petitioner indicated he was withholding consideration of development:changes since he had been in- formed that bids for the Haster Street overcrossing were not likely to occur until 1975; and that the Police Department reports indicated no police problems at this location, therefore, staff would recommend r~ one-year extension of time effective November 4, 1972, to expire November 4, 1973, again subject to review by the Development Services Department. Commissioner Allred offered a metion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time for the use granted under Conditional Use Permit No. 1072, retroactive to November 4, 1972 and said time extension to expire November 4, 1973. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTZON CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, I?!C. io~o i,,~r r,., r.~, sz:~ ~n;~hc~.m. Ce~~furn~n