The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1966/02/28~ 1 City Hall Anaheim, California February 28, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGUI.AR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman protem Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. ~ PRESEPlT - CHAIRMAN PROTEM: Camp (afternoon). Gauer (evening). - COMMISSIUNERS: Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall (Camp - evening). PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts ~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Aseociate Planner: Jack Christofferson Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Zoning Division Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg INVOCATION - Reverend Staniey J. Herber, Pastor of the Free MethodisC Chur~h, gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of Fehruary 16, 1966, wer .~oved THE MINUTES as submitted. TENTATIVE MAP OF ' TRP C - DEVELOPER: C. E. BE;~ER, 175 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, California. . T N0. 6170 ~ ENGINEER: McDaniel-Jacobsen and Associates, 500 North Anaheim Boulevard, ~ Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the southwest corner of -' - Santa Ana Canyon Road and Peralta Hills Urive, and containing approxi- , mately 7.15 acres, is proposed for subdivisicn into sever, R-A, Residential Estates, Z~ned lots. Mr. A. R. McDaniel, the engineer of the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and requested that the Commission consider an amendment to Conditien No. 3 0.' the Staff's recom- mendations, making the p~ovision of the private accessway subje~t to a feasibility study for the provision of a 20-foot access drive and subject to the approvai of the Cit.y Engineer, since the existing paved drive had served subject property for a numbei• of years. Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the City Engineer was of the opinion that subject tract should conform to the Peralta Hills standards for private accessways. ~~~ ~ * .~x Discussion was held by the Commission in which it was stated that the proposed request for waiver of the Peralta tiills standards was the first such request considered by the Commission since the public hearing was held establishing these standards; that approval of the waiver wou~d be aetting a precedent for similar requests throughout th= Peralta Hills area; that no hardship h.;d be:n proven by the developer that a substantial right was bein9 denied him which was granted to other property owners; that the provision of adequate roads was necessary in this area to provide for the increase in automobile traffic, fire protection, trash pickup, and by delivery trucks; that the existing road was now serving four families; and that the existir.g private ar,cessway should meet Code requirements because it would eventually serve an additional three to four families. Furthernore, if a substandard access drive were approveci, the buyers of the lots or hnmes would have little recourse through the "long gone" developer if proFer cixculation was not required by the City. Mr. McDaniel, in respo~~se to Commission questioning relative to water lines which would be adequate to serve for fire protection, stated that the area was presently beino served by a private water company with small private lines; however, he was sure the final tract would not be approved by the Fire and Water Departments if adequate fire protection was not indicaLed. and that the developer would provide whatever protection the City required. 2938 - '!~J_r~'. •.1 ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2939 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Commissicner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract TRACT N0. 6170 . No. 6170 with a finding that the existing trees along Peralta Hills (Continued) Drive should b= retained and maintained, thereby eliminating the need for the planting of parkway trees and the necessity of requiring street ~ tree fees as a condition of approval of this tract~ and subject to the following conditions: ~ 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivisior, thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. _ 2. That street tree fees shall be waived as a requirement of this tract. ~~""~$ 3. That an existing private accessway, adjacent to Lot No. 6 of the propused Tentative ~; ~ Map of Tract No. 6170, shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and constructed in accord- ;~j~ ance with the Peralta Hills standards for private accessways and Section 18.18.030(7) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ~, Cor.unissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. v ~~ -. UARIANCE NU. 1766 - PUBLIC HEARING. RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, i06G0 Katella Avenue, rl, Anaheim, California Owner• re uestin + ~ q 9 permission to ESTABLISH A 3a0- `~ TENTATIVE MAP OF UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SUBDIVISION WITH WAIVERS UF: (1) FRONT `i TRACT NOS. 4476, YARD SETBACK, (2) 1AT AREA AND WIDTH~ A~D (3) REVERSE CORNER I.OT WIDTH, i REVISION N0. 1, AND on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land contain- ~•.~ 5593, 6198 5591 ing aoproximately 59.3 acres located at the northeast corner of the '~ intersection of the Riverside Freeway and the Newport Freeway, and having ~~ a total frontage of approximately 2,380 feet on the Riverside Freeway, ;i the maximum depth of subject property being approximately 1,950 feet. Property presently ;i classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE (R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE PENDING). h1r. Harry Rinker, representing the owner of subject property, appeared before the Commission afd reviewed the approved zoning for subject property, together with the proposed subdivision o. subject property into 340 5,000 square foot lots, said subdivision being a substantial reduction from the approved zoning; that the homes proposed would be in the medium price range, the largest would be sold for approximately $25,000; that the Cities of La Palma and ! Dairy Valley were having a very active sales program on the types of lots being proposed , under subject petitions;that the proposed subdivisior: would be more compatible with the - single-family subdivision development existing to the east of subject property; that the proposed structures would have shake roois and exterior masonry walls; and that the architect and engineer were present to answer any Commission questions. Mr. Frank B. Morris, architect for the proposed development, presented colored drawings and layouts of the five floor plans, noting that the floor plans ranged in size from 1,500 to i 2,000 square feet with variable front yard setbacks which would be advantageous to archi- tectural control of the proposed subdivision; that this would also be a great improvement ~ over the standard 25-foot setback required by the City; that swimming pools were only out- lined on the plans to indicate to a prospective buyer that a swimming pool could be accom- ~ modated on the lots; that two of the five plans were two-story construction; that two of I the smaller, one-story plans would be used only on lots on which larger homes would not fit; ~ and that because of the manner in which the subdivision laws were written required the propert to be subdivided, there was little flexibilit to y y permit varying front yards which would give property owners the maximum use of their lots, since, in his opinion, the 25-foot front yard ~ setback was basically wasted space. Mr. Rinker again appeared before the Commission and stated he had made a tour through ten to twelve homes in the Newport Beach area which had zero to three-foot setbacks and ranged in price from $50,000 to $160,000; said homes did not have the same amenities as was being propcsed on the five plans under consideration. ,j ~ ' No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Rowland stated he wished to make it clear that what the Commission was consider- ing was R-3 property and nct R-1 property; that if the Commission had to consider subject property as R-1 development, he would be opposed to it; that what the developer was proposing was a less dense, R-3 development; furthermore, he was opposed to any request for waiver of the side yard setbacks since the intent of a less dense development was to assure privacy, and when the requirement was made for adequate side yard setbacks between the homes, this would assure this privacy; that Plan Na. 1 shoulo be redesigned to provide for on-site park- ing, which meant a minimum 10-foot setback would have to be projected; and that the architect had mentioned that of the five plans presented, two of the three single-story plans would be used sparingly - however, he was not opposed to two-story construction since subject propeity 2~ad R-3 zoning approved. MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIvG CUrviMISSION, February 28, 1966 2940 VARIANCE N0. 1766 - Commissioner Perry expressad concern that the proposed development was being projected for the Hill and Canyon area where it was hoped TENTATIVE MAP OF to develop the property for a higher quality type home, and if subject TRACT NOS. 4476, petition and tracts were approved, this might set a precedent for REVISION N0. 1, AND similar requests throughout the Canyon area; and that the estimated 5593. 6198. 5591 number of children from the projected 340 :~omes could mean an additional (Continued) school to accommodate so many children, whereas apartments did not pro- ject as many cnildren. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the development was R-i since exceptionally . large homes were being proposed, and with so many children which might be projected, there ~~ would not be adequate play area for the children. ~y ~ , Discussion was continued by the Commission both for and against the Froposed development ~,~ covering basically:l) that the approved zoning for subject property could mean a density of ,' 250 R-3 lots with four units per lot; 2) requirement that the waiver be for only the front yard setbaclcs of 10, 15, and 20 feet; 3) that side yard setbacks be maintained to Code ,i requirements; 4) that if subject property had not had R-3 zoning approved, this wculd cast a different light on the proposed request; and 5) tt~at the proposed development was basically ~ better than the density which was approved for subject property. ~ Mr. Morris advised the Commission that he had an alternate Plan No. 1 which indicated a set- ~' back of 10 feet, if the Commission so desired to have no less than a 10-foot setback. The Commission then directed the architect to submit a copy of Alternative No. i for the ~ file. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that they may wish to consider a condition similar to that required of the Butler-Harbour property which was "that develop- ment be substantially in accordance with plans, including accessory buildings and any change ~ in the developmeni plans would be subject to Commission and City Council review". ~ Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that when Riverdale Avenue (Batavia Street) was extended through subject property, the access road to the Riverside Freeway souther'y ~f Tract No. 6198 would be closed; that the City had budgeted the extension of Riverdale Avenue ~ for 1966-67 in conjunction with the County of Orange, and upon its completion, would extend ~ to Tiller Avenue; and that the dedication would be acquired prior to development of the first _ tract, the City being responsible for the center 24 feet of !.`.a street being paved. It h~as :f - also noted by Mr. Daw that the requirement that "drainage be to the satisfaction o: the City ~ Engineer" would comply with the request of the Orange County Water and Flood Control Districts, and that any alignment along the Riverside Freeway would be subject to the approval of the Division of Highways. ;l ;~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1949, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ti and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1766, ;~ subject to complying with the side yard requirements of the Code; that Alternate No. 1 of ~ the plot plans be substituted, showing a 10-foot front yard setb<~ck; and that on each lot in the proposed subdivisions, shall be constructed one, detached, single-family dwelling ~ unit with accessory building in accordance with Sectior. 18.28.02G(a), and conditions. , i (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: - , AYES: CUAIMISSIUNERS: Camp, Gauer, Rowland. ~ NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Perry. F ! ABSENT: COMN.ISSIONrRS: Allred, Mungall. ~i ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4476, Revision I No. 1, subject to the followin9 co~,~?*_~~ns: i ; 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4476, Revision No. 1, is granted ~ subject to the approval of Variance 1Jo. 1766. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each e¢ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. E.; p~ 3. That the drainage s}:all be disch~rged in a manner which is satisfactory to the ~~ City Engineer. f- 4. That the alignment of :he tract boundary, adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, ;~ ~ shall be apprcved by the State Division of Highways. , ~ c F ~ ' i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Iebruary 28, 1966 2941 VARIANCE N0. 1766 - 5. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the southerly property line separat- TENTATIVE MAP OF ing Lot Nos. 1 through 11 and the Riverside Freeway. TRACI' NOS. 4476, REVISION N0. 1, AND 6. That Street "G" shall be named Sagamore Street, and that Street 5593. 61Q8, 5591 "H" shall be named Pageant Street. (Continued) Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARP.IED. Commissioners Herbst and Perry voted "NO", Commiss~ener Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5593, subject to the iollowing conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5593 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 1766. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That the discharge of drainage into the Santa Ana River shall be approved by the Orange County Water District, Orange County Flood Control District, and City Engineer. 4. That the alignment of the tract boundary, adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, sha]1 be approved by the State Division of Highways. 5. That Street "B" shall have a 40-foot roadway and 10-foot parkways. 6. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the southeriy property line separating Lot Nos. 64, 70, 71, 72 and 74 through 77, and the Riverside Freeway. 7= ?hat in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the northerly property line separating Lot Nos. 58 through 63 and 132 through 141 and Riverdale Avenue, except that Corner Lot Nos. 63 and 132 shall be stepped down to a height of 30 inches in the front yard setback, and except that pedestrian ooenings shall be provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways right-of-way line of an arterial highway. Reasonable landscaping, includiny irrigation facilities, shall be fnstalled in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintend~nt of Parkway Maintsnance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim sh311 assume the responsibility for main- tenance of said landscaping. 8. That the divider island, in Riverdale Avenue, shall be planted with reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, with plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 9. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to Riverdale Avenue, for the soiath side only, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 10. That Street "A" shall be named Alderdale Circle; and that Street "B" shall be named Roxanne Street. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MGT70N CARRIED. Commissioners Herbst and Perry voted "NO". Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6198, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval ot Tentative Map of Tract No. 6198 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 1766. .~ ; 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each :~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. .;~ _ ~ '~ 3. That drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to ~~ ;~ the Cit En y gineer. _, - - ~ _.. ,,,, ~_ -l -- , ~"~Y~,~. ~ .•~s-c;~, : ~ ~ ; 1 ~ / MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 28, 19b6 2942 VARIANCE N0. 1766 - 4. That the alignment of the tract boundary, adjacent to the freeway rioht-of-way, shall be approved by the State TENTAT!`'H MAP OF Division of Highways. TRACT NOS. 4476, REVISION N0. 1, AND 5. That in accordance with City Council policy, a o-foot masonry 5593. 6198, 5591 wall shall be constructed on the southerly property line separat- (Continued) ing Lot Nos. 25 through 57 and the Riverside Freeway. 6. That the blue border of Tract No. 6198 shall include the street extending southerly from Riverdale Avenue and Riverdale Avenue north of Lot Nos. 63 and 132. 7. That Street "B" shall be named Bainbridge Avenue; that Street "C" shall be named Edgepark Street; and that Street "D" shall be named Fauna Avenue. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioners Herbst and Perry voted "NO". Commissic,ner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5591, subject to the foilowing conditions: 1. That the approval af Tentative Map of Tract No. 5591 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 1766. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiv:sion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative :orm for approval. 3. That drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. That the alignment of the tract boundary, adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, shall be approved by the State Division of Highways. 5. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 5-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the southerly property line separating Lot Nos. 12 through 24, and the Riverside Freeway. 6. That Street "E" shall be named Roxanne Street; and that Street "F" shall be named Flora Street. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioners Herbst and Perry voted "NO". Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson advised the Commission that at the time subject property was approved for R-3 development, it was proposed to develop as a planned residential development, and that it might be necessary to recommend to the City Council that amend- ments be made to Resoluiion of Intent No. 64R-103, dated February 11, 1964, approving by resolution of intent Reclassification No. 63-64-20, and Resolution No. 64R-105, dated February 11, 1964, approving by resolution of intent Reclassification No. 63-64-21, as follows: Reclassification No. 63-64-20 - Resolution of Intent No. 64R-103 "Deletion af Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. "Modify Condition Nos. 8 and 9 to read: "8. That the completion of these reclassification proceedings is subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 63-G4-21. "9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file witti the City of Anaheim with Variance No. 1766, marked Exhibit Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3, Revision No. 1. "Addition of the following condition: "That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25.U0 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued." , ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ / MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2943 VARIANCE N0. i766 - Reclassification No. 53-F4-21 - Resolution of Intent No. 64R-105 TENTATIVE MAP OF "Deletion of Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. TRACT NOS. 4476, "Modify Condition Nos. 8 and 9 to read: REVISION N0. 1, AND "8. That the completion of these reclassification proceedings 5593. b198, 5591 is subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 63-64-20. (Continued) "9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance wiih plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim with Variance No. 1766, marked cxhibit Nos. 2~ 4~ 5~ 6~ 7~ S~ 9~ 10~ 11~ 12 and 13, a~d Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3, Revision No. 1. ~ , "Addit:on of the following condition: ~r "That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of ' Anaheim the sum of $25.00 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued." which would permit continuation of the Commission's action on subject variance and tracts. Mr. Thompson also noted that at some future date, when~the City Council had approved final _, tract maps for subject property, that Conditional Use Permit Nos. 465 and 466 might be recom- mended for termination to the City Council since these originally proposed planned residen- tial developments whereas the petitioner was now proposing subdivision of the property into 340 single-family units on property approved for R-~ development. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Resolutions of Intent 64R-103 and 64R-105, establishing through resolution of intent the reclassification to R-3 of Petition for Reclassification Nos.63-64-20 and 63-64-21 on February 11, 1964, as foliows: Reclassification No. 63-64-20 - Resolution of Intent No. 64R-103 "Deletion of Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. "Modify Condition Nos. 8 and 9 to read: "8. That the completion cf these reclassification proceedings is subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 63-64-21. ;I _~ "9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with _ plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim with Variance ' No. 1766, marked Exhibit Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3, Revision No. 1. ~ "Addition of the following condition: "That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25.00 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued." Reclassification No. 63-64-21 - Resolution of Intent No. 64R-105 "Deletion of Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. "Modify Condition Nos. 8 and 9 to read: "fl. That the completion of these reclassification proceedings is subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 63-64-20. "9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and speciiications on file with the City of Anaheim with Variance No. 1766, marked Exhibit Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and Fxhibit Nos. 1 and 3, Revision No. 1. "Addition of the following condition: "That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25.00 per dweiling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued." Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioners Perry and Herbst voted "NO". ~'} ~ * .a1x r, t 'i . ~ , MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 28, ]966 2944 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. NICHOLAS J. DOVALIS, 930 South Maonolia PERMIT N0. 810 Street, Anaheim, Caliiornia, Owner; JOSEPH AND ETHEL CASAGRANDE, 6058 Atoll 5treet, Van Nuys, California, Agents; requesting permission to ESIABLISH A CONVALESCENT }~1SPITAL, WITH WAIVER OF MAXI~dUM REQUIRED BUILDING HEIGHT, on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 117 feet`on the north side of West Ball Rood and having a maximum depth of approximately 349 feet, t,ie easterly boundary of subject property being approxi- mately 835 feet west of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3615 P~est Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENeRAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Nicholas Dovalis, the petitioner, indicated his preser.ce in the Council Chamber and stated that Mr. Dennis Wehmueller, the architect, would answer any technical questions the Commission might have. Architect Wehmueller, in response to Commission questioning, stated it was proposed to develop a one-story, 18,000 to 19,000 square foot structure for the treatment of convales- cents; that the proposed development was considered in conjunr.tion with the aid to the ag?d government program; that he had met with the staff regarding the problem of providing adequate access for fire and trash trucks which had been resolved; and that adequate parking was being provided in the front since it was proposed to have two courtyards. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission there was a slight typographical error in the Report to the Commission in that Finding No. 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, should state "The L5-foot private drive" instead of "50-foot". Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1950, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 810, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH AND ANN SILVER, 232 South Alta Vista, Los Angeles, PERMIT N0. 816 California, Uwners; ALAN SILVER, 232 South Alta Vista, Los Angeles, California, Age~t; requestina permission to HAVE UN-SALE BEER IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 107 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 565 feet ~ast of the centerline of Knott S~reat, and further described as 3414 West Ball Road. Pro: rty presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCiAL, ZONE. ~ Mr. Alan Silver, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated since the petition had been filed, one of the owners had passed away; therefore, the petition was in the name of Ann Silver only, and that the lessee of the proposed restaurant had requested on-sale beer for subject property. A letter of opposition from the Savanna School District Superintendent was read to the Commission. ~ Mr. ;~. L. Wolfert, 3404 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating an attempt had been made for the past five years to permit on-sale beer in the small shopping center; that since the original request had been made, many more school children were now located in the area, and the proposed on-sale beer would be have a . detrimental influence on the children of the area; furthermore, since subject property _ was adjacent to a hospital, this would also be considered detrimental to the peace, health and safety of the patients of the hospital, and that his company was located to the rear of subject property. '.~~ Mr. Silver, in rebuttal, stated he was unaware of an pp ~ _ cocktail lounge and restaurant were located closer to theVSChool thanathenproposedeestab- ~ lishment, and that by measurement, because of the fact that a railway right-of-way inter- * sected the shopping center and the school, there was no possible way the children could y walk by less than 1,000 to 1,500 feet. [ 1 .+~x ~ ~ , - ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COvIMISSION, February 28, 1966 2945 CONDITIONAL USE - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. PERMIT N0. 816 (Continued) Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proximity of the schooi and the hospital to subject property, and the fact that thp on- sale be~r was proposed for a very small shopping center, and thatthe kitchen facilities were inadequate to provide for the serving of food or the broiling of steaks. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1951, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passzge and adoptlon, seconded by Commiasion?r Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 816, baszd on the fact that the proposed use would be detrimental to the integrity of the small ~hopping area in which it was proposed to be located; that the use would adversely affect the adjoinir.o land uses; that the size and shape was not adequate to provide for the full development of the proposed use; and that a hospital and school were in close proximity to subject property. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE SMITH, JR., 118 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 817 California, Owner; N. J. NELSON, 534 West Lincoln Avenue, qnaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND A NON-CONFORMING CHILD NURSERY on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 69 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 107 feet, the southeriy boundary of subject property being approximately 263 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 118 North Brookhurst Street. Pro~erty presently classiiied C-1, GENERAL COM"~RCIAL, ZONE. Mr. iJ. J. Nelson, ~~gent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed expar.sion of the child nursery, further stating he was opposed to one of the conditions of ap~roval, namely the location of the curbs and gutters at their ultimate locatior~ at the time street widening took place; that from the standpoint of esthetic beauty, the reques~ to offset the sidewalk would be detrimental to the use of subject property because the service station and the small shopping center had not been required to dedicate as he was being requested. Office En9ineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission questioning, stated subject property had been under the jurisdiction of the County, at which time the County did not require the installation of sidewalks, and if the Commission did not feel the requirement of the loca- tion of the sidewalks at their ultimate location was necessary at this time, a bond might be posted to insure installation of sidewalks at the time Brookhurst Street was widened. It was noted by the Commission that considerable property in close proximity to subject property was under the jurisdiction of the County; there;ore, the Commission was unable to exercise any jurisdiction o~ said properties. Mr. Nelson then stated that to require tl~e offset sidewalk, curb and gutter would create considerable problems relative to parking purposes, and the existing curbsand gutters were the same for two miles along said strePt. No one appeared in opposition to subject ~:.e~ition. THE HEARING WAS CLGSE;• Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1952, Series 1965-66, znd moved for its passage and adoptior., seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition far Conditional Use Permit No. 817, subject to the posting of a bond to insure installation of the sidewalk, curb and gutter at such time as Brookhurst Street was widened, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~.} ~ ~ ~sx AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, ~auer. Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungali. r, a MINUTES, CITY PLANNING WMMISSION, Feb;uary 28, 1966 2946 CONDITIONAL USE - PIJBLIC HEARING. CLIFFORD WOLFSWINKEL, 9781 Acacia Street, Apartment 23, PERMIT N0. 818 Garden Grove, California, Owner; WILLIAM FINDLEY 8 ASSOCIATES, 2141 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Califoznia, Agent; requesting permission for ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTIN~ RESTAURANT STRUCTURE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street and having frontages of approxirnately 284 feet on Ba11 Road and approximately 430 feet on Brookhurst Street, and iurther described as 1228 South Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE. ' Mr. Wiiliam Findley, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the propostd on-sale beer would be in conjunction with the sale of food in the restaurant; - that the petitioner was taking over the existing restaurant known as the "Corral Restaurant"; ,T-''~~ that no bar was being located in the premises; and that the beer would be incidental to the >~ sale of food, to which the ~4 , petitioner would stipulate. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1953, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage _ and adoption, second=d by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition 'or Conditional Use Permit No. 818, with the finding that the petitioner stipulated that the serving of beer and wine was an incidental part to the sale and service of food, and conditions. (See Resol.ution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. VARIANCE N0. 1762 - PUBLIC HEARING. BOYKIN B. HARPER, 535 Victor Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; LEW NfONSON, 10650 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, California, Agent; ; requesting permission to WAIVE THE REQUIRED FLOJR f~REA in order to con- struct a single-family residence to the rear of the existing residence on property described ; as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 62 feet on the _, north side of Victor Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 201 feet, the easterly _ ~ boundary of subject property being approximately 478 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 535 Victor Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. Mr. Lew Monson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed construction of a 935 square foot home to the rear of the existing large lot, and then read the statements for the reason for the variance. Mr. Boykin Harper, the owner, appeared before the Commission and stated it was his intent to reside in the existing structure and utilize the new structure for future income and possible resale of the home, since subject property was already classified in the R-3 Zone; however, it was his desire not to have as large a home with an increased r.umber of children and yet provide adequate open space. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CL.GSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Reso:ution No. 1954, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1762, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. ~ .~ F ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2947 VARIANCE N0. 1763 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERTA I. BROWNE, 1011 East Broadwaf, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTAHLISH A PHYSICAL THERAPY CLINIC IN AN EXISTING R-2 STRUCTURE on property descri.bed as: A rectangularly shaped oarcel with a frcntage of approximately 47 feet on the north side of Broadway and having a maximum depth of approximately 125 feet, the westerly boundzry of subject property being approximately 127 feet east of the centerline of Bush Street, znd further desc:~ibed as 1011 East Broadway. Property presently clzssified R-2, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOIQE. Mrs. Barbara Browne, 11801 Maury Lane, Garden Grove, appeared before the Comm.ission and stated that the existing structure was too large for her mother-in-law to live in, and her husband, who was a physical therapist, was planning to convert the hvme into a qhysical therapy clinic; that the adjoining property owners were in favor of the proprsed use of subject pro{~erty; that a home for the aged existed ac•ross the street; that a maximum of four persons per hour would be using the proposed facility, and only minor changes would occur in the interior of the structure - however, if any outside changes were recommended by the Commission, these would be complied with; and t;iat adequate parking was being pro- vided iii the rear of subject property,having access to an alley. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the use of a variance to perm~t commercial use of an R-2 structure as being, in effect, creating spot zoning and not requesting reclassi- fication for the specific zone in which the proposed use was permitted; that the area was not presently developed for commercial uses - therefore the proposed request would set a precedent for similar requests for other homes in the area. Commissioner Perry offe~ed Resolution No, 1955, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1763, based on th2 iact that the use was incompatible to the area,and that the petitioner was using the variance vehicle to obtain commercial use of the existing structure, and this would create spot zoning and pcssibly set a prer.edent for similar requests in the area. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoir.q resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUNLNISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. VARIANCE N0. 1764 - PUBLIC HEARit4G. WHITMAN CENTRE, INOJRPORATED, 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 404, Los Angeles, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT to permit a 20-story office building, 277 feet in height, on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land (contain- ing approximately 23~ acres) and lying northerly and easterly of a 150-foot by 150-foot parcel situated at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue; subject property has frontages of approximately 657 ieet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and approximately 1,110 feet on the north side of Chapman Avenueo Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Joseph Whitman, owner of suuject property, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed request for waiver of the 75-foot height limitation to permit a 20-story office building and presented colored renderings of the proposed development for the Commission to review, further stating the proposed development would be the beginning what he hoped would be the highest and best use of the property. The Commission inquired what was proposed to landscape the area since the plans presented were rather sketchy, to which Mr. Whitman replied it was proposed to have considerable landscaping, reflecting pools, statuary and would be developed in the theme of Roman archi- tecture. The Comnission noted that the proposed 20-story structure would be located in the north- easterly portion of subject property, and inquired as to the exact location proposed, as well as the type of access proposed to the structure. ~ Mr. Whitman then stated subject property would be 7~0 feet southerly of Wilken Way, approxi- mately 700 feet northerly from Chapman F~venue, and approximately 300 feet easterly of Harbor Boulevard; that it was proposed to have a 40-foot private accessway to subject property from Chapman Avenue, as weli as several other openings - this wouid then provide for adequate access to the parking areas proposed and would reduce any traffic congestion which might occur because of the combined 20-story office structure and White Front Store immediately ~. E MINUTES, CITY PLANNI.NG COMMISSIOtJ, February 28, 1966 VARIANCE N0. 1764 - adjrecent to subject property. It was (Continued) be completed within three years; that thz C-2 Zoning, it was his assumption similar to thcse of Los Angeles wh;,• govcrned only by the~ maximum gr~und area; ihat at th~ tion on subject property, he had proposed a 42-story :~ to construct a 60-story structure which would serve >. housing foreign manufacturers with showrooms and ofi~. to Disneyland whi.^.h ~Nas a regular world's fair area; plans drawn for the proposed structure if the Commissr~•1 . 2948 also noted the structure would at the time he had requested ^ ~ity`s regulations were ''~ted unlimited height, '` •~~eived reclassifica- • ~ ,' it was his intention • ." c~al trade market • :~ ,it, beino, contiguous '+' '~~~ ~omplete architectural - .::~~~s of viewing them. ' Mrs. William Otis, III, 12802 East Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, appeared before the .-.-=+~r. Commission and expressed concern that the '4 Chapman Avenue, and this would add to the draina~eer was proposing more accessways to `{ M~hat regulations the City would place on sub'ect9 problem of Chapman Avenue, and inquired ~% adequate drainage of the area. ~ ProPerty,if approved, to provide for ~ Mr. Whitman stated a partial storm drain had been constructed in which ti,e City had paid a share of the expenses, although this was actually a County requirement; that an attempt had been made to persuade the City of Garden Grove to place a priority witn the County to construct a storm drain - however this was never accomplished because Garden Grove did not feel this was important, even though the City of Anaheim had suggested they would pay for the entire storm drain construction if the City of Garden Grove made the official request to the County; and that the present partial storm drain had improved the drainage considerably. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the drive proposed on the easterly portion of subject property was a private drive to serve the parking lot; th3t storm drains had been placed on Chapman Avenue approx~mately 20 feet west of the east pi~ •~;ty line of subject property; and that since the access drive was proposed on private r.operty, the City could not place special restrictions on it. Mr. Whitman stated he had discussed at length with the City Manager and the City Council the development of the northeast cr r of Chapman Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, and ihe proposed development would be in a dance with all these discussions since it was his opin:~~ the proposed high-rise stru,.ture belonged to the City of Anaheim because of its close proximity to Disneyland. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WqS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1956, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by wmmissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1~64, subject to conditions, and the requirement that all C-1 site developme^t standards be applied to subject property. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol:owing vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. AESENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. VARIANCc N0. 1765 - PUBLIC HEARING. ROPERT B. GURDON, 1628 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; THOMAS MC D~NOI~'iH, 930 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A BEAUTY SHJP IN AN R-1 STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 63 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 115 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 410 feet south of the cente-rline of Harle Avenue, and further descr.ibed as 1628 South Brookhurst Stre2t. Property pr;,•sently classified R-1, UNE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONr'.. Mr. Thomas McDonough, a realtor and agent :or the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the property was owned by the petitioner for the past six or seven years; however, heavy traffic on Brookhurst Street made living in the structure impossible, and although the home had been on sale on several occasions, a purchaser was not obtained because of the hp~iovalaoflthebut the proposed buyer of subject property would purchase it subject to the a petition before the Commission. ~ ------~ MINUTES, CIlY PIANN?NG CuMMISSIUN, r'ebruary 28, 196b 2949 VARIANCE N0. 1765 - Mr. McDonough also noted that although the County of Orange had grown (Continued) considerably, the petitioner was not benefiting from this growth; that property to the south and east on Katella Avenue had seven or eight homes in County territory oresently zoned for Office-Professional - however, no one was unable to sell his home in the City of Anaheim because he was unable to obtain a variance or reclassification, and that speculators would not pay the market price for the property. Responding to Commission questioning relative to the market price of subject property, Mr. McDonough stated the market value of subject property was ~18,500. " " Mr. E. W. Morris, 1625 Lamar Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating -^`~~ he was located directly east of subject property; that he had a petition signed by 19 residents of the area opposing the petition; that the variance wou!d allow commercial ~~ business in an area which would 'oe detrimental to the residential integrity of the area " and open up the entire area for commercial uses; that electrical equipment in a beauty 1 snop wauld interfere with the electrical appliances, radios, and televisions of the resi- deni~s in the area; that the proposed use would add to the traffic pattern of tf~e area, ~ thereby creating additional 'r~azards; that he had made a survey of the two-mile area adjacent ' to subject property and noted there were 49 beauty shops which could adequately serve the ! beauty requirements of the ladies; and that within a one-block area of subject oroperty ' there existed many vacant buildings which had commercial zoning suitable for the proposed ~~ use. N~r. Alfred Porter, 1620 South Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition, stating that because of the heavy traffic on Brookhurst Street, it had becom2 increasingly diificult to live there; that he had attempted to obtain an F.H.A. 1oar~ and had been informed because of the heavy traffic, the area was no longer suitable for residential us~s; that the dust and dirt from the street made it necessary to keep the winriows and ,doors closed at all times, as well as the gates leading to the property; and that for the past six or seven years the property owners to the rear of those properties fr~~nting on Brooknurst Stree't had been opposing any commercial uses for homes that were no longer compatibie for residential uses because of the heavy arterial traffic, and the fact that Brookhurst Street connected with the Garden Grove Freeway. THE HEARItdG iNAS CUJSEll. , The Commiss~.on noted the alley to the rear oi subject property dead-ended approximately _ 2U0 feet south?rly of subject property; that the only way to provide a through access would be to obtain an easement from the Edison Company under their power lines; that none of the homes frunYi.~g ~in Brookhurst Street pres=ntly had commercial uses established, and this would 'oe opening the door for requests for strip commercial zoning along that area; and that it was tlie duty of the Planning Commi.ssion to plan for the entire City, rather than a specifit: area or specific parcels of property. ' CcmmissiQ:ier kow;and offered Resolution No~ 1957, 5eries 1965-06, and moved for its passege ~ and adopti~n, seco~~ded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1765, based ~ on the fact that t5e ~ proposed use would inject comrr:ercial use in a primary residential area; that this would set a pattern for similar requests of the other single•-family homes fronting on Brookhurst Street; and that the secondary access alley to the east did not provide for ~ through traffic since it Lerminated three lots to the south of subjsct property. (See ~ Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIGNERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mur:gall. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissicner Perry seconded the motion. Iu~pTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:05 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman protem Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:17 P.M., Commissioners Allred and Mungall being absent. ~x _° ~ ;:~INUTES, CITY PLANNING CuMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2950 VARIANCE N0. 1768 - PUBLIC HEARING. D. WILKERSON, 848 South Knott Street, B. L. WILK'eRSOIJ, 900 South Knott Street, D. J. MOORE, 906 South Knott Street, and D. H. MC C(1NNELL, 910 South Knott Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; GUY LEtiI'HERBY, 3126 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE THE MINIMUM IAT AREA on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a}rontage of approximately 264 feet on the east side of Knott Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 230 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 396 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 848, 900, 906 and 910,South Knott Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zcning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that subject petition was a require- ment of the approval of reclassification of a tract for R-1 to the east of subject property. Mr. Guy Leatherby, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission, stating that it was p*oposed to have an R-1 subdivision to the east of subject property, that the owners of subject property did not contemplate any changes to their existing use of the properties, and that they would comply with the conditions indicated in the Recommendations to the Planning Commission. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition> THE I-IEARING WtiS CIASED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1958, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1768, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSI~NERS: Camp, vauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONc"RS: Allred, Mungalle Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 4:20 P.M~ RECLASSIFICATIUN - PUBLIC EiEARING. PACIFIC TELEPHONE ~ TELEGRA?N COMPANY, 1475 Sixth N0. 6:..•66-90 Avenue, Room 401, San Diego, California, Uwner; F. D. BOOTH, Pacific Telephone t~ Telegraph Company, 1475 Sixth Avenue, Room 401, San Diego, California, Agent; requestin9 that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel at the northeast corner of Clementine Street and Chartres Street, and having fron~ages of approximately 225 feet on Clementine Street and approximately 154 feet on Chartres :~treet, be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZUNE to the C-2, GEtJEfZAL COMMERCIAL, ZONEa Mr. William Watts, re~resenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed building addition, noting that it could not be constructed in the R-3 Zone; therefore the request to C-2 Zone was applicable. The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether or not the two existing homes wouid be removed, as well as the barriers existing adjacent to the alley, and whether or not the parking on the southwest corner of Clementine and Chartres would be oriented in an east-west direction. ~ Mr. Watts stated that at the present time it was the plan to have two lots reclassified to the C-2 Zone; that the parking lot at the northeast corner of Clementine and Chartres ~ Streets would have access from Chartres, and the parking lot at the southwest corner would i have access from Clementine Street. ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. _ THE HEP.RING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1959, Series 1965-66,and moved for its passage . and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion for Reclassification No. 65-66-90 be approved, subject to development substantially in ~~ accoruance with plans on file with the City of Anaheim~ (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: :~ •* ; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowlando ~a NOES: COMMISSiONERi: None. ;:~ ~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Perry, Mungall~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLqNNING ~~,u1MISSION, February'pg, 1966 ~i RECLASSIFICATION - PllBLIC HEARING., JOSEPH P, 2951 California Owner• P10. 65-56-91 , , DON GRIFFINS~63353Reach1Boulevarda~BuenaePark, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregu].arly shaped parcel (containing approximately 4.08 acres) with a frontage of approximately 238 feet on the soutl~ side o£ Ball Road and having a maximum depth of a mately 811 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property bein a Y of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3364-3410~WesttBa116Roadeebeeast reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTI;RAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZCNE„ to establish a medical building with possible future construction of a dental building immedi- ately to the frent of the proposed medic-~1 building. • MTO Don Griffin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the ;,::s~lL~:~ p posed development, noting the existing zpn?ng to the west, and the proposed zoning for the hospital to the east of subject property~ 't w3s also noted that if sub'ect ';'y,: were approved, the entire area extending from Knot* J petition ~ n~ extending one lot west of Oakhaven Urive would be c~sssifiedntlntthes'ngle-family subdivision ;.,~: was desirous to have a medical and deniai facili±v in `he area thereb u C-1 "Lone and that it i'Y: in generalo ~ y pgrading the area l,;i Mr. Griffin, in response to Commission uestionin development for their consideration. 9 ~' ~'"-Ser.ted ~ rendering of the ' , proposed No one appeared in opposition to subject petition THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~.} _ :.i ~ The Commission inquired of the archi*_ect whethe: or rot construction was proposed in the near future for the rear portion, and if not, would this area be landscaped. Mr. Griffin stated the petitioner proposed to pi,~~± permanent shrubs on the rear however, no development plans were ccntemplated for the rear portion; portion at this time, Commissioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 4:26 P.M_ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission :hat the property to he west ' was already zoned C-1; however the had not completed all the conditionspforethe ~zdinancetto besPead, zonin~csaid to the ezst ~ C-1 Zone - therefore, technically, a wali woul _ the R-A parcel. d be required to separate the comme~cialYfrom Commissioner Rowland inquired of the petitioner whether or not he desired the six-foot masonry wall separating the hospital property from his property, since both might have resolutions of intent to C-1, or a bond to insure construct?on ~f s3:d wall which .might be required if both developed for C-1 uses PTOperties Mr~ Ae L. Wolfert asked whether or not he could be hea-c+, ait„ough he realized the hearing was closed~ Chairman prote~r Camp reopened ±he hearing on a mctior. ~.y Co^mSssie~er Gauer, secor,ded by ! : Commissioner Herbst~ MOTION CARRiED ~ ; .;? e .. .. _._ a -- Mr~ A. L. Wolfert, 3404 Wzst Ball Roau, appe3~ed befcre the Commission and s~.3ted he t~ad always appeared at hearings at whict: suh' tion; that at the Ject ~nd :3djc:r.~ro ~,rope_t;es were under considera- that Councilman Schutte~andhone1otherhCounc'~ilmar,+hed`s}3toot masonry wall was * ~:; ings before the Council that the waii wouid be necessarv ed~3~e~teto .~_S e?uired, and known as sub' ecl~ssification proceed- ~j ;, ]ect property. property, ,,, „ ~ ~oning Supervisor Ronald 7hompson stated the staF ~ Urdinance which would f W3s oreser,tly rewriting the Zoning ~ prohibit construction of a m:,sonry wall to separate two ; zoned for commercial purposes since the wali was repuired oni ' from residential uses. Froperties y to separate commercial uses Commissioner Rowland then stated he wanted all that a wall was not required between two commercial~usesonasrwed beibe aware of the fact hospital in which a resolution of intent had been a 9 proposed in the pproved- Chairman protem Camp stated it was the Cit. pr~perties which had a resolution of intent fornconunerc~~a~~zonin~ra~~aWbond in the ever.t for a number of years for the use for the zonir,g approved, and which mighthg~la3teT develop develop for an entirely difierent use; howeve:, it was the oblig.3tion of the property owner ~ to the east to request waiver or" the wali and bond to insure constiuction of the wallears r. ~ ,i t ~~ } MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C(~MMISSION, February 28, 1966 ' 2952 RECLASSIFICATION - Doctor Joseph Gleasor., the petitioner, aapeared before the Commission N0. 65-66-91 and stated that when the balance of subject property was developed, it (Continued) would be necessary to construct a wall, whether or not the property owner to the east or he himseJ.f had to construct it; however, it was still anticipated tne hospital group and he could aazee to constructior af a street between the two properties, and then the hospital group would ask for deletion of the wall requirement. 'j R '~1 ~x THE HEARING WAS AGAIN CLUSED. Commissioner Rowla~d offered Resolution No. 1960, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion for Reclassification No. 65-66-91 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cal.l the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. NOES: CONUAIS5TGNERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Mungall~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Perry. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LA VERNA I. CLARK, 891 South Walnut, Apartment 315, N0. 65-66-89 Anaheim, California, Owner; A. J. S~HUTTE, c/o R. J. McMichael 469 "A" West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent; property VARIANCE N0. 1761 described as: A rectan9ularly stiaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi.mately 115 feet on the north side of Winston Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 225 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approYimately 575 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2543 Winston Streeto Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAN~ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF ONE-STORY MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONED PROPERTY~ Mro Robert McMichael~ 469 "A" West ~alencia Drive, Fullerton, California, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared befor= the Commission and reviewed the proposed develop- ment, noting that if co~ditions as recommended by the staff were required, it would be difficult to provide two 21-foot access drives; that there presently existed 25 feet at the rear of the property which was proposed for a green area; and that he felt the 10-foot drives proposed would be adequate to serve subject property~ The Commission advised Mr. McMichael that the requirement of a minimum of a 21-foot drive with a 27-foot turning radius was necessary to provide ;or adequate fire protection and trash truck pickup. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson aovised the Commission that the developer was proposing a 12-unit apartment complex; however, the staff had not ccmputed the density per net resi- dential acre, but consideration should be taken that an additional. 12 feet would be required from the front of the property for street widening purposes, and subject property was the only property which had not dedicated .`or said street widenina to 04 feet. Mr. Thompson also stated that the requirement asked that a 21-foot drive with a 27-foot turning radius would be the minimum permissible, and that the 21-foot access drive would not be a dedicated drive. P7o one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THe HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed development, noting that the petitioner should be required to conform with the R-3 site development standards - however the request for the waiver of the one-story height limitation wittiin 150 feet of R-A property was permissible because ttie property to the west had a resolution of intent to the R-3 Zone, and the property to the north was a high school; tnat subject petition could be approved subject to requiring that development be in accordance with the R-3 site development standards, or a request for the continuance for the petitioner in order to redesign the plans to comply with said standards, or denial - although the land use proposed was in conformance with the General Plan. r, r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CuMMISSIUN, February 28, 1966 2953 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - It was noted by the agent for the p=titioner that an additiunal 8 N0. 65-66-89 feet was being required of the northerly propesty, whereas the southerly property was required to dedicate only 32 feet, and asked for clarifi- VARIANCE N0. 1761 cation. (Continued) Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission and the agent for the petitioner that construction of the centerline could be measured from within 40 feet from the monumented centerline; that the engineers had relocated the centerline 8 feet southerly - this, then, required that the proper±y owner dedicate an additional 8 feet; and that the front property line would then be in conformance with those extending easterly from Magnolia Avenue. i Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1961, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-89 be approved, subject to requiring a 21-foot access drive with a 27-foot turning radius at the reax of subject property to provide for circulation of fire trucks and trash truck pickup; this, then, would require the submission of revised plans incorporating the 21-foot drive, ana conditionso (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing r.esolutiun was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1962, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1761 covering the waiver of the height limitation only, and conditionsa (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSiONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED HY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-92 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 182 acres located adjacent to and east of the present Anaheim city Limits line as established by the Northeast Annexation No~ 3; subject property has a frontage of approximately 1,392 feet on the south side of Orchard Drive and a maximum depth of approxi- mately 890 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 1,100 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described as the Rinker Annexation, be established as permanent R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE for said annexed property. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the Rinker Annexation woulu be considered by the City Council and would establish interim zoning for said property at their meeting of March 1, 1966, and that the proposed reclassification would establish the most appropriate City of Anaheim zoning for the annexed property. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Re::olution No. 1963, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petitiun for Reclassification No. 65-66-92 be approved, establishing permanent zoning for property known as the Rinker Annexation. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEkS: Camp, ~auer, Herbst, Perry, Ruw2and. NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Mungall., i ~. s- ` ~ r,`~ * ~~ ~ r' 'r.7 'r; ~ ~~~ 1 .' .~_ V )f~ G MINUTES, CITY PLANNING I.vMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2954 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-93 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing to establish R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE for property described as: That land (approximately 78.3 acres) presently owned by the City of Anaheim and known as the Walnut Canyon Reservoir, said land being located approximately 7,600 feet east of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Walnut Canyon Road, and further described as Walnut Canyon Reservoir. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised thz Commission chat subject property had been recorded with the Orange County Recorder on December 15, 1965, and tt~e Secretary of State on December 16, 1965, establishing the property known as the Walnut Canyon Reservoir as a part of the City of Anaheim, and that the proposed R-A Zone was the most appropriate City ~ of Anaheim zoning for subject property. - PJo one appeared in opposition to subject petition. i ''.k THE HEARING WAS CIASED. li x Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1964, Series 1965-66, ar~d moved for its passage :~ and adoption, seconded by Gommissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that ;~ Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-93 be approved, establishing permanent zoning for 3 the property known as the Walnut Cany~n Reservoir. (See Resolution Book.) ~ { On roll call the forego~ng resolution was passed by the following vote: ` AYES: COMMISSIONERS': Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Tentaiive Map of Tract Noo 4777 DEVELOPER: MARJAN DEVEIAPMENT COMPANY, 843 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, Californiae ENGINEER: McDaniel Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the south side of the Riverside Freeway, west of Mohler Drive in the East Anaheim Hili and Canyon area, contain- ing 19.98 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 69 - 8,000 to 10,000 square foot R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lots~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentativ~ Map of Tract No. 4777 to the Planning Commission notin9 the location of subject property; that said tract would be considered by the Orange County Planning Commission on March 9, 1966; that the lot size and density proposed was in accordance with the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plan; that the circulation was in accordance with the City of Anaheim adopted Santa Ana Canyon Access Points Study and the Circulation Element of the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plan; and that subject tract had been reviewed by the Interdepartmentai Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare as well as the Development Services staff. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to :acommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4777, based on the fact that the proposed lot size, density and circuiation element was in accordance with the proposed Hill and Canyon General Plan and the Santa Ana Canyon Access Points Study. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ ITEM N0. 2 City of Fuilerton Variance No. 1208 - Request to modify a front yard setback of property located on the north and south sides of Elm Avenue between Raymond Avenue and the Santa Fe Railroad. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a Notice of Public Hearing had been received from the Fullerton Pianning Commissio~ in which a waiver was requested of the front setback in the M-1 Zone, which required a 25-foot setback with parking and~or landscaping, whereas the petitioner was requesting waiver of the new cod^ to permit a 10-foot setback; said setback would conform with existing structures in :lose proximity. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the distance from East Street or Raymond Avenue of the proposed structure. 5 R ';~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to receive and file City of Fullerton Variance No. 1208. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG ~vMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2955 REPORTS AND - ITFaA NO o 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No~ 795 - J. Po Ralston, Opal Streib, (Continued) and Albert Gudes - Request to construct a church auditorium and school located on the north side of Orange Avenue, approximately 755 feet east of Nutwood Street - Request for termination of conditional use permit~ Zoning Supervisor Rona~d Thompson advised the Commissio~~ that upon billing the petitioners of subject property for street light and street tree fees, a communication had been received from Reverend Gerald Carter, Pastor of the proposed church, indicating that because of circum- stances beyond their control, the purchase of the property had to be terminated; therefore, the use requested under Conditional Use Permit Noe 795 would not be exercised. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1967, Series 1965-60, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 795, based on the fact that the minister of the proposed church had requested termination because of unforeseen circumstances terminating purchase of the property. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungallo ADJOURN - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn for dinnero FOR DINNER Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M. RECOPJVENE - Chairman protem Geuer reconvened the meeting at 7:00 P,M., Commissioners Allred, C~mp, and Mungall being absent~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILFRED R. ATKIN50N, 16701 Orange Drive, Yorba Linda, PERMIT NOo 819 California, Owner; ROBERT W. MAC MAHON, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Suite 560, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A FC~ME FOR UNWED MOTHERS IN AN EXISTING R-2 STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 61 feet on the south side of Broadway and having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 94 feet west of the centerline of Ohio Street, and further described as 902 West Broadway. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESZDENTIAL, ZONE. a~i M.•. Robert MacMahon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the ~roposed use of subject property, noting that the home would be used in a similar mannei as the Florence Crittenton Home in Los Angeles; that the use wascrit.ically needed in the Cointy of Orar~~e; that the operators of the proposed home planned to accommodate no more tnan i5 persons :anging in age from 17 to 21 for periods of their fourth through ninth month of pregnancyf that the deliveries of the babies would be made at a loral hospital unless, of course, an emergency arose; that the babies would not be returned to the facility; that all physician conferences would be held at the physician's office; that all the occupants would be screened to eliminate any emotionally disturbed young women or girls who were under the jurisdiction of criminal courts; that a family atmosphere would prevail, with each young woman taking a part in the general duties of keeping the home; that only the immediate family would be permitted to visit the young women; that no one would be permitted to have an automobile; that no dates or parties would be permitted; that no one would be allowed out after dark; and that the penalty would be requesting that they leave the home. Mr. MacMahon also stated that because charges would be made for the time the young women spent at the home, this would deter lower income groups from utilizing the facilities; that because of the embarrassment to the families and the young women, the home wouid provide some measure of privacy during their confinement, and no moral stigma should be attached to their condition because there were many women walking the streets each day in this condition, although they might be married; that he could see no reas,n for opposi- tion by the adjacent property owners since the home would be completely supervised by two registered nurses, and the need was apparent for the proposed use; and that the existing structure ideally suited the proposed use since it afforded a measure of privacye ~~ - The Commission inquired whether or not the home tivas now operating, snd if so, how many ~~ * young women were at the home. ,.~ ~. E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING LvMMISSION, February 28, 1956 2956 CUNDITIONAL USE - Mr. MacMahon stated there were two or three young women; that he did PERMIT NU. 819 not know if any were from the City of Anaheim - however, it was proposed (Continued) to have only girls from Orange County. Commissioner Rowland noted that under Chapter 19 of the Government Code, there were no regulations to control the proposed use, and all that was required was a business license since the code permitted "boarders", Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that the code pe:mitted less than five persons who were unrelated to live and mai~tain the home as one housekeeping unit; however, he did not know whether the proposed use could qualify under that section of the code. ^"~ Mr. MacMahon stated the proposed home would be operated much as a family unit, with the { young women sharing in the chores of maintaining a home, and that they would not be con- iF fined to a room. Mrs. William Flynn, 322 South Ohio Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated she was a homeowner and resident of the area in which the proposed use was to be located; that she represented the property owners in the area and had a petition signed by 195 persons in opposition to the proposed use; that a high school was located two blocks from subject property, as well as a junior high school and an elementary school; that the area had been established by responsible citizens hoping to rear their families in congenial surroundi.ngs; and that each of the iour points of opposition stated in the petition would be covered by different persons. Mre U. E. Bauer, 940 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission in opposition to review objection Noo 1, and stated that within the area, 90% of the homes were occupied as single- family residences; thac the proposed use was comme.rcial in nature, and to approve the use would be approving spot zoning in an area designated for residential use on the General Plan; that the area is highly desirable for residential purposes; that the City of Anaheim has grown in a very dynamic manner during the past ten years, and the citizens of the City had attempted to grow and develop the City as a place which would be desirable by the discriminating home buyer; and that in tr~ opinion of the homeowners in the area, the orderly development of property in the City should be in an orderly manner under a uniform program, and not developed with iztermixed uses,. The zoning for the properties in close proximity to subject property were also discussed by Mr. Bauer, who th=n stated that if subject petition were approved, the use would remain on the land, and that the breaking up of the residential uses of the adjoining properties was premature and would be detri- mental to the continued orderly development of the community. Mr. R. C. Hawley, 904 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated his home was immediately to the west of subject property proposing a home for unwed mothers, which, in his opinion, had an undesirable influence on the many ~hildren living in the area, although the agent for the petitioner seemed to feel there would be no unsavory influence; that the home was located at the south ~ide of Ohio S*reet which led from Anaheim Union High School; that the street was also used by the children from St. Boniface School, Benjamin Franklin School, and Fremont Junior High School; that the area between Iliinois Street and Citron Stre?t, within 3Q0 feet of subject property, had approximately 100 children; that upon contacting the Director ef Admissions of the schools it was determined that between 350 and 400 children would be passing subject property by various means; that even a number of children from private schools would have to pass the proposed use every day, if subject petition were approved, which would be detrimental to the children's well-being; and that many of the children were already making uncomplimentary remarks regarding the young women presently in the existing structure. ~• Mrse Dorothy Marvin, 923 West Broadway, owner and resident of the property of the afo:e- ,~ mentioned address, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating the proposed use ' could be favorably compared with a medical facility and not a boarding house because nursing ~ care was offered; that the welfare of the neighbors and community should be considered, as well as the young women; that she was a registered nurse in the field of obstetrics and had i extensive discussions with licensed homes in Los Angeles, with the Department of Welfare of Los Angeles County, and with Mrs. Scott of the State Board of Welfare in Los Hngeles, and . representatives of the children`s home in Santa Ana; that the proposed facility could :~ot adequately care for the youn9 women; that the representative stated no emotionally disturbed persons would be permitted - howevez•, in her estimation, all these young women must be emotionally disturbed because of their condition, and because of their condition, had , problems even though they came from stable homes and had stable husbands; t~at these young ' women would need medical treatment to combat the emotional problem; that more space was needed for these young women to have privacy while doing normal exercises, such as walking - outdoors; that the agent stated there would be no infirmary proposed - however these young ~ women would need training and supervision in health and hygiene; that the proposed use ~ provided only 1~ baths which would not be adeq~iate for the number of persons proposed to be handled at one time; that since these young women would be observed and have nursing care, the operation shouJ.d be considered as more than a bo3rding house; that facilities F MINUIES, CITY PLANNING ~~MMISSION, February 28, 1966 2~57 CONDITIONAL USE - would have to be p:ovided to give the young women privacy during counsel- PERMIT r70~ 819 ing, as well as counseling sessions regarding adoption of the child after (Continued) birth; that Mrs~ Scott had stated many of the young women need psychiatric guidance through counseling sessions~ that the agent stated it was proposed to assist in the continuance of tha women`s education, as well as give them occupational training - however, the proposed structure would be inadequate to offer oll o: these facilities as well as house the fifteen young women; that the grounds were not large ' enough to provide for outdoor activities; that although statements were made there were no State controls, upon discussing this with Mr, ~:--tz of the County Social Welfare Department and Mrs. Scott, she had been informed this was not true, because if any of the young women were under sixteen, there would be rigid controls by the State; that in discussions with ~ the Florence Crittenton Home, the 8ooth Home, and the Ste Anne's Home in Los Angeles, all ~ confirmed the average age of these young women was eleven to seventeen - that it hardly seemed , possible there would be many over the age of seventeen; that the County Social Welfare Depart- ment stated that babies could not be born at the home - however it had been observed that baby equipment was being brought into the existir.g home; that Mrso Scott had discussed the possibiiity of the proposed home with one of the petitioners, and she had advised her the State would not license the proposed home because it lacked adequate facilities to meet the State's standards; furthermore, the Home Adoption Agency stated the proposed home would be using their facilities only ir they had a State licensee In conclusion, Mrs. Marvin stated it was h^~ opinion that the proposed operators of the home were not providing adequate facilities for these young women. Mr. Charles Endicott, 314 South Indiana Street, appeared bafore the Commission in opposition and stated that all of the property owners were quite concerned about the proposed use; that he was aware there was a definite need for tt~e facilities proposed - however, subject property and g:ounds were inadequate to provide the young women with the basic needs~ Mr~ Endicott also noted the Florence Crittenton Nome had made tentative plans to establish a similar type of home as they had in Los Angeles in Oranae County by 1967. Mro Melvin Hilgenfeld, 804 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission to sum up the opposing statements by stating he lived within 300 feet of subject property; that the proposed use would create spot zoni~g ird establish a precedent for objectionable uses in the area; that one could not prevent foot traffic fror. passing the home, and no amount of education could prevent the children fro¢~ making undesirable remarks about the home; that the home would not be adequately controiled thro~gh rules and regulations; that the home, although large, was located on a very small lot which would not afford the young _ women the privacy they needed; that after visiting the Florence Crittenton Home, the operators had advised him that after a meetiny in April, it would be determined r~here the proposed facility would be located in Urznge County., and it was assumed the best location would be in the vicinity of the l;niversity of Californie-Irvine in order that adequate medical facilities could be provided and assist :n the training of the medical students of the college; that to compare the proposed developmer.t with the experience of the Florence Crittenton Home, which had 4? such faciiities throughout the United States, seemed rather far-fetched; and that he urged the Commission to consider the opposition presented by denying subject petition., A showing of hands indicated almost the entire Council Chamber present in opposition~ I~ Mro MacMahon, in rebuttal, stated that he was well aware the location of the proposed use I was in a stable residential area which would also be to the benefit of these unfortunate, young women; that the uses along Broadway were changing from single-family residential to multiple-fami.ly residential; that the patition specifically stated the use proposed for ~ subject property, and if the use no longer ex~sted, this would automatically termi~ate i the petition since the use did not state any request for a boarding house or lodging; that he did not feel any immoral connotation should be attached to the proposed home; that noth- j ing deleterious could be attached to the young women, but should serve as a moral ?xample ~ and a lesson to the children; that he did r.ot feel these young women should be ostracized i by the community since there was no place in the County these young women could go where ~ children would not be present; that the statement made regarding the regulations applied i to only certain types of homes -the age groups the operators proposed to have would not , be included in these regulations; that seriously disturbed women would not be taken since they might cause a disruptive influence on the other young women; that young women who could afford to avail themselves of the proposed service would eliminate many of the un- desirable persons to which the resident< of the area might object; that because many churches were located in the iRmediate area, spiritual counseling would be available to these young women; that licensed therapists, nurses, and physicians would be available to these young women; that after the child was born, the home would not be concerned with , the baby since it wasn't the intent of the operators to have a child placement agency in ~ conjunction with the home; and that, in his opinion, the proposed use would not be detri- mental to the community - however, it wo~~ld provide a critically needed facility in the "'~ community, ~-i ~ . I '1 ~:.i I~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNI[~; ~vMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2958 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. Barbara Browne, 11801 Maury Lane, Garden Grove, one of the operators PERMIT N0. 819 of the proposed home for unwed mothers, appeared before the Commission (Continued) in rebuttal and stated she was appalled at the attitude of the residents in the area; that she had four children of her own and had also taken in Aight unwed mothers in F~er home d~~ing tllat time; that she had never taken any juvenile delinquents; that she was never paid for taking these young women into her home -all she had given them was love, understanding, taken them to the adoption agency and to the doctor; that she had never had to administer any drugs to the young women; that cooperativenand hadaneverecomplaineden furthermore,atheyihadeofferedbtosassistein caring for the young women when she had to go out of town for ~ few deys on an emergency; that she hoped to teach iier children to understand the Froblems these young women faced; that she personally felt the young women should give up their babies - however, it was not her intent to influence the young women; that she had also spoken with representatives of the Florence Crittenton Home and had received six calls from them to take young women into the proposed home; that there were three young women residing at the address now, and none was being charged for the facilities unless the conditional use permit was granted; that Mrs. Howard and she were paying for the expenses out of their own pockets; that she had mortgaged her home to provide the proposed facility; that after the State set up regula- tions governing the proposed type of home, she assured the Commission she would abide by these regulations; that the State had offered her home $175 a month to take care of some of the young women; that the Florence Crittenton Home had offered psychiatric care for the young women if the home was established; that she had contacted all the various agencies of the State and Cour,ty, although she did not have written documents to substantiate her claims; and that regardless of the outcome of the public hearing, she would continue to take unfortunate young women into her home, who needed love and understanding. Furthermore, in the City of Anaheim last year, 600 young w~men had made inquiries of various agencies, and she would not attempt to do anything which was not legal or proper in the operation of tne home~ THE !-IEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission on the proposed use, the conciusions being made that the use might be permitted under a conditional use oermit slnce the code did not specifically state the proposed use; that the public will had been expressed; that the proposed operators should be commended for wanting to assist these unfortunate young women; that the location of the proposed use was rct in the best ?nterest o' the citizens of the City; that the facilities were in~dequate to provide for these young women; that the home, although large, was on a small lot which did not afford the p-ivacy these young women needed; that there are many uses permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code wh~ch do not have a proper place in any part of the City, and the proposed use would be inappropriate and incompatible to the area in w5ich it ~vas propnsed to be located; that the management of the proposed home was not experienced in this field; that there were inadeouate regulations by the State and the Councy to regulate the proposed use; that the proposed use might upset the character of a primaril resi ential ~neic~hb r~t}qo~~'n v~~~c.h it was proposed to be located• that no one was opposed to anwee~ - h~eJer~tf~e"pe`titioner and operators were ~ use in an area in which it would not be compat=ble; anci that the proposing to place the a large plot of ground, rather isolated, w}-ich would give P2OpO5ed f3cility should be on these young women, propel 5@C!usior. 3nd privacy to Commissioner Herbst offered i?esolutior. No 19~5, Se::es 1965•-66, and moved fur its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 819, based on the fact that the proposed location would not afford the privacy necessary for the proposed use; that the proposed use would have a deleterious efrect on t'~e residen- tial integrit~ of the area; and tnat the use was comme:cial in nature, and, therefore, might set a precede~t for commercial :eouests in ar~ area primariiy residential: (;ee Resolution Book~) Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed 'oy the foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Row?ar,d. hKJES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ABSENT: CGMMISSIONcRS: Allred, Camp, Mungall. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~~MMISSION, February 28, 1966 2959 GENERAL PLAN - PUBLI~ HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING WMMISSION, 204 East AMENDMENT NOo 73 Lincoln Aven~~, Anaheim, California, proposing that the Circulation Element Highway Fights-of-Way of the General Plan be amended to include the south side of La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard on the west and Pauline Street or the A.To 8 SoF. R.Re on the east as a full primary highway or 106 ;eet (53 feet half-width). Zoning Supervisor Ronald Tho~pson noted that the Circulation Element Highway Rights-of-Way of the General Plan designated the south side of La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Bo~levard and the A.T. 8 S.F. R.R. as an exception to the requirement of the 53-foot half-widtli; that the Commission on December 6, 1965, directed the staff to make a study and initiate a General Plan amendment to the Circulation Element which would designate the south side ~ of La Palma Avenue for a 53-foot t~alf-width without exception; that sa~d studies had been completed by the Traffic Engineer which indicated that La Palma Avenue will becon:e a major east-west route upon the completion of the grade crossingsand opening of that portion of La Palma Avenue extending to East Street; and that when the overpass of the Riverside Freeway was completed and La Palma Avenue was extended through the Northeast Industrial Area, the Traffic Engineer anticipated the street would require more than its present four lanes of traffic to accommodate a heavier traffic flowo _ The cost, exclusive of purchasing of any property~ for widening of the street to its full width, providing for the relocation of the existing curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drain inlets and extension of the pavemen ~ would be app-~ximately $50,OQ0. The staff further recommended an amendment to the General Plar: changing the south side of La Palma Avenue to a f~ll primary highway with a half-width of 53 feet between Anaheim Boulevard and the railroad tracks~ A map posted on the wall depicted how the existing residences on La Palma Avenue would be affected by the proposed General Plan amendment., Mr. Henry Munoz, 214 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and asked for clarification of the setback of structures if the property owners were required to dedicate for one-half width of the street, since his home was located approximately 13.6 feet from the sidewalk. Office Engineer Arthur Daw, at Commission direction, stated a 106-foot street would mean a roadbed of 86 feet, plus two 10-foot parkways; that there were no definite plans at this time for widening of the street; that the present right-of-way had been discussed by various departments in the City since it was anticipated that a`ter the overcrossings and extension of La Palma Avenue to E~~t Street were completed within the next year, and the ruling of the P.C.C. that North Stieet would be closed at the railroad tracks to through traffic, a greater increase in traffic flow would be expected for La Palma Avenue, and this would also greatly increase a possible change in the character of the area; therefore, when requests for reclassification of the property to a more intense zone was requested, there was a possibility that one of the conditions of approval would be dedication of property to the proposed one-half width of 53 feet for La Palma Avenue. However, in the event the traffic became so heavy tnat the City Engineer determined it would be necessary to provide for tt~is increase, the first restriction would be parking, which would provide for four through lanes of traffic - if this, then, did not solve the traffic problem, the property owners would be contacted for possible de8ication of the property for street widening purposes. It was again stressed that at this time there was no plan by the City to acquire property for street widening. The Commission noted the street widening might occur much more rapidly than anticipated whsn La Palma Avenue was extended to East Street.. Mr~ Munoz stated that the property owners wanted adequate time to relocate their homes since a number of families were involved„ It was noted for interested persons in the Council Chamber that in all probability, lots which sided on_La Palma Avenue would have to be completely dedicated, and that any porticn of the lot left over would have to be developed through land assembly programs; that this might even occur before the end of this year, if traffic problems were such as to warrant any emergency measure. Mr. Gus Lenain, owner of property at the east end of L3 Palma Avenue and Pauline Street, inquired as to the approximate time the street wideniny mi3h*_ take place, and whether or not additional land would be taken from the north side of La Palma Avenue. 1 „i~ _h MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 28, 1966 2960 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 73 (Continued) ~ ~ . Mr. Daw again reiterated the fact that there were no definite plans in the office of the City Engineer for the street widening program; that the first step in providing for adequate flow of traffic was restriction of parking on the street; that land had to be dedicated or acquired prior to budgeting for said street improvements; and that the budget through June of 1967 did not include La Palma Avenue. Furthermore, since the north side of La Palma Avenue was already indicated as a full primary width of 53 feet from centerline half-width, there would be no need fo: requesting additional foo'tage. Mrs. Jean Yorba, 914 North Sabina, inquired whether or not the City would giv~a a fair price for any land acqu:red for street widening purposes, since the request for 5? feet would destroy any possibility of using the existing structures for homes, and new homes would have to be secured. : Mr. Daw stated that the fair market price would have to be paid for the property; however, this value might somewhat differ from the valua a property owner might feel was a fair market price, but this had to be determined, possibly through condemnation proceedings through court. Nineteen persons indicated their presence in the Council Chamber expressir,n i~eterest and ~ concern regarding the proposed General Plan amendment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted by the Commission Secreiary that the legal advertisement for the proposed General Plan amendment indicated the westerly boundary as Anaheim Boulevard, rather than Harbor Boulevard as was noted in the Report to the Commission; however, at a later date and under another General Plan amendment, those properties on the south side of La Palma Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard could be considered at public hearing. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1966, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, :o recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 73 be adopted, establishinq a 53-foot half-width for the south side of La Palma Avenue, extending from Anaheim Boulevard on the west to the A.T. ~s S.F. R.R. on the east. (See R=solution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Mungall. JOINT STUDY SESSION OF T}iE URBAN RENEWHL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Harry Horn, Mr. Larry Henderson, and Mro Morris Martinet of the Urban Renewal Advisory Committee and Commissioners Gauer, Herbst, Perry, and Rowland of the Planning Commission, together with Plannin~ Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, and staff personnel Francis Nutto, William Young, Malcolm Slaughter, and Geo:ge Hooker were present for the joint study session to update the Planning Commission on tne progress of the Center City Area. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Perry offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEU. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.Me ;~ ` ~ ~ 9 1 - .i R : ,~ ./~ i j FE . ~~~ ~ ~ -~ Respectfully submitted, !J-cJ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission r .__ .~ f 's ; ~ ~F ~