Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/07/18City Hall Anaheim, California July 18, 1966 , A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim ~ity Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P~M., a quorum uein9 present~ PREStNT - CHAIRt~7AN: Camp. ,..~y~~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, A".ungoli, Rowland. F~ ~ i~ ~ ~ . ABSENT - CON~NISSIONERS: Perry. ;.`~' PRESEN: - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson ' Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~~ Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts ;~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Jack Christofferso~ ;:i '~ Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ;I~ INVOCATION - Reverend Hal Edwards, Pastor of St. Mark's Methodist Church gave ~ , the Invocation. , PLEDG'c OF 1, ALLEGIANGE - Commissioner Herbst led the Pled9e of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF `I THE MINU7'ES - The Minutes of the meeting c,f July 6, 1966, were approved as submitted. I RECLASSIFICATIOi~ - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. COALSOfJ C. MORRIS, 708 i~orth West Street, ,i NG. 05-66-120 Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT E. VAN, 515 Priscilla VJay, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangulGriy shaped VARI.4NCc I•70. 1800 parc=l of land witt; a frontage of approximately 125 feet on tne west ' side of cast Street and having a maximum depth of ~oproximately 112 _ ; FREA D'cVcLOP~1~ENT feet, the southerly boundary of subject property peing approximately ',.`I -_ ~1-<+N UO• b8 430 feet north oi the centeriine of Sycamore Street, and further i described as o09 ;iorth East Str=et,. Property prese.^.tly cl~ssified R-1, OIQE-FAi~'~ILY RcSIUciJTIAL, ~ONt. "I i R~QUES;ED CLF;SSIFICkTIOi~: C-0, C01i~vlERCINL OFFICc, ~GD!c. 1I KcQUcSTcD VARIF~;JCc: WHIVcRS UF (1) ;JiIilIi~iUiJ~ ~cqUI~ED SITc F,n~ '~ ` Ai4D (2) ;,iINIMUfJ~ SIDc YF,RL` ScTBACri, ~ ARch UcVtL`JP~JicfJT PL4i4: Study covers 'ne properties ;ronting on the west sid~ of cast Street between Sycamore and VJilhelmina Streets. i Sub`Act P P ~_ petitions and area develo ment 1an were contin~,ied :rom the meeting of June o, 1900, to allow time for the staff to preoare ~n area study ir.cluding ~oth side- of East Street from the Riverside Freeway to Lincoln AvenuA. . Planning 5upervisor konald Grudzinski present•~d t':e "East Street Study" as follows: ! "BACKGROUND i ' ' I Reclassi:icotion ~55-66-120 (R-1 to C-0) and ~lariance 1800 were iiled in hlay 1900 I: on a parcel in the middle of the block oetween ltiilhelmina and Sycamore Streets ~ on the west side o: East Str=et. Area Development Plan 68 was prepared for the + block, however the Planning Commission at tneir meeting of June 6, 1905, directed tne staff to prepare a study of the properties fror,ting on East S~reet from the ° Rivers:de Freeway on the north to iincoln F,venue on the soutt.. AREA ANI;LYSIS ';~ Th= land uses generally existing in the area consist of residential land uses east and wAst of cast Stre=t, witn more intense commerczal uses oriented to the East ~ ' , Street frontage properties. 1 - a ~ ~ * ~ , ~ ~ ~ 3110 ,a , z , ~. E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~~ISSION, July 18, 1966 3111 RECLFlSSIFICATION - The area is served by iour arterial sireets or highways: the Riverside N0. 65-66-120 Freeway on the north, East Street itself (a designated secondary), La Palma Avenu? and Lincoln Avenue, designated as primary highways VARIANCE N0. 1800 (see Appendix I, Detailed Area Survey). The traffic volumes on East Street are presently 12,500 vehicles per day Lincoln to La Palma, and AREA DEVELOPMEDIT 14,400 vehicles per day north of La Palma. Projections indicate volumes PLAN N0. 68 will double within the next 10 - 15 years. The Traffic Engineer indicates (Continued) the East Street traffic flow requires the street to be a minimum 90 foot secor.dary arterial highway within the study area. Acquisition of ultimate right-of-way, particularly in the area between Wilhelmina and Cypress, may have an effect on the quality of present land uses and necessitate redevelopment or re-use. ZONING HISTORY The zoning is predominately R-1 with R-3 on the west side of East Street between Lincoln to just south of Sycamore Street, with one additional block of R-3 on the east side of East Street immediately no*th of Belmont Avenue. Zoning actions have permitted service stations at the northwest and southeast corners of East and Sycamore Streets, with C-1 at the southwest and northeast corners. Service stations are also located at the southeast and souihwest corners of East and La Palma, at the northwest corner of Balsam and East, at the northeast corner of Romneya and cast Streets, a service station within tne C-1 shopping center ai the southeast corner of Romneya and East Street, and a service staiion at the northwest corner of Kenwood Avenue and East Street. In total there are ten service stations between Lincoln and the River- side Freeway. There are two commercial uses within the M-1 Zone at the rear of the station at c'ast Street fronting on Balsam Avenue. The area on the west side of East Street, east of the Flood Control Channel from Balsam Avenue north to the Free~ay off-ramp is zoned h1-1, Light Industrial. The history of the zoning cases (see file) seems to indicate a trend toward commercial development of East Street frontage properties with a neighborhood type commercial area developing at Sycamore and East Streets that is not in context with the nei9hbor- hood shopping center concept as s=t forth by the General Plan. (Albertson's market at the southwest corner and the restaurant and small shopping center in the northeast corner.) GF.'JERtiL PLAN The General Plan presently designates the East Street frontage properties as predomi- nantly low density residential with some medium density residential potential. Only two neighborhood shopping centers are indicated, one at cast Street and Rom;~eya and one at cast Street and Lincoln. An analysis of the commercial support (using the same process as •~vas used in the developm~nt of the commercial element of the General Plan) was done for the entire study ~1ea (see Appendix II). Using neighborhood shopping center criteria, an area of influence was delineated north, east, south and west of East Sireet, and statisti~,s compiled indicating the economic support available in the study area. The analysis (Appendix II) indicates that at present supermarket developments along East Street exceed the available economic support by some 5,000 square feet, with other convenience goods and service type stores just about at the saturation point. From the standpoint of economics, there may be little or no support for additional commercial expansion of the neighborhood commercia: facilities in this area. If a decision is made to encoura9e th> further exte~sion of commercial development along East Street, this would probably be as a result of land development policy and not eco~omic support. POLICY IMPLICATIOidS Appendix III represents the results of the ten service station and 12 commercial zoning actions approved on East Street within the study area in the last 15 years. Each of the actior.~ granting the commercial use was consi.dered individually and at a different point in time. $ut, when viewed as a whole, a definite development pattern is evident, i.e., four concentrations of commercial development which could be expanded into a commercial strip extending from the Riverside Freeway to Lincoln Avenue. ,sx ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIJ, July 18, 1966 3112 RECLSSSIFICATIOIJ - The General Plan indicates neighborhood shoppiny centers at Lincoln N0. 65-66-120 and East Stree'~ and at Romneya and East Streets. However, a new nei~h- borhood commercial concentration has develope~ : ~amere and East VARIANCE N0. 1800 Street with a possib)e center developing a' :~d East Street (service stations now exist on two of the ~ ,- corners at ARcA DEVELOPMENT La Palma and East Streets). The communit~` _. s for develop- PLAN N0. 68 ment indicates these areas as having res:• . . ,. General (Continued) Plan Amendments have been presented with : , . t:~sti Street but have historically been denied or r>fez ~.. •a;s for annual review. VJhen revievaing past zoning cases and Commission-Council actions on General Plan Amendments, it becomes increasinoly obvious that a firm direction is needed for future develonment of cast Street properties. fi definite statement of polir,y concerning land use is needed to aid owners or the developers ef tnese East Street properties. As far as future development is concerned, there are three possible alternatives for cast Street within the defined study area (see Exhibits): 1. Retain tne existing low and medium density residential policy and reflect ~eiyhborhood shopping centers at La Palma and East Street and at Sycamore and Last Streets (see cxF~ibit A). This will indicate an intent to retain East Street within the study area, as primarily residential in nzture with neighborhood commercial in four designated concentrations: Romneya and East, La ?alma and ~ast, Sycamore and East, and Lincoin and cast. 2, Substitute the highway related commercial development for the exist- ing low density residential developmen' fronting and siding on East 5treet (see c~nibit B). This would have the effect of ne9ati~g the concept of concentrating commercial development in designated locations and would, in fact, encourage ger 1 commercial us2s to spread along cast Street from Lincoln to the :rside Freeway, 3. iiect neiyhUOrhood snoppiny centers at L~ ?alma and East Street znd ~r~amore and cast Street and consider comm-rcial professional uses for the existing low density residential uses ironting or siding on cast Street (see cxhibit C). ~ desic~ation such as tnis would indicate a wiilingness to r~z^ne tiie 1ow de~sity r?sidential :ront and side-en properties to perm:•- commerci~l o:fice typ? uses but still retain tne neighborhood snoppi.~ c?nter concentration. Th=se comm?*cial-profes- sional uses are not dependent upon walk-in business and usualiy serve a larg? undefi~ed are~ rstner than a local trade area. Each of the above ~evelopment aiternatives coulo be at this time, a looical ext?nsion ,. tne present development trend in this area. It is suggested t}~c~ the or.? a1t?rna- i.ive reflecting the long-rango development pnilosopny of the Commission be adopted and recommended to the City Council. Suasequent to a Commission decision on the iuture of cdst Street properties in the study area, the °lanning Commission mey wisn the staif to review the existing area development plans and prepare any additional area develooment plans in line with their long-range d~cision on land use." ~ (The obove referred to appendixes are on :ile in the office of the Development Sezvices Uepartment, Pianning Uivision.) ivo one oppeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to sui~ject petitions. THE HcNRIiJG WAS CLGSED. Discussion was held between tiie Commission and the staff regarding the reouired dedicatior~ for street wider.ing for botfi sides of East Street, tooether with the exhibits displayed on the Council Chamber wall, which gave three possiUle methods for UAVAlopment of the East Street frontage lots, one of which might be recommended to the City Council for policy state- ment in order that property owners of t^? R-1 homes might know what was acceptable to th2 City for those properties. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the petitioner had submitted a concept plan rather than detailed plans of development, and that subject property was ~~acant at this time. ~. L MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1966 3113 RECLASSIFICATION - It was also noted by the Commission that since multiple-family develop- N0. 65-66-120 ment had occurred south of Sycamore Street and north of La Palma Avenue, perhaps this might be a better method of development of the R-1 homes, VARIANCE N0. 1800 ano that if subject petition were approved, this might set a precedent for a pattern of develooment, with spot zoning in the area, which would ~~EE. DrVELOPMENT be detrimental to the appearance of an otherwise well established, single- PLNN N0. 08 family residential development. Furthermore, the City might again be (Continued) faced with a similar situation as that presently existing on I~orth Brook- hurst Street which to this day has not been resolved. Commissioner N~ungall offered Resolution No. P:,55-7 and moved for its passage and aaoption, seconded by Commissioner ~llred, to recom~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication tJo. 65-66-120 be disapproved, based on tne fact that the proposed reclassification would estoblish commercial uses in the c?nter of a block long established for residential P'~=Poses; that single-family residential uses are establisned to the north, south, east and west ~f subject property, and to permit commercial uses would estaolish an undesirable precedent for similar requests of the R-1 homes frontina on East Street; and that the size ar.d shape of the parcel,a:ter the required dedication was made, would be inadequate to prop=rly develop for cornmercial uses; furthermore, if any heavier development of the R-1 property was projected in tne futur>, lar,d assembly should be made before consideration of the r?quest is preser~ted to the Commission since it is undesirable to develop on a parcel to parcel ~asis wnicn would create a disorderly development of the area with possible in- compatible uses. (See Resolution Book.) On roll ca11 the fore9oing resolution was pcssed by tne followin9 vote: HYcS: COi.1,^,ISSIGNERS: P.llred, Gauer, Herbst, f~1uaga1l, Rowland, Camp. ~JOES: CG"~;v1ISSI0~lcRS: flone. ° ABSENT: COhi;,iISSIUNcRS: Perry. Commissioner Rowland offered R=solution iJo. PC55-8 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner A11reo, to deny Petition for Variance ilo. 1800. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYcS: CO~~i~~1ISSIUfdcRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Slungall, Rowland, Camp. NGcS: COIJ~MISSIOPdr:RS: iJone. ABSEIJT: COP~ti.~ISSIU1JtR5: Perry. Commissio~:er ;iArost offereti Resolu~ion No. PCoo-9 and moved for its passage and adopt.ion, sec~nded b}~ Co:n.missioner Gauer, to recomm?nd to the City Council tnat Area Development Plan bJo. 58 be disa?proved. (5ee R~solution Buok.) On roll c:,li tl,e foregoin~ r=solution was pzssed by ti;e following vote: AY=S: CUi.i':]ISSiU?~cRS: kllred, Gauer, Herbst, ;dungall, Rowland, Camp. DJGES: CU'rl,11ISSIGNtRS: Pione. ABSEiuT: CGi:u:4ISSI02icRS: Perry, Commissioner Rowland offered o motion to set for pubtic nearing ~eneral P1an Amer.dment e~compassing t}i= properties on both sides of East Stre=t betw~en the Riverside Freeway and Lincoln Avenue, said putlic hearing to be held August 15, 1950~ Commissioner fvlungall seconoed tne motio~. Iv'~uCIuiv CARkIEll. CGIvDITIGNAL USc - PUBLIC HthRItiG. LOUIS WALTcR, ET AL, 9171 Vdilsnire uoulevard, Beverly PERIJ~IT PJO. 858 Hills, California, Owners; 9GP.~E i~IIcLStN, 1840 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission for ON-SALE LIQL'GR IN CONJUNCTIOiV WITH A RcSTAURANT ~REStiJTLY UIJDrR CONSTRUCTION on property d~scribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of la~d witn a frontage of opproximately 292 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and haviny a moximum depth of approximately 400 ieet, the northerly boundary of subject property beir,g approximately 265 feet south of the centerline of Kalella Avenue, and furtner described as 1840 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTUP.AL, ZONE. ~~ ~ &' ~~ * F+ .l:t Pdr. Borge Nielsen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that it was proposed to have a service bar for the on-sale liquor, znd no cocktail lounge or bar to serve patrons directly would be proposed. iJo one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HcARIIJG WAS CLUScD. P ~ k ; MINUTrS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, July 18, 1966 3114 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. Pr66-10 and moved for its PERMIT N0. 858 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition (Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No. 858, subject to conditions, and the finding that the petitioner had stated the on-sale liquor would be for a service bar only and would be located adjacent to the dining facility. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CGMMISSIONtRS: Allred, Gauer, H•.rbst, N~ungall, Rowland. NOES: COfJ~MISSIONERS: None. ABSEC]T: COMh1I5S?ONERS: Perry. ABSTAIN: COM~dISSIONERS: Camp. COIJDII'IUIJAL USe - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANCISCO DE LA LUZ, 7522 Pacific Avenue, Buena Park, PERMIT N0. 800 California, Owner; requesting permission for ON-SAL'c LIQUOR IPJ AN rXISTING BUILDING IN THt lr-1, LIGHT IPJDUSTRIAL, ZONE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fror,taae of approximately 260 `eet on the west side of State College Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 640 feet, the south boundary of subject prope*ty being approximately 280 feet north of the centerline of Vio Burton Street, and further described as 1541 North Staie College Boulevard. Property presently classified ~+i-1, LIGHT INDUSTRiAL, ZONE. No or.e appeared to represent the petitioner. A letter of opposition from an industrial development in close proximity to subject oroFerty was read to the Commission. THE }-ir.ARING WAS CLUScD, lliscussion was held by the Commission as to the proposed use and the existence of substardard structures in which it seemed apparent neople were residing; that the proposed request, was incompatible with the existing established industrial uses in the area; and that the City Attorney's o;fice silould i~vestigate the possibility of violation of the Uniform Building Code. Deputy City Attcrr,ey Furmon Rooerts advis?d the Commission that if a directive was given to the Development Servic=s Director in conjunction witn ~ request to the Building Department r~gartling the possibility of violatior. of Sections 203 and 205 of the Uniform fiuilding Code, he would attempt to resolv= the problem. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution yo. FCoS-11 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 860 on +_he basis that the proposed us> in the existing structure would be incompatible; that the structure might be consid=red in violation of the Anaheim Uniiorm Building Code; and that the proposed use would adversely 2ffect the adjoininq land uses and the growth and develop- ment of the area in which it was proposed to be located. (S?e 4esolution Book.) Gn roll call the foreyoing resolution was passed by the :ollowing vote: AYES: CU~aL'~1ISSIOiJcRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COh~t4ISSI0NrRS: None. ABSENT: CO~d~;.Si~Sl~?JcRS: Perry. CONDITICiJAL USc -~UBLIC HcARING. DAVIU VJ. HOOK, ET HL, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite C, PERiJiIT N0. 802 Anaheim, California, Owners; RICHARD YOUNG, 1780 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite A, r;naheim, California, Aqent; :equesting permission to establish a PRIVA~c EDUCATIONP.L INSTI7UTION FUR COMPUT~R AND BUSINESS MACHINE TRAINING CGURSES on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 212 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately o27 feet, ttie easterly boundary of subject oroperty bein9 approximately 1,010 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and furttler described as 1780 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. F Mr. Richard Young, agent for the petitioner, oppeared beiore the Commission and stateo he ~~ represented Automation Institute whict~ had been in operation for the past ten years and was s~~ proposed to train people in the use of business Tachines and computers; that the proposed ~ ` school would be the fourth one in Southern California; that subject property was selected after considerable investigation of ttie parking facilities durin9 various hours of the day; pi t, and that the parking facilities would 'oe more than adequate for their needs; furthermore, F~ .~ ~ r MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1966 3115 COt~DITIONAL USE - in response to Commission questioning, stated that students scheduled PERMIT N0. 862 for daytime classes would be attending school for nine full months, and (Continued) those in eveniiig classes for approximately eighteen months; that card punching was a minimal part of the training was was done only in conjunc- tion with the computer uses; and that presently the 1401 computer was the one used for training - t,owever the 360 unit would be available later. No une appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rcw!.and offered Resolution No. PC66-12 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cor.~ issioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 862 on the basis that the u~e :vas compatibie with the existing and approved uses for the structure, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.j On roll call the foregoing resolutior~ was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONE4S: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlar.d, Camp. NOcS: COMMISSIGNCRS: tJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONtRS: Perry. CONDITIONAt. USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WALTER HEMPHILL, 951 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. E364 California, Owner; requesting permission to establish a CHILD DAY NURSERY on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southwest corner of Gilbert Street and Rainbow Avenue and having frontages of approximately 178 feet on G.lbert Street and approximately 190 feet o~ Rainbow Avenue, and further described as 951 North Gilbert Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LONE. Mr. Walter Hemphill, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development of subject property noting that, in his opinion, the ne: rs had not had a chance to view the proposed landscaping development - however the o~.~~sition might be lessened if they were to view these plans; that a six-foot masonry wall was prop~sed on the south and west property lines, except for the required 25-foot setback wherr the wall would be 30 inches high; that the extensive landscaoing proposed would act as a buff~r to noises from the 25 to 30 children proposed for subject property; that subject property faces Gilbert Street, and on thr east side of Gilbert Street the Anaheim School District warehouse offices were located; that the property consisted of approximately 30,000 square feet and would be more than ade- quate to provide play facilities for the children; and that he had contacted the neighbors to the south and across the street on Rainbow Avenue, who had expressed the feeling that the proposed use of subject property would be a great improvement to that corner of Gilbert Street and Rainbow Avenue. A showing of hands indicated eight persons we:e present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition. Mrs. Robert Hudson, 1001 Irene P1ace, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property would be inadequate to handle 25 to 30 children, even thuugh it was a large parcel; that it would increase the traffic flow on Gilbert Street, which was a ver, narrow street; that many children had to walk to school in the area, and this increase of traffic would be hazardous to the school children; and that if subject petition were approved, this would allow encroachment of commercial uses i~ the residenr.ial area, and then there would be no r~aso;~ why the other neighbors could not request a similar use of their properties, and this would ~hen create an undesirable commercial el.ementin the primarilyresidential area since no commercial uses existed on Gilbert Street southerly of La Palma Avenue. A1rs. HP1en Jones, 1014 Irene Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and presented a letter oi opposition and a petition signed by 17 property owners opposing the proposed use of subject property, and stated ever/one she had spoken with reaarding subject petition had expressed his opposition to subject petition. Furthermore, tiie majorit.y of the prop?rty owners in the area had resided there since the tract was constructed, whereas the petitioner had resided in the area less than a year. Mrs. Ed Brown, 1015 Irene Flace, appeared before the Commission and stated that her husband had co;itacted the State Welfare Uepartment regarding requirements for a nursery school and had been informed that for each child in a nursery school, 35 square feet were required in- doors and 45 square feet outdoors; that the operators of the proposed nursery school would have to supply rooms for the teachers for their rest area, as well as a sick room for children who became i~l and were waiting for their parents to pick them up; that considerable increase in iraffic would occur on Giluert Street which would be hazardous to the children who had to ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1966 3116 CONDITIONAL USE - walk to school, and this traffic would be in additior to the traffic PERMIT N0. 864 from the high school on Brookhurst Street. (Continued) In rebuttal, Mr. Hemphill stated he had contacted the property owners adjacent to him, as well as contacting the property owners who were out of town; that he was unable to understend why the residents of the area were not desir- ous of having an improvement in the area; and that he did not know where nursery schools could be located since they were not appropriate for a shopping area. Mrs. Cecelia Stewart, 1008 Irene Place, appeared before the Commission and stated she had owned her prcpertv for seven years; that she had known both the petitioner and his wife for l a number of years and could vouch for their inte9rity and the type of operation ihey would conduct; and that she lived as close to the proposed nursery school as many of the neighbors- , however she was in favor of the proposed nursery school. Two letters from adjoining property owners were read to the Commission in opposition to subject petition - one from Mrs. Dorothy McClellan, 2403 Greenbriar Avenue and the other from Frederick J. Ball, 2420 Rainbow Avenue. THE HEARII4G ~VAS CLOSED. ; Discussion was held by the Commission, it bsing noted a nursery school was more appropriate in a residential area than a commercial area; that most of the City schools were located in residential areas; that the developer of subject property was proposing considerable land- scaping which would improve the property, as well as provide for a buffer for the noises from the nursery; and that the proposed development would be an asset to the area rather than a detriment. The Commission made inquiry of th? subdivision of trie small parcel to the south on a previous petition, noting that the lot was substandard in size, althouyh similar in size to that. of the adjacent properties; that the proposed nursery would not require access from Rainbow Avenue since it was proposed to have a circular drive along Gilbert Street; and that the petitioner was indicating construction of a garage on subject property so that at any future date the structure could 'oe converted into a residence. ';I: Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission there was adequate off-street park- i^; on subject property for the propos=d use. Commissioner Herbst of:ered Resolution tvo. PC55-13 and moved for its oassage and adoption, s?conded by Commissioner H11red, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permii No. 864, subject to conditions. (See Resolutior. Book.) On roll ca11 tne foregoing resoiution was passed by th? to ll owing vote: AYES: CG~~iP.1ISSIuIJtRS: A11red, Gauer, Herbst, i~iungall, Camp. idOtS: CO'rauliISSIOiJcRS: Rowland. FBSCNf: COM1~iISSIUWtRS: ?erry. VA~IfiNCc N0. 1807 - PUBLIC HcAR?ivG. Ft;ITH LUiHcR/.;'7 CHURCH, 2219 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; 'NARREN W. cISE~JEEISZ, 2219 VJest Orange Avenue, Anaheim, Califorr.ia, Agent; r=questir,g permission to VuAI'/E (1) fAAXL11Uh1 PERMITTED SIGIJ AHEA ANU (2) h'~A~I~^.1UPA NUMBER OF FRcE-STANDIiJG SIGNS on property d2scribPd as: A rectzngu- larly shap=d parcel of land having a frontage of approximotely 400 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 220 feet, the east boundary of sub- ject prcp?rty being approximately 200 feet west of the centerline of Hrookhurst Street, and f~~ther described as 2219 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZUNE. No one appeared to represent the pe±itioner. No one appeared in opposition to subjec~ petition. THc HEARING WAS CLOSED. '' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the church site was established '>'; while subject property was under the jurisdiction of the County, and the expansion of the church had recently been completed; however, since subject property was zor.ed R-A, there were ~_ no regulations in the Sign Ordinance to administratively handle the proposed signing. y~i * '~i ~ ~ MINU7ES, CI7Y PLANNII4G COMMISSTON, July 18, 1966 3117 ~/ARIANCE N0. 1807 - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC6o-14 and moved for its (Continued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissione: Pdungall, to grant F'etition for Variance No. 1807, subject to a condition. (See ' Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followirg vote: AYES: COMh1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Idun9a11, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: None. ABSENT: COidMISSIONERS: Perry. '. VARIANCE N0. 1809 - PUBLIC HEP,RIhJG. ST2INY 3 ~dITCHcLL, INCORPORATED, 1401 North Bar.ter , Street, F,naheim, California, Owner; BERT GRIFFIPI, 1407 North Raxter Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONDUCT RETkIL SALES IN THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONc on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel having a frontage of approximately 45 feet on the west side of Baxter Sireet and having a maximum depth of approximately 620 feet, subject property being bounded on the south side by the Riverside Freeway, and further described as 1407 North Baxter Street. j Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT ~NDUSTRIAL, ZOIJE. ~'vir. ?.rnold Stanton, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subjeci property was leased by Rug-A-Rama; that basically the business was operated as a warehouse for five retail locations; t'r,at occasionally customers who had proposed a rather substantial purchase o: rug material asked to see a roll of the rug rather than the small samples on display in the retail stores; that they were not prepared to have a salesroom since the warehouse consisted primarily of office personnel; that a ve~•y limited number of people came to the viarehouse, and the use was established pri:narily for their convenience; furti~ermore, the sign which was erected on the outside had been erected to direct these customers to the location of the warehouse. Assistant Develooment Services Director nobert N~ickelson advised the Commission that the warehouse had a large orange and black sign advertising retail uses in the PA-1 Zone which was in violation of tite Sign Ordinance; that the department had contacted the p?titioner and advised him ti~at only incidental retail sales were allowed in the ~9-1 Zone; that an advertising sign indicatin9 retail sales was not permitted; and that in order to conform with the uses established in the h9-1 Zone, said advertising sign would 'nave to be removed. The petitioner then reviewed the location of subject property and the type of structures on subject property, stating that the orange and blac!c, 100-foot sign was on the property when they leas?d it. Zoning Suoervisor Ronold Thompson advised *_h~ petitio~er that ihe sign on the southerly portion of the building was more than the 20;6 permitted by Code, whereupon the petitioner stated he would remove this sign. The Commission al=_o noted thst a directional sign was located in the landscaped area of the service station site on State College Boulevard, and the Sign Ordinance did not provide :or this type of direction~l sign on someone else's propertya Commissioner Herbst stated th~t the City would have no objection to the incidental use of subject propert~~ fer zetail sales - however the siyn indicatirig retail sales would have to be removed sincE~ many of the other manufacturers in the area were registering complaints with the Cit/ re:aarding the retail sales sign. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that denial of subject oetition would limit the amount of retail sales of the petitioner since they must be incidental to th: uses establi.shed, and the 9ranting of the variance would, in effect, convert a portion of subject pr~perty into a retail store. A lettei• of opposition from a manufacturer in the area was read to the Gommission. ' Commission?r Rovaland offered Resolution IJo. ?C65-15 ar.d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comnissioner Herbst, to deny Petition zor Variance f~o. 1809 on the basis that the retail sign and uses of subject property were net necessary since the petitioner had ' indicated that only incider.tal sales we:= involved, and no retail store or sales people ~~~ were on the premises, and that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ~ _ or ronditions applicable to subject property which did not apply to properties in that area. ~ (See Resolution Book.) ~ * On ro11 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,,,~ AYES: CUMN~ISSIGIJERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo ~ NOES: COidMISSIONERS: None. k~ ABSENT: CO~vii~+iIS5I01JcRS: Perry. ~: ~ ~C.l~br'-`;~- F MIiJUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1966 3118 VARIANCE N0. 1810 - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT E. ANDERSON, ET AL, 1419 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH RcTAIL PLUMBING SALES IN THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approxi- mately 110 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and hzving a maximum depth of approximately 169 feet, the north boundary of subject property being approximately 350 feet south of the centerline of Via Burton Street, and further described as 1419 North State College Boulevard. Property presently classified P4-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Mr. Matthew Kurilich, attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the location of subject property and the problems incurred because the peti- tioner had established approximat:ely 14% of his business as retail; that the petitioner was operating the business as any other plumbing shop in the City; that at the time the sign was erected, the petitioner had requested the retail sign before the City Council and had been granted a license for both retail end wholesale operations; that there Nere many other retail operations on State College Boulevard; that the display area of the retail operation indicated the types of bathrooms instalied by the plumbing contractors; and that the petitioner had attempted in the past to upgrade the ar=~. Fssistant Development Servic?s llirector Robert Pdickelson, in response to Commission question- ing, stated that the sign request to which Mr. Kurilich had referred had occurred prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance; that the staff in their recommendations to the City Council had indicated the retail siqn portion be remo~ed - however the City Council action approved the sign and referred only to the rotating beacon, and subject to obtainin9 a businesslicer,se; that although the petitioner had received a retail license, this did not give him th2 auto- matic right to operate in the zone since it did not have any effect on the zoning or land use of property; that the staff had a policy of administering signs in the P~1-1 Zone - however the sales of the plumbing shop were more than ir~cidental sales, and thus the petitioner was re- quested to file a variance. Commissioner Her~st was of the opinion tnat retail sales which consisted of the majority of an operation were r.ot compatible in the h,-1 Zone b~cause of the increasing amount of traffic projected into the industrial area; that if the petitioner removed his retail sign which advertised the fact that t;e had a retail operation, less object.ion would be made since the percentage stated by the petitioner more or less indicated incide:~tal sales in the M-1 Zone. The petitioner noted tha~ tie was desirous of operatiny in a similar manner as he had in the oa;t. ~he Commission also noted that although service stations and restaurants were commercial in character, tney were permitted uses in the :'~1-1 Zone because tney were offering services, and tnat the staff and Commission had received nur~erous complaints from the industries in tne area regarding tne existing retail sign. ln response to questioning b~ thF petitioner, the Commission advised 'nirn Fluidmaster Corpora- tion was one oi the industries which had complained, as well as several or" the smaller industries in the area. Mir. Robert Anderson, the petiiioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that prior to purct~asiny subject property, he had discussed the e~cist.in~; operation with Mr. Thompson wi~o had stated that retail sales could only be incidental to the use; that the retail sales weze not the major portion of the business, and they had always stated they were doing what other plumbing shops were doing in the City - however, the signing of the property for retail uses was never brought up in :hP conversation; that plumbing contractors were not perr~itted in any other zone, ~nd it would 'oe a hardship to try to relocate in a zone in which tney were not permitted since Sears Roebuck was in the C-1 ~one and Bill YJard the Plumber was in down- town P.naheim, a C-2 Zone; and that the si9n was approved at the time the retail license was grdnted. Considerable discussion was then held by tt~e Commission, the staff, and the petitioner rega,.uing the granting of the retail siqn and the business 1_cense as it pertained to the ordinances of tne City of Anaheim since the Fd-1 Zone did not permit retail sales unless they were incider~tal to the established use. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts then clarified the reason why the petitioner was pe=mitted to ;,ave a retail business license. ~,:` Pdr. Anderscn then stated he vuo~~ld remo~~e the sign in the window along State Colle9e Boulevard. [. ~~ - THE HEARIIJG WAS CLOSED. * ~~ ~ ' • .-z P ' ) MINUTES, CITY PIANNIIJG COMMISSION, July 18, 1966 3119 VARIANCE N0. 1810 - Uiscussion was then held by the Commission with 1:he City Attorney (Continued) relative to the reason why the petitioner was required to iile a variance si~ce the City Council had granted the sign, and that althc~gh ' the petitio:~r had stated only 14% of his sales were retail, this would involve auditing procedures by tne City in order to verify this figure. Commissiuner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC65-16 and moved for its oassage and adoption, seconded by Comm;ssioner h1unoa1l, to grant Petition for Variance i~oe 1810, provided, how- ever, that the oetitioner remove the sign in the window along State College Boulevard, based on the fact that the petitioner had proven the retail sales were incidental to the , business. (See Resolution Book.) ~,~ '""~~ On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~,•~F AYES: COh1P4ISSI0N~RS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Niungall, Rowland, Camp. E"' NOES: COMMISSIO[dERS: None. ~~ ABSENT: COMi14ISSI0NcRS: Perry. ~'-i ~I Commissioner Herbst stated that in his vote of approval he had tak=n into consideration j ihe fact that the City Council had grant_=d the sign, and the fact that there were extenuat- [~ ing circumstances involved in the plumbing business that did not permit it to be established '~~I in any other zone; however, the action taken shoulo not be construed as setting a precedent ;'{" for allowino all types of coT~mercial uses in the h1-1 Zone. RECcSS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meetiny for ten minutes. Commissioner Rowland secor~ded the motio~. ~d~OTIOIv CARRIED. Th> meeting recessed at 4:35 P.~1. RECO1dVEi~r - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:45 P.i~1., Commissioner Perry being absent. VARIF~vCc N0. 1811 - PUBLIC ricARII~G. LEE VJtBB, c/o Leonard Smitn Rea~ Estate, 125-D Souin Claudina Street, Anaheim, Califorria, Owner; LEONARD Sh.4ITH, 125-D South Claudina Street, Anzheim, California, Agent; requesting permission ~ to ESTABLISH F~ UkY CLEAP.II~G cSTASLISHAictiT IIJ THc C-1, GENtRAL COMMtRCIAL, ZGIJc on property _ described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner of - IIall Road and Leroon Street and having frontages oi approximately 145 feet on Ga11 Road and appro~cimately 190 feet on Lemon Street, and furtiier desciiped as 135 West Ball Road. Prooerty pres=ntly classified C-1, GEiJ~RAL COMM~RCIAL, ZU,:E. Mr. Leonard Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared 'oefore the Commission and r?viewed the proposed developmer,t on subject property, noting that similar operations were located at Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue, at State Colle:ae Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, and at Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue, which did not effect the commercizl integrity of ihe shopping areas; ti~at the dedication for sireet wi.~ening had been submitted to the C?ty Engineer; and tiiat adequate parking was provided to the rear of the property. ~ IJo one appeared in oppositior, to subject petition. ~ TNE HrARING WFS CLOScG. Commissioner Rowlar.d offered Resolution Ido. PCSo-17 and moved for its passage and adoption, secondeo Ly Commissioner i~iunyall, io yrant Yetiiion ior Variance No. 1811, subject to ! conditions. (See Resolution Aook.i j On roll call th= fore9oing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote: I AYES: CCi+1h1~ISSIO:~lcRS: Allred, Gauer, Heri~st, ~4lungall, Rowland, Camp. ldOES: C01~iMISSIOP!EP,S: tJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIOId~RS: Perry. ,~ ~ 'i w ~j .~tk F t ( MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPo1MISSION, July 18, 1966 3120 VARIANCE N0. 1812 - PUBLIC HEARING. SAM DO~u~IIJO, 1735 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE MAXII~7UM FREE- STANDING SIGfJ AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 250 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, the south boundary of subject property being approximately 660 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1727 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. . No one appeared in opposi+,ion to subject petition. ~.;j''~4 THE HEARING WAS CLOSrD. , ~-~ E , ~'~~~ The Commission reviewed the proposed sign advertising the "Topper Steak House" and the F;7 findings of tne staff report relative ~o the length of the lease for the restaurant and i,.~ the possibility of a lot split or a variance at a later time for establishment of some- ~~ thing on the balance o; the property. f~ ii _ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution fdo. PC~o-1B and moved for its oassage and adoption, ~,~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variar.ce Plo. 1812, subject to condi- ;~ tions. (SBB Resolution Book.j i' I ~~ ~ On ro11 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 5,~ ~ AYES: COV~"+1ISSIUiJcRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, fl,ungall, Rowland, Camp. DIOES: C0~14;~~iISSIGNcRS: ~done. t ABSENT: COPd'JISSIO,JtRS: Ferry. ,'-'I ~ VARIANCE N0. 1813 - PU3LIC HEHRING. CHARLES t4GLUEN AiJD THU1JiAS WtEDA, 1664 West Sroadway, Ananeim, California, Cwners; PdILLIAi;9l~JOLSBORtu, 1731 South Euclid Street, Suite H, Anaheim, California, Hgent; requesting permission to WAIVE h1ItiIP+1U,"u; SIDE YNRD S~TBACK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fro~tage of app=o~cimately 80 feet on the south side o; Broadway and having a maximum depth of approximately 205 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approxi- m~tely 880 `eet west of the centerline of Loara Street, and further described as 1564 West Broadway~ Property presently classified C-1, GEiJERAL COIdMERCIAI., ZOIJE. id~r. William Wols~orn, agent for tne petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that it was p:oposed to extend the existing building with an additional 908 souare feet, and that the existi~g structure was permitted to be constructed within 5 feet from the pzoperty line. Eurthermore, apartments were constructed to the v+°st of subject property. ^:o one appeared in opF,osition to subject petition. THE F{rARIIJ ~ VJAS CLGSED. Commissioner Allred cffereo Resolution No. ~-Cbo-19 and mov?d for its passaye and adoption, second?d by Commissioner Herost, to grant Petitio^ ior Variance ;Jo. 1813, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the follov.~ing vote: AYES: COIJ~MISSIO,.cRS: A11red, Gauer, Herbst, i~9ungz1l, Rowland, Camp. i~OES: COMA9ISSIONcRS: ;~one. ABSEIJT: COP~l~~1ISSI0N=RS: rerry. VARIANCE t~0. 18i4 - PUB1_IC HcARii~1G. ROBERT L. WETZLcR, P, 0. 3ox 2210, Anaheim, California, Owner; FcDE-RAi. SIGN ~ SIGi~.4L CURPORATIOIJ, 303b Souih Oak Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requestino WAIVERS OF (1) 17AXIMUM ROOF SIGN HcIGHI' Ai]D (2) LOCATIOi4 GF ROOF SIGN on preperty described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Ball Road ard Beacn Boulevard and having ;rontages ef appro;cimately 1~_6 t"eet or, 3a11 Ror,d a~~,d approxima~=iv 27; {~e~ o~: :.each ~,o~~levard, ond fu.tf;er describeo as 92~s South ~eaci~, 'r'.oulevoido Property oreser.tly classified C-i, ~Ei~~RtiL CU;vl~:;cRCIi;~.ar,d ..-~, Hc~:'/'f Cu?JF:1cRCIAL, ~GivtS. hir~ Roberi Rotiirr~ar, reore~enting th= ayent for the peti*_io.^.er, appeared be:ore ti~~ Co:amissio ~ ' and stated h:- was available to ar,swer questions~ • x Tne Com,nission ir,q~:ired wheiner or not the petitioner was planning to reTOVe the exis~ir.a :oof signs, wnereupon the agent replied that if subject petition were aoproved, both o; ~_ t1-.e e~cistir.g ioof sigrs would be removed. r, P MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~Nv1ISSI0N, July 18, 1956 3121 VARIANCE N0. 1814 - The Commission also noted that a residential structure existed approxi- (Continued) mately 270 feet to the southwest of subject propertya ' No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HtARING V!AS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-20 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1814, subject to condi,tions and the requirement that the existing roof signs shall be removed as stipulated - by the petitioner. (See R~solution Book.) EIi~?~ On roll call the fore9oiny resolution was passed ~y the following vote: ~;:i ; , : t`~,~~, AYcS: COMMISSIONcRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~.'~ NOES: COPJ~J~ISSIONcRS: i;one. s; ABSENT: COMMIS5IONtR~: Perry. RECL4SSIFICATIOiJ -?UBLIC HEARING. cDDIc BRIIdK~ti1AlJ, c/o (~1o A. Vinding, 722 North West Street, ' iv0. 06•-6?-2 Anaheim, California, Owner; JOSEPH M. ANTON, 1016 West Pioneer Drive, ~ Anaheim, Californi.a, P.gent; property des~.ribed as: An irregularly shaped CONDITIOI~AL USc parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and PcRPdIT NG. 859 Harbor 3oulevard 2nd having a frontaae alony Harbor Boulevar.d of approxi- ~ m~tel•; 50 feet and a deptn oi approxi^~htely 109 feet, Property presently classified it-2, i~1ULTIPLc-FAIdiILY RrSIllcIJTIAL, ~ONr. HEQUESTcD CLASSIFIi;i;TIGiJ: C-1, GcidcR!-.L COtJul~ltRCIAL, GONC. RCQUESTcD COtd`UITIO~wAL USe: ?cR~v1IT EXPP.hJ5IGN OF APJ cXISTIIJG StRVICc S7ATIUN WITHIN 75 Fcc?~ GF A RESIGcNTIAL ZONE. ,~ir. Kenn?th Lae, attorney representin9 tne ~etitioner, aopeared before the Commission and reviewed previous action by the Planning Cc;nmission and City Council on the existinq service station site at the corner of La Palma Aver~ue and Harbor Boulevard, further noting that some difficulty h~d been experienced with the traffic flow on the oroperty, and th? reouest for reclassification of the parcel to tne south was now being requested,and the relocation of " the pumps southerly of the existing site and the blaci:topping o: t~,e balance would provide for adequate traf:ic flow. Iv1r,. Lae, in response io Commission questioning, stated that tne oetition he hao iiled was for the ~0 by 109-foot parcel southerly of the existing service station site and did rot encompass tne eniire pare?1; tnat there was no intentio~ of dedication of additio~al property along La Palma Nvenue sinc? tnis would mean the relocation of the pumps and other structurese The Commission noted ti~at ~t the time the service statio~ site had been considered at public hearing be:ore them, the Commission felt the site was too small for a service station, and thdt it would not be compatible with the R-1 prop~rties immediately adjacent. I I f+lr. Lae tnen stated that at the time the service station was propos=d, the prooerty owner of subject property was not interested in tne sale of i~is property, and that the peti~ioner was opposing tne additional dedication for street wideniny along La Pa1ma Avenue. • ~. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative t.o tne merits of the reyuired 20 feet of dedication on La Palma Avanue and wnether or not it would be possible '~o widen La Polma Avenue within the next few years; wnether or not the condition requiring the dedication ; should be applicable to subjec.t petition since previous dedication hac; been made along ' La Palma F.venue; ano whether or not dedication snould oe required at tnis time or required i at 'the time the City acquired dedication along the souih side of La Palma Avenue for street widening sir~ce somz compensatiun should be yiven the service station property as would be j given the property ow~ers of tlze single-family nomes. I ' Mrs, Florence Nickey, 945 [dorth Helena Street, appeared Uefore the Commission and stated that she was not opposed to the use of subject property - however, she would be unable to gain entrance to her garage ii the required six-foot masonry wall were placed adjacent. to the alley; that pres?ntly she had an agreement with the oroperty o~ner to utilize a small portion of his lot odjacer.t to :he alley for maneuvering purposes into and out of the gorage. 1 Discussion was then h?ld by the Commissiun relative to the requirement of a six-foot masonry * wall, although the Code requireo separation of the r~sidential use from the commercial use, ~ and whet!ier or not to provide seme access to the property backina-on to the alley behind subject property. ` .a ~r r .,_.~. - ~:~.~,. ~...~-..._. .~ ~~~ .. .... ~,._~.:_. ._.~..~__-~..._..__.. .. . ... ._... _..... _ . ..,.. . ...,.:~._,_...r. -' .---•~., . .. ~:. .. .. . .... ._ ,..,. _ . .' "' ~ ~ ~ .. ^ . .. --- - ;~. ~ , MINUTES, CITY PJ.ANNING C~W~IISSION, July 18, 1966 3122 RECLAS~IFICATION - TNE HtARING WAS CLOSED. N0, 66-67-2 Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-21 and moved for its CONDITIONAL USE passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner }{erbst, to recommend to PERMIT N0. 859 the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-2 be (Continued) granted, subject to conditions, and a finding that the property owner be made cognizant of th~ fzct that La Palma Avenue was pari of the street widening program i~ the neai~ future, and that any location or relocation of facilities at this time should be i•e-evaluated in order that the City would not be responsible for damage incurred in tne relocation of the pump islands at such time as the street widening program became effective. (See Resolution Booka) ,.'.~;;j~A On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~:~~ ' A1'ES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. ~.~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONtRS: Perry. ~i Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-22 and moved for its passage and adoption, k,j seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 859, 'f _ subject to conditions, and the requiremer.t that the easterly masonry wall required by the y! ' Service Station Site Development Standards be waived in order to provide for an adequate !'l. alley circulation, and that the petitioners be notified of the fact that the City had a street wider,ing program for La Palma Avenue and any modi.fir,ation to the service station .~ site sh~uld reflect the possiL_lity of the dedication of 20 feet along La Palma Avenue ,,~ and any relocation of the pump island. (See Resolution Book.) - '~ ;~ On roll ca11 the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: 'I ~i AYcS: COMtdISSIOIJtRS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ f:OES: CUMfu1ISSI0NERS: Gauer. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONcRS: Perry. ~ •~ Commissioner Gauer in voting "no" stated that ±he petitione:• should be required to dedicate ;I ~ for street widening purposes along La Palma Avenue since tne developers of the service Y~ , station nad created their own problem in establishing a service station on a less than minimum site for a service station proper. - RECLASSIFI~ATION - PU6LIC HEARING. GAR-L0, INCORPORATrD, 921 West Beve:ly Boulevard, N0. 66-07-3 Montebello, California; H. N. BERGER, 4333 cast Liveoak Avenue, krcadia, California; and FAIRFIELD HOMES, INCORPORATED, 4333 East Li•~eoak Avenue, C~NDITIOr~AL USr Arcadia, ~alifornia, Owners; MAURICE KERNS, 245 South Spalding Drive, PER~~tiT NO. 801 Beverly Hills, California, Agent; property described as: Porti~n No. 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast :,orner of VHRIANCc N0. 1808 Loara Street and Broadway and having frontages of approximately 141 feet ` on Loara Street and approximately 208 feet on Broadway; Fortion No. 2- ~ An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying south and east of Portion 1 and having frontages of approximately 495 feet on Loara Street and ~ approximately 800 feet or. Ero~dway. Prcp=rty presently ciassified ~ R-A, AGP.ICULTURAL, "Luti~. ~ RcQUcS'~tiJ C:_k.SS'IFICAT~IGJ: PGRTiUi: 1: C-1~ ~ciJc:iF,L CG~:~F1cRCIF,i~ ~Oh~cg PGRIIU:d 2: R-3, 1lULI'I~Lt-~=A.;.1ILY RESIDc:~TInL, ZGide. ~ kcQUcSTrD Cu:JITIUh,nL USc: PGi~TI0i4 2: P~R':tIT A CHILU CHR~ ;dURScRY. ~ ~ ~ ~ RcGUES~I'cD VARIF,;;CL-: FGRTIOW 2: WAIVERS OF (1) A~tAXIG1U11 GUILDING H2IGHT, (2j i;i,:{I~~IU~J~ ~~ ~ UIS7'ti:ICc FROP+; H'u'dJtLLII~G UIvI"C TO A GcDICATcll STRtci, (3) :~,INIh1UUi ~ iJUWiBcR UF PARKIidG SPAC~S, A;JD (4} ;~~p;(j;•,qU~1i DIS'TAIJCE FR017 A U4VELLING U;~IT TO k GARhGr. 1 Zoning Superviso: Ronald Tnompson advised the Conmission that a letter had 'oeen received i; . from the agent for the petitioner requestir.o that subject petitions be given a four-week con~inuance, to the meeting of Huaust 15, 1965, ir. order to a11ow time to prepare revised plons. The Commission Secretary advised the Commission tt~at a letter of opposition from the Young :~~~ hien's Christian Association opposing commercial development of Portion ido. 1 was on file. i_' Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petitio~s for Reclassiiication ido. 00-67-3, ~ Conditional Use Permit PJoo 861, and Varianc? No. 1808 to tt:e meetina of kugust 15, 1905, in `~ *• order to a11ow the petitioner time to submit revised plans. Commissioner h1unga1l seconded ~ the motion. i~1GTI0id CARRIED. ~ ~ 1 2 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1966 3123 RECLASSIFI~ATION - PUBLIC HEARING. G. P. BROOKS, 3341 West Ball Road; JOSEPH SEYMOUR, N0. 66-67-4 3347 West Ball Road; and ARNOLD HETH, 3351 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; KENNETH E. LAE, 914 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CONDITIONAL USE California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel PERMIT N0. 863 of land situated at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Westvale Drive and havin~ frontages of approximately 219 feet on Ball Road and approxi- mately 100 feet on Westvale Drive, and further described as 3341, 3347, and 3351 West Ball Road. Prooerty presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RtSIDENTIAL, ZONE. RtQUcSTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, COPNu1ERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT THE GFFICE USE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURtS WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM SITE AREAS. Mr~ Kenneth Lae, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use of the existing structures for office use, further noting that a hospital and professional office complex nad been constructed on the south side of Ball Road; that ihe traffic pattern would not change since it was proposed to have access to and from subject property from the alley to the north; that traffic along Ball Road had made it impossible to _ use the existing residences for living purposes; that any additional beautification the Commission might desire to have in the fo_- of landscaping would be met by the petitione*s; and that the existing structures would be ._odified to eliminate their residential appearance. Mr. Lae also not=d that th?re were several peti~ions denied and one approved for C-0 uses in close proximity to subject property; however, the one approved has never developed, and that subject property would be used for professional oifices~ Mro Jerry beriin, 909 'Nestvale Drive, appeared before the Commission to represeni five persons present in the Council Cnamber and presented a petition signed by 43 property oNners opposing subject petitions and stated that thF proposed commercial use of subject property would be an encroachment into an area primarily resioential in character; that since the residentialtract to the north had only Westvale Drive for an access, the property owners were r,-t desirous of havin9 commercial encroacnment at ihe entrance of ±neir tract since chis would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area; and tt~at there was adequate vacant lano which coulo `. be d?veloped for commercial purposes, without jeopardiziny the residential environment by ~ placing commercial development on subject property. '_' I~irs. Jess?.. Edmonds, 3348 W=st Ueerwood Urive, appeared before the Commission in oppositi~n and stated that she P~ad resided in her home for only or.e year; however, if she had known at the time she had purchased her home commercial develooment was contemplated, sne would not have purchased it since her nome was immediately adjacent to t'r.e alley whicii had access from Westvale Drive. h1r. Lae, in rec~uttal, stated that tne petitioners were planning to place aoequate landscaping ? alony th> west property line to snield the property; that no lights or large signs were pro- ` posed; and tnat the petitionershad owned their structures for some - nowever they felt :he 1 homes were no io~ger desiraole for r=sidential purposes because of tne heavy traffic, and, : furth?rmore, only one home might be affected by the proposed use, that being immediately to d the west, which also bordered on da11 Road. iJ~r. G. ?. Erooks, 3341 6Vest Ball Road, or~e of the petitioners, appeared before ti~e Commissiun and stated that since the hospital and medical complex were built on the south side of Ball Road, considerable more traific was experienced on the street; that their propeities buffereo the noises of tne tra::ic :rom ti-~e liomes to ti~e north-therefor? they did not experience the same type oi pro~iems as property ewners on Ba11 Road~ THE HcARII4~ WAS CLOSrL'. Discussion was held by the Commission which indicated that there seemed to be no justification of land use change for the north side of Ball Road to warrant recommending commercial zoning be considered by the City Council; that tne entire area was an established residential community and should be maintained in that manner; that the homes were well maintained, and many homes faced or. arterial streets and 'nighways wi~ere heovy traffic was experienced - however this should not preclude any consideration of land use change. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution ;io. PCG6-23 and moved for its passage and adoption, '~ ~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommer.d to the City Council that Potition for Reclassi- , fication iVo. 55-57-4 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed commercial use would be an i_ encroachment into a residential area and would be incompatible, and that no land use changes ,~ had taken place on the north side of 3z11 Road to warrant consideration of commercial uses *~ for said propurty. (See Resolutior, Book.) ~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COIJiMISSION, July 18, 1966 3124 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: N0. 66-67-4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, H?rbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. CONDITIONAL USt NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. PERMIT N0. 863 ABSENT: COMMISSIONrRS: Perry. (Continued) Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-24 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 863. (See Resolution Book~) .~ _ :1 • 1 ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONcRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COIu1MISSIGNERS: None. ABScNT: COPAMISSIUNtRS: Perry. STRcE: tJHMc CNHNGt - PUBLIC HEAF.ING. IPdITIATtD BY THE CITY c'~AN;~ ING COfJiMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Hnaheim, California, propcsing a street name change for Paulina Street between Adele and 5~:::zn:~re Streets and between ;Jorth Street and La Palma Avenue to Pauline Street. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that during their recent examini- nations of tract maps by the Engineering Division, it was noted that the names "Pauline" and "Paulina" streets had been used to identify one street located betweP~ Cypress on the south and La Fa1ma Avenue on the north, and that the entire street had been signed as "Pauline Street". No one appeared in opposition to subject pet?tion. THE HEARI~G WAS CLOS~D. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution IJo. PC6u-25 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner 1~lungall, to recommend to tiie City Council that a street r;ame change be made for Paulina Street between Ndele and Sycamore Streets and between North Street and La Palma Avenue - to be changed to "Pauline Street". (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO~ddJi1SSI0AlrRS: :,llred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOcS: COMPdISSIUNERS: :lone. ABScfJT: COIvih1ISSI0[vcRS: rerry. RcPOR'IS A?JD - ITc~:: N0. 1 R~COA^;~1ENI%A"i10PJS GRF,NGE COUlJTY WATcR DISTRICT WAT'cR SPRcADING FACTLITIES (WARIJER PROPERTY) located n=ar the southeast corner of La i'alma AvAnue and Jefferson Street. ?r~ response to the Cour.cil's rAquest, the ?lanning Commission has reviewed the Orange County '~'+ot<.r ~istrict PrecisG rld~.5 for a proposea water spreadinq faciiity to 'ce located r.ear the so~rt heast cor~:~r of La ~alma tivenae aad Jei;erso~ Str~et~ In disc~:ssion, t'::~ Cornmissio:~ =zprFssed t;~e ie~li:~y t'r~„t sa~d pi;. operations, oer se, are ;ot compa±i~lA to ti:e developme::*_ oi .... i^dustrial ~o^~. .i:ey notrd, i:ovre~.~er, water spre~d- i~y tacilities and an ad?yuatG water supply are ~ss=;ltial ,or tl,e contiiiued development of hll lantis in crarr.;e County; tiiere:ore, the r~moval of saao on an i;t~rim basis to accomplisi: tnu ultim~te .~oal of providing o wot~r spreading facil.ity is warrant.ed. Ihey furtl,er noted th~t. in consider~tion oi t'rie dilatury effect tf~at such an interim use rniql,t ~,ave on ~djacer,t property, adequ~te screeri~g be provided to minimize the narmiul eif?ct oi sucn an operation, and that conditior.al use permits now oendin~ oefore tne Council, and futurF co;.:itional us~ permits p~r!nitti~y sand r?moval in tl~e i^dus uiel areas be reyLired to provide pl~ntiny ~nd screer.ing as outlin?d below and shown on cx::ibit ;?o. 1: le Ti~at Che interim excavation operation for th? prooosed water settling i>asin being k~asicall/ inconpatiole to tf~e surroundiny land uses provide a lNndscaped area starting at the curb line and extendinq on ~ horizontal plane 50 fee't witiiir, the prope:ty line Us shown on Exhibit tio. 1, to shield and minimize dilatory FfiActs of suci~ use. ~. ~.:t ti;e propos~d use is a r.ecAssary p::lic one in th? F~est interests o; the _ity of hnaheim a;,d oth~r cities in u:~~ ~~rangn County'Nater District~ ~ MZNUTES, CIrY PLANNING COMAIISSION, July 18, 1966 3125 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) 3. That while it is not a desirable land use, it is nevertheless more suited in an industrial area than would be the case in a residential or commercial area. 4. That the City Council be urged to adopt a policy requiring a similar landsca~ed berm treatment for all pit operations within the City of Anaheim providing for a continuing maintenance of such landscaping through agreement with the property owner authorizing tne City to maintain such landscapiny at the expense of the property owner if the property owner fails to maintain it in a manner satisfactory to the Parkway Maintenance Division of the Public Works Departmer.t or Development Services Department. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the water spreadin, facility proposed to be located near the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and ia Palma Avenue by the Orange County Water District be considered a necessary and appropriate land use for the area, provided it is properly shielded with landscaping as pr~posed along La Palma Avenue and the west property line. Commissioner Rowland _ seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Perry was absent.) Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 5:45 P.M. ITEM N0. 2 REVIEW OF FINALIZED TRAILER ORDINANCE. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the final draft of the trailer ordinance as previously presented to the Commission in tentative form had been completed and submitted for their perusal ar.d inquired whether this met witn their intent as indicated by Resolution PC56-6, passed at the Commission's meeting on July o, 1966. The Commission indicated, upon perusal of the trailer ordinance, that the final draft as presented to them was acceptable in form. Chairman Camp indicated that because he was absent, he wished to go on record as not partaking in the discussion. Mr. Roberts then stated that he would appreciate it if the Commission would pass a resolu- tion confirming the acceptance of the final draft. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PCoo-25 and moved for its passage and adoption, secor~ded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Exhibit "A" of Planning Commissio~ Resolution No. PCS~-5 represents the Commission's viewpoint in recom- mending adoption of the proposed trailer ordinance. (See Resol~tion Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tne followiny vote: AYES: COMMISSiOtd"cRS: Allred, Gauer, ~~lungall, Rowland. NOES: CON,MISSIUNERS: t~one. ABSENT: CO(oSP~1ISSI0;JtRS: Herbst, Perry. ARSTf.IId: COtviitiiISSIONGRS: Camp. Commissioner Herbst returneo to the Council Chamber at 5:~2 P.~Ji. ITEIv; N0. 3 GRANGE COUNTY US'c VARIANCE PlO. 575% - Proposing to estaLlish a store for the retail sale of farm products in the R-1, Singl? F~mily Residence District - Located on the west side of Brookhurst Street,approximately 480 feet north of Cerritos Avenue in the west Anaheim area. ,~ ~ ,~ ~* Zoning Supervisor Ronald Ihompson presented Orange County Use Variance IJo. 5757 to the Commission noting the location of subject property and the proposed use of the property. The zoning and use of properties to the north, south and east of subject property were indicated, as w?11 as the fact that the proposed use would not be permitted in the R-1 Zone of the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, it was noted that a new R-1 subdivision is under construction on the east side of IIrookhurst Street opposite of subject property, and that although RP Zoning existed southerly of subject property, no retail sales had been established by variance or zoning in the immediate area; therefore, the proposed use would constitute a disruption of th? essentially residential character of the area. ; ~ MINUTES, CITY PL~NNING COMMISSTON, July 18, 1966 3126 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to ttie City Council that the Orange County Ptanning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 5757, based on the facts that the proposed use would constitute a disruption of the residential environment already established on the west, north and east of subjecr property, and that the proposed use would establish an undesirable precedent for the establishment of commercial uses in the other single-family homes on the west side of Brookhurst Street, thus creating strip commercial development which would have an undesirable effect on the area. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Perry was absent.) ITEM N0. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 438 - Casualty Insurance Company - Southwest corner of Manchester Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway - Approval of development plans, Phase II, 9-story office building. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented development plans for Phase II of the Casualty Insurance Company property located on the southwest corner of Manchester Avenue and the _ Santa pna Freeway, and reviewed the report to the Commission regarding the proposed plans. It was noted the height of the st:ucture was in conformance with the Commercial-Recreation Area Height Standard Guideline, and that although a 50-foot parking-landscaping zone was required, a portion of the structure was proposed to enc:oach into this zone, and the entire setback was proposed to be fully landscaped. The Commission reviewed the plans as tney pertained to the requirements of Resolution No. 838, Series 1962-63, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 438. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve development plans for Conditional Use ?ermit No. 438, Phase II, marked Exhibit Nos.l and 2. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Perry was absent.) ITEM N0. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 848 - Doghouse Restaurant at 324 South Brookhurst Street - Clarification of Condition No. 5. Associate ?1ann~r Jack Christof;erson presented and reviewed for th? Commission their previous action on Conditional Use Permit [~o. 848, noting that th? agent for the petitioner had requested ciarification of tne condition requiring that a document be recorded with the Grange Courty 3ecorder providing for mutual access and parking for subject and adjacent properties. ::ir. ~ames Hodges, agent fo* tne petitioner, appeared before tn~ Commissior, and reviewed what he tnought Dr. Sellon, the property owner, had meant when he stated there was odequate oark- ing on the adjoining properties. Chairman Camp stated that since Dr. Sellon had indicoted there was adequate parking, it was tne Commission's opinion that no ~.vaiver be 9ranteo. ComT,issioners Gauer, Allred, ~~erbst, and ;aiungall concurred in the statement that the Commis~ion had not granted an~~ wsiver of the parking requirements. Commissioner Rowland stated that parking is computed at a different ratio for enclosed restauronts and walk-up restaurants, and since 'the petitioner indicoted that any shortage of parking for the Cognouse Restaurant could be provided elsewhere, the requireinent of a mutual access and parking ayreement was properly indicated in the Commission's resolution. Commissioner Nerbst offered a motion to reaffirm tne Commission's action in Resolution [Jo. 2054, Series 1965-00, dated June o, 1956, in which no waiver of the required parking was granted. Commissiorer Gauer seconded the motion. h40?IOI4 CARRIED. (Commissioner Perr/ was absent.) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~diMISSION, July 18, 1966 3127 RrPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION IdO. 51-62-123 - Establishment of a teen-age night (Continued) club in the C-1 Zone, located at the northeast corner of 6tate College Boulevard and Ball Road. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the request of the Fredricks Development Company for an interpretation from the Planning Commission regard- ing the possibility of establishin9 a teen-age night club in the commercial center located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, since the plans approved indicated the limitation to retail shops; that the staff had advised a representative of Fredricks that a conditional use permit would be required for the proposed type of use, and one of the problems which might be encountered would be the shortage of parking; furthermore, a representative of Betker-Fredricks Properties, Incoroorated was present in the Council Chamber to explain what was proposed. Mr. E. J. Garner, representing the Betker-Fredricks Properties, appeared before the Commis- sion and stated they had been approached by operators of similar teen-age night clups in Arizona, with the possible thought of operating the night club in the retail shopping area and also providing for teen-age clothing, record shop, and similar operations patronized by teen-agers; t}~at although the shopping area was being developed, it had been diffic»lt in locating tenants for the proposed establishments, and corsiderable parking was available in the shopping area. Mr. Garner further stated that the proposed operators were in the Council Chamber, if the Commission was desirous of asking questions, and that letters from City officials nf areas wnere other teen-age night cluba wer? located were also avail~ble for the Commission to consider. The Commission advised the proponents that any consideration of a teen-age night club would have to be considered at public hearing and suggested that the owners of the snopping area at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road file a conditional use permit requesting the proposed use. ITEM N0. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 394 - Convalescent home located on the west side of Melrose Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and Broadway - Interpretation to determine if current zonin9 is adequate to allow reuse of the existing facilities ~s a home for mot.hers-to-be. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented the request for clarification of the proposed use as it compared with the use previously approved for the property and further reviewed the location oi subject property under Conditional Use Permit No. 394. Idr. John Von der Heide, representing the proposed lessee and the owner of subject property, appeared before the Commission and reviewed what was proposed, in addition to that indicated in the letter submitted to the Gommission by the lessee. Chapter 18.08, Definitions, Section 18.08.610 - Rest Homes; Section 18.08.130 - Boarding House; and Section 18.08.240 - Convalescent Homes were reviewed by Mr. Von der Heide, in which he noted that the proposed use was similar to these uses, and that the lessee was requesting this interpretation in order that the stigma attached to a previous request for a home for unwed mothers might not be read into the proposed requesto The Commission reviewed the previous use approved for subject property and compared it with the prooosed useo After questioninq Mr. Von der Heide, it was determined that the proposed use was too far removed from that o:iginally approved for Cor.ditional Use Permit Voo 394, and informed I~r. Von der Heide that if the proposed use for subject property was to be considered, it should be through filing of a new conditional use permit and public hearing beiny held in order thot adjoining property owners might h~ve an idea of the pro- posed use for a home which had been patronized by older persons since many elderly people resided in ~he area in which it was proposed to be located. F ! . MII~UTES, CITY PLANNING CMMIISSION, July 18, 1966 3128 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 460 - Mrs. Jessie Goodman, 715 South (Continued) Webster Street - Requesting an extension of time for use of an existing residence for church purposeso Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented a request from the petitioner, Mrs. Jessie Goodman, for an unspecified extension of time for the use of an existing residence for church purposes, and also reviewed the previous extensions granted by the Commission. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the charges for curbs, gutters and paving of Webster Street in front of subject property amounted to $340 and were still unpaid. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for tha use of the residence for church purposes, provided, however, that the owner of subje~c property pay the street improvement and curb and gutter charges within 30 days, said tir*a extension to extend to August 15, 1967; however, if the street improvement fees were no:. paid, subject petition would be terminated. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOT10N CARRIED. (Commissioner Perry was absent.) ITEM N0. 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 690 - United Stadium, Incorpcrated - Property located on the north side of Katella Avenue between State College Boulevard and the Santa Fe Railroad - Requesting a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions by the proposed operators of the three-story office building, restaurant, and motel. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented a request from the United Stadium Corpora- tion requesting an extension of time for the completion of conditions in Conditional Use Permit No, 690, noting that subject petitio:i had been before the Commission on June 6, 1966, for approval of revised plans. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for the completion of conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit !Jo. 690 in Commission Resolution No. 1700, Series 1964-55, said tim? extension to exp;re January 10, 1967. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion~ MGTION CF~RRIED. (Commissioner Perry was absen±.) ITcM N0. 10 TENTATIVc f+ik~ OF TRACT iJO. 5623 - R>vision Ido. 3. DEVcLOPcR: BAYPORT DEVELOPP/~EIJT CON~PANY, 153`.i East 17th Street, Santa Hna, California. EtiGINEtR: JEfdNI;~~S-HALDERVAPd-HOOD, 1833 cast 17ti1 Street, SuiLe 200, Santa ~na, Caliiornia. Subjeci tract located on the east side of Dowling Avenue b=tween Crowther and Urangethorpe Avenues and containing approximately 10.5 acres is proposed for subdivision into 31 R-3 Loned lots. Associate Plar,ner Jack Christofferson presented Revision iJo. 3 of Tantative IAap of Tract tio. 5023, noting the location of subject property and reviewinq past zoning action on subject property. ;~ '~ The revision of the map, Mr. Christofferson stated, primarily involved the street width o: °uther:ord Street. ;he enyineer for tiie projec't indicates that a discrepancy involving a 5-foot strip of land alor.g the eastern boundary of the property exists between his survey and the previous survey. He further states that this discrepancy could be resolved by a reduction i~ the width of Rutherford Street ai this time, or b•/ a reduction in the width of the lots of thF tract; however, the developers preferred no: to reduce the width of the lots, since precise architectural plans had been prepared already for each lot. Instead he proposed that the eastern half-width of 4utherford Street be improved at this time with- out the disputed 5-foot strip to provide a travel lane only on that side. The iull width of the street would be provided at such time as the tract to the east developed, since one of the conditions of approval of the adjoining tract requires `he fu11 improvement of the half-street. The staff recommendation was also reviewed for the Commission. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Revision IJo. 3 0: Tentative Map of Tract No. 5623, dated July 14, 1966. Commissioner Herbst >econded tlie motiono Iv10TI0N CkRRIED. lCommissioner Perry was absent.) ~ .._ . - ~ 'r' ~ 'J ' ; ~dINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1966 3129 ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred ~ offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Rowiand ~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ The meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, G~-r~%~;`~~~~;~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission r~ ; +, ~ , ~Y* ~ ~ ~ i 1 ~ E .- ' M ~ _ _. ~ . ~Y