Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/09/12`F , ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California September 12, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF TI-~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR :~EETItJG - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ° - COMMISSIONERS: Allred (entered Council Chamber at 2:05 P.M.), Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. ' PRESENT - Assistant ilevelopment Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompsor. Deputy City Attorney: John Gallagher Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Plannin9 Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Assistant Planner: Cha*les Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Thomas R< Pendell, Pastor of the First Methodist Church, gave the Invocation, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Co~rJnissioner Herbst led in the Pledge o.' Aliegiance to the Fla9. APPROVAL OF •- The Minutes of the meeting of August 29, 1966, were approved with the TI-~ MINUTES following correction: Page 3163, paragraph 9, should read - "Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-58 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 873 to permit establishment of on-sale liquor (cocktail lounge) subject to conditions and the stipulation bv the ,eetitioner that the theme-ty~e nightclub would not have to~lecs nr ~~~~~o~_ ~+vuu 6ebl.e ln accordance with the "Roarina Twenties" tl~eme. Commissioner Rowland advised he would vote agair,st the permit, indicating the shopping center was not the place for a nightclub, that its location is 130 feet to R-1, One-Family Residential, that it backs up to multiple-family dwellings in the rear and , that it is not the purpose for which a neighborhood shopping center is in- tended. Commissioner Camp in voting "no" agreed with the foregoing and added that, in his opinion, parkin9 was not sufficient. (See Resolution Book) CO~DITIONAL USE - PERMIT N0 873 Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that an amendment t h i . o t e r action regarding the Resolution Noe PC66-58, gr~nting Conditional AMENDMENT TO Use Permit No~ 873, was necessary to reflect the correction made to the Minutes, which had both findin s and di i RESOLUTION g con t ons in accordance with the stipu.lation m~d~e by the agent for the petitioner N0. PC66-58 . I ~--C2 ~,t, z., Comrnissioner RcW}~ offered Resolution No. PC66-85, and moved for its passa9e and adoption, to amend Resolution No. PC66-58 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 873 by\i cludin th f ll , ~ g e o owingq FINDINGS: / ~• c. c•,< <La.~l. ~C3~.~ ~,0-i.~i ~~[ci~.~.hLi t ~/~Z.<C .-t ~.t..f ~ . 9. That the petitioner stip,,lated that the theme-type nightclub would not have topless or sug~estive entertainment. 10. That the petiiioner stipulated that the costumes worn by the waitressES and women employee s would not be topless or suggestiva and would be in good taste in accord- " ance wit h the Roaring Twenties" theme. 11. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ,1 `~ ~ 3174 ;~ ~~R '`~ ) . :~ ryI : :l ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3175 ' CONDITIONAL USE - CONDITIONS: PERMIT N0. 873 3~ That there will be no topless or suggestive entertainment in the AMEND,.rNT TO theme-type nightclub, as stipulated by the RESOLUTION petitioner, N0. PC66`58 4a That the costumes worn by the waitresses and women employees will I (Continued) not be topless or suggestive, and will be in good taste in accord- ance with the "Roaring Twenties" theme proposed, as stipulated by the petitioner,. (See Rasolution Book) On roll call the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: •:-Y AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, ~dungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. _ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. VERNA ROWE 2125 West Victoria Fvenue, NO_ 66_67-13`Y qnaheim, California, Owner; PENNIMAN 3 COMPANY, 537 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; reques'~ing that property desc*ibed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land approximately 97 feet by 320 feet, located approximately 335 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and a mately 130 feet west of the centerline of Empire Street be reclassified from the R-3pProxi- MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIHL, ZONE to the P-1, AUTO~'u10BILE PkRKING, ZOiJE to expand parking facilities for the commercial facilities located at 2144 West Lincoln Avenueo Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 15, 1966, to alloa~ the petitioner time to file a reclassification of the property fronting on Empire Street. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner had :iled a reclassification petition which would be considered at the September 26, 1966, hearing and recommended that subject petition be continued to September 26, 1966, to be heard concurrently with the new reclassification petition. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-13 - to the meeting of September 26, 1906, to be heard concurrently with Reclassification No. 66-67-26. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. NpTION CARRIED. CONDITICNAL L'SE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEU FREEDMAN, 2018 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, PERMIT N0. 880 California, Owner; DAN RUWLAND, 1000 Yv'est La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to cSTA6LISH UFFIC~S FOR THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAy PqTROL on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 161 feet on the south side of Freedman Way and having a maximum depth of approximately 385 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 1,210 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:Oq P~A1. Mr~ Eric Lassen, 1000 West La Palma Avenue, representing the agent for the petitioner, appea*ed before tiie Commission and siated he was available to a~swer questiors. Commissioner Ailr=d entered the Council Chamber at 2:05 P.M. ; The Commission inquired of the agent whether or not consideration was given to the fact i that the proposed use will be located immediately adjacent to the Melodyland Theatre, and ~ that there was a possibility of traffic probiems regarding ingress and egress at the time ,,; the theater performance was completed, and if the highway patrol were required to leave the ~ property on an emergency basis, this might be very difficult. ,~ Mr. Lassen stated that considerable parking Nas being provided for on subject that although the headquarters would be in operation 24 hours a da property, and : the occupants to have ~problem in ingress and egress to and from thelt was anticipated by ' ~ i property~ The Commission further inquired whether or not it was proposed to have a carwash and repair ' services on subject pro ert p - a carport with two stalls and wouldUhaveMa•draineandthose toahoseeoffethe~ca~rsbehowever,lno ~ j, reoair work or a gas pump was planned for the property. ~ "~`~ i ~, I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI0~1, September 12, 1966 3176 CONDITIONAL USE,- The Commission also inquired why subject property was selected since it PERMIT N0. 880 was in the heart of the Commercial-Recreational Area, adjacent to a (Continued) theater, and whether or not the facilities on Haster Street might not be expanded~ TP~e agent stated that the Naster Street facilities would be vacated. Chairman Camp was of the opinion that perhaps subject property was more suitable to the proposed use because of its size, whereupon the agent stated the proposed headquarters would be one of the larger offices in the state. " - The Commission further inquired of Office Engineer Arthur Daw whether or not Clementine ~•~~~ Street w~uld be extended to Manchester Avenue, whereupon Mr. Daw stated that the State Division of Highways and the City of Anaheim proposed to extend Clementine Street northerly ~~~ of Alro Avenue to Manchester; however, Mr~ Freedman was not desirous of extending the street ~`' northerl throu h his ~ and at the y g propert~, present time no plans were projected in the ~', Engineering Division for said extension. C No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. _, THF HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if subject petition were approved, consideration should be given to termination of Conditional Use Permit tJo, u61 which the Commission granted on December 21, 1964, to permit the establishment of a restau- rant and cocktail lounge; however, since granting of said co~ditional use permit, the peti- tioner had con:tructed the :estaurant complex to the theater building and did not pl~n to utilize said conditional use permit. Furthermore, the plans indicated the tre? planting areas of 1E feet by 3 feet were too small to adequately support and sustain trees that would be planted in said tree wells, and recommended that the tree wells be a minimum of 4 feet by , 4 feet. Cemmissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-68 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to 9*-~nt Pet~tion for Conditional Use Permit No, 880, subject to conditions, and the requirement that the proposed tree wells be increased to a minimum of ~~ 4 feet by 4 feet in order to adequately support and sustain trees which would be planted~ ~ (See Resolution Book) _ On roll ~all the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' ~ AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. IdOES: COMMISSIUNEP.S: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Rowland~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolutior. IJo. PCo6-69 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate all proceedin9s on Conditional Use Permit Nn~ 601, on the basis that approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 880 superseded use of soid property. (See Resolution 3ook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMJu1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NUES: COMtdISSIONEP.S: f~one. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONrRS: Rowland. COIdDITIOWAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SAM DOMINU, 1176 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, PE;RMIT IJ0 881 Uwner; AL STOVALL, c~o Space Age Motel, 1176 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISN A MOTEL on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 170 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and having a maximum de~th of -approximately 600 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 740 feet north of the centerline of Katella Nvenue. ?roperty presently classiiied R-k, 4GRI- CULTURHL, ZONE. ~` No one appeared to represent ihe petitioner. 4 ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, ~, Discussion was held by the Commission, it being determined that consideration be given to subject petition later in the meeting in ordei that the Commissior~ might clarify certain 'j w problems on subject property~ ,~ ~ (See Page No. 3182) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOId, September 12, 1965 3177 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SKEOCN DEVEiOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth PERMIT N0. 882 Avenue, Fullerton, Calirornia, Owner; WILLIAM KISGEN, 1664 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RE5TAURAtdT on F:eperty described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street and having frantages of approximately 150 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 130 feet on Gilbert Street. Property presently classified C-1, GE;dERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE., Mr. William Short, r=presenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions~ In response to Commission questioning, Pdr. Short stated it was their plan to maintain an open area between the commercial facility and the proposed walk-up restaurant, and that the R-3 portion of the property was presentl~• under construction northerly of the small, commer- cial shopping facility~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that small shopping facility was "L" shaped and was immediately adjacent to the apartments; that the site of the proposed r^staurant was originall~ approved for a service station under Conditional Use Permit No. 760, and that the reason the Staff recommended that no barriers be constructed between the restaurant and shopping certer was to eliminate any possible traffic conflict, whereby persnns using the shopping center would have easy access to the restaurant facility, or vice versa, without going into Lincoln Avenue or Gilbert Street. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEll. Mr, Thompson advised the Commission th3t if subject petition •raas to be considered favorably, the Commission might consider terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 700, which approved the establishment of a service station on the site oi the proposed restaurant. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised tl~e Commission that one of Lhe conditions omittad from the Interdepar~mental Committee recommendations was "that a Parcel Map be recorded approving the lot split of subject property h~itl;in 180 days, or prior to the issuance of ~ 3uilding Permit, whichever occuzred first". Commissioner Allred offered Resolotion No.. PC6o-71 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ferano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 882, subject to conditions outlined in the Report to ttie Planning Commission, together with an additional condition "that a Parcel Map to record the approved division of subject property be submitted to the City of Anzheim for approval and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder within 180 days,or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, which- ever occured first". (See Resolution Book) On ro:l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, rerano, Gauer, Herbst, Mung:ll, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,.. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: fdone. Commissioner Rowiand offered Resolution iJo~ PC65-72 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to terminate all proceedings on Condi~ional Use Permit No, 760, on the basis tn~t none of the conditions had been met and that a proposed restaurant was approved by the Commission under Resolution tJo. PC66-71. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUM~~ISSIUNERS: Allred, Ferano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowiand, Camp~ NUES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMPo1ISSIONERS: None. ,~ _ ~~ • ~ ~ ~, r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3178 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth PERMIT NOo 883 Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; WILLIAM KISGEN, 1664 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the north side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 203 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, a:~d further des- cribed as 2015 East Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CUMMERCIAL., ZONE. A4ro William Short, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that in compliance with the recommendations made in the Report to the Planning Commission, there would be no barriers or fences between the commercial development and the proposed restaurant~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLDSED. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that one of the conditions of approva' had been omitted from the Report to the Planning Commission, namely, "that a Parcel Map to record the approved division of subject property be submitted to the City of Anaheim for approval and then te recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder"; this condi- tion being necess3ry because of the long-term lease the proposed restaurant would have on s•~bject property. Commissioner Mun9a11 offered Resolution tVo~ PC66-73 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditio,~al Use Permit No. 883, subject to conditions as outlined in the Report to the Planning Commission, as we11 as "that d FartEI ~v13p to record the approved division of subject property be submitte~ to the City of Ana;~eim for approval and then be recorded in the office of the Orar~ge County Recorder". (See Resoiution 3ook) Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, G~uer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I4one. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. V4RIANCE NO_ 1821 - PU3LIC HEARING. W. J. TRUUTMAN AND J. R. SCHOLZ, 617 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Hnaheim, California, Agent; requesting 4v4?VtRS OF: (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED i4UPABcR UF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE NJEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (3) MAXIMUM FREE-STAidD1IvG SIGN AREA, AND (4) LOCATIGN UF FREE-STANDING SIGU on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land locaied at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Water Street and having irontages of approxi- mately 150 feet on Hnaheim Boulevard and approximately 154 feet on Water Street, and further described as 558 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GEIJERAL COMM[RCIAL, ZUNE. Mr. James Burris, representing the agent for the pELitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the p:oposed free-standing sign was necessary to provide for identification to advertise the sale of Richfield gasoline; that the sign would be parallel to Hnaheim Boulevard, and the sign would be located a considerable distance from the street, and then he further indicated that upon reviewing the Report to the Planning Commission, Mr. Schultz of the A~lantic Richfield Oii Company agreed to reduce the sign request, but felt the sign was necessary for customers of the carwash, and that in his opinion, the sign would not be detrimental to the area because it was located a considerable distance from P,naheim Boulevard. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the existing free-standing sign adjacent to the sidewalk of the carwash was approved for a height GI 31 feet under Conditional Use Permit Noa 853 on June 30, 1966. The Commission inquired of the agent whether or not some of the existing wall signs would be removed, as well as the A-frame sign, which were in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code Sign Ordinance, ai,u why a 25-foot high sign was being requested since the sign was needed only to inform the carwash patrons of the type of gasoline sold. Mr, Burris replied that they did not have any control over the existing signs and were request- ing permission only to advertise the Richfield gasoline, and that although the proposed request was for a 168-square foot sign, if the Commission desired, the Richfield people would reduce the sign to 3 feet by 14 feet, or 42 square feet. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 19~6 3179 VARIANCE N0. 1821 - Mr. Murray Nleisburg, lessee of the carwash, appeared before the (Continued) Commission and stated that the proposed sign would be located approximately 150 feet from the street; tnat the A-frame sign advertising Richfield products was only temporary and would be removed if subject petitio~ were approved; furthermore, when the Commission denied a portion of the previous sign request for an additional free-standing sign, it was neces- sary to place the wall signs up in order to have proper identification of the services proposed. Further discussion was held between the Commission and Idr. Weisburg relative to the existing , signs and the proposed height of the sign, anu the fact that subject property was already T~~ over-signedo 1] ~~ ~ The Staff then presented a picture slide which indicated an integrated carwash sign with a gasoline sign, said area being on North Euclid Street~ ~. Mr. Weisburg, in response to Commission questioning, stated it was impossible to inteorate the Richfield Oil sign with the existing sign since the sign was not designed to incorporate this~ Mr. Larry Moran, representing the Atlantic Richfield Company, 1786 West Lincoln Hvenue, Anaheim, appeared bE ~re the Commission and reviewed the various types of signs of the Atlantic Richfield Company and noted that the company was agreeable to reducing the size of the sign from 3 by 22 feet to 3 by i4 feet, and that the sign would not be lighted; furthermore, the sign could also be lowered since it was necessary only to advertise to the carwash customers the type of gasoline sold, Mr~ Thompson noted that conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit I~o~ 853, which granted the remodeling and expansion of the existing carwash, had not been met at this time, and one of the conditions of approval of subject petition could incorporate this; furthermore, the exist- ing free-standing sign was in the ultimate right-of-way or would overhang the ultimate right- of-way upon dedication, which was one of the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit AJo. 853, as well as street tree planting, tras!i storage areas, and development in accordance with the Service Station ~ite Development Standards, with minimum landscapin9 requirements. Mr. Weisburg stated that during the remodeling operation, the carwash was in operation; that part of the planting and trash area had been placed on the Water S•creet side - however, it - would be difficult to place landscaping on the Anaheim Boulevard s:~de because of the possi- - bility of cars driving over the planting area. Furthermore, the street dedication would be up to the property owner since hF had only leased the property. The Commission then discussed the possibility of requirirg all conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new sign. ~Jo one appeared in opposition to sutject petition. THE HEARING WAS C[I~SEU. Commissioner Rowland offered R~solution ;~o. PC66-74 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ferano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1821, for a 3 by 14-foot sign, as stipulated by the petitioner, the bottom of the sign to be aligned with the roof u: the adjacent building to the south, or approximately 16 feet from ground level, and to permit the encroachment of a fr=e-standing sign to the north property line by 21,4 feet, rather than the 60 feet required, and subject to completion of all conditions oi Condiiional Use Permit No. 853 prior to the issuance of a building permit.. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo:lowin9 vote: AYES: CO~W~IISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, ~biungall, Rowland, Carrp. NUES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: None. ~}i i ~ ~{ ~ F~ i k ~i ,/ ~ ~ '"" ~- ~ - --' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANIJING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3180 VARIANCE N0. 1825 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT KEVORKIAN, 11621 Heathcliff Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; Stanley Scherer, 2043 Minerva Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestin5 WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (2) MAXIMUM BUILDIIJG HEIGHT, (3) MINiMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, (4) MINIMUM NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES, (5) MINIMUM PARKING SPACE SIZE, (6) MAXIMUM PERMITTED DENSITY, (7) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (8) SCREEN PLANTING on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land,approximately 106 feet by 329 feet, located at the west end of and abutting Julianna Avenue, the southerly bounriary of subject property being approximately 340 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. r^T~~ Mr. Stanley Scherer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that because of the geographic layout, it was necessary to ~:y~ , develop subject property as proposed; that the requested waivers were minor in scope; that ;_~~ the reason for requesting waiver of the minimum unit size was to provide efficiency units, ~ and it was nat their intent to accornmodate children in these apartmer.ts, k. ; It was noted by the Commission that some diff'.culiy would be experienced to gain access to ~~ subject property and inquired what the petitioner proposed. ,' ~ Mr. Scherer then stated that the projeci was designed to orient the entrance to Julianna '~ Avenue, having access from Citron Street or from the alley which had access to Harbor l~ Boulevard; however, a cul-de-sac presently existed on Julianna Avenue which, at the time it was constructed, was to prevent through traffic, and that the two-story buildings would b? oriented toward those al.ong Victor ~~~enue. The Commission informed the agent that the two-story apartments had been built prior to the City's requirement of one-story within i50 feet of R-1 development. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner proposed a pedestrian accessway through ~.he R-1 properties to provide a means of 9oing to the stores in close proximity~, A showing of hands indicated i2 persons present in opposition ;.o subject petition~ Mr. Don Parsons, 700 West Julianna 4venue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, presenting five letters of opposition from persons unable to be present in person, ~nd stated that granting subject petition would circumver.t the intent of the Code and give the petitioner privileges not afforded to property owners in the area; that the proposed apartments would attract an undesirable element similar to the type of residents of the apartments already developed there; that the police had been called many times to these apartments to quell the noises and disturbances coming from the apartments; that there were ample apartments available in the City, noting the many vacancy signs in the area; that traffic from such a density would be hazardous to children; that the existing cul-de- sac streets were not designed for through traffic; that the existing alley was blocked off after youthful drivers had turned it into a raceway; furthermore, if the pedestrian walkway were approved, this would permit R-3 automobiles to park in the R-1 area, similar to areas where multiple-family and sinyle-family developments were adjacent to each other; and that since subject property had R-3 zoning, the owne: should be required to comply with the R-3 requirements which would reduce the der.sity and prohibit intrusion into tfie R-1 streets. Mr. Richard Thomas, 626 West Victor Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that the property owners were not opposed to R-3 development, but were opposed to requesting eight waivers :rom the R-3 Code, which wouid suggest a substandard apartment developmert attracting the less desirable tenant, and that the homeowners in the area could not afford to sell their homes because of the intrusion of this undesirable element - therefore had to e:idure this undesirabie element, whereas the owners of the apartments were far removed from the property. Mr. Eddy Martin, 619 West Julianna Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he was of the opinion that the lung-time homeowners af the R-1 homes should not be subjected to an undesirable environment if substandard apartments were constructed. Mrs. Cora Woolridge, 705 West Julianna Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that the alley had formerly been partially closed off; however, because of the racing in the alley, the alley was completely closed, and to reopen the alley and allow apartment traffic to have access through it from two-story apartment development, would be an infringe- ment on the privacy of the R-1 development to the east. Mr. Albert Kervurkian, the petitioner, in rebuttal stated that he had received a numUer of development plans - however, the one most acceptable was that presented before the Commission since it did not project access to Julianna hvenue, and inquired of the homeowners present opposing subject petition whether or not they opposed extending Julianna Avenue westerly through subject property. Furthermore, he was also concerned whether the existing alley would support through traffic. . ~,~ ~ t ' i td:NUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3181 VARIANCE N0. 1825 - The petitioner was advised that the alley extended from Harbor to (Continued) Citron Street, The Commission also inquired what the petitioner was planning to do rega~ding guest parking in the area, since this seemed to be a concern of the property ownersa Mr, Thompson stated that the R-3 Code required 38 covered parkiny spaces, whereas t5e petitioner was proposing 22 covered and 21 open parking spaces. Mro Kevorkian stated that the development was oriented so that the bedrooms and baths ,' ~ would be facing the R-1, not the living ~:ea, and that the proposed plon would not allow ~:,-.-=~;~ through traffic to gain access from Harbor Boulevard. Chairman Camp advised the petitioner ~hat from his recollection of past Commission actions, waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 property had not been granted, nor had the 1,200 square feet of property for each apartment, together with partly covered parking spaces, been waived; that the Commission might consider two possible avenues, one beina to c,onsider continuation of subject petition for the submission of revised plans which would indicate subject property was being developed in accordance with Code reGuirements, or the alternative of denying subject petition. Commissioner Rowland said he would not be adverse to a continuance of subject petition for development plans in compliance with Code requirements; however, according to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Julianna Avenue would have to be continued westerly, thereby reducing the coverage of subject properiy; furthe~more, the parking spaces proposed were under- size by 15%, and a considerable percentage o: parking was requested for waiver. Pdr. Scherer stated the units which were less than 70G square feet couid be increased to 700 square feet. Several of the Commissioners advised tne petitioner that i; he developed subject property in accordance with the R-3 Code, none of the R-1 properLy owners would have any objection. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that he would hate to see the petitioner :~bmit revised plans and then not obtain permission to construct; therefore, he suggested that the petitioner develop in accordance with the R-3 Code> Mr. Scherer stated that if the City required Julianna Avenue to extend through subject property, this would reduce the parcel by approximately 25%, since an alley would also be required, The Commission advised Mr. Scherer that other properties being developed for R-3 were required to have an alley, as well as streets, and also were required to construct single-story within 150 feet of R-1 - therefore, all of this should be taken into con.ideration when the plans were revised, The opposition inouired wheiher the Commission would :onsider subject petition at an evening session since they felt their opposition should be strenghened to present all facets of their opposition, and many of the people were unable to attend because of their working hours~ The Commission advised the opposition that the hearings were seldom scheduled for an evening se;sion - however, it could be scheduled for the last item on the agenda, which might occur after 4:00 or 4:30 P.M. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance IJo. 1825 to the meeting of Uctober 10, 1966, schedulir~ it as the last item on the agenda, to consider revised plans incorporating the requirements of the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARrZIED. ~ ~j ` t:.~ ~' : ,~tx FrJ [.1 E, i ~ :; ~,~ E ._ - . ~ _ __ r ""4 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Septenber 12, 1966 3182 ~ ;,~ . ~-R F:; ~ CONTINUATION OF - Mr. N'illiam 0'Connell, representing the petitioner, appeared before CANDITIONAL USE the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. PERMIT N0. 881 The Commission inquired of the agent whether or not the recreation area was proposed for the sole use of the motel occupants. Mr. 0'Connell stated that it would be used in conjunction with occupants of the motel for ~onvention display space; that no plans were proposed to establish restaurant facilities there; and that he would stipulate to the use of the recreation area for motel occupants only. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-70 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 881, subject to conditions, and the stipulation, as stated by the petitioner, that the recreation area would be used for occupants of the motel only. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the `oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: _ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMI~SIONERS: i~one. ABSrNT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO _1826 - PUBLIC HEARING. GIiLF O1L CORPORATIUN, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California, Owner; MICHIELSEN ~ ASSOCIATES, 280 North Wilshire Avenue, F.naheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) FREE-STANDING SIGN LOCATION, AND (2) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT on property described as: An irregulorly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Helena Street and having frontages of approximately 110 feet on Lincoln Nvenue and approximately 141 feet on Helena Street, to per;nit the relocation of an existing free-standing sign. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZGNE. Mr. Robert Michieisen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed problems the service station had in being adequately signed for traffic traveling westward because of the large bar,k sign, _ Discussion held by the Commission indicated that the proposed 40-foot high sig~ would create a hardship on the bank property to the east and would set a precedent for similar requests for waiver of the Sign Ordinance. Colored slides presented by the Staff indicated that the signing of subject property was visible ..hen traveling westward on Lincoln Ave~ue. The Commission inquired why the existing sign could not be relocated towards the center of the property, whereupon Mr. Michielsen replied that the existing canopy on the service station site would not permit this relocation, and it was necessary to have adequate identification of the service station in order to make it a profitable venture. Assistant Development Services Director Robert f~lickelson advised the Commission that the sign could be built to the property line, but could not overhang the public right-of-way without specific approval of the City Council. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the S~andard Oil sign at Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue was permitted to construct te its present height because there were no homes in close proximity, o: 300 feet, whereas the proposed sign and subject p2•operty were immediately adjacent to single-family homes to tt,e north - therefore, the petitioner was requesting a waiver of the 25-foot height sign permitted. No one appeared in opposition to subj?ct petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. A letter from the property owner to the west of subject property was submitted, in which no opposition was expressed to the proposed sign being located within 3 feet of the west property line. `~j Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed height of a free-standing sign being 40 feet, which would create a hardship on the existing Security First National Bank sign, i and to grant the proposed waiver of the height. of a sign would be setting a precedent and ~' would encourage further requests for waivers of the Sign Ordinance; that no hardship was proven * to warrant the granting of the waiver of the maximum height of a sign; and that the request ~„~ for relocation of the sign toward the west property line would seem reasonable since the adjacent property owner had expressed app*oval. 'i i . 1 , I . ..,_. .<...:«~ ,._.,~-_.. . - .: ~~.. ~~.~ .. ..,1._~~~... . ..~ .~ ... . ... . _. ... . .. . .. . .:: .. ~- ~ ` . ` . ~ ~" . ~ -..:~' --~--- -----~"""~"".o. ' '^' ~ ~ . ~ ~. r . . `.-a - - ~ ' , . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3183 VARIANCE N0. 1826 - Commissioner Rowland ofiered Resolution No. PC66-75 and moved for its (Continued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~dungall, to deny the request for maximum sign heigl~t, but approve the free-standing sign relocation of Petition for Variance No. 1825, subject to conformance with other Sign Ordinance requirements. (See Resolution Book) ~ Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~MISSIONERS: None. ~ -_=~~ i ~~` , RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. BUTLER 8 HARBOUR, INCORPORATED AND ADOLPH SCHOEPE, `~~~ N0. 66-67-19 _ 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land f~~ TENTATIVE MAP OF with a frontage of approximately 1,020 feet on the north side of ~~ TRACT NOS. 5989 Orangethorpe Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately '~ AND 5990 - 847 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approxi- ''~ REVISION N0. 3 mately 110 feet west of the centerline of Boisseranc Street, be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the :j GENERAL PLAN R-2, 5000 ONt-FAIdILY, ZONE to permit the subdivision of subject '~~ AMENDMENT N0. 87 property into 120 R-2,5000 One-Family, Zoned lots. DEVELOPER: BUTLER a HARBOUR, INCORPORATED, 2283 West Lincoln F~venue, ,~~ Anaheim, California. E:4,'INEER: Jennin9s-Nalderman-Hood, 1833 East 17th Street, Suite 200, ~nta Ana, California. Subject tractslocated northerly of Gran9ethorpe Avenue and easterly of Lakeview, westerly of Boisseranc Street, ce~taining approximately 26 acres, is proposed for i~ subdivision into 120 R-2, 5000 One-Family, Zoned lots (Tract No. 5989 - ~ 59 R-2 lots; Tract No. 5990 - 61 R-2 lots). ,I Mr. Jack Cochran, representing the engineer for the proposed tracts, advised the ~ommission I that a four-week continuance for subject prooerty was desired in order that an additional reclassification petition could be filed to cover the balance of the R-2, Multiple-Family, ,~,~ Zoned property that was undeveloped. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-19, Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 5989 and 5990, Revision IJo. 3, and General Plan Amendment No. 87. to t'r~e meeting of October 10, 1966, to be scheduled concurrently with the new reclassification for the adjoining property. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. tu'pTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CFL4RLIE J. DOMINGUcZ, 2221 South Loara Street, Hnaheim, N0 66~67-17____ California, Owner; RAY RUSSELL, 414 North State College 6oulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly sPiaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the west side of Loara Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 148 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being app:oximately 330 feet south of the centerlir.e of Lorane Way, and further described as 2221 South Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONc to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEIJTIAL, ZONE. Mr, Charlie Dominguez, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questior,s, The Commission inquired of the petitioner what his plans of development were, since he did not submit a plot plan. Mr. Dominguez stated that at the present time he did not have any plans for development of the property; however, he was hopeful of obtaining Commission approval for the reclassifica- tion so that in the future, when he was financialiy able, l~e would construct single-story apartment units at the rear of his property, providing access to said property from the easement, The Commission inquired of Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson whether or not the easement was perpetual, and whether it had been recorded, whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that the title report indicated this easement was recorded to serve as access to the landlocked parcel to the rear, ' Deputy City Attorney John Gallagher advised the Commission that the 1G-foot easement was ~ approved and recorded only to serve the landlocked parcel to the rear, and if the petitioner x was proposing to utilize said easement for gaining access to multiple-family units to the rear of his property, this might have to be approved by the City Council. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3184 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Thompson stated that at the time the petitioner proposed develop- N0. 66-67-17 ment of his property, he might have to file a conditional use permit (Continued) to permit the number of units on the property. Discussion was then held by the Commission witli Mr. Thompson regarding the R-3 properties granted in close proximity, Mr~ Thompson stating that only two of the properties that were reclassified to R-3 have been developed as such; the others have remained vacant. The Commission also noted that the existing structure was rather substantial and well- maintained, and further development on the property should be in accordance with the existing architecture. ~ Mr. Dominguez stated that the existing residence had heen renovated and placed in its present condition only within the past year, and that he had gone to considerable expense to replace ' the curb,planting and other improvements; that his existing drive was exceptionally wide and could afford the means of a•:cess to the rear; and thet he was aware he would be restricted to single-story construction. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the exis~ing easement should be widened to at least 21 feet to provide for future access if the property to the rear developed for a more intense use, and development plans should be submitted in order that the Commission might determine the feasibility of developing the rear portion. The Commission also advised the petitioner to incorporate a 21-foot alley, together with a plot plan and elevations, and to determine from the adjoining property owners, after his plans were completed, whether or not they would be acceptable. Commissioner Ferano oifered a motion to recommend to the City Council denial for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-17, based on the fact that the existing easement would be used for access to the rear portion of subject property, in addition to the single-family home, thereby creating a hard~hip on the small, landlocked parcel ~o the rear. After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the motion for denial, and the possibility of submission of a plotpl~n by the petitioner, Commissioner Ferano withdrew his motion and offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-17 to the ~ meeting of October 10, 1966, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit 3 plot plan _ incorporating a 21-foot alley to provide access for the rear portion of his property, as - well as the landlocked parcel to tne rear. Commissione.r Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion for a ten minute recess. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. IJpTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:00 P.M. RECUNVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meetiny at 4:15 P.h1., ~:1 Commissioners being present. i I RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. i-~NRY LESTMAN, 9311 Hillview Road, Anaheim, California, N0. 66-07-18 Owner; DONALD BRUWN, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: kn irregularly shaped parcel o: land , VARIANCE N0. 182a located at the southwest corner of Orange Hvenue and Magnolia kvenue and having frontages of approximately 264 feet on Orange Avenue and ! approximately 212 feet on Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 601 South Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GEfJERAL i COMMERCIAL, ZONE, D'cEU RESTRICTtD to business and professional offices ~ only. i REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZOI~E. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF: (1) Mf+XIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ANU (2) MIIJIh1UM SETBACK e to permit construction of a neighborhood retail store and service station. Mro Donald Brown, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the ~ i land use surrounding subject property and noted that the proposed retail shopping area would be located along the westerly property line, and that adequate access and parking would be ~, provided in the front area. It was also noted that Union Oil Company was proposing to estab- lish a service station at that intersection, said station liaving three bays and a lube rack j ~ opening from the west side of the station, and ttiis wouid eliminate any noise since the ~} ~x shopping facility would act as a buffer between the station and the R-1 property> € MINUTES, CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3185 ; RECLASSIFICATION - A showing of hands indicated 12 persons present in the Council Chamber N0. 66-67-18 ~ opposing subject petitions. ' VARIANCE N0. 1824 Mr. Carl Schmauss, 2604 Westhaven Drive, appeared before the Commission (Continued) in opposition, noting that the property owners indicated they had not , received a notice, oth~r than his neighbor, who was a deaf mute. The Commission inouired whether or not all property owners had been submitted a legal notice whereupon Zoning Supervi.sor Ronald Thompson indicated that Mr. Schmauss had received one since none had been :eturned, and ;11 notices which were undeliverable were returned to the City. Mr. Schmauss then continued, stating that subject property had been zoned for a medical and {~ professional building ,reviously, and at that time considerable objection had been voiced ~'~ by the single-family homeowners in the area because of the hazardous condition which might t~ result from traffic to the center, and the proposed use would magnify this traffic hazard ~'~ because of the service station and the retail shoppin9 area;. that the property owners wer~ ~~ of the opir. ~n that the proposed use would be detrimental to the residential integrity of ~`i the area since the area was primarily residential, and a service station and shopping center in the center of a residential area was not compatible; that there were adequate shoppin9 E:~ facilities and service stations within close proximity; and that it would be unfair to the single-family homeowners to have commercial infringement on their properties~ f'. ~ Mro W~ Ro May, representing the D9agnolia School District, appeared before the Commission in 'i• ~ opposition to subject petition and stated that the school was concerned with the creation of an additional traffic hazard since ii was the intent of the district to educate the children "`• to use sidewalks which had been constructed in the area; however, subject property had a large berm which wouid not permit construction of a sidewalk ;or use by the children; that 50 homes were located weste.rly of subject property, and children from those homes would be subjected to the hazards of ingress and egress to the shopping area and the service station. tv1r. E.rnest Campbell, 229 Mall Way, representing St. Paul's Presbyterian Church located at 2580 West Orange Avenue directly easterly of subject property, appeared in opposition, noting that with the close proximity of the church and school, there would be objection to the possi- bility of off-sale and on-sale liquor, and that there were adequate shopping facilities one block from subject property. Mrs~ Lola Oxford, memb~~r of St~ Paul's Presbyterian Church, appeared before the Commission in opposition 3~d stated she wished the City and the Planning Commission would change thezoning ~ a quiet, residential area for that corner because of the fact that three churches and a school ,F and residential uses were established all around subject property, and commercial uses would •s be incompatible; that the commercial potential for a doctor's office seemed to have been nil g property after the Commission had ~ since nothin had been developed on the granted limited ~ C-1 uses; that a service station with the odors, noise, dirt, and liqht, would be harmful to ~ the peace, health, and safety of the residents in the area; that the noises from cars enter- f ing and leavir.g the service stal:ion would be particularly annoying during church services; that waiver of the height limitation of the commercial buildings was also objectionable ' because this would interfer with the light and air to single-family homes in close proximity to the shopping area - however, she would object particularly to the service station since this was too heavy a use for a residential area. Reverend Roy Lesi~, Pastor of St. Paul°s Presbyterian Church, appeared in opposition and stateo that great respect for the City and the Commission was from attention given in their decisions for petitions presented to them, and he was cenfident the Commissior~ would weigh all Che factors involved and wouid do everything possible to protect the interests of the community and the residential~school :+nd church facilities in close proximity to subject property; that the church was planning to construct a new sanctuary immediately east of the e:!isting struct~re - however, this miyht be nullified if subject petitions were approved, especially wiLh a service station facing the sanctuary, since this would be an encroachment and would be detrimental to tl,e existing atmosphere of the area; that members of the church came from Buena Park, Stanton, West Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Fullerton since it was the only Presbyterian Church in the area; and th~t the City should encourage the church and give them every oppor~tunity to grow and develop without encroachment of commercial interests and a change in character of the community. Mr. Roger Crosley, 2680 Westhaven Drive, ~p;~eared before t.he Commission in oppositio,~ and stated that his property backed up to subject property and inquired what was the waiver regarding the height and setback, whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that a 10-foot setback was required in the front yard, whereas 8 i=et, 6 inches was proposed; and the buiiJiny height would not be permitted because the Code :equired a distance twice the distance of the height of the structure from the R-1 property li~ie to the west, or 24 feet, and the plans would not permit any structure because of this limi~ation. ~ c ~ M1 } ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPMIiISSION, September 12, 1966 3186 RECLASSIFICATION - MroCrosley then stated there were considerable lar~a pools and small N0. 66-67-18 pools in the rear yards of all these single-family homes, and commercial uses would bring in considerable trash and debris into the pools, thereby VARIANCE N0. 1824 reducing the uses of these pools for their intended purpose. (Continued) In rebuttal, Mr. Brown stated that he was in sympathy with the concern of the church- however, he could not guarantee that the service station would not create noises; that the opposition had indicated thoughts of a large shopping center - however, this was only a small, neighborhood shopping center for the people in the immediate area; that the shopping area would be to the rear of the service station and would be designed to be compatible with the residential uses; and that subject property did have C-1 zoning, although it was deed resiricted to medical and professional office use only - however, the previous petitioner had been unable to obtain financing for the business and professional structure. Furthermore, the concern of the school relative to a sidewalk - the existing berm would afford a greater access for the school and church and better driving conditions; that there was more than adequate parking being provided; and that the front setback was requested only to permit location of the trash area, which could be relocated. THE HEAkING WAS CLOSED. ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the request for lifti~g oi the deed restric- tions, the Commission being of the opinion that the original reclassification had been pre- mature for that area; that the deed restrictions had been placed on subject property because the City did not have the C-0 Zone at the time the request came in, and the C-0 Zone is now the most restrictive of commercial zoning in the City, and the use would be more compatible to the residential, church, and school development in the area than a service station and a shopping area; that the area should be maintained in a respectable, res_dential area without any commercial encroachment; that lot layouts presented by the Staff indicated subject property could be subdivided into five oi six R-1 lots which would be more in keeping with the area than both the existing zoning and the proposed zoning; and thaL sma11 shopFing areas seemed to be encouraging beer oars and deleterious uses which were unacceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution ;Jo. PC66-76 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-18, requesting removal of the C-1 deed rest:ictions be denied on the basis that the useswould have a deleterious effect on the residential environment of the area; that ~ subject property could be developed for six R-1 homes having access to Orange Avenue; that the restricted uses for subject property would have the least harmful effect than would the ~ heavier commercial uses proposed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. idOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEN~: CUIv1MISSTONERS: None. Commissioner Allred o;fered Resolution No. PC66-77 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~J~ungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1824. (See Resolution ~ Book) I On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. IJOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. , AESENT: CUMMISSIUNERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CLIF'ION MARTIN, 12431 Magnolia, Garden Grove, California, N0. 66-57-20 Owner; RUBY BUSH, 5782 South Ohio, Yorba Linda, California, Agent; ~ property desc:ibed as: A rectanguiarly shaped parcel of land with a CONDITIONAL USE frontage of approximately 124 feet o~ the south side of Ball Road and "ERMIT N0. 884 having a maximum depth of approximately 342 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 190 feet west of the centerline of Nutwood Street, and furtiier described as 1916 West Ball Road. Property presently ciassified C-1, GcNERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, UEED RESTRICTED to business and professional offices only. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUN: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CUNllITIONAL USE: PE(2MIT A YJEGDING CHAPL•L AND DINING FACILITIES. J ' ~ 4 ~~ ~ , ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3187 y: .:.:~4 RECLASSIFICATION -.Nrs. Ruby Bush, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission N0. 66-67-20 and reviewed the proposed request, noting that the wedding chapel would seat approximately 100 oeople, and the reception area would accommodate CQNDITIONAL US~ the same number of people - however, the dining facilities would be for PERMIT N0. 884 40 to 50 people only; that no commercial appearance would be noted on (Continued) the exterior of the building; and that no alcoholic beverages would be served; furthermore, the restaurant would be open from 5:30 to 8:30 P.M., Thursdays through Saturdays and on Sundays opening at noon to 8:30 P.M., and that the plans had indicated a two-room, manager`s apartment - how- ever this was being reduced to a studio apartment in order to provide additional parking spaces. It was also noted by Mrs. Bush that the use of the facilities would be handled in a dignified manner,and there would not be continuous use of the area with overlapping wedding parties using the facilities. In response to Commission questioning, Mrs. Bush s'ed dinners could be served to the wedding guests; however it was proposed to have the ~t__aurant open to the pu~lic as well, and that the center area would be a garden-type facility. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the basis for the deed rescrictiors, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advising the Commission thz.t at the time subject property was reclassified to the C-1 Zone, the City did not have the C-0 Zone which limited commercial uses. Further discussion by the Commission indicated that to give unrestricted C-1 uses for subject property to include the wedding chapel and dining facilitiss would be settin9 a precedent for heavier commercial uses on the property if the proposed uses were not successful, and that perhaps the ori9inal reclassification ordinance could be ai,,ended to include the proposed uses rather than having unrestricted C-1 uses. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-78 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner A17.red, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ~ fication No. 66-67-20 be disapproved on the basis that the unlimited commercial uses wF,ich -~ would be permitted if the deed restrictions were deleted would set a precedent fcr requests - for heavier commercial us^s on the R-A parceis adjacent to subject propertyo (See :;esolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp, NOES: COMMISSIONER:,: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-79 and moved for its passage and adoption, secondec: by Commissioner Rllred, to grant Petition :or Conditional Use Permit No. 884, subject to completion of Reclassification No. 62-63-43 and the amendment of Reclassification No. 62-63-43 to allow the oroposed uses under the deed restrictions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ~he followino vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-80 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Ordinance No. 1802, dated January 22, 1963, establishing professional office uses on subject property be amended to include permission to establish a wadding chapel and restaurant on subject property, a~d recommend that the City Council set for public hearing Reclassification No. 62-~?-43 to consider an amendment to deed restrictions which shall be heard concurrently with Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-20 and Conditional Use Permit N~. 884. (See Resolution Book) On roll cal: the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMh1ISSIUNERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,;r _ ~. • r h MINUTL-S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1956 3188 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ELTINGE d GRAZIADIO DEVEIAPMENT COMPA[JY, 2930 West N0. 66-67-21 Imperial Highway, Inglewood, California, Owner; ANACAL ENGINEERIIJG COMPANY, Box 3668, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying north and v~est of a 135-foot by 135-foot parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Lincoin Avenue and Beach Bouleva.rd, and having frontages of approximately 485 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 470 feet on Beach Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish a market and department store. Mr. Jeff Lowder, representin9 the agent for the petit.ioner, appeared before the Cornmission and advised that plot plans submitted for the development of Zodys department and market stores were as planned for subject property, and the developer proposes to comply with all requirements as indicated in the Report to the Planning Commission. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE f~ ARING WAS CLOSED, The Commission inquired whether or not the "not a part" was to be included with the develop- ment of subject property, whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that that portion had been deleted from the plans. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-81 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council tnat Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-21 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None~ DIRECTIVE TO - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Staff to make a THE STAFF_~ study of the area at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard to determine whether a change in the General Plan was warranted to reflect the commercial facilities presently existing and recently approved, relocating the neighbe~'~od shopping center symbology, or amending it to indicate a regi~„al shoppin9 center. Com~issioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. IiJITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CO~MISSIUN, 204 East AMENDMENT N0. 80 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan designating Blue Gum Street between La Palma Avenue on the south and Orangethorpe Avenue on the north as a secondar~~ highway rathe~ than its existing primary high- way designation. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reveiwed General Plan Amendment No. 80, indicating on the ~eneral Plan the location of Blue Gum Street and its proximity to the fdortheast IndustrialArea. from studies m3de by the City and County Traffic Engineers, which indicated that with the location of the proposed Urange Freeway and its completion, together with the ten-year traffic nrojection, it was determined tnat only 12,000 vehicles per day would be using Blue Gum Street; therefore, its primar~;' highway designation should be reduced to a se~:ondary arterial highway. IJo one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE 1-~ARING WAS CLOSED. Ccmmissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC6o-82 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 80, changing the designation of Blue Gum Street from a primary to a secondary highway on the Circulation Element of the General Plan be approved. (See Resolution Book) 'vn roll call the ioregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSICNERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ,i _ ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ; ,; -i , '1 ~ ' ~ c.. ~ -- -~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3189 GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TI-~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AMENJMENT N0. 83 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan designating Coronado Street between Dowling Street on the east and Blue Gum Street on the west as a local street rather ~i~an a secondary highway. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger present~d General Plan Amendment Pdoo 63 to the Planning Commission, noting that when Coronado Street was originally ciassified, it functioned as an arterial highway to carry traffic from the Riverside Freeway to and from the Autonetics industrial complex; however, with the upgrading of the Riverside Freeway from ar. expressway to a full freeway status, Coronado Street would no longer connect with the freeway and would terminate in a cul-de-sac west of Blue Gum Street - there:ore, it would not carry arterial traffic, and the Traffic Engineer recommended Coronado Street being reclassified from a secondary arterial to a local street. No or.e appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TH't HEARING WAS CLOSED. G ~' ~i 1 _ ~ ~ ,.~x i ~i ; ~ ._ . ~ -- -- Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution IJoe PC66-83 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the Ciiy Council that General Plan Hmend- ment No. 83 be approved, amending the Circulation Element of the General Plan by designating Coronado Street between Blue Gum Street on the west and Dowling Street on the east as a local street~ (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gaoer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CO~~ISSIONERS: None. ABSEIJT: COMMISSIUNERS: None. GeNERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIP.TED BY THE CITY PLANtdING COMMISSION, Ah1ENDMENT NOS. 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Hnaheim, California, to consider encompassing 18 AND 52 properties at the intersections of Sycamore and East Streets and La Palma Avenue and L-ast Street for possible neighborhood commercial symbology. Subject General Plan Amendments were continued :rom the meeting of August 15, 1966, to allow time for further study. Planning Supervisor Ronald Gri~dzinski advised the Commission that since the front-on%side-on study of residentia~ homes along arterial highways would be considered by the Commission at their work session on Sep~ember 19, they might wish to consider continuance of these yE;.e:a] plan amer.dments un~il the meeting of September 26, in order to have all the latest data before them before making a decision. Mr. Grudzinski also noted for the Commission that the City Council had approved Reclassifica- tion No. 05-60-120 which requested G0, Commercial Office use for a vacant parcel located between Sycamore and i4orth Streets. Mrs. C1iff Bechler, 1242 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that although she had tived at the present address for 20 years, her home had been established because La Palma Avenue was a two-lane,country highway; however, with the expansion of indus- trial development easterly and the extension of La Palma Avenue from its previous terminus at the westerly portion of the railroad tracks, traffic had become unbearable, and the property was no longer suitable for residential purposes, and it was hoped the Commission would take into consideration the potentials of the area because of the d?ep lots fronting alongside the south side of La Palma Avenue t,e:ause of this change in character of the area. Mrs. John Spielman, 747 Vorth East Street, appeared before *_he Commission and stated tl~at although her property was not tne size of the Bechler propert•y, it had become almost impossible to back out of the driveway during the rush hours because of the heavy traffic; that although Commissioner Gauer had stated me.sonry walls might keep the traffic noises out, additional property would be needed for street widening purposes which woulo ~imos~,^.egate the second patio which Commissioner Gauer had reco:nmended; however, if the Commission felt this was a resi- dential area, the heavy traffic along East Street should be re-routed, the speed of cars should be reduced to 25 miles per hour, and the posted traffic speed should be enforced, and the limited parking signs should be removed, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3190 GENERAL PLAN - Commissioner Herbst advised the interested persons that continuance of AMENDMENT NOS. these general pian amendments was not necessary to discourage any interested 18 AND 52 persons; it was necessary in order that the Commission might have every (Continued) available information at their disposal in order to render a decision which would be acceptable to both the City and to the property owner, and the problems existing on East Street and La Palma Avenue also affected approxi- mately 2,700 homes in the City. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of General Plan Amendment Nos. 18 and 52 to the meeting of September 26, 1966, in order to allow time for additional study and informaticn obtained at the Commission work session. Commissioner A7unga1l seconded the motiono NATION CARRIED. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. Ii4ITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CO~J~9ISSIOfJ, 204 East AMENUMENT N0. 86 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing the relocati.on of the fire station symbol in the general area of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue to the east side of Loara Street, midway between North Street an~J Catalpa Avenue. _, Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented General Plan Amendment IJo. 86, reviewirg for the Commission the present location of the fire station symbol on the west side of Euclid Street between the Riverside Freeway and Crescer.t Avenue, and noted that because of the extreme traffic problems in close proximity to the existing site, this would hinder fire-fighiing operations, and that when the Crescent Avenue overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway was completed, there would be a large overlap of two fire station service areas; therefore, a change in the location was deemed necessary, and the proposed location was deemed by the 4dministrative Office and the chief of the Fire Department os an adeouate location for the facility. Mrs. Randy Milleville, 819 North Loara Street, appeared before the Cornmission and stated that a number of years ago a park had been planned for the area east of Loara Street, and i; a fire station was proposed for that area, this would destroy the park-like appearance of the area; that the Park and Recreation Department thought that at one time a ur~:~ch library would be located where the proposed fire station wzs indicated; that fire trucks and stations required large driveways and this would eliminate a considerab~e frontage to mointain the ; park-like appoarance; furthermore, only one entrance from North Street to the park was avail- able at this time, and some provision should be made for ~n entrance from Loara Street. The Commission reviewed the comments made by ~~1rs. Milleville and indicated that the better of the two uses (the library and the fire station) would be tlie fire station because there would be no additional traffic into the residential area, and most fire stations were considerably more landscaped than the library facilities; that some years ago a park had been planned azound tne fiood cor.troi area adjacent to S~ge ~'ark - nowever this had ^ever m,;terialized. ~ Nrs. Milleviliefurther stated that the apartment complex in close proximity to the park faci:ities could readily use the swimming facilities at the existin9 park if some means of gaining access from the apartment complex was available - this n~ould be a means of providing an ideal place for children to play durii~g the day. Planning Supervisor konald Gi•udzinski stated that although there had never been a decision to ~se the park land, there had been a proposal nt one time to use this land as a botanical garden; that the Planning Staff had not conducted the study regarding tt:is, nor was it presented by the Staff to the Park and Recreation Commission - however no final decision had been made, and the only proposal now to consider was the City was faced with tne problem of owning prooerty and inadequate fire facilities available for the properties located easterly of Euclid Street. Furthermore, althouyh the*e was a 340-foot frontage along Loara Street, there was no means of gaining access to the flood control ct~annel or the park ~rea from Loara Street because o; properties being owned between the fire station facility and the park, and from recent discus- sions with the develeper, tne property owners were planning to construct additional apartments there. THE HEARIIJG WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution IJo. PC6o-84 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 86, relocating the symbology of the a fire station from th~~ west side of Euclid Street, ' generally between the area of the Santa A.na Freeway and Cresc=nt Avenue to the east side of Loara Street, midway between North Street and Catalpa Avenue, ar.d that the City Council give , reconsideration to the possibility of attaininy additional park en:rance from Lo~ra Street, as well as maintaining a park-like appearance on that property or~ which the fire station * would be located. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 12, 1966 3191 GENERAL PLAN - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AMENDMENT N0. 86 (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, idur~call, Rowland, ' Camp. ' NOES: CONWiISSIONERS: None. ABSEfdT: COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND •- ITEM N0. 1 ' RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No~ 4817, Revision No. 1. ~ DEVELUPER: Lesiie E. Christensen, 1966 East Chapman Avenue, , Fu:lerton, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, - 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, F...,i~~~-''~~ located on the east side of Richfield Road, approximately 1738 feet south of Buena Vista Street in the Yorba Linda area, ~~ containing approximately 8 acres, is proposed for subdivision ~:~' into 29 R-i, Single-Family Residential, Zoned lots. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative tdap of Tract No. 4817, ~'~ Revision No. i, to the Commission, noting the location of subject property and that the ~~ oroposed development would be in accordance with the Yorba Linda General P1an. ~ 1 ;.~ - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommeno to the City Council that the Grange County (: , Planning Commission be urged to approve Orange County I'entative Map of Tract No~ 4817, Revision ~ No. 1, on the basis that it was in conformance with the Yorba Linda General Plar.. Commissioner ~•, Farano seconded the motion. MOTIOi~ CFRRIED. 1 : ,~ ITtM I~IO . 2 ii R-H Zones - Consideration of side yards in conjunction with the possible storage of trailers in the rear y~rds. ~I ,~ Fssociate Planner Marvin Kriege: :dvised the Commission that during the previous work session ' the City Attorney's office suggested that the zones incorpoi•ate the provision for storage of '; trailers by indicating changes in the side yard setbacks:, However, since the front and rear yards in many instances we:e on:y 10 feet, storage wouid be impractical, and inquired what was the desire of the Commission relative to the incorporation of this provision. ~~ Considerable discusszon was then held between the Commission, Staff, and Deputy City Attorney r~ . John Gallagher regarding the provision fo~ storage of trailers by amending the side yard set- ;-~ ' backs, and at its conclusion, the Commission directed the Staff to write the proposed ordinance ~4 - without this provision, since a t=ailez• ordinance was not yet established; that ..o require this ~. ;i - of all property owners in the N'_11 and Canyon Area-to conform to what might be a minority want- this provision-would be creat:ng a hardship; and that reaction from the public would bring about ~ any amendment to the R-H Zor:- ~: that time. ,, I TEMPORARY - Tf~ere being no further business to discuss, Gommissioner Herbst offered a ; ADJ~URNMENT motion to adjourn the meeting to 7:00 P.N,, September 19, 1965, for a work :~ session to cor.sider the front-on and side-c.^. study of homes ~long arterial ~ streets and ±he C-~, Commercial Recreation, Zone. Commissioner Mungall seconded the moticn. 1~10TION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:45 °•M~ VJORK SESSION - Chairman Camp reconvened the adjourned meetiny at 7:20 P.M., ~.11 Commissioners v being preser~t. I~he following members of the Development Services staff were present: Cevelopment Services Director Alan Ursborn, Assistant Development Services ~:rector Robert F~lickelson, Planning Supervisor Ronald ~~~dzinski, Zoning Supervisor Ronald ihompson, Associate Planner~ Marvin Krieger and Jack Christofferson, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, and the Commission Secretary Ann Krebs. ?lanning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented the front-on/side-on study of homes along arterial streets to the Commission with a brief resume of the problems of the criticz] ?reas, with slides to illustrate whether or not problems might result if other than the existing development was proposed. A very detailed discussion was held by the Commission, and at its conclusion, the Commission agreed with the manner in which the Staff had aporoached the problem, the priority areas, and projections for Phase II of the study~ Several of the areas recommended for conversion were deleted from the priority areas by the Commission. The Commercial Recreation Zone Chapter 18.3? was briefly reviewed, and with a few minor correc- tions, was recommended to be considered at a future public hearing to be set at the September 26, 1966 meeting. Commissioner Ailred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIEU, ihe meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. ~~ kespectfully submitted~ .~ ~ '~ ~f'( G'V / /1 '-t~[~`~~ i "~ ~~~ AIJN KREBS, Secretary . y Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission g ~