Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/03/13~~ f Ci ~y Hdll Anaheim, California March 13, 1967 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETI~G - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a~uorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson _, Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INI/OCATION - Reverend Fred Dommer, Pastor of the Lamb of God Lutheran Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of All egiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of February 27, 1967, were approved with the TF~C MINUTES following corrections, on motien by Commiss ioner Rowland, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED: Page 3345, paragraph 7, line 5 should read: "by the petitioner, and shall count as retail sales area in computing parking requirements. (See Resolution Book)'~ Page 3351, paragraph 3, line 1 should read: "Mr. Harold Androus, o..in opposition..."; last para9raph should read: "Nr. Androus..." VARIANCE N0. 1856 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. VII.LA FONTAINE ENTtRPRISES, INCORPORATED, 3261 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Owner; EUGENE L. DURAND, 3261 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMIT"IED SiGN HREA on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land of approximately 3.18 acres, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 675 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 831 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2856 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZUNE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of February 27, 1967, to allow time for the petitioner to resolve legal problems with the owner of the two C-1 parcels having Lincoln Avenue irontage which are separated by the 60-foot wide roadway. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposal and location of subject property. Mr. Richard Pierce, 1736 Antigua N~ay, Newport Beach, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the data of the previous Commission hearing on subject petition, further noting that the petitioner had met with representatives of the Development Services Department and City Attorney's office, as well as the attorney for the title company, to resolve the interpretation and limitations of the "fee title" helo by the petitioners in regard to ingres~ and egress :or the C-1 propezties. The petitioner also noted that if the sign limitati~n of the zone wl,ich subject property had were applied, they would be permitted a 120-square foot sign instead of ihe 90-square foot sign proposed. Mr. Harold Androus appeared before the Commission in opposition and again reviewed the fact -: k~ that he had an easement for ingress and 60-foot roadwa a d t i egress as well as public utility easement across this ~ ~ y, n o perm t the sign it to be erected on subject property regardless as to ~;.jj s location would be an infringement of these easement rights; therefore, he requested ~: hat ~~ _ the Commission deny subject petition on this basis. . s R H .._ 3361 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 13,`1967 3362 VARIANCE N0. 1i56 - The Commission Secretary noted that at the previous hearing the opposi- (Continued) tion had pi•esented a petition signed by 10 property owners in opposition which had ~ot been officially noted before. THE HEARIf~'i WAS CLOSED. Cnairman Camp requested that Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts comment regarding the easement rights problem which existed on subject property. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that under Section 18.Oa.020(2), the ambiguity section, , the Commission was in a position to recommend to the City Council construction of a sign in conformance with the Code applicable for subject property which could preclude any er no ;~~~ sign at all, and thot tnis 60-foot strip was retained to p_ovioe access for the R-3 percel ;~ ~ to the south, necessitating title held "in fee"; therefore, application of the limitations ',~ of tne R-3 Zone would be more applicable than the C-1 Zone -since the property is not developed i for C-1 uses, the signs permitted by that zone could not be applied. Furthermore, under the power of variances the Commission is empowered to grant more than or less than th~ permitted ~ 20 square feet. '~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Ihompson requested tnat if subject petition were to be considered ' favorably, the Commission,for purposes of administering tne reouest for signiny on subject . property, stipulate the soecific size and location for the sign. The Commission noted that on a previous request for permission to erect a sign i~ the center of the street for the Lutheran Hospital on Romneya Drive, the Commission expressed the opinion thzt signs should not be erected in the center of a right-of-way since these signs oresented hazards for emergency veY:icles rushing a~atient for ireatment, and that a similar problem could exist on subject property because the area was not lighted sufficiently during a fog or smo9 to prevent being hit by automobi~es traveling at a faster rate than was safe; t.here- fore, the sign would be in constant jeopardy from being hit, which was also hazardous to the drivers. Furthermore, ar.ything the Commission might consider other than R-3 sign require- ments would be arbitrary, and the sign should be in strict accordance with the R-3 ~one require- ments since the sign advertised this use and shoulo not be placed in the curb to curb roaoway; and that the Commission's only position regarding subject petition was land use, si:;ce it was not withir. their jurisdictio~ to determine the legality of the easement rignts of t~e commer- cial property owner. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Ido. PC57-~'s ana moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance IJo. 1855, subject to the condition that the proposed sign shall conform with the requireme~ts of the R-3 Zone as to size and further provided that the sig~ shall not be placed in the curb to curb roadway, based on the findings that the access road was providing ingress and egress to the R-3 development to the south and was advertisi~g an R-3 use rat'r.er than a C-1 use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the iollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIOiJERS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, i~iungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMAIISSIU;QERS: None. ABSEIJT: CONVdISSIONERS: idone. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC FfEARIi~G. WILLIAtd Sf-DEMAKcR, ET AL, 1800 iJorth F;rgyle F,venue, PERMIT h0. 926 Los Angeles, California, Owners; kiARRY hfJISELY, 17C1 Soutn Euclid Street, Suite B, Ananeim, California, A9ent; requesting permission to tSTA~LISH A SERVICE SrATIOi~ WITH WAIVeR OF DISTAUCE FRU;A H RESIDENTIAL ZG:"JE on property described as: A rectancularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast co:ner of Ball Road and LNalnut Street ~nd having frontages o: aoproximateiy 207 feet on 3a11 Road and app:oxi- mately 203 feet on Wa1nGt Street. Property presently classified R-F, RGRICULTURAL, Zu:dc. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request and locatior. of subject property, together with the uses established in close proximity. Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared pefore the Commission ana noted that under the new C-R Zone,K~hich will become effective shortly, a service station is a permitted use by right at the intersection of two arterials; that the service station location was more than 75 feet from single-family residences; that subject property is located in the C-R are~; and that the proposed use would be permitted in the new C-R Zone which will become effecti•~e in April. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~.uv1ISSI0N, March 13, 1967 3363 ~ 'A, CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. John Sheppard, 1223 South Waln~t Street, appeared before the PERMIT N0. 926 Commission in oppositi.on and presented a petition signed by 36 property (Continued) ~ owners all in opposition and stated that the proposed serv:ce station v+ith the undesirable aspects of the use would be objectionable to the residential integrity of the area; that there were other more suitable locations for a service siation,and great care should be exercised in the development of this large parcel in order to avoid developmen; with undesirable uses which could be harmful to the esthetic as well as the monetary value of the established residential uses to the north, west, and northwest of subject property; ar.d that a service station ;or a portion of this large parcel would encourage small, undesirable commercial uses which would be hazard- ous to small children who have lived in this residential area for the past ten years. Mrs. Elizabetn Seydell, 946 South Walnut Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and presented a petition signed by 7 property owners all ir, opposition and requested that consideration should be given by the City to permit only certain commercial uses whic'r. would b~ complimentary to the residential use<, al;:hough she preferred that it be develope~ ;or residential purposes, ano if subject petition were approved, this would be the start of commercial uses in a primarily residential area; that ihe area was served more th.an adequately witn service stations; that the entire parcel should be developed as one uni~ rather tnan a haphazard,piecemeal man:~er with small, insignificant commercial uses; and that the City should establish controls and plan this area to the best advantage of the City ard the R-1 homes. 17r. Walter A:bers, 174 Monte V:sta, Costa Mesa, appeared be:ore the Commission in opposition, representing the Lutneran Home at the northwest corner of Wa~nut Street and 3a11 Road, no~ing that the service staticn with noises, odors, direct liohts, and 'nours oi operation would be detrimental to the living environment of the =lderly residents of tt;a Home, especizlly since the infirmary was located near this intersection; that many o: the elderly residents took walks along the street and they would be subjected to hazardous traffic conditio~s ii Walnut Street were widened and traffic qenerated by the service station proposed was approved; and that in his opinion the area was served more than adequately with service statio~:s. Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, stated tnat the General ?lan inoicates tnis area for C-~ Zoae uaes, and the Commission must decide whether or not t^is area should be developed ior C-:: uses; however, he felt the area zo longer was desirab?e for residential uses. THE I-LFARI^:G ::'AS C~ScD. Chairman Camp sta~ed that in reference to the new C-R Zone wnicn would become eiiective o~ March 28, 1967, it did ~ot automatically zone this area; however, tne City Council nad a policy establishing subject property for C-R uses - therefore the service s~ation would be permitted in tne area by right within tne new zone. Commissioner Gauer expressed opposi~ion to a service station at this time for subject property; that the fine residential homes established in close proximiiy should be given consideration by the City; and that the Lutheran Home would be:adversely affected ay the proposed es~ablish- ment of a service station. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution ,lo. °C67-5a and moved for its passage and adoptio~, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petit!on for Conditio~al Use Permit No. 926 on the basis that although subject property is in the general boundaries of the Commercial-Recreation area, no development had taken place for that portion westerly of West Street; that dust, odors, noises, lights, and hours of operation inherent with a service station operation wou:d be detrimental to the residential integrity which had been established for some time to the west and north, as well as the Lutheran ~iome ior the elderly at the northwest corner of this inter- section; and tnat the boundaries of the Commercial-Recreation area did not necessarily commit the Commission to observing these boundaries for the uses permitted by the new C-R Zone which would scon become effective. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreyoing resolutio~ was passed by the following vote: AYES: COU~MISSIOiJERS: Hllred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, IJwngall, Rowland. NOES: COh1MISSIONERS: ;amp. ABSENT: COMMISSIOivERS: tJone. Commissioner Farano felt that although by City Council oolicy establishing the Co~r,mercial- Recreation area in which subject property was the northwesterly boundary, and a service station would be permitted by right in the C-R Zone, from the star.dpoint of good plan~ing ,vith quality residential uses established for some time, consideration should be given to the types of commercial uses which would be compatible; and that service etation facilities were already located approximately 1,300 feet to the east, thus making the proposed service station un- necessary to serve the needs of the area. 7 MI~UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 13 4jl t , 1967 CONDITIONAL USE 3364 PERMIT N0. 926 ' Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that in recognition that this represented a possible zone bcundary for the purpose of defining tne (Continued) Commercial-Recreation area the use function and ' at this point in time it was contrary to ' General Plan was not a~zoning map butta GeneralGPlanasubject toathehe generalities the name impliea in that this ooundar could conceivabl be relocated it could be overlapping and could be Y definition he did not feel that theregwas9nothine West, east, north,Yor south, and bythat in a specific spot, and that was one of the reasons he was able to vote against the service station because the Commission could conceivablygreaevei~atet ~~Y color un the General Plan on the strength of land use in the area. Furthermore, if this a the Commercial-Recreation area R-1 tract, rather than a service station, the Commission would certainly want to re-ev '_ the area and their thinking about the property bein Pplication had come in as an j"~ 9 set aside for Commercial-Recreation ~ purposes, and that he strenuously objected to the map which the Comrnission had receiv aluate ~r4 Ed y defining this area as tlie Commercial-Recreation Zone wnich did not exist at this ~;~ Commissioner Camp staied that the City Council had a time, ~'1 street boundaries; thus he felt the policy and the bou~dariesehadnbeenlmaintained.a~~ naming ~i initia Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised th ~. ~ -. te reclassification proceedings establishinglasresolutionhofsintentaovertmuchnoftthe propertizs within the Commercial-Recreation area boundaries covered by the Council ~,i Commissioner Farano stated that the Policy. bY resolution or ordinance, and until~such timerthe boundariesawould havehtogbe respecteda however, he did not feel that a service station was the prooer use for the ~, `~ Commissioner Camp felt that tne reasons Property, ; denying subject petition; however, ne fePtethisewasYnoteaCommission were not adequate for ji 9ood location for a service station, ' ! CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC i-LFq;~I;, '! PERMIT N0. 927 ~~• TIERRO DE ORU, 415 West 4th Street, Tustin, Caliiornia, Owner; G. H. WEBER, Properiies :.~anager, Consolidated Rock Products ~om P• 0• Box 2950, ;erminal Annex, Los An9eles, California A ent• permission to have a SA;vD AVD GRAVEL "cXCAVATIO;Q AND REM~VAL ~Ptc~qllu;J onny' ! property described as: kn irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontaqe o9 a~ r~questing i 745 feet on the west side of Richfield Road and having a maximum depth of a ~ feet, the northerl boundar Pproximately centerline of Walnut StreetY(La pabmacpVenue).tYprolerta PProxin;ately 850 `' ' 9 pproximately 353 feet soutii of tiie r:~ ZONE. P y presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ;•i Mr• J. H. Lillywhite, representing Consolidated Rock Products Company, o '-1 Commission notin that he had been a resident of Oran e Count qg ~ g PPeered before the ~ time the company operated three production and fivE distribution plantss~thatttneinc~ompany ; was rather large and th=ir present prime business was contra~ting for freeway work; that in the recom- -i mendations by the Staff he generally concurred witn =m, with the exception of Condition i Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 12 and wished to comment on thes ments of Chapter 17.20 regarding a chainlink fence or masonry wall - it was'their desire to 1 locate the fence to the front of the shrubbery on the basisYthat theylWOUld,ha 6~ the require- j the shrubbery, and this became rather difficult with debris left b F,~ 9enerally wandering through the area destroying or damaging the landsca ve to maintain C facilities. On Condition No, g Y Pl~nickers and persons place a cloud on the title of thethe requirement of a recorded covenantPon9thed lrrigation Property, and that the recommended covenant was totally i unreasonable. On Condition No. 11, the requirem=~t of excavatior, a maximum of 197Pfeet Would sea level - he would like to be giver, the same to the west would have in that a 191-foot excavation would be from property was adjacent to this s readin basi~ phevilege that the Cot,nty Water Spreading Basin ~ i with this difference 3n depth. P g possible flowroftwateramightnbe their greater Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that a survey had been made on su ' ` property with the elevation being noted as follows: northeast corner of tne ,; feet; northwest corner 249.43 feet; southwest corner 2q8,95 feet; southeast corner 252.50 ~.~ feet; and the appror.imste center 249.95 feet - therefore pr~p2rty 251.25 r' ~ 197 ieet as represented by these r elevations would make it a 53-foot excavation which was the same as the spreading basin. ~, The Commission noted that the 53-foot depth was allowed ~ reason for the , Previously to the Pnarris pit which ;. ; is adjacent to the Crill spreading basin, and the difrerence in the mean elevation wa r: ~ : the west. :~; petitioner s assumption that the depth would be above the spreading basinhto ~ Mr. Lillywhite stated tnat the owner of the property northerly of the .a on Condition No. 12. ;y ~ proposed pit would speak ~•-- ~-°~„_„~ -- .. . _._._~, ' ~ - , . -~....----~-.r,a -~.-.-.~ - -- . . -- -.~::. r-~~-.- ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLAN~ING COMMISSION, March 13, 1967 3365 C'vidDITIONAL USE - Mrs. George Argyros, 415 West 4th Street, Tustin, appeared before the PERMIT N0. 927 Commission and stated that the 300-foot depth proposed from La Palma (Continued) Avenue was based on studies made in which it was determined that in order to subdivide the property into one ano two-acre parcels for industrial development, the most feasible depth would be 300 feet; however, if the depth proposed by the Staff's recommendations were required, this would make the lots too deep ar.d narrow for proper development; furthermore, the spreading basin property along La Palma Avenue, adjacent to the west, was not being required to set back 450 feet, and that they should be given the same opportunity to develop the property in a more logical manner. " ~ Mr. Howard Crooke, representing the Orange County Water District, appeared before the '••-~ Commission and stated he was not necessarily in opposition to subject petition, but he would ~'..~ , like to make some comments or. the problerr,s suc,ject property would incur; namely, tne 78-inch (~ pipe along the westerly portion of subject property which would have to be protected with ~'~` proper sloping of a 3~0 1 ratio; that a letter had been addressed to the City Council on ~~) November 1, L965, by tne ~detropolitan Wa~er Distrir.t noting their concern if this slope was not maintained since erosion could take place and considerable money and water would be lost ~~ if a break occurred in this pipe; tnat the City should require that this slope be maintained ,`t1 by the petitioner as well as aay s:~ccesser as a condition of operation or vse, or by recordc- i' , tion; that Consolidated Rock ?roduc~s Comp~ny had excavation facilities to tne south of subject ;~ property, and it would seem logical t'~at the intervening berm would be removed; that the ~I' property to the west sloped do~~nwards from subject property, thus making a difference in tne ~:.~ depth from sea level for excavation, ano the excavation of tne spreading basin would be 53 ~~ feet also; furthermore, drainage would be southwesterly rather tnan northeasterly. `~ ~'~r. Crooke also noted that in additio~ to the proposed excavation tnere were a numoer of ;I other excavations i^ the area, and now was tne time for tn•~ ~ity of F.naneim and the +~ater ~I District to conbir,., with otners for a long-range plan for the resolution of the ultimate ;i utilization of the noles in tne grouno i^ this area wne~ tnF ;a~o a~d gravel is removed - for possible water recreation facilities or water storage of ranoff water rather tiian having tne water go down tne Santo hna River to t~F ocean. ;I One otner item:he would like the City of ~naheim to require a hold 'narmless agreeme~:t pE recorded to insure that the petitioners will i~demaiiy and SdVE harmless tne ~CVJ~ i_o~;. a~y ' claims due to ~ossible damage from the water sprea~i~g basi~. ~. '~'~ _ Zoning Supervisor Ronald ?nompson inquired of hir. Crooke what distance did tney plan to F~ _ excavate the Warner pit at tne northeasterly cor~er acjacent zo La Pa1ma kvenue. '~. f '•~ Mr. Crooke stated that the ~erm would not be carrisd up ~o tnat poi~t, and it was possiole =1 that the distance would be a little more tna~ 300 ieet south of La Palma F,venue; however, '~ no definite plans had been formulateo :or tnat ar2a. iJ~r. Victor Peltzer, 1198 Ricnfield Road, appeared beforz tne Commission in opposition, stzting he had operated an orange grove adjacent to subject property a11 nis life; tnat he intended ~o stay there for as long as ne lived: tnat ~ne petitio~er stated that so~d pits existed on three sides of tnem - nowever, to the present date the Foster Sand znd Gravel area soutnerly of his property and easterly of subject property have not been in operation for thre= years; that in his estimation, there was no need for additional sa~d pits in this area; that the parcel map indicated the depth of his property at 400 feet, and this would mea~ part of the proposed operation would be adjacent to his property, tnus creating more dust and dirt which had been very hazardous to the trees and fruit. Mr. Peltzer also inquired what was proposed for tne gum trees and the power line adjacen: to Richfield Road, and where was the fence proposed. Mr. Lillywhite advised Mr. ?eltzer that the gum trees would DE removed ~nd the fence would be at the future right-of-way of Richfield Roa~. tair. Pel~zer then stated if the trees were to be removed, they snoulci oe replaced with dense garoen type snrubbery; that ne still was upposed to sand and gravel pits and the proposed operation would not increase tne value oi nis property, although his tzx assessments haC{ 90:1E up twice already. ~dr. James Hamilton, 6651 Richfield noad, appeared be:ore the wmmission in opposition, stating , he owned a 9.33-acre parcel at the nortneast cor~er of La Palma Hven~e ond Richfield Road; that he concurred in the statements made by 64r. ?eltzer regarding too many s~nd and gravel opera;ions; that he had been informed that prime PA-1 property could not be developed for otner _ than that, and now more and more sard and gravel operations were beir.g approved; that where ~ land was adjacent to these operations, it could ~ot be considered prime h1-1 property, and it ~ would be quite difficult to sell any property wi:ere it was in close proximity to sand and grav=l operatione; and that he urged the Commission to deny any request for excavation closer than 350 feet to La Palma Avenue. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 13, 1967 3366 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. David Glenn, 1199 Ricnfield Road, opaeared before the Commis=ion PERMIT N0. 927 in opposition and stated his home would Ue within 150 feet of the pit (Continued) if excavation were permitted 353 feet from the centerline of La Palma Avenue; that he was opposed to further encroachment of sand and gravel operations in ihis area; and then inquired wnether or not any ingress and egress was proposed to Ricnfield Road. The agent for tne petitioner stated that according to tne recomme~ded conditions they would not be permitted to have access to Richfield Road, ar.d that it was proposed to move the excavated materials on a conveyor to the facilities to the south where they would be processed and delivered through that access. '.:_:~~ Mr. Glenn further stated that the noise and dust from the operation would affect tiie residen- `~ tial integrity of his prAperty, and he was strongly opposed to the approval of subject petition. a~ ?he petitioners offered no rebutta! to the opposition. I Mr. Tnompson reviewed for the Commission the four conditions to wnich tne petiiioners and I their agents were opposed to, noting that if the Commission considered favorably ~he peti~ioner': ~ request to erect the fence at the property line rather tnan in accord~nce with ~napt_=r 17.20 ! _ wnich required it behind tne required landscaping, a special iinding waiving this requireme~t I would have to ne made; that Condition No. 8, regarding tne writtea agreement recorded as ~ i• covenant running with the land had been established on a previous sand and gravel operation and was predicated on tne fact 2hat tne City could be :aced witn a maintenance problem adjacent ~ to tnese types o: operatio~s. ~ T!-~ 'rIEARI~JG WAS CL'vSEil. ~ i Considerable discussion was helo by the Commission regarding Condiiion fJo. 8, regardi~g the ~ need upon completion of the excavation oi this property; tnat more specific requirements should be indicated so that a covenant would not. oe neces~ary or desirable since problems could result in placi~g such a condition on the land; and that i: tnis requirement were enforceable regardiag maintenance of the la^dscaping in perpetuity, the conditionsl use oermit . could be revoked. The Commission also noted that adjoining prop?rty owners should be aiforded some measure of protectior. against the use since dust and noise could affect future development of the vacant parcels. Deputy City Atior~ey Furman Roberts revieweo ;or tne Commission Ci~apter 18.64.050 in wnicn it was noted that tne conditic~al use permit could 'oe revoked if any co~ditio~ was not aohere6 to, and that all the Staff was desirous of having done was to nave a clear-cut requirement which could be interpreted that a"show cause" order could be filed if it was r'ou~d necessary to revoke the co~ditional use perrnit. Comrr,issioner Herbst, in reviewing the Staff's recoRUnendation of a 4o0-foot setbach irom tne i centerline of La Palma Avenue, inquired whetner this cou;c be set up as a dis~rict along the t soutn side of La Pa1ma Avenue ex±ending to Fee Ana Street, and 'now would this affect tne . parcels tetween Ricnfield Road and 'ree Ana Street. ~ Mr. ~V~ickelson statzd that a 450-foot deptn would include all oi F'arcel ~1os. 16 and 17 ar.a a + part of Parcel 19, as indicated on tne en ineerin ma ~ 9 9 p, and, furthermore, the boundar~• of thF Warner Spreading Basin area was approximately 405 feet souih of La Palma AvE~ue ar *;ie north- easterly corner of the spreading basin. ~ I~ Mr. Peltzer, speaking from the audience, asked that tne Commissio~ establisn ihe southerly boundary of this property as the north boundary of subject property. ~ The agent for tne petitioner stated that a parcel map was slready before the City estaolishing ~' . the southerly boundary as 3~3 feet from tne cer.terline of La Palma Ave~ue, and tnat excavation would start 403 feet from the centerline of La Palma Avenue. . i_ ~ The Commission advised all interested persons that a setback district or boun~ary snould be ~ established at this time becouse the same problem would arise as properties to the east were ~ converted to industrial purposes, as well as sand and 9ravel operations. R After considerable discussion among the Commissio~~, it was determined that excavation snould ~ i ~ i start zpproximately 450 feet from the centerline of La Palma kvenue. , , Commissioner Herbst concurred in the statemer.t made by h1r, Crooke, in tnat considerable thought should be given to the long range planning of the ultimate utilization of the pits after all ~~ sand and gravel had been extracted, since large holes in the -~ encoura in P ~ ' ground were not conducive go i 9 g prime industrial develo ment ad'acent to them and that in order to encoura e re- use of these holes, one of the prerequisites would be to require that the slope be maintained c F MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNIVG COMMISSION, March 13, 1967 3367 CONDITIONAL USE - which would deter any erosion into tne properties adjacent to these PeRMIT N0. 927 deep holes; such re-use could be storage of waters until such time (Continued) as they could be circulated into the settling basin. Mr. Crooke advised the Commission that from experience gained over the years by the Water District, the 3 to 1 ratio of slr:pe was the best to retard erosion of all side slopes, whereas the 1 to 1 ratio would erode into the 50-foot setback. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission tnat the nortnerly-most part of Consolidated Rock property east of Fee Ana Street was 460 feet south of La Palma Hvenue, and thai the consideration of a 400-foot setback d.id not include the required 50-foot setback from the excavation poir,t. Considerable discussion was then held between the wmmission, Mr. Crooke, and the Staff regarding what the slope should be, it being noted that the petitioner was proposi;g ~ 3 to 1 slope along tne west property line adjacent to the 78-inch pipe of tne hletropolitar. Y+ater District; however the east, scuth, and nortn were proposeo at a 1 to 1 slope. idr. Crooke, however, contended tnat z 1 t~ 1 slope would not sustain tne 50-foot setback from any erosion, but he could not tell the City what snould be requireo, and at its conclusion, the Commission aetermined that a11 slope cuts must be maintained at a 3 to 1 ratio in order tnat tne pits could be re-used at a future date. h1r. Crooke, upon questioning by the Commission, stated tnat tne other pits whicn were close to the river indicated a depth of 115 feet, and before such pits could 'oe re-used, tne siope of 1 to 1 would have to be reconstituted; that the District had had some p*eliminary negotia- tions to acquire tnese pits for a reasonable price - where the river water could be stored in the pits - however, this process of rebuildin9 the sides through a desilting process m:ght take 50 years before they could be converted into recreational water facilities. Mr. Crooke also advised the Commission that tne ~rill pit was proposed to be available in the near future for fishing, and that tne water was at a 43-foot level, and this would 'oe a fine place to stock d fishinq area; however, the District did not have the manpower to stock the pit. Mr. Sy Young, also of Consolidated Rock, advised the Commission that there was surplus material left over after processin9 oi the extracted materials which could be put back into the pit to maintain this 3 to 1 slope. Furthzrmore, in response to Commission questioning, stated that it was proposed to have a 1~ to 1 slope, whereas dll otner pits nis company operated in Cali- fornia were 1 to 1 slope. Tne Commission then reviewed all the controversial conditions of approval and determined that the maximum depth snould be 197 feet from sea level; that the northerly-most boundary of subject property should be 400 feet from the centerline of La Palma P.venue - making the excavation ; boundary 450 feet away; tnat the fence may be constructed in front of the required landscaping ; along Richfield Road; that all landscaping sna11 be a minimum 5 feet in height with a solid strip of dense landscapin9 ,:;ona the north and east property lines; and that all cuts and sloping snall be maintained at all times at a 3 to 1 ratio along the west, north, and east property lines as a condition of use in order to retai~ the stability of the soil and prevent any soil erosion into tne 50-foot setback, with the aforementioned ratio being maintained without reconstituted materials so tnat future re-use would not incur undue expenditures. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-55 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 927, subject to conditions as outlined in the Report to the Commission, with tne following changes: 1) that Condition No. 6 be amended to permit installatio^ of tne fence Lo the front uf ti~e landscaping; 2) that Condition No. 8 be amended to delete reference to a covenant being recorded - however, that landscaping be provided a minimum 6 feet in height witn a solid strip of de~se landscaping consisting of cultivated plant materials with adequate irrigation facilities, replacement of any landscaping showing signs of deterioration in order to maintain th? dense appearance,screening the sand and gravel operations from view; 3) that the dept~ sna11 not exceed 197 feet above mean sea level; 4) that the northerly-most boundary of subject property shall be no closer than 400 feet from the centerline of La Palma Avenue; 5) that a hold harmless agreement be recorded indemnifying and save harmless the OCWD from any claims by virtue of the maintenance and operation of the spreading basin to the ~ ~t; and 'o) that all cuts and slopin9 shall be maintained at all times at a 3 to 1 rztio along the west, north, and east property lines as a condition of use to retain the stability of the scil and prevent any soil erosion - said 3 to 1 ratio snall not be maintained with reconstituted materials. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing rasolution was passed by the following vote: - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, hlungall, Rowland, Camp. a NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COitiWiISSIONERS: None. _, , : ~ MINUTES, CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION, March 13,.1967 VARIANCE N0. 1859 - PUBLIC HEpRI 3368 ~ NG. JERRy h1~,RKS, 2144 West Li~coln Avenue, Anaheim, ~ California, Owner; R. :.. COONS, 111 West clm Street, Nn<<"~~. FOOT WqRE({pUSE WITH ROOFfPARKINGATOnBE L0~' qaesting a variance to PERMIT A' =^'~qRE ~ ~ HARaNAR~ FACILII'Y WITH WAIVERS OF 1 T AT=D AT IHE SOUTH BOUiJDARY OF SPACE SIZE on ~ '- . property described ase )AMrectan B1arDl~shaETdACK AND (2~ ., - 150 feet by 332 feet), the southerly boundary of subject P~ Parcel of ;. ~~~' feet north of the centerline of Hiawatha Avenue and the northerly bounc -, -e'Y ~ , l: 5 ~ mately 510 feet south of the centeri~ne of Lincoln Avenueprapdrfurther • '~ + 4 2144 West Lincoln Avenue. Pro ert '` ~.,` r~';;i- P y presently classified P- `'t~` `' ` Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the 1' ~UTG~4103IrE pqRKiiV~, Zp,~~, , property, and the established uses in close Proposed request, the locatio~ oi subject , ~~' Report to the Commission. pro;cimity to subject property, as well as the `~ '•`'~ Mr• R. L. Coons, agent for tne ' ~S ',~~ zoning action on subject Petitioner a ~ ppeared beiore the Commission and reviewed pas~ ,;~ had to resolve; that durinr~phetY' together with tne man ~ fi 9 Past several Y Problems wnicn the City Council ,`;~ considerably, and tne petitioners extended theirrheart;eUSiness oi ~he i i~;; tnat in order to merchandise the lower t thanks to t1~ee`itioners naa increaseo ' " and store at a warehouse; that tne Prices, it was necessary ~o People oi Ar.aheim; ~ ' `~~~ miles f*om the store, and it was necessar~ners present ware^ouse :acilitiesiwerelse~eralities 1 H Y to truck tnis mercr; j '`~ ~ ~~w proposing to construct a storage warenouse on tne three waivers were advertised, includi~g waiver of the parking stalllsiZe`hat the petitiozers were i to comply witn Code requirement o; gf_g Property having 2-], zonin ;;~ : 9; that although ~ ~ oot width; that althou n ' it w°s their intention s,~ t e proposed parking on che roo: of tne structure, this was intended to ~ake care of future ,~ `:s•i expansion of the warenouse facilities easterly for ; 9 Parking was adequate without ~~ no intent to convert the s u•ucture to retail sales use, which would ' •~• • pproximately 400 :eet; and that there was of a document limiting the use to warehouse facilities onl was arrived at after a number of alternatives were reviewed pe veri.iEa by rECOrdatior area was retained, the Y• Furthermore, the proposed plan proposed plan seemed to be tne mor- ' but in order ~hat the parking privacy of the R-~ homes to the soutn, removin easible• would then reduce the noise :actor. 9 t~+e lanc ~ that to maintai~ trF ~ ' ~in9 and the proposed structur= '• Recommended conditions w ~ o ; Metal Building Policy requirement~ to by Pfr, Coo~s except conforming witn tne City Cou~cil ~ ;i Considerable discussion was held between ~~A ttie proposed structure would have on tne resiaential iate rit to ~ommission and the agent regardino tne effect -_ high struc±u:e was proposed, together with 9 Y the south, si~ce ~ 1;-t~o~ ' which would completely block any light froa.~theraorthrside of tne R-1 nome P-oJection of an additio~al exoansion Mr, Coons noted that the Building Department and Fire Department require a550-,00} _ between tne existing building and the proposed builoi~g because of the t of the existing buildin ~ separatio~ PTOperty line; and thatgiftthe buildingswere constructednawae existin yP` of construction and easterl 9 building and the sout7 Y, this would leave an isolated area which would nevermbehusedufor Furthermore, in response to Commission questior.in Property line, would be required between the buildin s b Parking purposes. i~. discussed with the representatives of9thesetdepar9mentscan~dFlre Departments;rhoWo~eT,witlw;s Further discussion was held by the Commission, and at its co~clusion the Commi I~ the opinion that revised I plans snould 'oe submitted whicn reflected relocation ofltheWas oi `~ structure in a manner that would not be detrimen*ai to the R-1 prooertie plans o: aevelopment. propo=ed s, as were tne present I~ Mr. Coons adviseo the Commission tnat if the proposed warehouse facilities were ao' !- the existing structure g have to be brought up totCode,1snp~thenaostrwoDidaCements stated t~E ]acent to ! axisting structure would I Mr. Larry Bolin, 2137 West Hiawatha Street, ap prohibitive. number of persons Peered before the Commission, representing a presented a Present in the Councii Chamber in opposition to sub'ect l were o Petition signed by 80 property owners, also in o pposed to the ~ petition, and , petition on the basis that an elevated paPkinglstructurehwouldacrestehaY potential hazard from falling objects, either dropped or thrown, from the automobiles into the R-1 yards, both during and after the completion of the addition; that the R-1 owners would lose their privacy if the proposed st:uct~re were property; that the location of the structure i ProPerty ~ PoWer poles would create a fire hazaid if not requiredlto set backmitted adjacent to the R-1 limited to emerge~cy vehicles by blocking their Y adjacent to the utility lines and owners would have difficult Path along one side;tthatathes,~_iould be y repairing their walls and fences in the future becauserofethe a - difficulty ir the amount of space which would permit this repair; that the increase in noise ~ M?NU?Eg, CITY PLAPJNI,yG CONU~iISSI0IV, March 13, 1967 ' VARIANCE ,yp, 1859 - would be 33ci9 (Continued) 9reater with the nearness of the oroposed structure with the close proximity of the workers; that the existing noise level in the present parking facilities was within a tolerable range because of its ~ reduced substantiallynifethenhighewallastructurerwereVaness of the R-1 rear cally unattractive; and that the combination of the aforementioned factors wouldJr duce the value of these homes substantially and make it difficultpto marketkthemthese homes estheti- ~ Mr. Bolin also noted that it was the R-1 series of property owners' assumption that aiter a lengthy Lin-Brook Hardwareesrrequest~196isaWOUldfnbe~theeendaof the controvers • that about every two Y these property owners regarding the R-1 property ownersafeltUtheeCitycwascbreakingtfaithswithmthesescompromises9 mt~eee°nd t~ , The Commission advised the opposition tnat the City could not deny tne right of a petitioner ~=~ requesting amendmen~s to these original plans. ;.;~ Mr. Bo lin state;i that each request granted would create further nardshi ~~'~ and it was somewhat .~; difficult to obtain an Ps on tne R-1 ~~ more, in response to Commission questionin pr properties, y refinancing of these homes through F.;~,F, Further- `; t ;r would permit a warehoase facility within 150 feetBoflthet~tld he pictures with overlays of how the °bJeCte~ t~ the v~riance which , which were directly adjacent to the proposed structure. ' ~ " proposed structure would affe~teniseand~nis~neignbors'~thomes '~~ : L~ Mr. R. A. Dimas, 2147 West Hiawatha Avenue a stating that his home was adjacent to the ~ Ppeared before the ~ortunission in ooposition, ;ti~: :i r environment to rear small children; that the~a9e~a {orUthere~ that it would not be a healthful ~~. might cloud the thinking of tne Commission in considering tne granting of this !`S' he urged the Comm~ssion to consider the land use im licatioPstoflther' being tne .ormer mayor, °~ its eff•_cts on the R-t PEtitio~, a~a nomes, since the agent was also the original medqatordof`the`Ure and the R-1 homeowners had with the oetitioner. pxoblems Commissioner Farano stated that the agent's former no way affect the Commission's consideration of a landluse~oist}1eYOT of the City would i~ ;~ h1r, Coons, in rebuttal, stated he was aware of the iact that he wasrableetoPrediao~ ;;r Problems of the petitionzr i~~ ;; however, due to the success of19hE' at wnich time the te ~ne Petitioner s business~~thesessolu~ionshwerebnorlongerv~;; epPlicable, and the Commissinn should j~~dge whether or not this was a reasonable land us request within t.he existing zo~e, _ r'~ e After furtner discussion between the Commission ano the agent regarding the re ei submission of revised plans ir.dicatin a~ 9 alternate location for the structure, Commissioner ,:~ Herbst offered a motion to continue Petition ior Variance No. 1859 to tne meetingsoff~~iarc 1967, for the submission of revi~ed ~lans which would relocate the ties in order that ttie effect on the r~-1 livin h 2~' Gauer seconded the motion. h10TICV CARRIEp, 9 environment woulo berminimalWarCommissioner1 RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the mee ; i' minutes. Commissioner Farano seconded the motio~, Cir,g or ten ~s Tne meeting recessed at 4:40 P,M, ~'~JTION CARRicp, ~ iZECONVENE ----- - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:50 P,;~, being present. 1, all Comnissioners c. ~ ,} VARIANCE ,UO. 1860 - PUBLIC F , I . H-'ARI'VG. Tlfit SIX COPJ,?AiJY (A LI,UiITED P.4RTN~RSHIP , Street, Suite 701, Los Angeles, California, Uwner• ~ ), 110 cast .Qinth ~ Fn"EDRICKS DEVELUPM'tNT , i ~~r~PORATION, 524 West Commonwealth kvenue, Fullerton California q ' ME,~T, WITH WAIVERS OFe4uesting a variance to ESTAB(,ISH A IdULTIPLc-FqMILy RLSIDE,yTIkL DEVELOP- (1) ~NINIMUM DISTANCc BETWEEN 5UILDINGS AND ~ ' 9ent; '.•• + 150 FEE? OF R-A, AGRICULTURAL : shapea parcel of land situated aONthepnortheastncorner of Gilbert(~) ~~IL~I~~ ~IGHr w'ITHIN property described as: A rectongularly i~ and having frontages of a on Crescent Avenue, and furthermdescribed ase502nyortheGilberteStreetaetpand Crescent Rvenue classified R-3, NULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEi4TIAL PProximately 535 feet ,`:, , ZOfJE. roperty presently ?.; Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the ~i property, and tne land use in close Pr~Posed petition that development plans were similar Po~p1ansywhichUhadcDeen a ~ the location of subject ~ property, together with the fact J- the City for the agent for tne petitioner. ~j ~ pproved previously tnroughout ~{ ~r ~ ~ MI~UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 13, 1967 3370 VARIANCE N0. 1860 - Mr. Henry Fredricks, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared (Contiiiued) before the Commission and nored that a 29-unit apartment development was proposed, and the waivers were requested in order to provide more open, green area in the center of the property, and that the waiver of the height limitation within 150 feet of the church to the north was necessary because of the R-A zoning. Mr. ?hompson advised the Commission that since the property was de~/eloped for church purposes, the waiver was not necessary, although it had been advertised; however, the development plans indicated single story within 150 feet of the R-1 to the west. ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. . THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissicner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-56 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant ?etition for Variance iJo. 1860, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the iollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, htungall, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIOUERS: Camp. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARIN3. R x T IiQVESTMENTS, iDICORPORHTcD, 1433 N'2st Janeen Way, N0. 66-67-55 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a maximum depth of approxi- TEVTATIVE h7AP UF inately 325 feet and a maximum width of approximately 191 feet, the easterly TRACT N0. 6377 boundary of subject property being approximately 469 feet west of the centerline of 3io Vista Street, the southerly boundary being approximately 660 feet north of the centerline of South Street, and the westerly boundary being located at ti~e terminus of Virginia Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, F.Gi3ICU[.~URAL, ZONt to the R-1, UNE-FAMILY RES?-EIJTIAL, ZONE. DEVELOPER: R 3 T INVESTh1ENTS, INCORrURNTED, 1433 West Janeen Way, Ananeim, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract located south of Lincoln Avenue, west of Rio Vista Street and easterly oi Chantilly Street and containing 1.5 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 6 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lots. Zonin9 Supervisor Ronald -hompson reviewed the request, the location of subject property, and the immediate uses in close proximity, noting that the Latter Day Saints Church approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 866 would abut the R-1 tract to the east. Calvin Queyrel, representing the engineer, indicated he was available to answer questions. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. T(-IE k-IEARIiVG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Uo. PC67-57 and moved ior its passaoe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petit:on for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-55 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution fiook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~ AYES: CO~bUdISSIOIJERS: A11red, farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIOUERS: None. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative ~V,ap of Tract No. 6377, subject to the following conditions: ~~ 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. f- 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6377 is granted subject to the approval ~j ~, of Reclassification No. 66-67-55. ~~ .+~ 3. That Lot "A" of ?ract fdo. 4538 shall be acquired. ~' Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. A10TION CAftRIED. ~ . } _ u ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 13, 1967 3371 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEA~ING. Ii~ITIP.TED BY Ti-rt CITY PLANNIiJG COMM?SSION, 204 rast N0. 66-67-53 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described . as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue ana having frontages of approximately 135 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 135 fee~ on Beach Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COt~1'~ERCIP.L, ZON~ to establish an existing service station in the most appropriate zone. Associate Planne* Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed reclassification of subject property and the land uses in close proximity, noting that subject property was proposed ' - for reclassification under Reclassification No. 59-60-36; that the resolution oi intent s:,.--~~ had not been completed - therefore, the land had never been reclassified, and uses permitted ~s under the reclassification were for a service station under C-3 uses or any G 1,..,_. ~^i~ Vo one appeared in opposition to subject peti`ion. I ~ I ?I-~ HEHRING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-58 and moved for its passage and adoptiun, [~ seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommeno to the City Councii tnat Peti.io.^. for necl~ssi- ~-~ fication No. 66-67-53 be approved, establishing an existing service station i^ the most ~~ appropriate zone, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) ;~j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed 'oy the following vote: ~~ !`~ AYES: COMMISSIOi4ERS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, i:~ungall, Rowland, Camp. ' NUES: COSIMISSIONcRS: None. ~ ~ ABSENT: CO~v1MISSIONERS: ;Jone. ~ ~~ 'I AMENDMENT TO ANAHt.Iid MUiJICI?AL - PUBLIC I-EARING. INITIA~IED 3Y Ti-tt CITY PLA:'d:JI:J~ CU~.'.:ISSIGiJ, ;.i CODE - TITL"c 18, ZUNING 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Cali.ornia; proposi~g amendment to Chapter 18.25, R-2 5000 One-Family ~o~e; ~ Section 18.20.050, Site Development Standards, Subsection (3) Coverage. f' ^ ~ Assistant P1an~er Charles Roberts reviewed the open space section of lots now being developed ~ in the R-2 5000 Zone, ncting that it was intended to encourage reduction of density for areas ~( in the low-medium and medium oensity areas, and the proposed reduction to 40~ was the result -I of i~:vestigation of tnose subdivisions under development or completed si~ce the single-family ;; character of the area should be maintained througn an open area similar to the R-1 Zo~e; !i however, coverage was not provided as the zone intended, and that a correcti.on to the adver- ; tisement of the legal notice snoulo read "lot area" instean o. "building area". Mr. H. D. Hoon, Senior Vice President of Butler-Harbour Company, appeared before the Commissio~ and noted for the Commission they were in the process of building their second unit and had the engineering and architectural plans completed ::r the t'::i:d u:^.it; that considerable exoense had been incurred since it was not anticipated a change in the ordinance would take place, and requested the Commission consider postponement of the proposed ordinance in oroer tnat tney could have the opportunity to proceed with their third unit; t~at covera9e was in the vicinity of 31% to 42% lot coverage oi the 59 homes now being constructea, with the majority of them being between 28% and 31%; that all of the homes had a 15-foot rear yard, and some homes that seemed to have a 40% coverage had inner atriums; and that in the next unit proposed there ~vould be 23 four-bedroom homes with a 42~6 coverage. The Comrnission noted that tne maximum coveraqe of tne lot was approximately 43% for the one- story, four-bedroom homes; that with larger families it was necessary to have more open space since no recreation area was provided on a general basis for these R-2 5000 homes except for the open space in the rear yard; that the developer should g~ve some consi.ieration to revising the plans 'o place these four-bedroom, one-story homes on the larger than 5000-square foot lots; that as a result of Butler-Harbour's development, the proposed amendment to the R-2 5000 Zone was prompted; and that although there was a sma11 amount of property presently committed to the R-2 5000 Zone, it was important that the existing properties be developed in a manner so that more open space could be provided. Mr. Hoon stated that it was their intention to build this type of four-bedroom home in the entire complex, and a new plan and new model would have to be developed, %s well as sales data; therefore, the time limitation would be di;ficuit if they were required to comply with , the proposed change. * t+ssistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson stated that the minimum time it would „fx take for amendment to the ordlnance was approxln~ately bp d2ys, and inquired whether or :~ot the developer had already taken out permlte for the seeorid and third uni~.s. ... - - . ~ .__ ,._. , _ - -~- v~' ~ - _ , i - MIhUTES, CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSIGN, March 13, 1967 3372 ~ ~~~ AMEiyDMENT ?0 ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - TI?LE 18 ZONING (Cor.tinued) Mr. Hoon stated that all engineering and architectural work had 'oeen completed and it was just a matter of time before the tract map was recorded. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated that the Staff's concern was expressed because under the normal requirement of the R-2 and R-3 Zones, open space was required, and by approving an R-2 5000 Zone it was anticipated smaller homes on these smaller lots would be built, rather than the exceptionally large homes the developer was now proposing; that the City Council in the past had determined after amendments to the R-2 and R-3 Zones were made, if monies and time had been expended under the old requirements, and plans for construction were almost completed, submission of a request to develop under the originai plans could be made to the City Council asking for permission to develop under the old zone rEquirements. The Commission again urged the developer to reconsider his designs by proposing de'lEIOP.^.1E~L of the larger four-bedroom homes on larger than 5000-square foot lots, which he already had in some of his subdivisions. Deputy City A;,torney Furman Roberts advised the wmmission tnat an automatic provision could be placed in the resolution to the City Council relative to ~ne ef;ective date of tne ordinance. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ t`' ~5 w Commissioner r?owland offered Resolution No. PC67-59 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by i,ommissioner Farano, to recommend to'the City Council thai amenomeni to -itle 18, Zoning, Anaheim Municipal w de, Chapter 18.26, R-2 ~000; Section 16.26.050, Site Development Standards, Subsection (3) Coverage, be amended to require a 40~ lot coverage on the property, and that this amendment shall take place 90 days f*om the effective date of the ordinance. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: P.~S: COUiMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, 61un9a11, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~Wv1ISSI0NcRS: None. The Commission further directed the Staff to handle administratively any plar~s of development and tract ma~s at tne time the building permit is requesteti in the same nan.^.er as plans were handled at the time tne new R-2 and R-3 Zones were adopted, wnen the oeveloper nad submitted evidence that he had proceeded under the old standards. Commissioner Camp left the Council Cnamber at 5:25 P.,`J~. Chairman ~ro tem Herost assumed the chairmanship. REPORTS AND - ITE~41 ti0. 1 RECAMMENDATIONS Variance No. 1742 - Request for an extension of time (John Schaeffer) -?roperty located at the easterly end of Belmont Avenue, north oi La Palma Avenue and east of East Street. Hssociate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the request of the petitio^er regard~ng an extensio~ of time, noting that one previo~~s extension had been granted on September 26, 1966, which would expire March 23, 1907, and that all conditions of approval under the variance were conditions of the building permis. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for the completion of Variance No. 1742, said time extension to expire October 23, 1967. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. ;u10?IOV CARRIED. I TEtri NO . 2 Conditional Us= Permit No. 7~5 (Conditional Use Permit No. 858) - Restaurant at 1840 South Harbor Boulevard - Approval of re;ised plans permitting a 17-foot encroachrrent into the established 50-;oot building setback along Harbor 3oulevard. Assistant Development Servicss pirector Robert hllckelson presented revised plans, indicating that ihe original Danieh restaurant adjacent to the north of the wax muaeum for which revised plans perm~ttinc,~ the Andersen Pea Soup Company to encroach into the required 50-foet setback by 10 feet, had been granted by the Commission on January 4, 1967i however, plans were never ~ ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSICU, March 13, 1967 3373 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) completed, and now the owners of the property, Messrs. Louis and Jack Walters,had another prospectiv~- Jessee, the Manning Restaurants, with additional revised plans which indicated an encroachment of 17 feet into the required 50-foot building setback alcng Harbor Boulevard. It was aiso noted that the C-R Zone had been adopted by ordinance, and the ordinance would be effective April 6, 1967, which would establish a 50-foot setback along Harbor Boulevard as part of the C-R Zone. Mr. Louis Walters,one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that leasing of the property was contingent upon approval of the encroachment of 17 feet into the required 50-foot building setback; that they had attempted to operate the restaurant but had been un- successful - however, it was the feeling of both he and the proposed lessees, tJiannings Restaurant, that the operation would be more successful if the proposed revised plans were approved. Discussion was held by the Commissio~ relative to separation o: the cocktail room from the dining area; the fact that other property owners along Harbor Boulevard were req~ired to maintain a 50-foot setback, and to approve the encroachment of 17 feet into ~he 50-ioot setback would be tantamount t~ not keeping faith with other property owners who were required to maintain this setback. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny the request for encroachment of 17 :eet into the required 50-foot setback,and the revised plans submitted under Conditional Use °ermit No. 7~5 (Condii~onal Use Permit No. 858) be denied on the basis that to grant this encroach- ment would be granting a privilege not afforded adjoining property owners. Commi:,sioner Rowland seconded the motion. 1~90TIOiJ CARRIED. ITcM NC' . ~ Work se .~,n for hlarcn 20, 1967. Planning Supzrvisor Ronald Grudzinski presented outlines of the proposed items to be covered under the work session; namely, the General Plan review for 1967 entitled '~Goals cnd ?rinciples". noting that the Anaheim General Plan was adopted in 1963, and the Hi11 and Canyon General Plan was adopted in 1966 by the City Council; that the objective of the work session would be the combination of both General Plans into one General Plan; and that further data would be sub- mitted to the Commission later on in tlie week. I?Ei•; N0. a Reclassification No. o6-c7-42 and Conoitional Use Permit No. 905 ~arl Spratlen and Hector Pelayo, Petitic,iers - Reconsideration o: a proposal to establish a service station at the northeast corner of East Street and Kenwood Avenue. Assistant Development Services Director Robert ~~lickelson presented revised plans for the proposed service station - Reclassification No. 65-67-42 and Conditional Use Permit No. 905, noting that both petitions had been recommended for denial by the Commission, and tk:at the City Council nad sustained the Commission's recommendations. However, the petitioners had requected that reconsideration be given to revised plans on subject property, whereupon the City Council set for public hearing for March 21, 1967 consideration of this request and directed that revised plans oe submitted to the Plannin9 Commission for report and recommendation. Mr. Mickelson also advised the Commission that the revised plans had been received just a few moments ago, and the Staff had not had time to review the plans for an accurate report, but from cursory examination of the plans, it appeared that the only change was the ~elocation of the building 10 feet away from the easterly property line. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to advise the City Council that the revised plans submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 0o-67-a2 and Conditional Use Permit IJo. 905 had been received just prior to tne Com,mission's adjournment of their meeting; thus the Staff did not have sufficient time to properly evaluate the plans. Furthermore, the Commission sustair.ed their original act:on of recommending disapproval as stated in Resolution Nos. PC66-173 and 174; that the relocation of the structure 10 feet from the property line did not provide for the necessary protection fo the R-1 properties to the east for the retention of the residen- tial integrity due to the noises, odors, lights, and hours of operation, which are inherent with a servi~e station operation; and that the 10-foot separation would act as a catch-all for debris a^d storage. CommiSSioner A11red 6ecpnded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIED. , i ,. . ) ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 13, 1967 3374 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to 7:00 P.M., March 20, 1967 for a work session to consider updating the General Plan. Commissioner Farano seconded the ; motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 F.M. WORK SESSION - March 20, 1967, 7:30 P.M. FRESENT: Chairman pro tem Herbst Commissioners Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland AB5ENT: Commissioners Camp, Mungall PRESENT: Development Services Director Alan Orsborn Assistant Development Services Director Robert N.ickelsor. P1an;;ing :upervisor Ro;al.i .;rudzi~ski ~oning Supervisor Ron~ld T~omaso~ t.s=ociate ?i~nners Jack C ;ristofierso~:, :.:~rvi^ Krieger Deputy City h~torney Furman 3ooerts nssista~t Pla~ner VJilliam Your.g Co:nmission Secretary F,~r. Krebs Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzi~ski prese~~ed the :;e.^.e*al ?laa review, i~dicati~g -,.a~, {_; uoals ~nd ob;=ciives were covered 'oy-(a~ 1 . `~ ~ ~ , re-eva ua~ion 0I DPEV10U5 .30c15 c'lp ODjBCL1V~5~•c.^.; (c) formulatioa of more representative policy state:neats ce^.ce*ning ~^:e ~^/S1Cc1 ~E`/E10 r:e~~ 0: tne COR1filU.^,lt'~. zese S~dtEtilEfi~S WOUla DE t~E gUlpl.^.g lig^:~S:or=e-sLIL'C~'CI'1^Cj. ~;;@ ?P~~, ~21 Tecn~ical or SLo'i.15t1CB1 upoa~l.^.a-~e~ SE-BVc1U2L10'1 0: SLZL15t1Cc1 pc5E5 :OSC ~ i ~ODUIdL10.^. size 2nd cnaracteristics, 2) sc^oo1 age SUpDOSL pooulatio^:, 3'; oark supoort popula;.ioa, e) expenoiture patterns for co-.mercial uses, etc., ar,d 5; ot^:er. grapnic portio~s. ~3; Jodatir,g tre writ;e^ a::d i~1r. Grudzi7ski furtner reviewed tae c.emo to tne Com~nissio^ e^titled ~eneral r1a^ :s_v_cw - tg~,, "Goa1s a~d Pri~ciples", and consioeraole discussio~ was ^eid coveriag tne l~n~ use eleme^_ I'E18i1VE t0 I`ESl~~e;7~1d1 la;1p USE~ commerClcl i:5~~ 1~pU5ti'lol Ldf1a USE~ COffT1Uf11~`j :cC111t1E5 t!-:rougn cr:ri inciuding park aad recrea~io~a1 :acili~ies. Witnin tne report, cegi~~i~g wit^: pubiic utilities, ~:e Pla~nir.g ;;ommissicr reoues;F~ ~~; tnis be held over to s~otner wo~k se=_sio.^. si~:ce t~.e ite:ns v:::icr. ::a~ ~een reviewed ~~~0,:1~ . to DE tnoroua'~1Y consi6ered beiore t^e casic obje~ti~~es co~.:l~ '= prese~,ted ic aocwr.ent~s,c form. ~ RDJi:U:c`vl+tc:d? - Commis~io~er nllred • of:ereo a metior. to a~~c~=n ~ne meeti;g. Commissio~er Gauer SECO^QE~ ~:^.e rr,otio^. ..,,._,i;J ~r,~RicJ, 'ne meeti^g aojour^ed a~ 10:J~ ?.;.1. Respectiully sucmitted, ~ / f /~~ /A_ ~~ ~~ E.:d;d KncBS, Secreta~ry knai~eim Cit! ~la.:~:i.^.~ Com^~is=ion * ~