Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/09/25~ .. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California September 25, 1967 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION i ; :,1 ~ :, {~.' R :' t<... ,~. _:~"' :~ _ ; >; REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning.Commissir~n was called .~ to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P,Me, a quorum being presente PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Campe t s - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlande ABSENT - COMMISSIONER: Allredo PRESENT - Zc.^ing Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Assistant Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend John L'. Robinson of the Wesley Methodist Church 9ave the invocat3one PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, APPROVAL OF - Page 3585 of the Minutes of the meeting of August 28, 1967, was approved ~ T1-1E MINUTES as submitted on motion by Commissioner Rowland, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIEDe The Minutes of the meeting of September 13, 1967, were aoproved as submitted on motion by Commissiorer Mungall, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIEDe CANDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC [~ARINGa JOSEPH AND ANN SILVER~ 232 South Alta Vista PERMIT NOa 954 Boulevard „ I.~s Angeles, California, Owners; ARMANDO MENDEZ, 6825 Westminster Boulevard, Westminster, C.alifornia, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER II~ A PROPOSED RESTAURANT WITHIN AN EXISTING SHJPPING CENTER on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 110 faet on the south side of Ball Road and having a max3mum depth of approximately 620 feet, the wcsterly boundary of subject property being approximately 520 feet east of Knott Avenue and the easterly boundary being approximately 720 feet west of OakhavE.: Drive, anc~ further described as 3414-A West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 31 a~id August 28, 1967, to allow the petiti~ner time to submit revised plans indicating a bonafide restaurarut with at least : 25~ of the floor area devoted to food preparation, and from the meeting of Saptember 13, 1967, because of a tie vote. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and further noted that the petitioner had submitted revised plans since the Commission last took a roll call for approval of subject petition, said plans indicating that the bar had been eliminated and additional tables and chairs were being provided. Commissioner Farano noted that in a previous Report to the Commission the staff had indicated the petitioner was.somewhat limited by the owner.of the property relative to maintaining an additional restaurant in this shopping area, and inquired whether this was a lease privilege and whether the petitioner had a valid reason for possibly indicat- ing that he was being denied a right bPcause of this stipulation by the owne~. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the petitioner had indicated to the staff that the owner of the center felt only one restaurant should be permitted in this small shopping center. 3595 .~ . d' .~ "~' ~ s z ..~r...~...~,~~ ...~..~r.r~' ~ ~.~e~~~r - :.~~IS~oa~,~ `.~_~' ,';; ~~, ~ ; .:: ;;i:`. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 25, 1967 3596 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Farano further continued that although this was not a PERMIT NOe 954 legitimate area of inquiry for the Commission in order to determine ~Continued whether or not the petitioner qualified f~.a variance'9 it was necessary to define whether or not 8'beer bar or a restaurant was proposed~ and the revised plans indicated that it met the criteria of a restaurant; however~ this could mean he might be ousting himself fxom a lease - thus, what position would the Commission be placed in, as well as the petitioner, if the Commission approved other than;what the petitioner originally applied foro Mr> Thompson advised tr.e Commission that the basic question before the Commission was land use and whethex or not a beer bar was appropriate far this center, or whether or not the revised plans fell within t~he code of a restaurant or between the twoe Furthermore, the plans as submitted before the Commission this date met the intent of the code as it pertair.ed to a restaurant, and if any deviation from the approved plans by the Commission was submitted, this could be grounds for violation of the conditional uee permit, which could be revokedo Commissioner Farano offered Resolution Noo PC67-212 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 954, subject to development in accordance with exhibits marked Noso 1 and 2, and Revision Noe 2, Exhibit Noe 3, on the basis that the revised plans met the intent of the definition of a restaurant of the Anaheim Municipal Codeo On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gaucr, Herbst, Mun9a].1, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Allrede Commissioner Gauer, in reversing his previous vote, noted that the revised plans indicated the removal of the bbr; therefore, it qualified as a restauranto TENTAT.IVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, Po Oo Box 1217, Perry Annex,'Whittier, TRACT NOa 5674, Californiae ENGIN£ER: Hopen, Heri3und, anii Darby, Incorporated~ REVISION N0, 2 3030 West Main Street, Alhambra, G~liforniaa_._Subject tract, located at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Royal Oak.Road and containing approximately 22 acres~ i~s proposed for subdivision into 55 R~1 lotso Assistant Planner Charles Roberte presen~ted Tentative Map of Tra6t Noe 5674, Revision No. 2, to the-Planning Commission, ncting that said tract had been submitted originally in March, 1965, designed for 108-1ot R-1 subdivision of approximately 43 acrese Subsequently, a revised tract, together with Tract Noo 5999 was submitted in Msy, 1965, in order that the+ property could be developed in stagese However~ the time limitat,ion of the State Sub- divison Act of one year, plus one year extension had expired, and the developers were now submitting a map substantially in accordance with the tract :~~ap approved in May, 1965, by both the Planning Commission and ttie City Councile Commissioner Rowland offer.ed a motion to approve Tentative Map ~~r 1'ract Nu> 5ui4, ttevision Noe 2, subject to the following conditions: lo That should this subdivision be developed as more than one ~,iu+division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form fo:r approval. 2o That the approval of Tentative Nfap of 'Iract Noe 5674, Revi~lon IVoe 2, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification Noe 64-65-87 and ~Fa~iance Noe 1680e 3. I'hat adequatQ dedication shall be given to Orange County to provide a full street at the south enu o,f Royal Oak Road, prior to approval o.f the final t..ract m~po 4e Ihat Rolling Hill Drive be designated as a collector streete 5e ?hat the drainage be d3sposed of ira a manner satisfactory to the City Engineero 6e That Lot Nou 56 be designed on the final map as a non-bui~dabTe lote 7o That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings, to Lincoln Avenue and Royal Oax Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. S. That the vehiculer access rights from Lot Noso 41y 46, 67, and 48 t~ Rolling Hi11 Drive shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheime 9o That all grading shall be in conformance with Chapter 17>06 of the Anaheim Municipal Codea Commissioner Farano seconded the motione MOTION CARRIFD< _~: ~ ~~ 'a""{ ~ ^ T ~ ~ ~ '~Y ~ ,; MINUTES, C~ITY PLANNIN . ~ h t ~Y a r~ ----_._ __ ~ G COMMISSION, September 25, 1967 \~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FLORENCE TAYLOR, 1312 Santanella, Corona Del Mar, PERMIT NOo 966 ^,alifornia, Owner; CHARI„pS ?AYLOR, 942 Emer,ald Bay, Laguna Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT HAVING pN pUTDpOR EATING AREq (ppTIO) WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Citron Street and having frontages of approximatel La Palma pvenue and approximately 80 feet on Citron Streete P fied C-1, GENERpL pp~ Y 230 feet on RCIAL, ZONE, roperty presently classi- Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commissione It was further noted that the property was under development as a small commercial shoppi~9 center, and the petitioners were erly end of the shopping centere pItpwasnfurther notedethattoneUOf~thepconditionseofast- aPProval of Variance Noo 1879 on sub ect along the south property line in order topmaintainwthetresidential integrity ofnthatparea, Mre Charles Taylor, agent for the that the owner-operator of the "Gaslight1BroilerpPeared before the Commission and noted proposed operator of the restaurant! was in the Council Chamber to answer any Commissionhquestions of a technical nature9 and that subject petition was self~explanatoryo Mrse William Gorrell, 956 North Winter Street, appeared before the Gort~nission in o tion, noting that the petition she was owners or te~ants affected b the presenting had the signatures of 145 pposi- children 9 Y Proposed use; that many of the o Property aoin to the Horace Mann Elementary School, Fremont JuniorPHighiSchool,mor~r Anaheim High Schooi, us3ng the street in front of sub'ect J property enroute to their schools, and they were, therfore, objecting to the on-sale of beer and wine; that no ~nnecessary hardship would result to the present owner since the owner was aware of its use and zoning requirements at the time of purchasey that no use for the preservation of any substantial property right of the was purchased with knowledge of its use pe~it was necessary ing of the Pez'mitted under localpordinances~ithatsthe grant- petition would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and materially injurioue to the property and improvements in the vicinity; that the was not in ha:mony with the general purpose and intent of the existing ordinance`and would adversely affect the surroundin Proposed petition having their children exposed to g properties; and that they were not desirous of persons imbibing in intoxicati;~g liquor since this would be a patio from which cfiildren could view them when passing to and from school and to the shopping center at the southeast corner of La Palma AvPn;;~ and Citron Street. A showing of hands indicated approximately ten persons present in• the Council Chamber opposing subject petitiono also submittedraaletterlwhichhindicatedthertreasons for o 0 , ppeared in opposition, noting that she had proximity to the elementary school when children were passingisubjectamely, its close day; that two churches were in close proximity to the area; and that thisPwouldtbeCa a detriment to her living environment, having people eating and drinking in an outdoor patio immediate].y adjacent t~o her front yarde Mre Gale Pike, proposed operator of the restaurant a stated that the two other restaurants he operated werepfamil b{fore the Commission and sale primarily of hamburgers, and the sale of beer and wine was only incidental to the sale of food, and to substantiate this statement, figures for Y~~ restaurants with the Beach ~peration indicated beer and wine sales Nere less than and that the Laguna Beach operation was next door to a boys' c9ubss sales of the Laguna ~ during the past year, The Cammission inquired as to the hours when the greatest volume af business would occur whereupon Mr. Pike stated the luncheon business was kvetween 12:00 and 1:15 P,Mo, and the dinner business between 6:00 and 8:00 p,M, ' , arod all restaurants closed at 10:00 P,M, T~ ~ARING WAS CLOSEAo The Conunission noted that the developer of the shopping center should signing; otherwise, a variance would have to be filede Commissioner~•Herbst offered Resolution Noo p~67_ Provide for inte9rated seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to 213 and moved for its subject to conditions, and the findingrthatpunder~VariancenNoti1879 he requirement9oftion, screen landscaping along the south property line was deemed adequate to screen the ' use, as well as the balance of the commercial facilities, from the residential uses to the south, together with the fact that the proposed operation was a Proposed beer and wine was incidental only to the 6a1~ o~ foodo restaurant and the sale of ~ ~5ee ResoTution Book) ~ +~"r.'.#F,~- ,, . ~ Y''~~1~';.,~i HF,~,.~ ~' '"•t ~far -~ ! u,' ils'l~ 1F. ~ ~ "ie L ~: y y ~ c. .: ~ , :,.: .'a- i ,. F , . c ~ . ~ ~. i/ M ~, c a { z x ~~ ~ ~ ~ ---____.__ _~__,._ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . ~;~ ~7 1 ,~; ~ ( ~~ . ~. ~ fy MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAliMAISSION~ Septanber 25, 1967 3598 ~ ; 5, ~ CONDITIONAL USS - On mll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: ~ ._ ~k z PERNIT NO'a•~966 ~~~ ~ (Continned) AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Farano~ Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campa y `~ NOES:, OOMMISSIONERS: Nonee ,,~; ~ ~ ABSENT: COMMIISSIONERSs Allred. ~i~ ,` ' ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERSs Rowlande i; stit,; , ry~-' Cortmissioner Farano left the Council ~hamber at 2:25 P,M. ~ m,, ~] ~ ~: i ~` VARIAIdCE`fT~e 1913 - CLASSIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND TIARA ESTATfS, 8550 Garden Grove ~, KA ~~ ~ Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owners; ELMER NELSON, 8550 Garden ~ ~ '~ Grove Boulevard, Garden Gr,ovey California, Agent; requesting variances • ' '~ , ~~ to P.ERMI T 'THE ~NSTRUCTION OF ADDIT30NAL DWELLING UNITS IN AN EXIS•TING MULI'IPLE-FAMILY ' i ~' = RESIDENTIAL OpMPLEX, WITH WAIIIERS OF (1) MAXIMUM f~IGHT LZMITAI'ION'WiTHIN 150 FEET OF R-1 ' PROPERZTES~'(2) MINIMUM REQUIRED BIJILDING SET$ACKS, (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES `~ ~ ~ (4) MIIdIMUM HUILDING SEPARATTON, (5) MAXIMUM LOT COVERpGE~ AND (6) RECREATION AREAS on proper.ty deecribed as: A rectangular parcel of land havin a fronta e of a ~ 9 g pproximately ( ~ , 330 feet on the east side of Euciid Street and a maximum depth of approximately 1 269 feet ; ; ' , the northerly boundary of sub~ect property being approximately 660 feet south of the center- ` r, ~.; line of Katella Avenue, and further described as being all those lots on the north and south ~ sides of Dudley Avenue known a T t N 8 s rac oo 54 9e Property presently classified R-3, MUL7IPLE- ~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONEe ' k Assistant Planner Charles Roberts.reviewed subject petition, the location of sub~ect property ~ t., and use.s established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that the ~-~ : s...;,/ i; petitioner was proposing 38 additional units, 32 of which would be constructed over the exist- . ; ing garagee, and it was proposed to abandon the stub street named Calmar Street and construct ,,. `, h:~ .. a six-unit .apartment on this abandonmento } k'' 1 Mro Robert Farrow, nne of the owners of sub~ect property, appeared before the Commission and , ~ ; noted that as stated in the application, the basic problem was strictly economic~ even though the apartments were 100% occupied the we unabl ~~,x ~ ' y re e to realize an y profit, and it was felt that.if an increase in the number of unite were permitted, this would allow them t t k r~~ rv o a e advantage of the maximum use of the property; that the waiversrequested did not apply to ~ ~,~. every lot in the subdivisions and that the proposed i:wo-story apartmente ad3acent to the ~ R 1 e ~~~b - w re;so deaigned as to eliminate possible invasion of privacy by'the installation of ,~ ~;; ~' opaque.glasse Furthermore9 the City of Gerden G'rove did not have'an ordinance requiring ~ i e ,u s ngl -story construction within 150 .feet of R-1 property, ~ ~r ~ $, ~ Mro Farrow, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the garagea were constructed i ~. ti ; with adepuate beams to withstand the additional weipht of the second story proposede ; rf fi x Mrse Linda Orr 11201 Lindaloa Garden Grove a ~ ~ , , ppeared before the Coirmiission ar,d noted that ~:~ ~ ~ the slides presented to the Commission by the staff indicated that~the six-foot masonry wall ~ on the south side of the apartments was broken; that the children were pulling down these 1 bricks daily; that there was heavy traffic already going down the alley between the apartr ~ ments and the R-1 homes, and the additional traffic would add to the undesirability of ~ = single-family residential use; furthermore, the petitioner was not proposing additional ~ parking facilities, while Dudley Street now was crowded with cars in addition to the car- ,~ ports providedo 4~ A showing of hands indicated ten persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to ; ;•~~; subject petitiono `' Y A letter from the City of Garden Grove, in opposition, was read to the Commission 1 '~ " ~ ~ , A letter f.rom Mre .e E, Farano, 1881 Eileen Drive, in opposition to sub'ect J petition was l ~ ,~ a so on fileo a#, ,,~f THE HEARING WAS CIASED. The Commission, in reviewing subject petition, noted that 1) to their knowledge it had not been the policy of the City to grant waiver of the two-story height limitation where apart- ments were 3djacent to single-family residential uses - this was similar to a situation that occurred in Buena Pa~k, and the boundaries of two cities were not reco9nized as the boundary lines of code requirements; 2) that the north side of the proposed apartments seemed to be more appropriate since commercial uses were established on the westerly seven lots, and a resolution of intent to commercial uses was established on the no=therly sixteen acres; 3) that at the time reclassification of subject property was approved, plans were ____.. . _ __ _ _. _ ..~ - ~ _ -~_ ~, `~'n' w~~ ~y ~~"' ~'? +" ~.m.tS~ N"~Ts ' ~~i>c"$.~ +a~~~ ~r ,~t~~'Pf/ 7~'i'°'~ 'µ ik ~ _,' ~ ti+..:h'i" 1 '.~';' ~~'i _ ~ _ : i ! ~ °'"' + ~ ~ v rti. t ..~ . ~/ ~ 'y ~. r ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMIyISSION, September 25, 1967 (_ 3599 VARIANCE NO i 13 - required and approval was based on the low-medium densit ~ (Continued) 4) that the proposed increase in density would further reducepanyd~ recreation area since none had been provided originally in comparison ,~ to the requirements of the R-3 Zone; 5) that the~proposal of abandon- ment of Catmar Street should be granted only if it were converted~into a recreational area `` `~ for the entire R-3 tract; 6) that field inspection had indicated a•considerable number of children who had no recreational space, and ~the street running through the tract was fully ~~ occupied with automobiles, and the addition of 38,units could possibly mean an additional '~ 70 cars which would seriously affect the parking facilities for that deve3,opment and possibly °~ encroach into'the single-family development to the south; 7) that the Commission was primarily ~ concerned lvith land useyand the economics of a zoning action was not within the jurisdiction i;~ of the Coirim3.ssion; and 8) that the waivers of the setbacks was based on the fact that devel~ ""` opment had occurred under the o?d R~3 code requirementso •.,~. ~; - :: ,~ Commissioner Rowland offerEd Reso],ution Noo PC6'-214 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst to ~'''` two-story construction on Lot Noso lgthroughtl3;~waiverVofitheeparking1requirementpforiLotn9 Noe 1; waiver of the two-story height limitation for Lot Noso 6 through 13; recommending to the:,City Council that Ca3mar Street not be abandoned unless the property owners converted ''said abandoned street for recreational facilities since the R-3 tract had none; and the rieti- tioner was proposing an additional six units in the area pxoposed for abandonment; wsiver of the required bui.?d±ng separation due ta the fact tha~; develcpment had occurzed £or a major pnrtion o_° the properiy orio= to the new R-3 reoulations; and wa~ver o; the recreation•~leis~±re~ ' areas if abandoament of Calmar Street is approved for R--3 development; and subject to condi~ ; t3ons. (See ResoZution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauery Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: Nonee ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoe VARIANCE_N0~ 1914 - PpBLIC HEARINGo JAMES KELLY, 101 Borromeo Street, Placentia, California, Owners EDWIN BECKER, 12819 Sussex Circle, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING APARTMENT UNIT, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK on property described as: A ree~angularly shaped percel located at the northwest corner of Catalpa Drive and Dresden Street and havingfrontagesi of approximately 99 feet on Catalpa Drive and approximately 104 feet on Dresden Street, and further described as 1665 Catalpa Driveo Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEIITIAL,' ZONE. Commissioner Farano retur~ed to the Council Chamber 3t 2:45 P,Me Assistant Planner Charler, Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, the location o: subject property and uses established in close pr.oximity, noting that the petitioner was proposing to expand one of the three units by the addition of approximately 500 s~uare feet along the easterly property line, thus making the building within five feet from the property line along Dresden Street~ while code required a 15-foot landscaped s~tback where R-2 property abutted a local streeta Mre Edwin Becker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject addition would be in conformance with all requirements of the code except for the landscaped setback required, and that it was necessary to have a larger apartment for the manager; furthermore, the apartment development to the east had also constructed an ad~i- tion, and the existi.ng wall would hide the pxoposed expansio,no No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE HEARING WqS CLOSEDo After the Cormnission had reviewed the plans, the agent for the qetitioner requested considera-, tion of another statement, whereupon he s~ated that most of the neighbors had indicated they would welcoroe the proposed addition since ~;:is would remove a picket fence and would improve the area since the property had not been well maintained; however, the new owner intended to remove the unsightly patio cover and ~ring this development up to code and architecturally acceptablee Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo PC67-215 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance Noa 1914, subject to coriditionse (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano~ Gauer~ Herbst, Mungall~ Rowland~ Campe NOESe COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: OpAM1ISSI0NERS: Allredn '-; ~x ~x.','i_ ~ s re }'. t / r c~.. >.;~i . " ? I ~ (~ r,_~ MINUlES9 CIlY PLANNING CAMMISSION, Septeiaber 25n 1967 3600 VARIANCE_NOe 1 I5 - PUBI,IC fiEARINGa CENTRAL BpPTIST CHURCH9 2?,7 North Magrolia Avenuey Anaheimn California~ Ownes; F'AANK MAf2TENS9 227 North Magnolia Avenue9 AnaheSmy Cali:ornia9 AgentJ reouesting permi~Bion ~o ESTABLISH A CAVERED OUtDQOR EATING AREA FOR SGF~OL QHILDREN, INI~H WAI'VFR OF MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PROPERIY LINES on property deecribed ass An irreg~ularfy shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 450 feet on the west s~.de of MagnalSa ~4venue and ha~rfng a maximum depth of approximately 620 feet9 the southerly bc~u~ndary of sub~ect property being approximately 860 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln J+vrtluey and further described as 227 North Magnolia Avenue, Property pres~~L3y cYas$ified R-Ay AGAICULTURAY9 ZONEe As~igtant P?anner Charles Roberts reviewezi subj~ect petition~ the location of sub~ect property and uses ectab:~shed in close proximityy previous zon~ng action on sub~ect nroperty9 and the Rerart to tlas Com~?saiono ~:i; Mr. Frank Martensy agent :or the ~netitionera appeared before the Commiesion and :eviewed ~;' the proposed establ±shment of a partiaLly covered9 outdoor eating area ad~acent to the °~~: '~ no:th property 11ne within ten ;eet of the west prooezty line, noting that the partial ;";~" cover'_ng wou3d reduce the r.o{ee in the lunch area9 as well as provlde protection :rom the vaiious weather eleraentep that no additional children would be using the area since #~_• `. lunch tablea were already set there; and that if the 25~foot setback was required along r ~ the property linen thie would leave a space which could not b= developed or rnaintainedo ; Mre Duane Hlavnichey 2648 West .:ussell Avenuey appeared before the Comm3ssion in opposi- ;' tiony representing a number of persone present in the Council Chambery and who aiEo presented a petition signed by 37 r~ersons owning 21 residences ad~acent to sub~ect propertyy ail in opposition and noting that alI were in opposition ta the p•rnposed Waiver of eetback along the weet oropPrty iine which was established by the Planning ; Commission in January9 1964s that the setback wa6 necessary to provide and ensure the % residentiai integrity by allowing adequate light and air between the ~tructures and the ,`^ ''`=~ residential usesj that the petitioner had sufficient property to develop thie covered r `s eating area without crowding the residences to the west~ that there was no guarantee ?~; ;,` that the proposed covered eating areas would not be completely enclosedy thereby making them permanent struotures which wouid reduce the value of the R~i homes and present an :~~:.-.~~ uneightly appearance similar to the existing quonset hutg and that tihe supervigion was '~t not aufficient to keep these children from throwing balle and debris over the fence now '* '= w~thout giving them the additional apace of only i0 feet from the west property linee =~ `_~ s Mr,-Martensy in rebuttaln noted that there were garages of the apartment abutting the p_eperty i3ne to ihe northp therefore~ no one would be harmed by the proposed covered areaa, Furthermoren in responae to Commisaion questioningy Mro Martena stated this a_ea wou?d cover the iunch period onlyy with eupervision of two teachera~ that the children would bring their lunchesg and thst there were adequate trash storage areac, NL se Eisr.t Oakdeny 2645 Bruce Avenuen appeared before the Commission in oppos3tion and noted there would not be ae much ooposition if this were confined to lunch periods during..school hours9 but there have been break;aet cookoutay even barbecueBy and the aoiees in the general area started at 5i30 A,M, many morninga and did not stop until 11s00 P,M,~ that the property ownera had many problerns when children retrieved their balls9and when ahe asked why their supervision wae not maintained9 the teachers stated they could not be everywhere at once; and that, ~n her opinions the church-school had not been very coaperativeo Commiseioner Gauer noted that children could now eat their lunches there; howevery the City schools had uncovered lunch aseas which were not as close to residential uses as the proposed eating area, and that the nuisance at other times could be alleviated if the church were better neighbors by trving to control the aituation through supervisione TI-~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the large acreage on which the school and church were located, and it would seem that in order to relieve the opposition ex- pressed by the families to the west, there was no reason for not setting back 25 feet from the west property linee Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, PC67~216 and moved for its passage and adootiony seconded by Commiss~oner Ganery to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1915 in part, permitting the covered outdoor eating area to abut the north property line9 but maintenance of the 25-ioot building setback from the west property line must be retainedo (See Resolution Book) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Faranoy Gauer, Hesbst9 Mun9a1.19 RowlanuP Gampe NOESa COMMISSIONERSa None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailrede "x'~d ~~ ~; , ' w .~'~ , ~ t . ~ ;.;; ;,; ,•`l~: ,; t , , -- ~ .. ~ 1t?,..... 1 - A .., ..~^k ~..... .~ ~ .~. . ~~.... . ~ .. i . . . . . . , , . ,uw'+ `'~,.q.:"6 "a .~ ~ ~' rri ~ r x.- q~"/ -~a a r ~ :. "~ r ' i. e- 7 y ..~ ~ a /,:; ..3`~ ` ~ 1 -~f ~ C j (~ , O { J MINUPES9 CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION9 September 259 196? 3601 RECLASSIFICATION W PUBLIC HEARINGo R< Je MAAGy 20046 Santa Ana Canyon Roady Anaheimy N0,~67r68-21 California9 Owner; ANACAL ENGINEERING CAMPANY9 Po 0, Bor. 36689 ~ Anaheim9 California9 Agentf requesting that property de~cribed as: A rectangular paxcel of land with a frontage o£ approximately 674 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and having a max!mum depth of approxi~ raately 851 feety the eaeterly boundary of sub~ect pxoperty be~ng approximately 360 feet we6t of the centerline of Solomon Drlvea be reciasslfied £rom the R--A,9 .AGRICULTURAL9 ZONE to the R~3y MUL?IPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTZAL9 20NE, Asslstant Planner Charles Roberte reviewed gubject netit{on9 the location of sub~ect property9 the usee establ~shed in close proximityy the proposed establishment of a high school and churchee in close proximity9 and the fact that. the Hill and Canyon General Plan doss not oxoJect the proposed density *or the generai axea of subject property; that the Commigs~on would have io detexvaine whether or no+ the psooosed reclass:f3catlon Ss appropr{ate for this area - howevery =f higher density is perm~.ttedn the C~rculation Element wouid have to be cons'derabZy revised in order that the lcaal streets for the R-1 develooment wouid not be sub~ected to heav!er trafflc than fs presently prooosedg and that cons'derat:.on should be given to =etaining the integrjty o£ the •.:ses a~ready established in th{s general area and considering the futur.e comgat'!b3lity of land useso No 41ane of development were submitted~ Mre Raberts notedo •~~ z''' ~ ~ ,; ~ :.;., ;,;~ ~=k ~;, ' Nlr. Cal QueyrFl9 reoresenting the agent for the pet'!ttoner~ aopeared before the Commission and noted tr.at in addition tc the pei3tioner~ he was also representing Mr, Budlongp that when these two men came lnto h±s of:'ce reqnest3ng multiole~famaiy det•e3.opment of their ,i: propertyy he was s~met~hat pessim:.eiic because of the City°s regulations £or the HiII and ~ ~~ Canyon general areap hoqever, t~hen he lurther investigated the area and ite feasibiiity~ ~., ,,,';? together with the o~posai6 already approved to the west and e3st9 it became more logical aince•a ahurch--6chool was prooosed to the east and a high schooi to the west9 with a p 1~,'~` possible park e!te ad~acent to the high echooi on the southy and the #act that commercial ~ T uees were aoproved at tne intereectSon of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Roady ~;;..,;,f apQroximately i97.00 feet to the west9 the proposed R~3 would act as a iogical buf£er between commerciai and low denaiiy uaes already estabiished to the e~st and southeastf ~ that the Santa Ana Canyon area should have other uses and zones pro~ected sucki as com~ ~;~:~:~; mereial and multiple~family usesg that diecuss~ons with the Orange School District indicated ",. » favorable consYderat:on of dedicat'Lon of a haif street throu h the school ~ ~ "~-- 9 prooerty~ an,. that ;',~~,k; there would be no dKfficuity 3n providing an ~d.ditional med'ian to Santa Ana Canyon Road ~' ~~ bince the f:eerray constructiorr was propoeed to begin next year - thus Sartta Ana Canyon Road ~ t~ would revert to a city streeta Furthermore9 in response to CAINiLb610R questioning9 Mro ~ 4-+ Queyrel notad that the owners had n~ development plans; horreverp fonrplexes were considered9 ~~'w: with 14 units per acre~ thst no definite plan was contemplated about maintaining ihis devel~ ~ ,;~ opment under one ownersh'ip or subdleSding wfth ownership for each fourplex~ and that the >' ~j oetSt'!onexs had Snd?cated they were w~lling to gi.ve part of the street between the school ; ;,:.N',;~~; and the'_r prooertyo w i, ~' ~~ Mro Queyrel noted that the Citiy Tra~fic Erzc~ineew had indScated !t was neces~ary to prnvide ,,~, adequate east~west flow of tra;f'!c9 and Cicero Road wouZd sepaxate the R--3 proposed from ~ the R~1 ta the south9 since the pet2ti.oner ai6o owned the property to the Bouth of sub~ect .-.:,;,s pro~ertyo M~•< Robert Moorey representing the develope.~ o° the R-1 txact +o the east, appeared in oQposition9 noting that aporoval of sub~ect petition would create spot zoning; thst one of the things that the G~.ty o£ 4naheim Engineer?ng Department stressed ~to the developers he represented wher~ Tract Noo ~i3d3 +~as approved9 was the extra bi:rden of traffic9 and the propased develop~cent would add cansiderably more traf:ic than the iow density pro~ected for the areai that if olans had been submittedy this might have had a bearing on whether more opposition could be expressed or wi~hdrawn ~ however9 the area was already developing for single~family residential uses9 and the proposed development was contrary to the Hill and Canyon General Plan, THE HEARING WAS CIASED, Commissioner Rowland no d~hat he found it difficult to support the concspt of a„~c/ additional access point~Goso 6 and 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Access Point Study approved by the City9 County9 and Stat,e; that the concept of a secondary arterial could not be supportedy and he would act`vely work against any such prnposal to in~ect additional vehicular traffic into the Hiil and Canyon areas that vehicular traffic could not be considered as water - that vehicu?ar traffic in this and oth?r areas should be channeied ar.d should be directed9 and sesidents should not be sub;ected to these eheet flows of traffic ~ thereforey he would againet any aarthWsouth arterial proposed at ihis pointe , . ,; ,4s :'._:.' ~~~t~m~ ~` ~ ~a7~ n~ '~ ee i ~sn ~ }aw' r~~f ,,~cu,"^"'~ x~e ~~ ,~~ ~ ~.~~,~r ~s s r r ~ r ;T } ~ ~ M` ~, 5' ~ 4 LN ~v: ~~' l w~ i? ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ d~iINUTES9 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 25p 1967 3602 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Rowland also noted that the fact that Impexiai P,ight~ay and Santa NO< 67- 8-2I Ana Canyon.Road were designated.£or.commercial usee had no g~aograQhic ` (Continued effect on subject prope:ty because of the a~cess point6 perm~'.tted between the commercial property and sub~ect property; that he would never be able to vote for R-3 zoning in the Hill and Canyon area which did not have a natural geographic boundary which could separate t~e low density from the heavier deneity uees; that engineering sequirements9 s•ewer and water9 and other ut311ties developed and pro~ected for this area were done only for lnw density; that although Mre Queyrel indicated that R-3 would act as a buffer betweer~ these boundariesy the boundariee did not sadiate between R-3 and R-lg furthermoren this area was essentially developed-and projected for R-1y and by natural course would be developed for R-1 in ite ~r entSretyo Commissioner Herbst noted that if eubject petition wexe approvedp and development became successfuly it could extend further south on the oroperty now R~99 but ad'acent to the R~1 tract; then the City's projected densities would be thsown oui of px•opertior. to all pro~ected for that area, Comm'~asioner Gauer noted that there were so many changes going on in ths area at th~s time reith ~oad problemsy that the proposed reclass>f!cation was premature at this timeo Comm'8rioner Herbat inquired of Off~ce Engineer Arthur Daw what was the proposed maximu~n traffic count for Santa Ana Canyon Road after the fxeeway v~as cempletiedo Mra Daw stated that the estimate made by the Tra£ffc Engineer far Santa Ana Canyon Road within ten yeare would have the same traffic count of 309000 cars per daya assumi.ng optimum development in the area as the road had with rreeway traffico Commissioner Rowiand then 6tated he feZt development of the area to its optirr~um would not occur with3n fifty yearso Cortunissioner Gauer again stated that he felt the property was more suitable for Iow density residential development than multiple~family residential development because of tt~e iopog~ raphy of the areao Chairman CamQ noted that Mre Queyrel made a good point that the City would have to consider several'different types of zones = but until the freeway was developed and the City knew what traffic flow and problems wou~d be in that area9 it would be undeairable to change zones in that area on a piecemeal basis at this t3mey and the Ccmm.iesion should not be doing something without any proper knowledge of wb.at was good fox the areao Comod.661oner Farano then commented that the City would have the ~ame problem that already existed in other areas of the city9 and the proposed zoning was pxemature since no natural boundaries had been established9 and as long as the City had a chance to maintain a resi~ dential integrity of the areay thie should be done in accordance with good development standards - otherwise the same problem would occur againe Furthermoren it had not been the policy of the Commission to require plans under reclassl:ications; howevera he would find it difficult under any circum~tances at this point i,o approve reclassification of the property located within the Hill and Canyon area until the City had a better idea of the prohlems.for the areae CommiBS3oner Gauer offered Resolution Noo PC67-217 and moved for its paseage and adoptiony aeconded by Commiseioner Farano9 to recommend to the City Council that Peiition for Reclassi£ication Noo 67-68~21 be disaparoved on the basis that approval would establish an undesirable precedent for extenBion of multiple~family development southerly of sub~ect property9 thus introducing a considerably greater popuiation into the area than was pro- ~ected on the Hill and Canyon Ge:leral Plan; that the residerttial densities similar to that proposed would be more appropriate in ar~as that were set apart from the Iow density areas by logical physical boundaries; that increased density in this area could create circula- tion probiems by increasing the traffic flow'through low delsity areas; that low density residenti~l development has already occurred and established ad3acent to sub3ect property; and that the proposed church and school to the east9 and the proposed high school to the west of sub~ect pxopexty were considered compatible uses with single-family residential uses;`furthermore~ subject property was developable and better suited for low density residential development than that oroposeda (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resoiution wae passed by the followins~ vot~: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Faranoy Gauer~ Herbst~ Mungall9 Rorrland~ Campo NOES: OOMMISSIONERSc Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo ~^4 L '~ 3~' !' [ 1 ix rN"4 '~ 1 1., ~! .. ~ MINUTESy CTTY PLpNNING CAMMISSION9 Seotember 25y 1967 RECLASSIF,ICAT.ION NOe 67~68~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _NOd 965 --- __- -` \ ~ 3603 PUBLIC HEARINGo DAVE DAVIDSONn I34 West Ball RoadP Anaheim9 Califarr.ia9 Ownery MARC ANDREWS9 :016 West Lincoln Avenuen Anaheimy California9 Agenty property describeri as: A rectangularly shaped parcEl having a frontage of approximately 66 feet on the south side of BaZl Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 96 feet9.the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 160 feet west of the center'.ine of Iris Street9 and further described as l34 West Ball Roade Property oresent2y classified R-ly ONE~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSZFICATION: C-On COMMERCIAL OFFIGEp ZONEe REQUESTED ODNDITIONAL USE: PERMIT THE USE OF A RESIDENT.IAL STRUCTURE AS A BUSINESS OFFICE9 WITH INAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIHED PARKING S.PACE~So.AND • (2) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY W,pLL, ~ Assistant Planner Charles Roberte reviewed sub~ect peti~!onsy the location of Fub3ect p:operty and uses estabiiehed {n close proximityy previous zoning action in the area9 and the Report to the Commi.se3on9 noting thst Reclassy£ication Noe 64~65~20 proposing C~I zoning on sub3ect and other garcels along the eouth side of Ba11 Road .between Harbor Bouleva;d and Iris Street wa6 denied by the City Council without Qre,~ud'_ce on March 30s 196~p however9 General Plan Amendment Noe 22 ~as in'_tiated proposi.ng a change in the Gene~al Plan ~ymboiogy ;rom low density residential to commercial of£ice usey the Plan be'!ng approved by the City Council July 14, 1964g and that Area Development Plan Noo 8 was considered favorabiy by the Planning Co~nissSon and City Council9 cover~ng the same propertieso Mra Marc•Andrews, agent £or the retitioner~ appeared before the Commission9 stating that h~s present real estate ooerat~on was Iocated at i016 West LSncoln Avenue9 and it was h3~ intentian to use sub~ect oroperty for a real estate officeq that the reqnested waivers did not mean a hardshio would ex.ist for the properties in close p:oximity since the type o£ xeal e6tate bueiness he was in would Snvolve only three cars fox the genera.l public and two for the salegmenp that because he dealt in commerctal and industrial business9 it was necezsaxy for the agents to visit the o:ospects' offices9 and very few people would be drop~ins at subject propertyg that the amount of advertising wou].d be by telephone and lettern and he did not anticipate any parking problem since very few customers would be Goming to sub~ect prooertyy furthermore9 a 6~foot maso:ti:y wall a~!,d exist 3~ong the east property Iineg with a chainlink fence along the west property line9 covered with reed matting in good conditionQ and because of the lesser amount of parking and traffic9 the existing matting would adequately act ae a sound barrier; that there would be additional parking along the Ball Road f.rontage after the dedicationy curbs paved and improved; that he was not desirous of proposing a c~.rcu'_ar drlve eSnce this would not be permitted by the City Traffic Departmentq and that if the CommSssion had any questionsy they would be available to ansxer them, Mro Andrews9 in response to Commission questioningy noted that it was not his intent to xemodel the property at the present time ae aimilar C-0 structures were remodeled westerly ~f subject propertyj that he rrnuld add some additionai plantings and take out a portion of the Iawny and it was his feeling that this proposed p:ofessional~type affice would improve the areao Furthermorey he would comoly with the siga requirement of an 8-square foota unlighted eign as permitted by codeo No one appeared ir_ cpposition to sub,~ect petitiono Ti~ HF.4RING WAS CLOSED, Zoning Supezvisor Ronald Thompeon noted that if the Planning Commission considered sub~ect petition favorabiy9 they might also consider directing the staff to initiate reciassifica~ tion proceedings for those properties on the south side of Ball Road between Iris Street on the east and Harbor Boulevard on the west for C-0 uses since the General Plan indicated this suitable for professional office useg furthermorey this was one of the areas considered in the Front~-On Study since it was already approved for C~-0. This reclassification proceed- ing would be initiated so that the property owners would not have to file individually for reclassification and would reduce the work load on public hearingse Cotmaissioner Mungall offered Resalution Noa PC67~218 and moved £or its passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Herbst9 to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-- fication Noo 67-68-23 be approved~ ~ubject to conditiona, (See Resolutian Book) On roll call the foregoing reeolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ 2 1}. ' : m~.~ ~~':. ~ ~7 ( ~, ;~ ii. r `,ti~ _ :ii'>i AyESs COMMISSIONERS: Faranon Gauery Herbety Mungally Rowland. NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo ABSTAINs I~MMISSIONERS: Camn. r , '~ ,;; ~:'/ ~ '4/ MINUTES9 CITY PLAIaIING CAMMISSION9 Seotember 259 1967 3604 RECLASSIEICATION - Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo PG6?-219 and moved for its ~j,0e 67-~6~, passage and adoptiony seconded by,Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 965y subject to conditionso (See CONDITIONAL USE Resolution Book) PERMIT NOe 965 (Continued ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution.was passed by the following vote: AYESa COMMISSIONERSi Faranoy Gauery Herbst9 Mungalla Rowlando NOESs OOMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABBENT: COMM]:SSIONERS: Allredo ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Campe Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the staff to initiate reclassification proceedings for the remaindex of those properties on the south ei.de of Bali Road between Iris Street on the east and Harbor Boulevaxd on the west to C~-0y Commercial Officey Zoneo CommiBSioner Mungall seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIEDo RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC I-~ARINGo LAAUY TURNERy 305 North State College Boulevardy N0~ 67~68~24 Fullertony Califoxniay Ownerf PHILLIP CASEy_2501 West Ball Road9 Anaheimy Ca:iforniap Agent; praoerty described ass Portion No> 1 ~ VARZAN~ NQa__.1~916 A rectangularly shaped parGel of land having a frontage of.approximately 50 feet on the north side of Broadt~ay and having a maximum depth of approximate]y 288 feet9 the easterly boundary of sub~ect property being appraxLnately 203 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenuey and Portion No______2 - A rectangularly shaped parcel hav'_ng a frontage of aporoximateiy 41Z feet on the north s:de of Broadway and having a maxi~u.m. depth of approx.imately 288 reetp the easterly boundary being approximatsly 253 ~eet west of the centerlin.e o£ Magnolia Avenue< Property presently cla6sified C~I.9 GENERAL COMMERCIAL9 ZONE (PORTION NOe 1) and R-A9 AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (PORTION NOe 2)0 REQUESIED CLASSIFICATIONs R~3y MULTIPLE~FAMILY RESIDicNTIALy 7ANE (PORI'ION NOSo 1 AND 2) REQUESTED YARIAN(~s PORTTON NOSe 1 AND 2- ESTABLISH A 69~UNIT APpRTMENT COMPLEXy WITH WAIVER OF MII~IMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGSo Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect pet3tions9 the location of sub~ect property9 the uses eBtabliehed in close proximityy and the Report to the Commission9 emphaeiztng the fact that although suhJect property had no previous requeets for zoning9 the City Council an September 129 1967a approved a Resolution of Intent for R-3 for the fiv~~acre parcel to the north of sul~~ect property; that the petitioner proposes to provide I,0•-foot widen private patios between the aoartments and the carports at the east and west ends of the develoomentg and that simiiar variance requests have been approved elsewhere in th? cityo Mro Phillip Case9 agent for the petitionery aopeared be;ore the Comm.ission and noted that the slides presented by the staff indicated that sub~ect property was bounded by commercial on the east and R-3 proposed to the northf that this wouZd p~ov!de a buffer between the R-1 to t}:e west and the commercial to the east; tha+. Broadway9 a 90-foot street9 and Magnolia Avenuey a 106-foot street9 would be more thar =;iequate to provide circulatSon for the additional au•tomobiles from sub~ect property; ;...at a low density9 R~3 was proposed with 25 unita per net acrej that one~story construction would be adhesed to wit,hin 150 feet of R~1 to the west and southy thus affording a more desirable environment foz• the R-1 on the ~outh ~lde of Broadwayq that waivers were being asked only £or the north ~,nd east where multip].e-famlly development has been aporoved, but not developed; and that the increase in size of the oatios necessitated the reauest for waive.r. of the sethackse ! Mreo Shirley Granholm9 3s5 South Kenmore Street9 appeared before the Commission in opposition9: repre~enting £our persons present in the Counci7. Chamber; and zoted that if the multiple~ i family deveiopment occurred northerly of K.enmore and Broarit~ay9 Kenmore Street would be ueed ~ to gain access to the sch.e;. and park since an entrance was provided at the stub end of Rowiand Avenue9 thus this increase in traffic could af£ect ~he values of the propert3.es ~ along this local street and create hazards #cr the children o~ the area, THE HEAR7.~1G WAS CLOSEDm Commissione.r Mungall offered Resolution ~Ioe PC67-220 and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Herbst9 t.o recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi~ fication Noo 67-68-24 be approved9 ~ub,ject te conditionso (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing rESOlution wac passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSTONERS: Faranan Gauery Herbet, Mungally Rowland9 Campe j-:_ NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENT: ODMMISSIONERS: Allrede ~ ~~ ~ ~ J ~ ~~; ASINUTES9 CI'P.' PLANNING COA~Or(ISSION9 September 25n 1967 , 3605 RECLASSIFIGATION - Gommi~sionQr Mungall offered ReaoZution No-~-PC67-221 and moved for its ~IOa`67-68-24 _.~asrage and adoption9 seconded by Comml6csioner Herbsta to grant ?etition for Variance No. 19169 sub~ect to conditiflnso (See Resolution Book) VARIANCE NC~o ~9I6 Continued~~ On 2•all call the foregoing resolation was paseed by the follov~ing votes AYESs OC~MMISSIONERS: Gauer9 Herbsty Mungalla Rowla~nd9 Camp. ~!`~ NOESe GOMMISSIONERSi Farano. -~ ABSENTs CONWIISSIONERSs Allredo ;~ h,a RECLASSIFICATIUN - PUBLIC HEARINGo MURRELL EVERION9 109 South Clementine Street9 Anaheim ' 9 NOe 67-~68-25 California Owner DAVID COLLINS 1077_West Ba11.:Ro 9 ~ ad Anaheim , . Californiay Agentf property deecribed as~ A rectan9ularly shaped CONDITIONAL USE ~~~ parcel of land located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and ' ;~ PERMIT N0. 967 U_•esden Street and having frontages of approximatelv 60 feet on La Palma * ~ Ayenue and appxoximately 101 feet on Dresden Street9 and further described '~~` as I526 West La Pal:aa Avenueo Property presently classified R-ln r"~:`~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL9 ZONE, -:;-!:}~~i REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C~19 GENERAL CAMMERCIAL9 ZONEe ,~,. '~~' REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT TF1E USE OF AN EXISI'ING RESIDENTI'AL STRUCTURE AS A I " PHQTC?GR.4P'riY STWIOy WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT ~ MASONRY WALL AND (2) REQUIRED SCREEN LANDSCAPINGo ~ , ^~ I Assistant Planne~ Charl.es Raberts rev~ewed sub~ect pet'tion9 location of the prooerty9 land ~ .; ~ ;;~~ usea established in close proxi.mStyy and the Report to the Commiesion, noting that five ~ waivere raere b i ;+~ e ng requested as indicated in the staff seport 9 which were mo r e t h a n i n d i c a t e d on th ,~;:~:.~' e agenda - this was due to analyzing the plan submitted and determ!ning that these addttional waiv s ~~ er were necessaryo However9 the psisr,~i~y considerat~on before the Comnds.~ion was the appropriateness of the oroposed use for the area wh'Lch had res',dential lots fronting on `~~ x"~ La Palma Avenue; said front-on lote had been considered in the Front-~On Studp9 and it was ; determined that the area should remain for residential pu:posese i. ~ ~ ,' Mrso Dorothy Eowery :epresenting David Collins9 aoen?; for the petitionerp appeared be:ore the CommiBSi d ~ on an noted that the prnposed reclassification w.s'a story which had been' repeated frequently throughout the City of Anaheim where the owner of a piece of property I ~ fronting on a maJor arterial was desiroua of changing it from residential to commercial; ~ q that the particular si t e i n q u e s t'_ o n w a s l o c a t e d o n t h e c o r n e r o f a l o c a l a n d a m a~or '~ I arterial which had added confusion and noi~e to the tra:fic on the side streets since the ! ~' 4 street not on2y served a large residential area9 but provided ingress and egresg to the ' _„ rear of a shooping center located at Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue; that since the ~ ° opening of La Palma Avenue extending easterly between Olive and East Streets9 additional ' ~ traffic had been noted, causing an acaeleration 1n the change of use - thus9 the only argument ixith xespect to the use of the property was its compatibility witri the neighbors and a petition signed by almost every neighbor within 30Q feet of eub~ect property was then presented to the Commissiony noting that they had no ob~ectxon to the proposed use of the property located at 1526 West La Paittw pvenue for a fam:ly oortrait photographic studio; that the petitioner wae presently located on West Lincoln Avenue -• however, the owner of the prooerty was planning extensive renovation and expansion of the florist ehop - thus it waa necessary for them to find other facilitiea; that the City of Anaheim needed com- me.rcial ~rnperties which were less expensive than high~rise development in the Center City area as proposed in the Front~-On Studyy and that it was hoped the Commissian would give con~idzration to the emall businees raan who could not afford and did not require large, commerc:ial facilitiesp and that it was their intent to remove the existing fence in order to provid~~ adequate ingress and egress from the alley to the parking facilitye ' Co~esioner Farano noted that at the rate requests for development of the residential front~ons for cammercial of£ice buildings was indicated9 there would be no shortage of the low density9 commercial faci2ity ae reflected on the Commission's report9 and theee types o: development would occur at a more rapid rate than high-rise buildings; further- morey there was no ~ustification for the waivers .requested9 an~ there seemed to be no intention to orotect the ad3oining properties £rom 3mrasion of commercial useso Commissioner Herbst noted that the property owners in close proximity had no opposition to the oroposed photographic studio; however, this would open the door for any other uses :or snb~ect property which might be v~ry ~~tsimental to the resldential integxity of the area and might set an undesirable g~recedent for sim3lar commercial requests of the adjoin- ing propertiese Commissioner Mungall noted that owners of prope:ty at 1035 Dresden 5treet had been denied commercial uses a number of times by ~he City9 and if aubject petitions were approved, j - ~ f O U MINUTES9 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 25y 1967 ~'.;;.' w. ;~ r ~ .. .n s; ~ v . ;;~ ,,, ,~r7 ~ --- ~~ _ 3606 RECLASSIFICATION - a use would be granted to sub~ect property and not to the property NOe 67-68-25 _ at 1035 Dresden Streets thereforey he could,reguest a variance or a reclassification of his property indicating hardshipo CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOe 67 . The Cflmmission inquired of the staff whether or not this could be (Continued considered a home occupation in order to meet the intent of the variance since it would be difficult to prove hardshipy whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Mre Collins had been adviced that the Commission had studied the arterial front--ons and h.ad completed and referred•to the City Council their recommendation; that the study~had been done in depth of the homes fronting on La Palma Avenuep and it wa6 the Commission's feeling there were 176 ~ restdential lots throughout the City in 17 areas which were more suitable for commercial uses - howevery sub~ect property was not one because the propert3es could retain their ~ residerstial integrity through the use of masonry walls and~or landscaping since they had a secondary circulat{on on an alley;to the southe Tt~ I~ARSNG WAS CLOSED. ~ , Commissioner Rowland noted that one,of the reasons this was excluded from the list for coriversion to commercial uses was bec9uee th~re wae,plenty of alley access and adequate setback9 which made this more ideally suited for R-1; that the fact the City was not actively encouraging the development of low rental commercial facilitiee was not signifi- cantp that the City had a long history of actively discouraging low rental "anyth3ng" - such as minimum size of dwelling unitss that if the City were trying to provide for all segmenta of the population9 it would not have any strength in any directionn either commercial, industrialp or~r~sidential~ howevery at this pointy the City did have a strong recreation-oriented commercial usey relatively strong residential areasy and they were not interested in raeeting either end of the spectrums that there was no evidence the Ctty could support low rental economicallys and that the exi.st~.ng small cortunerctal facilities indicated the largest vacancies within the communityo Mr, Rowland continued that it was the Commis- sion's desire to give the Front-On Study a chance to wox~k and give it some backbone for development of commercial properties designatede Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo ?C67-222 and moved for its passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Farano9 to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi~ fication Noo 67-68-25 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed reclassification of the property was not necessary or desirable and wouTd not be consistent with.the zoning and land use'in close proximity of sub~ect property, and the resfdential properties fronting along 4he south side'of La Pa1ma A`renue were aart of a Front-On Study for possible conversion to commercial usesn and said report indicated this area should be retained for residentiai uses; that the Front~-On Study indicated approximately i76 homes in 17 speciftc areas in widely separated geographic locations thxoughout the entSre city that would be suitable for commercial re-use~ that the approval o£ individual zoning requests such as this in areas that should be retained for residential use could deter quality commercial development in aporopriate locations and lead to the ultimate rezoning of all 2y700 homes fronting or siding on arterial highways to commercial useso (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano~ Gauery Herbst9 Mungalln Rowland9 Camp, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC67-223 and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissionex Munga119 ta deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 967 based on findingse (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Faranoy Gauery iiexbst~ Mungall, Rowlend, Camp, NOES: OOMMISSIONERSo Nonee ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: All=ado RECESS - Commissioner Herbst moved for a ten minutes recess. Commissioner Rowland seconded~ and MOTION CARRIED, The meeting recessed at 4:05 PaMa RECONVENE - Cha~.rman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:15 PoMe9 Commissioner • Allred being absenta ~ 'T.!0~ - ~ `: . c } I ~'~~ '+~ 7 ,1 1 ' 0. , C' '" l ~ '~ ~ . r R ~ i . • t . ~N .~~ }y _ - ~; • ~ ~ "" "__'_"~_'_"" " ' ~' ~ ~ ~;j „t,6~ ~ MINUTESy.CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONQ September 25n 1967 3607 ~ ,~ '~ RECLASSIFICATION ~ PUBLIC HEARINGe FRANK MULI.ERy TRUSTEHy 6363 Sunset Boulevardn ' ' NOe 67-68-26 Hollywoody Californiap CLIFTON WOLFEy 629 South Spring Streety ^ Los Angelesy Californian Agent; requesting that property described ass ''{= A rectangularly shaped parcel (approximately 10 acres) Iocated on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between Crescent Way and Muller Streety having frontages of >?` approximately 800 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 570 feet on Crescent Way.and Mu11er Streety be reclaesified from the M-Iy LIGHT INDUSTRIAL9 ZONE to the C-29 GENERAL :;~ COMMERCIAL9 ZONEy in order to relocate the retail portion mf a discount department store •~ presently operating to the north of sub~ect prooerty to sub~ect propertyo , ." `~~ u4 Assistant Planner Charlee Roberts rev3ewed subJect petition9 the location of sub ect ~ property9 ,~ y', -'- the uses.-established in close proximity9 and in reviewing the Report to the Commiseion noted , ~ that the petitSoner was oroposing to relocate the retail portion of the Fed~Mart discount '~`^~~ department sto.:e operating northerly of subject property; that there appearfJd to be adequate '~`j parking on the property and peripherai and interior landscapSng was indica';ed; that in the event this commerciai request was approvedy the CommSssion might wish to consider develop~ ment in accordance with the site development standards of the C~1 Zone; and. that Parcel Map No. 6t was filed with the Engin~eering Division July lly 1967 - however9 the propoeed par cel . di~ision did not conform to the plot plan submitted with subject reclassi~icationa ~ Mr. Cii£ton Woife9 agent for the petitioner9 appeared before the Commission and noted that ! the petitioner was also Qresent in the Council Chamber; that the plans indicated what was proposedy and this would mean relocating Fed-Mart from its exposure to the Santa Ana Freeway ~ to Li l 'A nco n venue where more commercial exposure was avaiiable; that the proposed use would b ' e compatible with the petitioner e des3re for the balance of the development of his property;~ `' , and that plans had been rushed through in order to take advantage of the timing of the application ~ however9 more precise plans were being drawn at the present timea Mrse James Chavos9 I903 Embassy Avenue9 appeared before the Commissiony stating she repre- sented the Lincoln Park Homeowners Association; that they were not in opposition to the relocation of Fed~Mart - however, they were concerned with the possibility of having an ~ additional service station at the northeast corner of Crescent Way and Lincoln Avenue since there would already be a service station-type facility within the Fed-Mart facilityn and there seemed to be no apparent reason to have two service stations within close proximity ~ to each othery and this would not be good planning from an economic standpoint since so many eervice statione already were located at Euclid and Lincoln and Brookhurst and Lincolno ~ Mro Wolfe noted that a service station was not permitted under the requested C-2 Zoney and ! an aoplication would have to be filed for a variance to permit a service stationy and that stnce plane were not submitted that would include a service station at this time9 this wovld not be discuseedy or a part of the applicatione 1'he staff. noted that the entire property had been adve:tisedy which would include the service stat3on sitey and a petition would have to be filed to grant the service station at such time as it waa to be constructede Commiseio.ner Rowland noted that the proposed use of sub~ect prooarty might be more compatible than industrial usess however9 if a¢ervice station was proposed for that inter~action9 he would vote against it since the same type of service would be permitted by right in the shopping center facility9 and if the shopping facility was relocated9 the site development standards of the C-1 Zone should be adhered toe Mxso Chavos then noted that if the entire area was advertised and included in sub~ect peti~ t3ony this would mean the northwest corner of Crescent Way and Lincoln AvenuE would be C-2 Zoning; therefore9 the waiver would be necessary - which would be considered at another public hear,ing - whereupon the Commission advised Mrse Chsvos that this was9 indeedp a facto Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that rather than tying approval of sub~ect petition to plane' it would be more desirable to require development in accord- ance with the G-1 site development standardse TI~ F~ARING WAS CLOSEDe Mro Thompson further noted that the proposed development would be similar to that presently existing north of sub~ect pxoperty; howevery the staff was concerned that an additional service station was being proposed s3nce one would exist ae an integrated part of the Fed-Mart facility9and a second service station in so close proximity might have to be deletede ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, September 25n 1967 3608 RECLASSIFICATION~ - Commissioner Rowiand offered Resolution Noo PC67~224 and moved fo: its N0.:67~66-2 passage and adoption~ seconded by Comm3ssioner.Herbst, to recommend to (Continued the City Gouncil that Petition for Reclassification Noa 67W68~26 be approved on the basis that a change 1n land use was recognized along Lincoln Avenue which has been developed with a high percentage of commercial traffic ~ thus industrial use of the property was deemed less desirable; that one service`station should be pexmitted if it was found to be an inc3dental and accessory use to the overali operation of the discount facility ~ however9 any add3tional serv'ice station would require the approval of a conditional use permitf and sub~ect to conditionsa (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was paseed by the £ollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSICIR~ERS: Farano9 Gauer9 Herbst9 MungallQ &or~landy Camr~e NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COAAMISSIONERS: Allrade Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thomceon noted for the Con•uniesion that Reclassification Noso 67~68-11 and 67-68-28 wexe for the aame propertyn the £irst petition being f31ed by the owner of the property and the second petition being initiated by the Planning Commission to consider R~3 zoning for the pxope:ty9 rather than commercial zoninge Cha~rman Camo then declared the hearing open for both petltionso RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC !-~ARINGa CITY OF FULLERTON9 303 West Commonwealth Avenue9 ! N0. 67~68-11 Fu].lerton9 Cal'fo:niay Owner~Petitioner for Reclassi£ication Noo fi7~6B~lIo' INITIATED HY THE CITY PLANNING CAMMISSIONy 204 East Lincoln Avenue, RECLASSIFICATION Anaheimy Cali:ornia9 for Recla6s'_fication Noe 67~68~28o Property N0._67~68~28 ___ descr?bed as: Parcel Noo 1~ An irreaularly shaped parcel of iand containing approximatel.y 2v06 acres9 having a frontage of approximately 505 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 190 feet9 the ea6terly boundary of subject pxaperty being approximatel.y 150 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard9 and Parcel Noa 2- A rectangularly shaoed parcel of land containing approximately Oe8 acres9 having a frontsge of approximately 240 feet on the north side of La Pa1ma Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 145 feet9 the easterly boundary of sub3ect property beirg approximately 890 feet west of the center~ line of Harbor Bou.levaxdo Property oresently classified R-A9 AGRICULTURALy Z.ONEe REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs C~19 GENERAL COMMERCIAL9 ZONE (R-67W68~11) AND R~39 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL9 ZONE (R~67-68-28) Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petitionsy the location of sub~ect propertyy the uses established in close proximityy further noting that the petitioner had filed a petition for reclassification to C~1 zoningy and the Commission had directed the staff te initiate reclassification proceedings to the R-3 zoning on the basis that this wou~d be moae compatible with the uees established and would prnv:.de additional buying power for and support the commerciai facilities already established in the area, Furthermoren communication received from the Parks and Recreation Department indicated that the property i~ question would not be feasible for future acquisition as an extension of La Palma Parke It was also noted that the commercial element of the Anaheim General Plan indicated that the existing neighborhood shopping center and nearby office and medical facilities more than satisfied the needs of the residents in this general area4 and th~t com~ munity and regional shopping £acilities were within easy com~euting distancee Mro Jack Clinkscalesy representing the City ~f Fu7.lerton9 appeared before the Commissiony noting that sub~ect property had been owned by the City of Fullerton since 1910; thit taxes had been paid on this property since that time; that the Fullerton City Cour.cil had retained an independent appraisal firm to determine the potential for sub,ject propertys and this independent firm had suggested commercial or commerciai office uses since this would be similar to those already established in the area; and that three service stations were constructed at the intessection of La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevarde Furthermore, if cortunercial uses were establishedy this could be a means of revenu~ through leasing of the property9 whereas it was more remote to haye multiple-family development on the property9 and the City of Fullerton was agreeable to the recommended conditions of approval - however9 the time limitation o£ 180 days would be insufficient due to the length of time it took governmental agencies to act on various requestse Mra Clinkscales, in response to Commission questioning,relative to placing the p•roperty on sale at public biddinga indicated he did not know what the future procedure would beo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, 3~`.a~'e'l~"'"'k~~~~'~s"'W~ '3or`~r'.~~+~"~'"~.'~~rt `f?'xvs ~~j'~j ~a .~i~,r~ j^:. ,p ~t13n..:Faa~i~k ~:' ~nc , ty 1 ~;~ , ~~ ~ MINITfESy CITY PLpNpING Cpb1MISSIONy September 25y 1967 3609 RECLASSIEICATION - Discussion held by the Commission indicated that subject ~~roperty NOe 67-6B~» T would be more sultable for R~3 development and would a hi~3h quality " deyelopment becauae of the Iandscaped area o£ the Fullert~~n water RECLASSIFICATION facility adjacent to the propertyy ac well as being in close proxim~~y NOe 67- 8-~6`° of La Palma Parky and that service station~ did not ne;;essarily indicate (Continued coromercial uses should be e'stablished or did set, a precedent for a specific area, Commf.ssioner Mungal2 offered Resolution No, PC67~225 and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by.Commiesioner..Rowlandy to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication Noe 67-68W11 be disapproved on the basis that multiple-family development of eub~ect property was more appropriate in view of the existing land uee and zoning in thia ares and would-create additional support for the existing commercial facilitiees that the commercial 'element of the General Plan indicated the exieting neighborhood shoo~aing center and nearby office and medical facilitiea more than eatisfied the neede of the residents in the area; that there already +nas undeveloped commercially zoned property in the immediate vicinity; that the iocation and re5.attonahip of subJect pzoperty to La Palma Parky and the open epace would be perraanently maintained around the water pumping stationy made the property better suited for multiple-family residential development, (See Reeolution Book) On ro1.1 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Faranoy Gauery Mungally Rowlandy Campe NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERSs Allrede ASSTAIN: OpldMISSIONERSs Herbsto Comm3ssioner Munqall offered Resolution No, PC67-226 and moved for its paseage and adoptiony seconded by Coimnissioner Rowland9 to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi~ fication Noo 67W68~289 establish'_ng R~3 zoning £or the property9 be approved9 sub~ect to conditionso (See Resoiution Book) On :oll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMIVI2SSIONERS: Faranoa Gauer9 Mungall9 Rowiand9 Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: GOMM.ISSIONERS: A1lrede A3STAIN: Opld-uIISSIONERS: Herbsto REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe l RECOMMENDATIONS. Var'ancQ Noo 1805 (Dr, William 0'Reilly)- Properties loc~isd at the aouthwest and southeast corners of Harb~r Houlevard and Santa Ana Street (R:esolution of Intent to C~-0) - Requeet for exten6ion of timee Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the propoeed request for an extension of time for the completion of Resolution Noe PC66~2 dated July 6y 19669 noting that an extension of time was granted February 15' 1967y subject to dedication of a strip of land 45 feet in ~rtidth from the centerline of Ha:bor Boulevard; that this condition had been met - howevery payment of street l~ght feesa dedication of vehicular access rights to Harbor Boulevardy and an irrevocable offer of dedication~for a 20-foot alleyy together with approval of buiZding ingress and egress by the City Traffic Engineer had not been completede Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a six-months' extension of time for the completion of conditionsQ sub3ect to the petitioner comoleting Condition Nos< 49 7 and 8 within a 30-day period from this meeting date9 said time extension to expiz•e January 6y 1968. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NOe 2 Conditional Use Permit Noo 941 (Foertmeyer - Greek Orthodox Church) - Permit temporary use of existing residential structure for church of.ices9 a language schooly and Iimited church services - Property located at 405 North Dale Avenue - Request for approval of revised planso Assistant P13nner Charles Roberts reviewed the proposed request for approval of revised plans to construct an add3tion on the patio structure where a concrete slab existed on ~ the original plane9 noting that the Comml.ssion's approval of Conditional Use Permit Noa ` 941 in Resolution Noo PC67-94 dated May 8y 1967, speci:ied use of the residential struc~ turey which did not include any accessory buildin9s; that the petitioner was requesting ~ permission to enlarge and enclose the patio etruature located on thQ concrete Rlab im- mediately northwest of the existing residential etruoture :~r use as e temporary place 5° ,. ~r~' "~ . ,r; sN. T+~' ~ src ~ ~ ~ . , ~ ~`~ V~ \„_~/ MINUTES9 CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy September 25y i967 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOa_2 (Continued) 3610 of worahip for the duration of sub~ect petition; that from appearancesy the staff felt the proposed addition would not be detrimental to the aurrounding properties ~ however9 under the terms approving Conditional Use Permit Noo 941y3t speci#ied the use o~ an exist- ing residential structure rather than any structure on the propertyo Reverend,Constantinidesy Pastor of the Greek Orthodox Church of Orange County9 appeared before the Coauai.scion and noted that it was proposed to conetruct a 28 by 55~footy covered building-to extend this another 37 feets that this structure would not ~oin the existing home; that the prnposed enlargement would meet all building codesj that the church had ' grown at such a rapid rate that it wa& impossibZe to utilize the existing facil3ty in Garden Grove9 and an attempt had been made to rent other ~ac{litiee ~ however they were unsuccessfu,I9 and9 therefore9 they were proposing to utillze this structure for temporary church purpoees £or aoproxj.raately two years9 and it was hooeful that conetruction of the firet of the two atructures would beg{n next sumraero Zoning :.,ugervisor Ronald'Thompson etated that the sta>: had reYiewed the plans and felt that approval of the revised Q!ans could be acoomplished; howeverQ because of zoning complaints of ad3oining property ownexs indicating that their understanding of approval of Conditional Use Permit No, 941 1lmited the use to the exist'_ng residential structure :ather than accessory buildings9 it was felt the ~ommission should consider the revised plansy and that the staff recommended approvai of the revised planso Furthermorey all property owners within 300 feet of the property had been advised by letter of considera~ tion by the Planning Commission of the revised development plans at today's hearingo Chairman Camp inquired if there was anyone present in the Council Chamber opposed to the revis?d development plans and received no resQoneeo Commissioner Farano of:ered a motion to approve the revised development plans for Conditional Use ?ermit No, 9419 to oermit church officesy a language schooly and limited church services in sub~ect propertyn noting they were substantially !n conformance with the plans originally submittedo Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe ITEM NO e ~ Conditional Use Permit Noo 960 (Voge9 Incorporated) ~ Fievlew and aoproval of revised plans for a proposed restaurant to be located at the southweet corner of South St~eet and State College Boulevardo Assietant Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Planning Commission revised plans for the proposed restaurant with or.-eale beer £1led with Conditional Use Permit No, 9609 to be located at the southwest corner of South Street and State College Boulevard9 approved by the Cosmission in Resolut~on Noe PC67~1969 dated September 59 1967, Mr< Roberts noted that the revieed plans indicated that the restaurant had been relocated ad~acent to and parallel with the south property line; however9 the plans also indicated that an access drive was stil~ being proposed to South Streety which was contrary to the requirement of Condition Noo 49 which required dedication of vehicular access rights to South Street; and Condition Nc+e 5Pwhich required a 6--foot decorative masonry wall alon9 the north property line9 to the rear of the required planting strip, .~ y~ ;~i r~ ~ T.Y The Commissiony upon reviewing the revised plans of development9 noted that the reason for originally reauiring dedication of access rights to South Street was to prevent aommercial traffic from gaining access to a street which was developed with single-family residencese It was aiso the Commiesion's intent to assure these property owners of a degree of pxivacy and to retain the residential integrity of the area by requiring the 6-foot decorative masonry wall along the north and west boundariese A major portion of the oppoeition expressed by the residents at the Seotember 5th meetin9 and at many previous zoning hearings was concern over the destruction of this residential integritye Commissioaer Herbst offered a motlon to approve the revised plans submitted under Condi- tional ~se Pesmit Noo 960; providedy howevery that no access be granted to South Street; that the petitioner comply with all conditions of Resolution Na PC67-1969 dated September 5~ 1967, in which access rlghts to South Street were to be dedicated to the City of Anaheim; a masonry wall constructed along the north and we6t property lines; and that a landscaping strip be pxovided ad~acent to said mascnry wall at the northe Commissioner Rowland eeconded the motion, MOTZON CARRIEAo ~ ~ ~ --- :~ `'~~ ~.s'.' C ~ ~ 1~t ~ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMWIISSIONa September 25y 1967 3611 `REPORTS AND . - ITEM_N0. 4 RE~MMENDATIQNS Conditional Use Permit Noe 949 - Transportation_center (Continued) and restaurant compl~x located on the south side of . Katella Avenuey approximately.660 feet east of West Street - Terminationo Zoning Supervicor Ronald Thompcon advi$ed the Commission that at the August 29y 1967 City Council meetingn discuscion between the City Attorney and the City CounCil revealed the fact that the prnperty covered under subject petition would be necessary for Convention Center usesy and upon dlscussion with the petitionery the Anaheim Transportation Center Lesseey an agreement had been reached that they would withdraw and ask their option to be terminated9 provided their doWnpayment was refunded9 and that the City Council in Pesolu- tion Noe 67R-503 had rescinded the option; therefarey the use granted by the Pla~tning Commiseion'in Reeolution Noe PC67~143~A on July 6n 19679 was no longer in effect since no land was available to be covered by said resolutionfl and the staff recoimaended termination of all proceedingso • Commissioner Mungail offered Resolution Noe PC67~227 and moved for its passage and adoptiony seconded by ~ommissioner Rowland9 to terminate all psoceedings on Conditional Use permit Noe 949 on the basis that the option held by the petitioner on the property Govered by Condltional Use Permit No, 949 had been rescinded by the City Council on August 29y 19679 in Resolution Noa 67R-503o (See Resoiution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Faranoy Gauery Herbsty Mungall.y ~oWland9 Camp, NOES: 00MMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo TEMPORARY ADJUURNMENT - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to • October 2y 1967~ at 7:00 P,Mo for a work s€ssion on said date to consider the multiple~family areas within the AnaheLn General Plano Commiesioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo i ' The meeting ad~ourned at 5s00 P,Mo WORK SESSION ~ Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:25 PaMe9 all Commissioners OCTOBER 2 i967 being present with the exception o: Commissioner Allreda Staff oresents Planning Superv{~or Ronald ~rudzinsk! Zoning Suoervisor Ronald Thompson Associate Planner Marvin Krieger Assistant Plannere Norvin Lanz, Charles Roberts9 Dave Williamson Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson Pianling Commission Secretary Ann K:~ebs Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting and turned the meetin~a over to Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski. Mr, Grudzinski then presented a repo~c cntitled, "A Re-evaluation of the Multiple-Family Element of the Anaheim General Plar.`' to the Commission' noting that because of revision to figures in the reporty it wds necessary to revise them over the weekend; therefore~ the Commiesion had not been sent the document for perusal prior to the meetinge. After presentation of the report and discussion held by the Commissiony consideration of the report was continued to the meeting of October 23y under Reports and Recommendations~ in order to.allow the Commission time to thoroughly study the reporte ADJpURNMENT - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to ad~ourn the meetinge Commiesioner Herbst seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED, The meeting ad~ourned at 10:00 P,Ma Respectfully submitted, ~ ~l ~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anahei.nm City Planning Commission