The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1967/12/04A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEEI'ING - A regul.ar meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to crder by Chairman Camp at 2:05 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred (who entered at 2s16 P.M.), Rowland. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Deputy City Attorney: Ronald Thompson Office Engineer: Furman ttoberts Arthur Daw Assistant Planner: Planning Commission Secretar : Charles Roberts y Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend G~ Re Freeman, Pastor, Grace B invocation. aptist Church, gave the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge o f Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Coaunissioner Farano offered a motion to meeting of November 20 1967 approve the Minutes of the , , as subm~t seconded the motion. MO?ION CARRIED. ted. Commissioner Gauer CANDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED pUBLIC I-~ARING. WILLIAht MESSECAR, .~46 South Poplar Street, PERMIT NOe 978 Brea, California, Owner; SAMUEL HUMPI~EY, 5124 Deeboya•r'Street, Lakewood, Caiifornia, Agent; proposing to ESTABLISH'A WALK-UP RESTAURANi AND PERMIT ON-SALE LIQUOR IN A PROPOSED ENCIASED'RESTAURANI'9 WITH'WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIbIUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND (2) MINIMUAd SIDF YARD SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 88 feet on the south side ~~ Ball Road and 'naving a maximum depth of approximately 420 feet, the westerly boundary of ~ubject property being approximately 460 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Streete Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of November 20, 1967, in order to readvertise the petition to incorporate the on-sale liquor fn a proposed restaurant, in addition to the requested walk-up restaurant, since C-1 zoning had been approved instead of the requested C-2 zoninge Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, noting the reason for continu- ance from the November 20th meeting, and the fact ihat the Commission had recommended C-1 zoning, based on the fact that the requested C-2 zoning would be undesirable in the area in which it was proposed to be looated. Uses established in close proximity were a1a~ reviewed, noting that the basis for the request for waivers was ihe fact that an R-A parcel existed to the east., and that development plans had not been submitted for the proposed .restaurante Mre Dean Brown, designer of the proposed restaurants, appeared before the Commission and stated that development plans had not been submitted, but would be submitted at the time the building permit was requested. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompc.;n advised Mre Brown that additional plans were necessary for subject petition; whereupon Mr. Brown replied that the plans would be submitted, but they would reflect the new parking layout suggested by the Commission. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissicn advised Mr, Brown that development plans for the bar should indicate complete separation from the dining area. 3665 ~~~ ;s~~q7~w~•''~,'t'"ic~' v ;r ~ I' , .~~:,- ' - I `-_--. _ _ ~O ' ... _( ~ . . . • ~.~ ~~ MINUTES' CIT~f•PLANNING G~DIIMIISSION, December 4~ 1967 ~ 3666 OONDITIOtr'AL USE -~Mre Thompson further inquired of Mro Brown whether or not the proposed PERMIT NOo.978 plans to be submitted would be,basically theisame~as those originally (Continued) submittedi xhereupon Mre Brown replied they°wouTd i~nclude'a`new parking layout and at'least 25~ for food preparatian~in=the kitchen area, and that the bar wouid be completely screenedo Mro Thompson then inquired of .the-Commiecion:whe.ther.._ar.~:not_they.:were desirous of review- ing the development plans in order to assure themselves that the bar facilities would be separated from the dining facilities, prior to the iscuance of a building permit, to Nhich the Commission responded in''the affiimativeo '~'~ ~-!~' p~' • ~ . ,.... ., ,. ~ ~ ~.~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC67-258 and.moved for its passage.and adoption, seconded by Commissioner,Mungall~ to grant Petition for Conc~itional Use Permit No. 978, sub3ect to revised plans being submitted to the Commianion prior to issuance of a building permit~.and that the revised plans indicate screen separation of the bar from the dining facilities, as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) , . . ,. . :.. .. , -. . ., On roll call the foregoing resolution was paased by the folloruing votes ~ . . . .. .. . . ~ , „ .. . ~. ... ~ ~.;:1 f ~ ~ . . AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kunyall. Camp.-~- -- - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~.- . .. ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. -. .... - . VARIANCE NOe 1924 - PUBLIC FIEARINGe ERNESTINE N. GRA66} 26-8-Victory Village, Hendercon~ Nevada, Owner; E. J. CONRAD~ 17801>Norwood'Park~, ?ustin~ California~ Agent; requesting permiesion to EST.AEI.ISH AN EXIS7ING R~OM ADDITION AS A CONFORMING USE,-WITH WAIVER OF Tf~ MINIMUIiI REQUIREDSIDE• YARD SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly ehaped parcel of land7having~a"~frontage of approximately 62 feet on the east side of Boxwood Street and having.a.maximum depth of approximately 105 feet, the southerly boundary of sub~ect proper'ty:being'!approximately-230 feet north of the centerline of West South Street, and furthe"r'`de`s`cribed as 704~Boxwood Street. Property presently clseQified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAI.,.ZONE~ ;,M' . Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect peti#ion,-.the location of the property, and,the.reason for,filin sub ect g ~ petition - being due,to~~the;fact that a room addition had b'een mede which was not in conformance with• the~-R.=1- Code.~Tequirement aa~ •to side yard setback'; that the`petitioner Iiad requested an FHA'loan, but=`needed clearance froin the Building De~artment approving the addition. ''~ -~~ ' 'x?:~ • ~ ~ . -~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~, ~. :r!'' . .. . . .. ~. ' Mr, Ao Ro Rogers,.704 Boxwood Street, eppeared before~the Conimission,:etating that he ; presently resi'ded on aubject property'artd'was speaking<on be}ialf of the petitioners that the property`had been in escrow for five montha;'~~due"to the~fact'that the approval of the ~ room addition had deterred closing eecrow ariangementeq that•the petitioner was an innocent party eince the room addition waa constructed twelve years ago by a prior owner, and owner- ship had changed three times since the:addition had been constructedl and that he was xilling to make any changea to the atructure to conform with Code requirements if subject petition were approvede . No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE FIEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionez Farano offered Resolution No. PC67=259 and moved for ita passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioner Gauery to grant Petition for~Variance No. 1924~ sub~ect to condi- tionse (See Resolution Book) On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo~ing votei AYESs COMMISSIONERSs F~ano, Gauer, Herbst~ Mungall~ Camp. NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIOPJERSs Allred, Rowland. s?~f t ~s ~+nv4tl •;~n'~" '~ 7r{ i "'r1~s4 ','•!a { {~' t `Pj 'y '~"/ '~+ ~ ': ~! ~ (. ~ ' ^ ~ ~ e t°: ~ ~ ~ AIINUTES, CITY PLAI1NI11G>,CObWISSION, December 4, 1967 3667 VARI,ANCE_NOe_1926 - PUBLIC HEARINGo EN~IRE FINANCIAL WRPORAT:IOH' P. 0> Box 30959 ' Van Nuys, California, Owner; requeating.permission to ESTABLISH A TENTATIVE MAP OF 60-LOTy MULTIPLE-FAMILY SiJBDIVISION, WITH WAIIIERS OF (1) IAT WIDTH~ (2) TRACT NO„ 4230- 1AT AREA, (3) SZDE Y9RDS AND (4) MAXIMUM BUILD7NG HEIGF?'T9 on property REVISION NOe 7. described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of appxoximeteZy 332 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 1y274 feet9 the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 6fi0 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevarde Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONED rt~r?'~':''~ SUbj2Ct tTdCt~ located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 660 feet west '` ~;~:, of Beach Boulevard, containing approximately 9e72 acres, is proposed for subdivision into ;R~•""" a 60-lot, multiple-family subdivisione } ~, ~ ^~' Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the proposed *' requeet for a 9-3~4-acre parcel9 and the waivers requested due to the fact that the R-3 Zone did not permit the size or width of lots proposed, or use of a common wall as a k<„ t` property line; and that the height waiver was necessary because,of the R-A parcel to the ~ westo Furthermore, the petitioner was proposing a covexage of 60~ while only 55~ was A~ permitted in the R-3 Zonee Previous zoning action on sub~ect property was also reviewede ~, ' :`yi Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber, at 2:16 PeM. Mro Roberts also noted that the frontage for 169-foot depth was proposed for commercial purposes, and that a stub street was proposed to provide cisculation westerly when the property to the west was developedo Mre Edelson, representing the petitioner, noted that the proposed development was not a new concept, but an extension of the old condominium; that many of the undesirable features o£ the condomfnium had been eliminated, basica3ly making reference to maintenance of the property, streets9 etc., since it was proposed to have every,lot fac3ng a standard street and back--on to a public alleyy and that these Iots would be under private ownership limited to two families per :.ot, while six famiiies could be supported if standard R~3 lots were pxoposede The Commission noted that condominiums provided considerably more open space, while the proposed development did not provide for this requirement as proposed under the R-3 Codee In response to Commission questioning, Mre Edelson noted that there was 20 feet between each buildino; that each of the two iots would have a common wall or iot line; that the proposal was similar to fourplexes9 but allowed for ownership of two units rather than the former fo;L, unitsy thus providing older persons with an apartment for themselves and a little income property as welle The Conmtission noted that the petitioner was asking five waivers, and sub3ect property could be built within the R-3 requirements with the only waiver necessary being single- story adjacent to R-A property to the westa Mro Edelson noted that a less desirable development could be presented~ however, the waiver of only 5% of the lot width seemed a lesser of the two undesirable problemse The Commission further noted that the proposed development could have a number of children since the larger apartments had three bedrooms, and the petitioner was providing only 10-foot yards for children to play. Mro Edelson further noted that they would prefer developing subject property with a 60% coveragey th.at even if they:redesign the yards- the percentage wculd still remain the same; and that the tops of the garages would be used as a sun deck. Zoning Supervisor Ronald ?hompson noted that the plans submitted xere concept pla~,s and were not to scalee ` ~ `t ~ T ~ 6~ ~~ it ! Mre Edelson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that they were unable to comply ~ with the R-3 standards because they were surrounded by trailer parks on three sides; that a standard R-3 map was submitted - however, the staff indiceted more circulation was needed with the stub street to the westy peripheral alleys, and a standard street down the center, ; and if a1L these were designed into this subdivision, and still provide standard lot widths4 three lots would be lost - or a total of $45,000; and that complying with Code requirements would be economically unfeasible. ~' ,,,,~- e.g,.~ :.1 1" 'N'~ t .~, 1'~ r ~,;; S ,I"~ / + , `4 " C '" ':: n !'Sa I : ~ '~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAI VARIAN(~ NO o •1A26 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0~ 4230, ~ ~~ a~ 1NING OOIAFIISSION, December 4~ 1967 3668 : ry~.. -•The Commicaion chairman noted:that~•a11-R=3 development was required to provide adequate circulation and recreation areas ahd the amount of land proposed for this circulation was small in comparison to the 10-acre parcel proposed for development. REVISION NOo 7 ~~(Continued Further discussion was then held between the Co~mnission and the agent for the petitioner regarding circulation, compliance with R-3 require- ments, and the percentage of coveragee , The agent then inquired of the Commission what they would suggest should be done with the " pxoperty to develop it so that it would be economically feas.',.ble; whereupon the Commission j~... :~~•:~. advised Mre Edelson that they were not opposed to R-3 development~ but it was up to the ~?~~~',.~,,' petitioner to solve this problem as to economics since this was not within the 3urisdiction :~~~ of the Commission, and that if any change in plans was proposed, consideration should be ~' 1~~ given to a maximum of 55~ coverage, and the size of the lot was less than that required for the R-2 Zo~e, wheiein 2400 square feet was required for each apartment. Mr. Thompson noted that the difference between the R-2 and the R-3 was 45~ coverage for R-2 and 55~ for R-3 on a lot 7200 square feete Mr, Edelson noted they could have developed the propexty with six units, but were i.nteresi:ed in fourplexes, with the possibility of having lot.sp3it's. The Commission noted that six units could not be built.on a 66 by 113-foot lot since eig!nt 9arages or carports would be required, and 7200 square feet was somewhat limited - even though the minimum requirement~. Chairman Camp noted that he was not opposed to a lot split; however, if this were to happen- then the development should be in accordance with the R-2 Zone. Mre Edelson noted that they were desirous of providing duplexes, and he had planned to supply the better feature~ of the requirements of a condominiumf however, duplexes would afford the small home investor with his own home~ as well as a small unit for income purposes, and this might be a new concept for development of narrow, deep lots in the City of Anaheime ~ ' The Commission noted that,the proposed type of development had been discussed by the Commission since other cities had similar types of development; however' this was accom- plished through a special zoning action. Mr. Edelson then noted this would require them to ~tay within the limits of the R-3 Zoneo The Commission then noted that the petitioner could use standard R-3 lots and apply the theory of lot split so that adequate open space could be afforded each duplex since the concept proposed would offer an alternative to regular R-3 subdivision development. by retaining the required setbacke of the zone. Mra Edelson then advised the Commission that they could submit revised subdivision maps which incorporated the 70-foot lots and the 55% coverage. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that one waiver had not been discussed, and that was the one-story height limitation along the westerly boundary. Mro Thompson advised the Commission that if revised plans were submitted, they should be in the department by Friday,noon, December 8, 1967. Mrse Beth Lancaster, 235 South Beach Boulevard, owner of the mobile home park to the south and east.of sub3ect property, appeared in~opposition, requesting clarification of t'r,e proposed drainage on subject property since she had 21 trailer spaces ad~acent to subject property; that she had sold a dra.inage easement four years ago to Mre Abandan~"o, former owner of subject property, and she could not understand why the drainage ease~nent had not been taken care of at the time the easement was obtained; that the easement sold was for underground drainage, and the trailer spaces now had landscaping over this easement - therefore, great care xould have to be exercised when construction of the drainage facility atarted;•end~that she was opposed to a substandard lot of 32 feei: as being proposed under the variance. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that Mr. Abandad~o had acquired the drainage easement at the time the original tract map had been submitted for consideration, and the City`s intent at that time was to requixe drainage by discharge into the Flood Control channel south of the Lancaster property; that Mr. AbandanQ6 was required to provide , this drainage easement - however, ihe City was not desirous of acquiring the easement until a map was rec~rded; and that the original Tract No. 4230 was filed approximately four to five years ago. h: . ,. ~~Y.+~r`Erya'cr r F ;.: ',~.ir ( acst, . -..~ .'f6 , '~?• Y J ~ ~ r f 'd ~~1~~~111 C ,. m'~r,'~ s~ ~i ( L ~ { [• ~.~~_.__-__ I ~ L 1 ~ . .. . JJJ .. . .. ... . . j ~ ~ ~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONWIISSION, December 4~ 1967 3669 ~ ~ VARIANCE N0~ 1926 - The Commission requested thet Deputy City`Attorney Furman Ro:oerts ~ meet vrith the present owner af the easement and grantory Mrs. Lances€er, I . TENTATIVE N~AP OF to ciear up any problems regarding the easement prior to thr: next qablic ~ ?^ TRACT N0~ 4230n hearinge REVISION NO : 7 ( (Continued) Mr, Roberts. then asked that the docwnents involved~ be submitted to him £or perueai prior to meeting with the :nterested pa~tiese ~ ~ - lilrso Ae We Pfeiis 3064 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, ; . t steting her property was contiguous to subJect property to the west and inquired whether i ' ~,;~. or not two-story would be approved on her property if eubject~petition were approved, ;iy: '~~,,_ g.ranting waiver of the one-story height limitation,sinae they'wou3d be penalized by requir- '~~, f; ~ ing single~-story while sub~ect property could d~velop with two-story. Furthermore, there ~ was no intent to develop their property for trailer park purposes as t~e agent had indicated . ~ ` t i The Gommission advised Mrs. Pfeil that they would be.required only to maintain one-story with3n 150 feet of the R-1 to the west, while subject property was nowhere near R-1, but ad3acent to undeveloped R-A property, and the Pfeii property would be required only to have one tier of lots maintained at one-story, and the balance could be developed for two-story~ however, if the Pfeil property were developed for R-1, sub~ect property would have to comply with the one-story requi:emente ~ Mrse Pfeil noted that subject property had been under eonsideration for almost five years, and each time a public hearing had been held, she'hed•been in attendance; that she had talked with Mr> Frye regarding future development several months ago since she and her husband were planning to put their property up for sal•e; and that she was desirous of requiring the stub street to provide alternative circulation.for their property as well as subject pxopertyy which would take caze of the many.children living in the tract •- to keep them off Lincoln Avenue while they were going to schoolo Commissioner F2erbst was of the opinion that land assembly of sub3ect property and the °feil property would previde for a better development`than if two narrow parcels developed individuallye Mrse Pfeii again expressed hez desire to haye some considerat3on given to them regarding the height lim3tatione Tne Commission noted that Code requirements only atipulated maintenance of one•-btory u~ithin i50 feet of residential zonesg howeverg the R-A Zone, where vacant, was only an interim zone ~ therefoxe~ one-story waiver was usualiy a form3'lity, but this was not so where ad~acent to R••19 and the Commission had always maintained one-story height for 150 feet ad3acent to R-1; snd that the Pfeil property had a dffferent problem than sub3ect property in that they were ad~aceni to single-fam.ily homese Mre Edeison, in rebuttaZ, noted that not only were they the lenders, but builders, of the proposed development, and loans made would have to be lived with approximately 30 years - therefore, they had to be very careful of what should be developed on subject propertya M:so Lancaster inquired why such a heavy density was proposed since this wovld bring considerably more children :nto the area, and the trailer park would be sub~ected to children climbing over the fencee Mro AD W, Pfeil appeared before the Commission and stated he concurred with the statements made by his wife in that he felt they should not be penalized in the development of their property, and wanted some assurance that if the height.limitation were granted subject property, they would be afforded the same waivere Furthermore, the petitioner proposed a 269~foot depth for commercial property, which was not in conformance with the depth of other commercial development in the area, and it should be at least 250 feet since this might create 3 problem if the ?feil property were developed with a deeper commercial lot than sub~ect property was proposed. The Commission assured Mre Pfeil that there would be no problem~ Commissiones F!erbst offered a motion to continue Petitions for Variance Nose 1926 and 1925, together with Tentative Maps of Tract No. 42309 Revision Noo 7 and Revision No„ 8, to the meeting of December 189 1967, to aliow time £or the submission of revised tracts incor- porating widex lots and setbacks~ Commissioner Farano seconded the motiona MOTION GARRIEDe Mra Edelson sti.pulated to the continuance of subject tractse _ .~~, . . ,.. ,:, .. : --- ,. . , : _ . `. __ -" _ . . ,,, . "'x~..;__ 5 ~: ~ - . . ...~..ti ~, . .. , , .. , • ~~ ~~~~,~~~~,~~~~ ;• ~ r ='.~"%' ~_,. ~; ' ;;,; ~"+'~ a .~-s~;y.,, ~ s~ ~~ .rrs~ ~ p,•.~;x~«"x ~c3~ 5 ::; r r ~ • :r . r:. : ,, . ~ 1 ~ ~ AI.LNUTES, CITY PLANNING 4:OAIMISSION, December 4, 1967~ ~ l~ 3670 VARIANCE NOe 1929 - PUBLIC F~ARING. KIMES h10TELS, INODRPORAT£D, 1544 South Harbor Boulevardy Anaheim, California, Owner; AD ART, INCORPORAIED, 14365 Firesto~e Boulevard, La Mirada, California, Agent; requesting permission to• INSTAI.L A FREE~STANDING SZGN9 WII'H WAIVERS OF (1) PERbIITfED NUALBER OF SIGNS, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIINEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ AND..(3) 1ACATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property detcribed ass A rectangularly shaped paxcel of .land having a frontage of appraximately 170 fEet ca the east side of Harbor Boulevard.and a maximum depth of approxi- mately 601 feet, the southerly boundary of sub3ect property.being approximately 878 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Wayy and further described as 1544 South Harbor Boulevarde ProperCy presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURALg ZANE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub3ect petition, the I.ocation of the propesty, uses established in close proximity, and further noted tha~ the petitioner was requesting ~an additional sign within 300 feet of another sign, said sign.now being noaconforming on the property; that the petitioner was proposing to.locate t~e "EeStlWestern'?~six~niwia~hin 60 fee't of the south property line; and that if the smaller.sign were incorporated within the main rign, there would be no need for the variance request. Fuxtk~ermore, the Commission might he desirous of discussing relocation of the Bect Western.sSgn with the petitionere Mro William Owen, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ' and stated that in addition to the proposed sign, the petitionQS had spent approximately $250,000 to remodel the motel facility e~hithiie located across tha street from Disneyland, an excellent location; that the proposed sign would revolve very slowly; that the proposed sign would be an attempt to start an improvement of the sign problem along Harbor Boulevard; that the motel motif was Middle Eastern and was alao carried out in the sign - therefore, it was impossible to incorporate the Best Western sign into the proposed new sign because it was esthetically impossiblee ; Commissioner Farano inquired as to +.i-e reader board, noting that he felt a~changeable message would be too distractir~g to the motorist; whereupon Mr. Owen replied that this changeable copy would be done manually and would not be changing as the motorist passed by. Mre Owen then noted that by erecting the propased sign the present cluttered look would be removed, with all tacked-on signs being incorporated into the reader boarde Commissioner Gauer noted thst because of the number of, and decign of signs, the entire Harbor Boulevard area was too cluttered to distinguich one sign from another, and something should be done to give proper identification to all properties without requeating and approv- ing s.ign variances at greater heights than the Sign Ordinance permitted. '# ~ ' Mr., Owen ad~ised the Commissian that the reason they were requesting the 50-foot sign was ~ to beam the si n to d th { g war e Santa Ana Freeway, and they Nould attempt to relocate the Best Western aign to the base of th ' e pylon. Furthermore, the AAA eign would be incorporated as part of the reader board; therefore, only two signs would be on cub3ect t ,~ ~` proper ys the proposed pylon sign with reader board and the Hest Western sign. However in order t ~ , o merit the Best Western sign, it must be separate.:from the regular sign, and he ivould~.at~tempt to work thi t s ou later. Mre Owen also noted that if the pylon sign were approved, there would be other motels coming in with a more integrated si n d th t g , an a maybe the cluttered appearance would be cleared up. ' Mr. Kenneth Kimes, the petitioner, appeared before the Cqmmission and noted they were desirous of retaining the Be t Yl r s eFtern sign since they would derive a good portion of their income from referralss however, the Best Western people~did not ermit a ll i p sma er s gn, and there was always the chance the franchise would be taken away - therefore it would not b ti. , e a good idea to have it a part of the permanent sign. t° ~ ~ Chairman Camp noted that the Anaheim Municipal Code did not permit the proposed sign, and perhaps if the Best We t ~ s ern people were aware of the sign requirements within the City of Anaheim, they might be able to compromise in order that th i t,r,,. .^:r.; e r motels could be better represented with an integrated sign. . . ~ ~ Zoning Supervisor itonald Thompson noted that the Best Western sign was 12A square feet while the"Mecca" s'i n on which th G i i ~` ~ g ., e omm ss on suggested this sign be placed on one side, was only 82e5 ~quare feet. .'~ ~',Y. . ; Mre Kimes noted that he had taken down e number of aigns that were there when he purchased the mot l r ' e property, and theti many aketChe~ had boYn submitted to the staff, with the proposed sign before the Commission boinq Conaidorld tho bo~t. The Commiasion notod that th6 9aet We6~Qrn sign would be on in~u~tiCe to the proposed new sign if retain~d. i 3~ i _ ;~,..~~_ _ - -~~~ ~' ,~ v,,.siJ'r; vrrts4~nx:3~! E' .`."~'~s,.-G f':<, r '~.2'tti3' /% . ..,:, S t s• 1 f * ir -b ?/ ~ . ~ ~, .. t 3 ~}aJ . ~e '_. ~' ' __.. ~'r Sr .. fi~ ~ iJ f,~ . .. MINUTES, CITY PLAtaTING COMMISSION~ December 4; ~196? 3671 ~::, ; VARIANCE'NOe 1929 - Mre Owen rioted that he had'madR an,attempt to incorporate ttie Best (Continued) Western sign into the new sign', butn'this-wac not feasible since they ~" . • could not reduce the size of the siyn becauce of an agreement. ~~<, ` ... T The Commission was of the opinion that•the sign problem on Harbor Boulevard, should be i~,;=;; improved; however, they did not like to have varioua adverticers dictate how the c;;ity's %' Sign Ordinance should be enforced and inquired whether or not the petitioner had discussed r' ~` thi.s sign with the Best Western people to acquaint them with the.requirements of the City -- of Anaheimy and suggested that perhaps if the various advertisers at the motels could meet ,", . ``' with the staff for an interpretation of the City's Sign Ordinance, the sign jungle could be improved in some way> :,;,~ ~^~`;'';~'~ ' NLr, Kimes advised the Commission that he had not presented the problem as depicted by the ~~' *_; ~ommission to the Best Western peoplee ~-i No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. ~' ~' THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Discussion was then held by the Commission as to the requested waivers, noting that the Best Western sign could be relocated to the base of the pylon, thus'centra:izing all signs on this propertye Furthermore, the staff should direct a letter to the Best Western peopie in behalf of the Commission,:inviting them to contact the staff regarding the City`s Sign Ordinance as it applied to their standard signse ' Mro Mickelson noted that the new pylon sign itself did~not rcquire ~ommission action, but because the petitioner was desirous of retaining the Best Western sign, this made the variance necessary. Mro Kimes noted that if the Comm:ssion approved the new sign and retained the Best Western sign as a nonconforming sign, there was a possibility~that the franchise could be lost for the Best Western sign in the next few years. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No> PC67-260 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1929, sub~ect to the relocation of the Best Western sign to the base of the new pylon sign, and other conditionse (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing recolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs ~MMISSIONERS: Allred~ Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. .ABSENTs QDNN4ISSIONERS: Rowland> VARIANCE NOe 1930 - PUBLIC I-~ARYi1G. JOHN AND RUTH MEYERS, 595 Dunnegan Place, Laguna Beach, California~ Owner; BARNEY JACKSON~ 505 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, A9ent; requesting permission to INSTALL A FREE-STANDING SIGN WITH WAIVER OF LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximate?y 190`feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 240 feQt, the wecterly boundary of subject property being approximately 260 feet east oi t:e cent~rline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 505 West Katella Avenuee Prop~r~y pres~ntly classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, notin9 that thQ petitioner was proposing a new "Travelodge" sign within three feet of the eaat property line, which~was adjacent to a drive- way approach to the parking facilities for both the motel and the restaurant to the west, and that the petitioner had indicated that if the sign Nere locat~d in the area prescribed by the Sign Ordinance, the support members would be located in the middle of the entry drive- way of the'motel; therefore, the proposed location would not be obstructin9 free traffic movement 3nto and out of subject property. Mre Barney Jackson, agent for the petitioner~ advised the Commission that Travelodge had taken over the Viking Motel and were ~renovating, it and requesting permission to erect their standard Travelodge sign. No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ; ~ ~ . 3 __~- a' e.., ,. ~. ~: ~' it ~ ~r4 ~ ~~ ' ~~; ~ _ i.r~ . . t.. .,. . ~ :.s ~ ~~~.,i '~p ~.a t'~'._ ~.nn r,.nrt y-w ,~~ { r.~ ~. ~ :.r'c ~,- ~i r- .. ~':i ~it t t `(' 0 . ~ :blINU2ES, CITY-PLANNING COiDiISSION~ December 4, 1967 ~ . ~..c ~+`TC"'~r c~ ~ 3672 , ~ VP~2IANCE-NO. 1930 - Commissioner.Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC67-261 and moved for its (Continued) pa:sage and adoption, seconded by;.Coimnissioner Mungall, to grant '~~` Petition for Variance No, 1930, s~bj.ect to conditions. (See Resolution !`'!'.'' . Book ) i.';.. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , AYES: ODMMISSIONERS:. Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Roxlando : ~ '~ • RECLASSIFZCATION - PUBLIC I~ARINGe INITIATED BY THE CIIY COUNCIL';~ 204 East Lincoln Avenue, ~ NOe 67-68-34 Anaheim, California. PROPERTY.OWNERSs WILLIAM GREBEL, 327 South Clementine Street; ALHERT KLUTI~~ 821 South State College Boulevard; ~ ~ GILSERT KLUTf~, 831 South State College Boulevards A. F. BARKER, 685 Soutti Carondelet Street, Los Angeles; EDWARD ESCALLE, 17?21.East 17th Street, Santa ~~"~, - Ana; EARL WRIGHI'~ 309 OceanvSfew.: Avenue, Encinitas; proposing that DEED RESTRICTIONS BE DELETED WHICH LIMITED T1~ USES OF SUBJECf PROPERTIES TO CERTAIN SPECTFIED USES I'0 PERMIT T1~ FULL RANGE OF C-1, GENERAL COA~uIERCIAL, ZONE USES.on property•described as: An irregularly ~ shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner~of:Staie°.CoTlege Boulevard and Morava Avenue and having frontages of approximately 620 feet.on State College Boulevard and approxi- mately 170 feet on Morava Avenue. Property presentlyLoiassified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (restricted)e Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the proposal of the City Council, which was initiated at their meeting on October 31, 1967, based~:on the:fact that numerous requests had been received, and some approved, for deletion or addition of certain permitted uses under Reclassification Noe 89-60-94, and that because of the fact that commercial trends had been established along State College Boulevard to•the;;north of sub3ect property, the proposed deletion would be compatible - however, the reclassification fees were paid by - the property owners involved. ;,i F `~~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. -:r; ~~ a~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ,~ ZGning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission•questioning regarding the s limitations established on subject property, indicated that.the ma.3ority were those uses permitted in the business and professional category, and that special site development : atandards had been written into the ordinance - however, fheae were now covered by the •'• -•~ site development standardc in the C-1 2one. '-i~ ' Giscussion was held by the Commission relative to Condition;Nos. 1 and 2 being complied _ ~ with within 180 days - it being determined this would be impractical, and after completion of the`discussion it was determined that since subject property already was zoned C-1, the conditions should be tied into final building inspection. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-262 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ,~ fication No. 67-68-34 be approved, subject to conditions, and the amendment of Condition ~x No. 5 to.require completion prior to final building and,:zoning inspections.. (See Resolution ' '' Book) i_ ,.. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes ~ E ~~ AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. k:;:; NOES: CObWIISSIONERS: None. ~` ~~<, ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. c.. ~ TEMPORARY RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ~, i ten minutes. Commissioner Allred seconded the motione MOTION ;;-,. _,:. ~ :;;; CARRIEDe The meeting recessed at 3:57. P.M. s~;: - ~ ~ RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:10 PeMe, all Commissioners `•` : ` with the exception of Commissioner Rowland being present. s , *.+ .f':.: 4,~`~' ;b;: r "'r h~..;r i xaF..,-~ .~ L y. ..i? ~'~F~a ,t ;, x. i ~ +. "a ~ ~ .- a. ~ ::~ i . aL ~ '',. '_._~_. 5 .. .._ ~ , ~ ~ ~rJ MINUTES~ CITY•PLANNING COWrIISSION, December 4~ 1967 3673 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE ANAFIEIAL CITY ODUNCIL, 204 East NOo_67~-68-35 Lincoln Avgnue~ Anaheimy.CaliforniE.~ ~'a~.i~t~'~',~tY. BAPTIST CHURGH~ ~~ 1906 East South Street~ pnaheim~ f.,'~?.~~'~x,~-;5,~~. Oktner; ANN bIADISON, :.. 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anah~;a~R,y ;~~e; ~,i~~.i~~,y Agent; proposing Y that property described as: A rectangularly shaped ~~Cr;, r,~¢ 1~r„~ nsving a frontage of ;~ ~~;;?-: approximately 112 feet on the south side of South 54_?~~:r3: ~,a <: ~~,~;;;t:tc~ depth of approxi- mately 159 feet, the easterly boundary of sub3ect pr~s,~;t~k~e e~.i~;~ ~p~;~~~yximately 265 feet _ west of the centerline of State College Boulevard, a~w~ ~,s,~~c~ :i:~~cri~;ed as 1906 East South Streeta be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURtii., ~~fik~ to the C-1, GENEPAL COMMERCIAL~ ZANE, :=.[:.; '" Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subjeat property, noting that ~ .,`'' the proposed C-1 Zone was initiated by the City Council in conjunction with the properties ; along State College Boulevard; that the use of the property had been for a church and day school, and it was now proposed to permit the full range of C-1 uses. The land uses to ~~~- the north, riest, and south, as well as to the east, were also reviewele ~~. ~~'' -~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the four lots fronting on the north side of South Street were reviewed by the Commission in their Front-On Study as being potential for commercial re-usee ~ Mrso Ann Madison' representing the property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the church was in favor of the proposal of the Council to rezone sub3ect property to the C-1 uses since this was more appropriate than a school; however, they were desirous of maintaining the uses established under Conditional Use Permit Noso753 and 693 until their expiration in June and September, 19664 that there waP :~ nossibility a motel might be built on the property, oP an extension of the restaurant~ and that the church was desirous of seein9 the proper±y reclassified since the original church had ~~ now relocated, and the Council had de ,:i! continued use of the property for school purposes `'+ after June, 1968, Mro Thompson noted that the conditional use permits would still be in effect until they ~ exp`-redy even if a new zone were established, and the property owners would have to comply with all conditions of the resolution of intent before an ordinance would be read to ~e- ~} classify the property to •the C-1 Zone, and that if it was their intent to use the existing ~ structure for commercial uses, there were certain site development standards written in " the Code to provide for thiso S [~ , Mrso Madison advised the Commission that the church did have platts For the property and ~;~;;,;,;.;; wanted to develop as soon as possibleo Mro Roy Nleglandy. representing the pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church, appeared before the Comtnission and stated the reasan the church was conforming with the recommendations of the City Council was the fact that they were in the process of building a new church on Wagner Avenue, and when it was completed, there would be•no longer any need fos the present church for church services; that at the public hearing of the Commission several meetings ago, discussion was held regarding the commercial potential for,.the properties on the north side of South Street, immediately opposite the church property, and the C-1 proposal was doing the church a favor in that additional revenue could be obtained by developing the property for commercial purposeso Mrso Robert Mathison, 1915 East South Street, appeared befiore the Commission and stated she was one of the owners of the four homes on the north side of South Street; that.they were single,-fartiilyi~esidences with'four.ctsildren in a't least two of ~he homes; that she was aware the church wes attempting to dispose of the property and she was not opposed to C-1 zoning, but ~vas concerned a,s to the type of commercial use for the propertys and that since there ~vere two convenience markets a:rearjy in the area within onQ block9 which did not improve the neighborhood since they provided a hangout for teenage children, this was one of her basic concerns> Mrsa Mathison also noted she had discussed the variety of uses with the staff in expressing her concerne ~` Commissioner Farano indicated that there were 36 uses permitted in the C-1 Zone; whereupon ~^ Mrse Mathison stated that no control could be exercised as to the type of development, and ~ since it was their intent to reside in their homes for a number of years, they were con- ' cerned undesirable commercial uses would affect the residential environment of their homes, ;,,> _ and some consideration should be given to them by the City. ~;':: ` ; ,;: .. . Mrso Mathison further noted that the church and the school presently existing on sub~ect property were good uses for the area since they were operating during the same hours as other schools, and there was no unueual noise or change in traffic pattern, and that there --*~ were no evening uaea~ however, ahe was concerned that commercial uses might have all hours :~e.; of operatian, with a h~avi~r concentr~tion of traffio for th~ ~r~a. .• ~ :',``i , ~ , . ~ ~ . . . ; ~ _ . .. , . . , ~~._ ~... ,,, -.. , , _, ~. ~. r~- ~. ~ ~. ~. , .~~,..~ .~ rc~ 5 , ;,~ N`' Q , , ,_„ ~w. . . .A . , , . ~.. , ~. . , , . _ ~'~ ;~~ ;3 yj'~ ~;~~ [+`x"~ r.4i;: ~ql~ 7 xs, 1, '~ `~~~ ~' .. . ~ ~! c.. 4 Y^ #.' . F . ~ ~~ :,. '~.~~I . ~ . ... ~ ...- ~ .. bIZNUTES, CITY PLANNING OOb9NISSIONg December 4y 1967 3674 REGLASSIFICqTION - Mrbe Madison noted that she could not assure the property owners in N0~¢,~_C~8~39y~ the area that a convenience market would not;be.located there;.however, good _ (Gontinued) business logic would not warrant another convenience market within - a block of the existing markets, and it seemed that others than the property owners had more control as to the types of uses for sub,ject property.since the parcel was larger than the average R-1 lot, and the properties along State College Boulevard were already permitted C~1 with regular G1 usese Mro Wegland,; again appeared and said the church was not planning an undesirable facility which would encourage yaung people to frequent the place; however, he was unable to reveal at this.time what was proposed for the property, but it would be complimentary to the area, and the traffic involved would be only for morning and evening hours, and he felt the plans ,,y~ might be available in time for the Council to consider themo ~~ " Discussion was held by the Commission relative to deferring any consideration of sub3ect ~~ petition until the petitioner was able to submit plans to the Commission; whereupon bir, Wegland.: noted that the City Council had stat~d that if the reclassification fee was ~,> paid by the property owner$, the property owners would receive the benefit of the City k; Council action, and it seemed advisable to go along with the recommendation since the ~; oxfginal proposal for a Christian day school was not approved by the Council - the reclassi- _ £ication to commercial uses would be offering some financial relief for the church in.taking ~ care of their new church facilitye Mre Wegl~and,. in response to questioning by Assistant Development Services Director Robert ~ Mickelsony ztated he was not sure the proposed use would be within the limits of the C-1 ' Zone since he had not read the C-1 ordinance. ~. . ,~ Mrso Mathison then said she would •object. ta blanket approval of G1 uses since there :; wauid be no recourse by the property owners in the area to an undesirable use ad~acent ~ a; _ , to residentiale The Commission was of the opinion that six homes would be basically affected by a blanket C~1 use for sub,~ect property:~ four homes on the north side of the street and two homes immediately adjacent to sub~ect property to the west, and if commercial uses were approved without some form of restrictions, this would affect the residentiai integrity of these homes9 since these single-family residences had expended their money in maintaining their homee and had expressed desire to reside in them for an indefinite time - therefore, some prote~tion should be given these property ownerse THE HEq~,INCs WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Petition for Reclassification Noe 67-68-35, seconded by Cemmissioner Allred, on the basis that unrestricted C-1 uses for sub~ect property would have a:deleterious effect on the residential integrity of the area since the property owners on the north side of the street had indicated their desire to retain their properties for reaidential purposes. On roll call the foregoing motion was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Farano indicat- ing he would like to have the Minutes show that the City Council ~ake::whatever action they could to preserve the right of the church in not having to pay another fee for reclassi- fication proceedings, and that the denial was not based on disapproval of commercial uses except for the specific uses since the ::-1 Zone did permit heavier uses that were incompati- ble with the residential uses to the n.r,rth and west. After further discussion relative to the denial, and the possibility of continuing subJect petition for ninety days to allow time for the submission of development plans for the propertyg Commissioner Farano offered a motion to rescind the previous motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and reopen the hearing and continue Reclassificatfon No. 67-68-35 to the meeting of February 26, 1968, directing the staff to notify all property owners in the immediate area that subject petition would be considered at that time, and directed the property owners of sub3ect property to submit development plans prior to the public hearing. On roll call all Commissions voted "aye" on the foregoing motion. ,;~ , U c ; ~,' ,' ' ;,. S 4*~k } ? ! ... ..~, w.7' ~.. .k , r.n , t~ . .. ~ . . . '•~. . , ~ b .. 1 5 ,- .:."f Y ~~ql,. .~ , ~ ~ • ! ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4, 1967 3675 RECLASSI~ICATION - PUBLIC F+FARING. EUGENE METZ, 1800 West Gramercy Avenue, Noe 11, NOo 67-68-36 Anaheim, California, Owner; DAVID NAOK, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite C9 9naheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontaoe of approximately 130 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and having a max:mum depth of approximately 270 feet9 the southerly boundary of subject property beir.g approximately :~7U feet north of the centerl±ne of Woodley Avenue, and further described as 401 No~:th Brookhurst Street9 be reclassified from the R-A9 AGRICULTURALr ZONE to the C-ls GENERAL OOMMERCIAi.9 ZONE9 to permit the developmeni: of a commercial office complex, similar in design to the structure immediately ad~acent to the north< Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub3ect petitionr the location of the property and uses established in close proximityy noting that the petitioner proposed to have mutual access through a 25-foot drive to the north; that the agent'for the petitioner indicated he would be owning subject property since he already owned that to the north, which was devel- oped for a commercial office comF?.ex; and that if sub~ect property would not ;~e under the same ownership as the property to the north, it would be necessary to have a;nutual parking easement recorded with the County to Orange to assure continuous access to sub~ect property. Mre David Hook, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was interested in acquiring sub3ect property since he already owned the property to the north, and the proposed development would round out plans for office buildings in this area, and that he was available to answer questionse Mro Hook, in response to Commission questioning relative to the setback of the proposed structure being considerably further toward the street than the buildings to the south, stated that from an esthetic standpoint, they were interested in controlling the environ- ment of the area by setting it back the proposed distance, which wouid eliminate any out- side influences that it was their desire to have more landscape instead of a sea of asphalt - therefore, they were proposing their parking to the rear of the property ad3acent to the golf course; that the animal hospital was located 65 feet from the street - however, his clients would not care to have a view of the street, and since the animal hospital was a service facility, the existin9 sign was adequate to advertise to prospective clients d:iving on the street, for identification of the facility; and that he was offering a controlled environment with a softened appearance to the ex3sting building for the commercial facility he was proposinge Also, most of the adjoining commercial facility was set back 30 feet from the property line.f furthermore, many people preferred to park as soon as they left the street, so some parkin9 could be provided in the front setback as well as to the rear. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that if they wanted uniform setbacks, they must go in accor.dance with the ordinance which required a minimum 10-foot setback, Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not a problem would occur if the petitioner was required to set back an additional 5 feet or so; whereupon, Mre Hook replied it would completely destroy the parking proposed for the rear lot since the City was very strict regardin9 parking requirements - howevez, he was heartily in favor of the restrictions as set :orth by the commercial zone for parking purposes. Commissioner Allred expressed the personal feeling that all parking should be to the rear of a commercial structure and landscaping in the front; whereupon Mr, Roberts stated that the C-1 Ordinance would have to be specific regarding the desires of the Commissione The Commission further noted that property to the north was classified C-1, and the animal hospital to the south was classified C-1 - therefore, the request for G1 Use was appropriate, , and site development standards of the zone required a minimum of 10 feet, and nothing could be done regarding requiring the setback as was established to the southe Dre Charles Hendricks, present owner of the animal hospital, appeared in opposition, stating that he was opposed to any reclassification of subject property if no restrictions were ' established for the setback of the building since a 10-foot building setback would completely hide his-facility from view of traffic passing southerly along Brookhurst Street and would result-in a financial loss to him since a certain percentage of his business was derived from people noting the location of the hospital as they were driving down the street; that a 10-foot building setback x~ould create a traffic hazard with people driving down the street trying to find the entra~nce to the parking area for the hospital; that the petitioner was attempting to create his own atmosphere by tearing down the appearance of the hospital; that the hospital was built while under the jurisdiction of the County, and they wese forced to set back 65 feet due to existing residences in the area, and the present commercial zone permitted a lesser setback than was established on the property to the south; that when zoning was established on the property northerly of subject property, it was agreed that the setback would be 50 to b0 iee•t, and a similar arrangement could be made for sub~ect • ~ ~ ~ " MINUfE55 G~TY PLANNING ~MMISSION, December 4, 1967 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - property; that deed restrictions in the sales contract he had with NO.. 67-68-36 Dr, Metz indicated ihat if subsequent development of sub3ect property (Continued) r occurred, the setback established in the area would be adhered toe him ai the time he pDrchasedrthespropertyaandhnotedathentthatiheSiaad contactedeMrn~Hook~ regarding this restriction and had been informed by Mr, t!ook that he was not interested in the :estriction as stipulated; however' he felt the Commission should coasider requir~ ing a minimum 50-foot setback since the precedent had been established for setbacks in the area, Commissioner Mungall left the Council Chamber at 4:57 PeMo ~ Mro :~ohn Mazepa9 331 North Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition ~ and stated his motel was Iocated at the corner adjacent to the animal hospital, and if the minimum 10-foot setback were allowed, this would be granting something the hospital and the motel were not given at the time they developed their properties, since they were required to set back a minimum of 50 feete Dr, Hendricks further stated tnat Dre Metz had a simiZar restriction when he sold his property for the motel, as well as the propexty now deveioped for a cortunercial office buildinge Mre Hook, the agent, ~tated that in the preZiminary title report the insurance policy did not indicate that this restriction existed; however, hu felt that it had not been recorded, and if this problem did exist, they would have to resolve it at a later date. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised that when the owners had sold the property to Dr. Hendricks, he had agreed to file these restrictions, and this covenant would run with the use of the land. Commissioner Mungall returned to the Council Chamber at 5:04 P.M. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission, Mr. Roberts, the staff, and Mre Hook regarding the deed restrictions relative to setback, and at its:conclusion, the Commission was of the opinien this was a private matter, and action should not be taken by the Commission ' but should be settled between Dra h1etz and Dr, hendricks. Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the Commission could require setbacks other than were established in the C-1 Zone; whereupon Mr, Roberts advised Mr, Farano that the theory of zoning re9ulations required that its implem..ntation should be uniform for all properties 1 being classified to a specific zone< After further discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that since the City had established an ordinance with specific site development standards requiring specific setbacks, any private setback agreement would have to be resolved by parties concernede Tf~ HEARING WAS CIASEDe Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC67-263 ar.d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication Nod 67-68~-36 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ' On roZl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allreds Gauer, Herbst, Mun3all, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.' ABSENT: COMMZSSIONERS: Rowlande Commissioner Farano, in voting "no"' stated he was not opposed to G1 zoning, but wanted further clarification of what to do relative to the establishment of the setbacks other than required in the G1 Zone since the precedent had been established with a minimum 50-foot setback for tne properties to the south. "~'q, ~a °~" -~.,f+5+~ rY ~ ~ ~'.'~,~'~~r /c~ ~ ~ .. ~ .' 'J. ~ . ~ 6.~. R'! " 'n'!y,, ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, December 4, 1967 3677 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo MAURICE HARTMAN, ET AL, 2406 Ivy Place, Fullerton, NO,._67-68•-39 _ California, Owner; ANN MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard9 Anaheim, California9 Agent; property described as: Portion 1- An irregularly VARIANCE NOe 1927 shaped parcel of land having a frontage_of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet9 and extending southerly to Berry Avenue, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 284 feet east of the centexline of Palm Streety and Portion 2- An irregularly shaoed parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 145 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a maximum depth af approximately 210 feet and extending southerly to Berry Avenue, the westerly boundexy of sub3ect property being approximately 138 feet east of the centerline of Palm Streete Property presently classified R-19 ONE- FAMILY RESIDENTIALi ZONEo• REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, CAMMERCIAL-0FFICE, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: ESTABLISH A DEP]TAL CLINIC, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED LANDSCkPING AND (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ON PORTION 1 ONLY. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the existing zoning, and the proposed use of the property, noting that the property was mainly vacant and noting that the variance request was for the building and structural height limitation on the original plans; however, because revised plans had been submitted by the petitioner, this waiver was no longer necessary, and that the yards and setback waiver pertained to a 3-foot landscape strip repuired adjacent to Berry Avenue, while a 6-foot masonry wall was proposed along that areao Mre Roberts further noted ihat in conjunction with a reclassification to the C-0 Zone in 1964, the City Council approved Area Development Plan Noe 8, Exhibit "B", as being one reasonable and possible method of development of the area in question; said exhibit suggested the extension of the existing alley in such a manner that it woulri ~e continuous from Iris Street on the east to a point westerly of its present terminus, and then returning to Ball . Road - said aZley to provide secondary access since dedication of access rights would be required for all lots fronting on Ball Roade Commissioner Herbst Ieft the Council Chamber at 5:20 PoMe Mro Roberte noted that as a result of a recent reclassification petition of one of the homes in the area developmeni plan area, the Commission had requested that the staff initiate C-O zoning to include all the R-1 homes, including the front portion of subject property9 which woald be the rtaxt item on the agenda9 and that the petitioner was proposing devel.opment for the easterly 100 feet of sub,ject pzoperty at this time for a dental clinic, and tentative plans indicated a medical center on the remainder of the p:operty for future developmente Furthermore, the ailey proposed under the area development plan would be on the easterly boundary of subject property, aligning with the present accessway proposed around the periphery of the properiy9 and that the intent of the plan was not to have a specific location, but an ailey in the general location of the exhibito Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chambex at 5:23 PeMe Mrso Ann Madison9 representing the owner of the property and the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that the extension of the alley as depicted in Area Development Plan Noo 8~ even if relocated, would not be desirable since it would provide circulation for the property •to the east and not the petitioner; furthermore, if this dedication were granted, this would reduce the size of the property to 17,OOOt square feet, while the C-0 Zone required 20,000 square feet as a minimum site size, and that parking facilities would be Iost, as well as the proposed free flow of traffice Mrso Madison continuedy stating that not only was the petitioner required to dedicate and imorove the property, he was being penalized by poor planning of the original developer of the tract, and the cost should be borne by the ad~oining property owner; that her clients had assembled these parcels over a period of years and now were planning to develop it to its highest and best useo A picture of a similar development in Los Angeles was presented - however, i;he one proposed would be one-story, and requested that the Commission consider granting :.ubject petition withoui requiring additional dedication since the proposed devel- opment wo~,ld be a greater asset to the areay with the first phase being proposed at this time for the easterly IOO feet oi the propertye Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the development could be made w~.thout the use of the Bezry Avenue portion since the petitioner was asking for commercial use facing the R-1 home on the south side of Berry Avenue, and noted that the petitioner was asking for moxe than the properties to the east could be granted since they were only backing onto an alley of the R-1; furthermoxe, the developers of the tract had been Tequired to dedicate and ;. develop the ailey, ~ ~,, ,._.: ,,.~ ,; . , _,.- ,_. -- , . . . .. '-.,. ~. ~ , ~- , " - ; -~ ~ ks~ ~ 5 , f ', /" ~5' 1~~.' . .4 . ._ . . . r ': ..,...,. i . . ~~, .l ~ . , . . . . . .. ~::~J ~ - ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNI~TG COMMISSION, Decembez 4y 1967 3678 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrse Madison repZied that if the alley were required, this would NOo 67-68~-39~ greatly reduce ihe size. of the property, thereby,making it unattractive fox commercial office developmento VARIA~CE NO„ 1927 (Continued) Commissioner Farano expressed the_opinion that.a masonry wall did not solve the problem of commercial uses ad3acent to R-le Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson noted that those properties fronting along Ball Road covered by C-0 zoning did not normally require a wall because they were projected to be similarly zoned on.the General Plan; however, the G-0 Zone did require a separation with an alley unless the property was surrounded by a public street, and that access needed to Bail Road would not permit indiscriminate curb cuts along said street - therefore, the properties to the east had to provide their parking to the rear of the properties and utilize the alley for said parking entranceo Further, that the alley originally proposed would bisect subject property on its return to Ball Road - however, after the staff re4iewed the development plans, it was decided that the exact location of the slley was not feasible, and the proposed relocation on the easterly property line was more appropriatee The Comnission discussed the possibility of requiring the alley to go northerlyy and whethex or not it should be a pubiic alley or a pri.vate accesso Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Comrtcission that with other properties C•-0 zonedy the City would require dedication of vehicular access rights to Ball Road, and this was also asked of sub3ect property except for the a11ey and the westerly 40 feet of the property, which would allow them a drive on their west side. Mrse Madison was of the opinion that subject property could not be classified in the same ~ catego:y as those properties to the east; that the City zoned subject property R-1 - '= howe.__, the setup was not the same, and to disallow access rights wouid work a hardship '"~ on tuc developer if access to Ball Road were not granted~ except for the alleye %;;'~3~; >,;;,3 ; : i;f Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission and the staff regarding the circu- ::~:~ lation pattern and the alley as depicted on the exhibit and as proposed on subject plans9 -~i Mro Thompson noting that in considering Parcels 70 and 71',,they would request access = ``%; therefore, the Traffic Engineer felt that controlled access ehould`be required along the - westerly portion of subject property~ Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that some consideration should be given to reviewing the traffic control problems along many front-on situations, ~` and one of the ma~or concerns of the Traffic Engineer aTlowing curb cuts was it disrupted the traffic flow on a heavily traveled.street if too many curb cuts were permittede Mro Daw noted that Harbor Boulevard permitted certain access points where no dedication had been obtained, since the City could not request dedication where all the properties were planned for residential uses until the property owners determined whether or not they were desirous of havin9 a more intense use for their properties, and at such time, dedication would be required - as weil as dedication of access rights,since they would be required to take their access to the properties from the alleya Cortunissioner Gauer noted that tne proposal was an acceptable one if no ingress on the alley were permitted - this would reduce the amount of use for the alley, and that many public alleys in the city had signs which permitted one-way traffic onlye Mr. Daw noted that alleys so restricted in the City of Anaheim could not provide for two-way traffic because they were not the present minimum width of 20 feet, and the alleys backing on the Harbor Boulevard frontage properties were less than 20 feet, and no addi- tional dedication was obtained. Mrse Madison noted the petitioner was anxious to have ingress to his property without the use of an alley. bAre Daw noted that the only reason for xeserving the_westerly 40 feet was to allow the petitioner to have some leeway in the location of his driveway; however, the maximum width would be-30 feete I'he Commission noted that indiscriminate curb cuts might disrupt the traffic flow on Ball Road, already a heavily traveled street, and since the property to the west would also request access to Ball Road, this might create a traffic hazard where too many curb cuts in a small space were permittede ~..;' --- ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, December 4, 1967 ~" _ °"~ ; `.- ~ f 3679 I RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Madison noted that the petitioner wanted a free flow traffic :NO_ 67-68-39 drive and wanted a buffer between the tenant and the medical center. VARIANCE.NO. 1927_ The Commission then noted that the.petitioner was requesting a comme_cial (Continued) use. but did not want to pay in the ioxm of dedication for the commercial use since a commercially zorted property always netted the property owner a considerably higher price than ;ingle-family zoned property, and there wes no reason to accentuate the problem.of circulatiun> Chairman Camp inquired of Mr..Daw whether or not the Interdepartmental Committee recommended the alley`location as shown on the overlay of the area development plan and the westerly 40 feet, with access rights for,the balance of the lots to Ball Road being given to the Citye Mro Daw replied in the affirmative and stated that from comments made by Mrs. Madison, it was their intent to develop the easterly portion of the property at this time, and because of this statement, the Interdepartmental Committee thought possibly the alley could be extended westerly to the westerly boundary of the first lot. The Commission then inquired how it was possible to develop the easterly lot and provide access to the westerly portion. Mre Michelson noted that the easterly portion would have access through the proposed alley, and the westerly portion through the 40-foot accessway. Chairman Camp then offered the opinion that a better solution to the circulation for subject property could be made, and a delay of two weeks was in order-in order to permit the peti- tioner to meet with the staff and the Traffic Engineer to resolve these problems, and that there was no question that the alley would be required as indicated on the area development plane Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Reclassification No. 67-68-39 and Variance No. 1927 to the meeting of December 18, 1967, in order to allow time for the petitioner and the staff to resolve access problems. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECIASSIFICATION - OpNTINUeD PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TI-lE CII'Y PLANNING ~MMISSION, NOo 67-68 33 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: All that certain property situated on the south side of : ' Ba11 Road,,extending generally from Iris Street westerly.to approxi- mately 128 feet west of the cen•ierline of Palm Street and having a maximum depth of app.roxi- mately 116 feet be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL and R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES to the C-0, COMMERCIAL-OFFICE, ZONE. •<, `' e ~. ;,~, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that since both Reclassification Noa. 67-68-39 and 67-68-33 were dependent upon each other, subject petition should be continued. Mr. Thompson also noted that since the previous petition was proposing to extend to Berry Avenue, that perhaps the Commission would prefer to readvertise Reclassification No. 67-68-33 to include #.he corner lot along Palm Street and Berry Avenue. Mr. George Rose, owning property at Claremont Avenue and Bai1 Road, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether or not the alley would extend through his property since he owned the R-A parcels unaer consideration, and asked if this requirement could be waived. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that the Interdepartmental Committee should discuss this series of lots where they would not develop within 180 days. Mra Rose noted that he had the same problem as the Hartman property, with the alley proposed ' through the center of his property, and if he had a developer who was desirous of developing only one portion, then would he be required to pay for both improvements. Mre Mickelson noted that the petii;ion had been initiated by the Commission, and if other properties that were contiguous to ~the Ball Road properties were desirous of having other zoning, this could be done through submission of reclassificati.on petitions. Mr. Rose also inquirad whether or not the cuxbs and gutters would have to be repaired. Mr. Daw then replied that the curbs and gutters were already existing, and relocation would be at the expense of ~l:a City. : Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue Petition.for Reclassification No. 67-68-33 to the meeting of December 18, 1967, directing the staff to readvertise said petition to ~~ include the remaining parcel along Berry Avenue and Palm Street. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _ _.____...___._....__ _._. . «~,-q~ ~ ~ »..~,3 ~ ..~ :.] ~ ~: ~ MINUTES, CIT'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4, 1967 3680 ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to ad~ourn for dinnere FOR DINNER Commissioner Herbst seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDe The meeting adjourned at 6:05 P.Me RECONVENE - Chaisman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:43 P~Mo, all Commissioners with the exception of Commissioners Mungall and Rowland being presento CONDITIONAL USE •- PllBLIC HEkRING~ ANN He GECKLER, 1928 West Broadway, Anaheimy California, PERMIT NO., 981 Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH.A.TEMPORARY DAY SCEb~OL FOR W~NTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN IN AN EXI8TING RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 72 feet on the south side of Broadway and a maximum depth of approxi.mately 107 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 246 feet east of the center- line of Agate Street' and further described as 1928 West Broadway. Property presently classified R-I, ONE~FAMILY RESIDcNTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that the petitioner was proposing maximum use of the permit for approximately one year, and that there would be no structural changes made to the existing residence. • Commissioner Mungall returned to the Council Chamber at 7:45 P.M. Mrs. Ann Geckler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that there seemed to be a misunderstanding-that she planned to tutor these children and was not proposing to operate a school as such, but was planning to have a maximum of two children at one time for tutoring; that many teachers she knew did not bother applying for a use permit for the type of work she was doing - however, her family had advised her this was necessary in the City of Anaheim; and that the proposed tutoring of these children was not a business proposition but was her attempt to aid mentally retarded children.. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberis advised the petitioner that although she did not plan to have a school in the broader sense, the proposed type of use was considered a school by the Anaheim Municipal Code. _ Mrso Geckler; in re:ponse to Commission questioning, stated that she planned to tutor these children to read and write, scheduling them for certain hours of the day; that no permit was required to teach these children; and that she would pick up the children and return them after each teaching session, Mrn Jack Ruth, 1917 West Elm Place, appeared in opposition, stating that he was not opposed to tutoring these children; however, the use might establish a precedent and open up the area along Broadway for commercial uses. Mrse Cleo Mattas, 1940 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission and stated that the City of Anaheim School Districi provided special training for mentally retarded children, and if the petitioner pnoposed to teach children who were classified Point 1, they would be eiigible for elementary school special courses, and that the area in which the petitioner was proposing to train these children was basically residential, and the use was not desirablee Mre Ed Seufer, I922 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he was concerned that the proposed type of use might be.an entering wedge for other more intense uses for the residential area, and Broadway would take on the appeaxance of North Brookhurst Street; that he had purchased his home with,the intention of living there for a long time, and that all otiher residents in the area felt the same way about their homes; and that they wanted to retain their residential integrity. Mre Alexander Wood, 1934 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating he had a petition signed by 15 property owners also in opposition, noting there were adequate facilities in properly zoned areas within a few blocks of sub~ect property to meet the needs of the petitionerr and the proposed use would be an infringement and encroachment into the residential integrity of the areao ' A show~.ng of hands indicated 8 persons were present in opposition. The petitioner indicated there would be no rebuttal to the opposition. TI'E 1~ARING WAS CIASED ~ Mrse Geckler, in response to Commission questioning, noted she would be teaching Point 2 chiidren, and she would relocate the school in a more centrally located area so that she would be able to assist these children, and that during the past yeax• she had proven '6: '~~~t~ -0t~.~Y y~,Rf ~X''i3 t! .~~ r~ ~; 9 ~ • °cr i' t ~ n ~~ t i __.__ ..__ _ . fi i i ti a ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4, 1967 3681 CONDITIONAL USE - that mentally retarded childreny regardless of their mentality and PERMIT NOo 981_ level of iearning, could be taught to read and writee (Cantinued) The Commission then inq_uired whether or not the proposed use could be authorized without being considered a school or could it.be considered a home occupation. Mre Roberts stated that the use was proposed in a residential use, and could not be con- sidered necessarily a secondary use since the home occupation regulation stated that no commodity or service could be rendered-while the school was considered as rendering a service 'to children at th±s location. However, it was appropriate for a conditional use permit to be considered for the propose3 usee Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-264 and moved for its passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petitfon for Conditional Use Permit Noe 981 on the rasis that the proposed use was not properly one for the area since it would adversely affect the ad~oining land uses and might set an undesirable precedent for injectton of commercial uses in a primarily residential areao (See Reso]ution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano9 Gauery Herbst, Mungall, Campe D10ESa OOMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: OOMNIISSIONERS: Rowlande CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo ELDON SKOLIL9 30521 Miraleste Drive, San Pedro, PERMIT N0. 980 California, Owner; GEORGE SHUMA, 2501 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to have ON-SALE LIQLOR I~~ _ ADDITION TO BEER AND WINE IN GONJUNCTION WITH THE EXPANSION OF AI~ EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a fronta9e of approximately 212 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 200 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 195 feet west of the centerline of Dale kvenue, and further described as 2820 West Ball Roada Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL ~MMERCIAL, ZONEo Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property9 and the uses established in close proximity, notin9 that the zoning was accomplished under Reclassification Noe 60-61-669 and that a conditional use permit had been approved in February, 1963, establishing a hofbrau with on-sale beer and winea However9 pxevious to this, a conditional use permit was deniec? by both the Commission and City Council for a cocktail lounge~ Mr. Harry Knisely, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that after seviewing the plot plans, he had instructed the petitioner to make certain changes and submitted the revised plans the morning of the meeting; that the primary change was that the dining area had a divider screen so that families could be served without being disturbed by anything that occurred at the bar; and that the overflow dining area to the rear was also screenede The Commission inquired of the staff whether or not they had xeviewed the revised plans, whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the plans had been reviewed ~ust prior to the meeting this afternoon; that in their original computation, the refrigerator had not been included, and with this included, there wae approximately 15~ to 16% of the total square footage devoted to food preparatione Mr. Knisely then noted that the food preparation area would be adequate since the proposed dining facilities would be for steak and lobster, ar.d he had asked owners of similar operations how much space was necessary for the food preparation for a steak and lobster house, and he had been informed that only one-third of the required space was necessarye Furthermore, the companies who in~,tall the fixtures for this type of operation were of the opinion the square footage for food preparation was dependent upon the type of service and varied menu that was being ofiered, and if a limited menu was offered, less space was needede - ,~ (~ :~~ :=~ ~~ ~~i Mr, Knisely further noted that the existing business had been a success; however, there was no similar operation in the area with the exception of Dimitri°s on Beach Boulevard where food similar to that being served could be obtained, and this would provide an additional eating facilitya ~ i ; 1 :^~i; ::~'''~. 4 2•"r~,.,-,t' ~' . ;; i::.;..,: x'.`;: "-F.i'T,.~~.- 'f` '.°'~:f3 '+"rt"m~!"tt+ s^ .d',~ i .~~-`~xAT .:.c,t [~ ~ 'E+ r ~.~,r ~ . ~ . .. .. ~„ ,. , . .. ~. . ~ .... ,.... .. ~. j , ,-... '- :'.:.-,~ "'... :..'': . .. :.. . ., . , , ' O ~ ~ ~/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION, December 4, 1967 3682 O~NDITIONAL USE - In response to Commission puestioning regarding the distance from PERMIT NOe 980 the church located on the west side of Dale Avenue, northerly of (Continued) subject property, Mre Knisely stated that the,petition to the ABC Board had been submitted, and no opposition had been received at that 3uriedictione No one,appeared in opposition to subject petitione TI-lE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No, PC67-265 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 980, subject to development substantially in accordance with plans marked Exhibit Nose 1 and 3, and Revision Noe 1, Exhibit Noo 2e (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: GOMMISSiONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall~ Campo NOESs COMN[ISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLIC F~ARING. HENRY WAGNER, 975 South State College Boulevard N0. 67-68-37 , Anaheim, California, Owner; ANN MADZSON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent~ requesting that propert~; described as: A rect l l h 660 feet on the angu ar y s aped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately west side of Sunkist Street and having a maximum de th f i t ' i 1,300 feet, the p o approx ma ely south~rly boundary of sub~ect property being approximately 670 feet north 4, :1 of the centerline of Ball Road be reclassified from the A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (COUNTY) t th ' , t":' - . -.,1 o e ~-2, MULI IPLE-FAMILY RESIDEN?IAL, ZONE (ANAF~IM)o ~ '\~ RECLASSIFZCATION - PUBLIC I-~eARING. I-~NRY WAGNER, 975 South State College Boulevard x ' ~ NOe 67-68-38 r , Anaheim, California, Owner; ANN MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, ~L~ ' ~,~ ; VARZANCE N0.1928 Anaheim, California, Agent; property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land havin a f t f '~ ~i• ~ g ron age o approximately 660 feet on the west side oi Sunkist Street and having a maximum depth of approxi- ~ " ` TENTATIVE MAP OF inately 1,300 feet~ the southerly boundary of subject property being ~~ ~ '~ TRACT N0. 6512, approximately 670 feet north of the centerline of Ball Roade Property ~ ~4 REVISION NOs l presently classified A1, GENERAL AGRICULI'URAL DISTRICT (COUNTY). ~' ~ IENTATIVE MAP OF REQUES7ED CLASSIFICATIONs R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONEo 'f ., TRACT N0. 6531 - `; REQUESTe,D VARIANCEc ESTABLISH A 115-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SllBDIVISION HAVING 5G00»SQUARE FOOT LOTS, WITH WAIVER OF ~ MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOOR ARHA TO PERMIT DEVEIAPMENT OF A TRACT WITH SINGLE-FAMILY }i~MES COMPRISING A MINIMUM OF 1295 SQUARE FEET AND 1485 SQUARE FEET. TENTATIVE iRACT DEVELOPER~ H. TANCREDIr 1104 Eaet 17th Street Santa , , Ana, Californiaj ENGINEER~ WILLIAMSON AND SCElAID, 1536 East Firet Street, Suite E, Santa Ana, Califoxnia. Sub,~ect tract, :ocated approximately 670 feet north of Ball Road on the west aide of Sunkist Street, consist- ing of 7.7 acres with 48 R-2 zoned lote and 12.1 acres propoaed for subdivision into 69 R-2-5000 lots. ~<~ ' ~~ Associate Planner Charlea ~oberta noted for the Commieaion that both Itema 14 and 15 covered ~ i the same propexty, and perfiaps the Commission would desire considering both petitions at the ~;.,;,, -.;<.'~ same time. Mr. Roberts reviewed the location of the property, noting that the property was atiil under the ~urisdictlnn of the County, and further noting the uees established in close proximity were the high school and elementary echool to the northj an R-1 tract to the west~ an R-3 tract to the southwest, and vacant property to the south~ R-1 property to the northeast, and a recently approved R-1 tract to the east. Furthermore, no plans had been submitted in con~unction with Reclassification No. 67-68-37 because it was the intention of th•a petitioner to develop subject property with R-2-5000 zoned lots, .3nd subject petition wee neceseary to determine that the property was appropriate for this type of development. Mr. Roberts reviewed the General Plan implications~ noting that low density was projected for subject property, with multiple-family or medium density along the Ball Road frontageo _ ._.,.,~~ ~M - ~ w: 4~~, ~ . , , ~_ . ,. ,`; . ~.`'t . . ,,. _ , . , .~. . `_. _ _ . ._ ,~~~qv` s3'.:: c'r t^ a.. 't,~r q+p. t~ .~'F { f7;~ t d I ~,k . __..._ _ _. '. v'y`~' ~ ~ ~ C~:. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4, 1967 S~ L 3683 . ,~ q ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO 67 68 - Mra Roberts then reviewed the proposed request under Reclassification ~ o - -37 Noe 67-68-38, Variance No, 1928, and Tentative Map of Tract Nose 6512, ~ Revision Noe 1 and 6531, noting that the original Tract Noo 6512 had .x..:., • RECLASSIFICATION been resubmitted for financial purposes; therefore, Tract Noo 6531 would ~ N0. 67-68-38 be the second half of the original tracto Furthermore, the waiver , VARIANCE NOe 1928 requested was to permit construction of 1295 square feet for one model { TENTATIVE MAP OF and 1485 square feet for another model, while the Code for this specific f TRACT NOo 6512, area required 1525 square feete REVISION N0. 1 TENTATIVE MAP OF Mr, Harry Tancredi, developer of the proposed tracts, appeared before the r,~ TRACT NOe 6531 (Continued) Commission and noted there were two points he wished to stress that were i i ' .~` nd cated in the Report to the Commission; namely, that sub~ect property t r .-; was the north 20-acre parcel, and northerly of the medium density indicate ~ ~ on the General Plan, and that when Ball Road was extended easterly to the 1 City of Orange, the street would be a highly traveled streete ~ i;_ Colored slidzs of the flr.or plans and elevations proposed for the subdivision were presented 1 ~' ", by Mr, Tancredi, noting that these were being developed in the City of Cerritose Upon completion of the showing of the exhibits, the Commission inquired a6 to the number of ~~ homes that would be proposed as was projected on the screen, whereupon Mr. Tancredi stated ' they had done a marketing test on the three and four bedroom - however, the two-story plan was proposed only for certain larger than 5000-square foot lots, and that the price range ~>~ would be between $24,000 and $27,500, based on the fact that they were considering factors known to them at the present timee However, the prices mentioned did not include landscapino,~ • masonry wall, or a pool, because it was found in most of their developments, the buyer could improve his yard in any manner he desired, but if any prospective buyers were desirous of having the developer improve their property, this could also be done for approximately $29000 ~ ! to $3,000 more - which would include the landscaping and the masonry wall, thus increasing ; _j` the value of the home to from $26,000 ±o ~30,000, i ' ~ Mra Ron F=rra11, 1118 East Evening Star.• Drivea appeared before the Commission in oopoeition ' j and stated his property backed up on t'ne west of subject property, and there were seven people; ' on the east side of Evening Star Drive whose homes all backed up to sub~ect property~ six of ~ ' ~~ whom were present in the Council Chamber, and they were present to'attempt to learn what was ` F " being proposed since they were unfamiliar with the City's zoning code; that he would be oppose~~ j ~1 to two-story construction since ihey had a swimming pool in their rear yard and did not want ~ ? '~ their privacy invaded by persons looking from a two-stoi-y window into the rear of these homes;{ ~ that they were concerned with the high density adding additional traffic to Evening Star Drive~ '' at such time as Clifpark Way was extended through the proposed subdivision; that at the time the R-3 development occurred to the south of the single-family tract in which he resided, they were required to construct aingle-story, together with a masonry wall, and it was their opinion that the one-story restriction ehould be adhered to as far as subject petition was concerned, together with an additional masonry wello ;", . Chairman Camp advised the opposition that the City of Anaheim's R-1 Code did not restrict single-family homes to one story - this oniy occurred when the property was being developed for multiple-family residential use in the R-3 Zone~ and then they were required to maintain one story within 150 feet of an R-i Zone; however, the Commission•could not guarantee that single-story ~onstruction would be developed adjacent to another single-story structure, Mr. James Worthington, owner of property at 1168 Belhaven Drive, appeared before the Commis- sion, noting that he had received two notices of public hearing and requested that they be explained. ~;+ Chairman Camp then stated that in order to obtain the R-2-5000, it was necessary that the ~;,i Commission determine the area and subject property were suitable for multiple-family use ~ since the R-2-5000 Zone was written specifically for providing a lesser density in areas ` ' where medium density was recommended; however, the R-2-5000 permitted only a single-family ~ Y home on a 5000-square foot lot> w,.,:.~,_:, ~ = Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated that the R-2-5000 was an alternative form of develop- ~`' ment where the Cit felt R-2 zonin was a + ,;; Y g ppropriate. ,;;,. ~-~~ af Mro George Tellam, 2548 Carleton Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that his ' ` property was just east of subject property'and inquired why one builder could develop his 1 ,," property with approximately the same number of acres for low density, 7200-square foot lots, ,,.. ,:: and across the street someone was permitted to develop wit.h smaller lotso c;':;:,.;;,, . ~,`! The Commission noted that the property on the east side of Sunkist Street did not have a high school and elementary school to the north of it, nor'did it have medium density and '~ commercial to the south of it as subject property would have after the southerly portion ~ was developed. , ;,:, : , _:>;,~ ' _ ~.:~ _._._.._._ __ .....__. _..._ ! ~'' "' *" ~~b. ~ rr" - . - ,. ~' . _ . . . ~7,~~rysra +'~17kL' ~j,:'~W~~~`SR'°ft3`Ld sv,p~,~~ 1 }~ ~ ~w .; L.. ~F ? s.rt . f y'~:. ''~ 1 ~« _ ::- :, . .. .,: i. .. ; f - .. ~~' . . ~:~~ ~ ~: j .'. ... . ' ' :: . :~ .. . . ~..~ _..___~ '___. . ': ...... . ~..., J 1 . . ..._ _ .._.._ ,.:.__ ._ . ' ~1~ d ~ ~ ~ ~~ ....'..'iA MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decembar 4, 1967 3684 ~~ RECLASSIFICATION NO e 67•-68-37 - In rebuttal, Mre Tancredi stated that a market survey they had conducted ~ indicated there was a definite shortage of homes within the price range ~ they were proposing, and to pro3ect 1500 to 1600-square foot houses would ~ not be feasible, based on the fact that they were unable to control land prices, and the cost of the land would be prohibitive if the larger lots were required, and that they were attempting to provide housing in the ~ City of Anaheim as cheaply as possible, and still be desirablee Further~ '~~ more, newspaper articles indicated that industries were suffering because •;~ the city could not provide these homes, and by permitting 5000-square foo ;] lots, this permits the developer:to construct homes for people earning Between '~ $5;000 and $8,000 per year, and a reduction of the lot size was the only method to reduce the price of a home, since the size of the lot was not ~~•y important ~ it was vrhat was constructed on the lot that was more important "'"`,; RECLASSIFICATION NOe 67-68-38 VARIANCE NOD 1928 TENTATIVE MAP OF -' ~ TRACT NO . 6512 ~ REVISION NOe 1 TENTATIVE NIAP OF TRACT NOo 6531 _ - (Continued) ~~ ~•:,, P.:. 1 r::, , . Mr. Ferrall a ain a . ~`~ g ppeared before the Commission and stated they had received notices regard- "'~ ing the public hearing but were not aware of what was being proposed; however, they had contacted the agent for the petitionery Mrse Madison, relative to urging the developer to retain one-story ad3acent to the single-family homes along the west boundary line and he was hoping this would be accomp2ished at the public hearinge Mrs> Ann Madison appeared before the Commission and st~ted she had mentioned Mro Ferrall`s request to the developer; however, she had been at the public hearing all afternoon and had just presen~ed the suggestion to t~e developer, but did not know what would be happeningo However, the developer had advised her he might be able to eliminate one of the two-story homes, but this would have to be worked out later to everyone's satisfactione Commissioner Gauer noted that at a joint meeting with the Commission and City Council the ' idea was mentioned that the City of Anaheim needed more apartments, and the proposed develop- I ment was one way of providing adequate housing and yet reducing the apartments for people who could not afford the more expensive homes, since people who purchased homes improved them and took an interest in the c:ty socially and politically, making them more desirable because of their permanency, and that the proposed homes were acceptable in design, even though the lots were smallere Furthermore, if multiple•-family development were being requested there would be considerably more people opposed to that type of development; however, it was difficult to know what to do with some of the acreages still vacant or being proposed for development. In response tor~, Worttiington's question, the Commission advised him that sub~ect property was still within the jurisdiction of the County, but annexation proceedings had taken placeo Mre Tancredi then indicated to the Commission the location of a model of what was propoaed for subject propertyo Mre Ferrall again appeared before the Commission and noted they were in agreement with the statement made by Commissioner Gauer that R-1, 7200-square foot lots were ideal - however, the main concern was the fact that two-story construction might be proposed for those lots backin9 up to lots on the west side of subject property, and if the developer would ~ooperate by eliminating this, there would be no opposition from the R-1 property owners. Nlre Tancredi noted that only two homes were proposed along that property Iine, wfiich were two-story, 1800-square feet; however, they would meet with the property owners to resolve this problem. Furthermore, he would like to point out to the Commission that on the larger, cul-de-sac lots, if two-story were to be constructed, they would attempt to provide screening with trees, etc., to offset any undesirable intrusion of privacy to the R-l homeso Mr. A1 Pevoto, 2206 Clifpark Way, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether or not Clifpark Way would be opened up to Sunkist Street since he had two small children who were used to having this street as a dead-end street. The Commission advised Mre Pevoto that regardless of the type of development that would be constructed on subject property, either R-2 or R-1, Clifpark Way would be opened up to provide adequate circulation for that areae THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, PC67-266 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi~ fication Noo 67-68-37 be approved, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbsta Mungall, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Rowlande _.^... _. ... .. _ . --. _ _ _ _ , . ~: , `~a'_~.'t ~ 1~ +; r i. <`V~ `,' Y L . i . _ .~.Y .... . ~ ._ . . - . ~~ .~ .. , r~ ~ f~e~;~ • "~,c~ ~r Sr r~ '? `~ ~'~ r'~" `f : v ,~~:~ T "ir~ . ~ ~ r ~ r - ~,-i ~~i _ ° ` ' ` ' "~ ~ . . . . ~ ~~ . ___...._.....- - -.-,..~.; ~ . ~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4, 1967 3685 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 67-68-37 - Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No, PC67-267 and moved for it s passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition fo R l RECLASSIFICATION NO . 67-68-38 ... r ec assification Noo 67-68-38 be approved, sub3ect to conditionse (5ee Resolution Book) VARIANCE N0. 1928 On roll call the foregoing resolution w ` TENTATIVE MAP OF as passed by the following vote: +:: TRACT N0. 6512, REVISION N0. 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS TENTA?IVE_:MAP pg s Noneo AggENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland TRACT NOe 6531 o ~..;~:c ' (Continued) Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that th ,, k e petition for waiver of the minimum floor area indicated that 60,~K of the lots wouid be developed with 1295 ~ ~+ square feet, 20;y of the lots with 1485 square feet, and the balance with over 1525 sauare feet~ therefore, the Commission Nould have to determine whether or not to allow the percentages pro o of th d i e varianceo p se n their approval ~' {? Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-268 and moved for its passage and adoption, y :.; seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for V'ariance No, 1928, permitting a ~ maximum of 25% of the total lots to be developed wtth 1395-square foot minimum floor area, ~ Y and that wherever possible, the smaller home should be proposed for the lots along the west sice of Tract No. 6531, adjacent to Evening Star Drive, :,nd should all be one-story '~ ~ constructiono ~ . g~~ Discussion was then held by the Commission as to the percentage which couid be permitted ''' and the possibility that if the t ~ box" for a rash of requests for Re2c50009foretheseasteAnaheim~area,ttherebylnegatingPthe~ra's ~,,.,.;,;~~; R-1, 7200~square foot zoneo ~„ .;.: A~ ~. ~ '` Mr. Tancredi advised the Commission that their most recent plot plan indicated that 50% .- of the lots would be proposed for the smaller home since the market survey indicated a ~ t~ greater demand for this size home, and if the Commission limited the number of the smaller `'`K size home to that ro osed the mi ht never meet the market demand, and they might be `^'i"r unable to sell theplarger size homeso ~,~,~',`°" :~ Commissioner Herbst noted this was the first time a request for the smaller size home was ~ presented, and if the Commission did not attempt to maintain the requirements, regardless of the sizE of the lot, the Commission might be forced to re evaluate the'R-1, 7200-square foot lot zoneo ~ Upon completion of the discussion by the Commission, Comm±ssioner Herbst amended his resolu- tion to permit 50;K of the lots to be developed with the 1295-square foot minimum floor areao ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSEN?: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando Mr. Thompson also noted that since the Commission had approved R-2-5000 for subject property, they may wish to terminate Reclassification No. 67-68-37e Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that termination of the R-2, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone petition would leave the City Council without any evidence that suh~ect property was deemed appropriate for low-medium density development, in order that R-2-5000 could be developed, and the Commission should let the motion stand in order to allow the City Council the prerogative to determine whether the petition should be terminated ! or request that the petitioner withdraw ito ~ Commissioner Farano offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noe 6512, Revision No. 1, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6512 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification Noo 67-68-38 and Variance No, 192g, 2e That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo 3o That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings, to Sunkist Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheimo ~:;;'. . s:. ; i~~; ~ ~ ~ HIINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4~ 1'967 RECLASSIFICAI'ION NOe_67-68-3~7____ RECALSSIFICATION N0~ 67-68-38 VARIANCE_NO.. 19~8 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6512, REVISION N0. 1 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT_N0. 6531 y '(Continued) 3686 - 4o That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the easterly property line separa•ting Lot Noso 29 through 36 and Sunkist Street, except that corner Lot Nose 33 and 34 sha11 be stPpped down to a height of thirty inches in the front yard setback, and except that pedestrian onenings shall be provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways rig-+t-of-way line of an arterial highwaye Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said land- scaping to be submitted to and subject,to the.approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanceo Following installation and acceptance, th~ City of Anaheim shall assume the responsi- bility for maintenance of said landscapinge 5o That aIl lots within this tract shall be serve~i~~y underground utilities 6o That the east-west street shall be named Clifpazl; Way; that Street "A" shall be named Clarence Street; and that Street "B" shall be named Ambridge Streeto Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo Commissioner Farano offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noo 6531, sub3ect to the following conditions: le That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 6531 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-36 and Variance Noe 19280 2o That should this subdivision be developed as mare than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale 3e That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4e That the east-west stxeet shall be named Clifpark Way; that Stxeet "C" shall be named Peregrine Place; that Street "D" shall be named Chaucer Street; and that Street "E" shall be named Keats Streete Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MO1'ION CARRIEDe REPORTS AND - ITEM NOe 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Street name change - Lincoln Avenue to Nohl Ranch Road east of the Newport Freeway. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented the request of John De Lusk and Louis E, Nohl for consideration by the City to rename Lincoln Avenue east of the Newport Freeway to Nohl Ranch Road, noting that this request had been submitted to the City Council at their August 8; 1967 meeting, at which time the City Council approved the name change request subject to a similar approval by the City of Orange for the westerly portion of Lincoln Avenue lying within their jurisdiction, and that the City Council had received a Resolution Noe 2843 dated October 31, 1967, from the City of Orange which renamed that portion of Lincoln Avenue lying within their jurisdiction to Nohl Ranch Road, and at the City Council meeting this was was then referred back to the Planning Commission for a report. Mra Roberts further noted that because considerable interest had been generated by the proposed street name change, and the lasting effect that such a name change wuuld have, the Commission might wish to consider setting this for public hearing in order that those in favor and those in opposition could express their viewpoints. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing consideration of a street name change for Lincoln Avenue east of the Newport Freeway to Noh1 Ranch Road, said public hearing to be considered January 3, 1968, as the first item on the agenda.. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i .~c~~p ~.~. . z ~ ~ ` 1 ~ ,.~~. ~r..: 1 ,-tt.~ ?'',~# 4; r ~~ a4y~ ~~ t~~~i ~.: ~ 7 ~. . ~' '7 _J: ~ i 1 ~ t~ Y - 'd _ c t, - ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ `-'~ . MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4~ 1967 3687 REPORTS AND ' - II'EM N0. 2 RECONII~ENDATIONS Street name change - Cerro Vista Drive..to Cerro Lane (Continued) for the east-west portione - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that when the Building Department started to renumber the properties in the Peralta Hills area, it was noted that Cerro Vista Drive was both a north-south street and an east-west street; however, no development had occurred on the east-west street~ and the Commission might wish to consider setting this for public hearing. Commissioner Herbst offered a moiion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing on January 3, 1968, as the second item on the agenda, consideration of a street name change for the east-west portion of Cerro Vista Drive to Cerro Lanea Commis'sioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTfON CARRIEDe ITEM NOe 3 Orange County Use Variance Noo 5987 Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed Orange County Use V3riance No. 5987, noting the location of the property and the request to permit the establishment of a church in an area designated for a conventional, single-family subdivision in the Planned Community District. It was also noted that the Orange County Planning Commission on August 3, 1967, had granted Orange County Use Variance No. 5767 to permit the establishment of a church; however, no extensionsof time were requested - therefore the Commission had terminated this variance, and that new development plans were now being submitted for the church facilitye Discussion was held by the Commission, it being noted that the development plans complied with the standards estabiished in the City of Anaheim; therefore, the Commission need not act on the petitione Commissioner Allred offered a motion to receive and file Orange CoLnty Use Variance Noe 5987e Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa ITEM N0, 4 Parking requirements - Disneyland Area - Waikiki Motel Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that Mro Gordon Fisher, owner of the Waikiki Motel,had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission dated October 27, 1967, indicating that he planned an expansion of his existing 60-ur.it facility to an 85-unit facility, and further contempleted adding eating, drinking, meeting, and shopping facilities; therefore, he felt the combined functions would classify his operation as a hotel rather than a motel. Furthermore, he felt this category or reclassification was necessary to allow not only the proposed expansion, but to make use of this highly valuable land to its highest and best usea Mro Raberts further reviewed all data assembled by the staff regarding the various hotel facil'ities in the Disneyland area.- the number of units required and the number of units provided, as well as the larger mntel facilities with the number of units required and the number of units provided, it being noted that various managers had indicated that parking was adequate, and the Disneyland Hotel, Charterhouse and Jolly Roger indicated parking was critical sometimes; furthermore, the percentage of customers arriving by automobile was between 6096 and 85~, while Mr. Fisher had indicated less than 50% of his customers arrived by car. (Copy of the Development Services Department study made on parking available in the department.) After considerable discussion by tY.e Commission, noting the data submitted by the staff, together with the many problems that have faced various facilities in the Commercial- Recreation Area relative to parking, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny the request of Mre Gordon Fisher, owner of the Waikiki Motel, for a change in classification of his facilities to a hotel since the parking problem in motel~hotel facilities was very critical - therefore, the reduction as proposed to accommodate a new 25-unit addition should comply with the motel requirements of one space per one unite Commissioner Mungall seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meetinge Commissioner Farano ' seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ~_ The meeting ad3ourned at 9:15 P.M. , Respe~t~subm tt '; ANN~KR~.B~; ~ee eta~ - - ~, .-..~ _ , ,,.;,., = _. _ ' ~ ..: ~ , ~ '~ ~ , ~. ~ '. ' " ~ ~ - . ... ' . ,~ w~ . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ .._ . . . . ~ . . . . . 16 ~ . . , , i