Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/12/18~ tt- : A Vi J~`„ "~ N~'1~' V"Y j ~ 7" , x t, ..~~ "~. *.~ ~~ 1i SYj~w ~,~,~Mi~. ~ ~~~~ .~:ii: ~ ~ ~ ~~ '.'1 ~~ City Hall ~ ~ . AnaheiR~, California ~ December 18, 1967 ~ ,;;~ r9 A REGllLAR NfEETING OF TF~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. - COMMISSIONERS: Farano (present for evening session), Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano (absent afternoon session). PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATZON - Reverend Dorman Buttram, Pastor, Town Church Assembly of God, gave the invocatione PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag~ APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve the Minutes of the THE MINUTES meeting of December 4, 1967, with the following correction: Page No. 3667, the first paragraph should read - VARIANCE NOSe 1926 AND 1925 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 42309 REVISION NOS. 7 AND 8 VARIANCE NOS. - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EMPIRE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, P. 0. BOX 3095, 1926 AND 1925 Van Nuys, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 60 OR 30-LOT~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) LOT WIDTH. (2) TENTATIVE MAP OF IAT AREA, (3) SIDE YARDS AND (4) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, on property TRACT N0. 4230, described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage REVISION NOS. 7 of approximately 332 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a AND 8 maximum depth of approximately 1,274 ieet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Sub~ect tract, located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 660 feet west of Beach Boulevard, containin~:;; approximately 9.72 acres, is proposed for subdivision into a 60-1ot, multiple-family subdivision on Revision No. 7 and 30-lot subdivision on Revision No. 8. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of December 4, 1967, to allow time for the petitioner to submit a revised tract map providing for standard lot widths, side yards, and building site area. Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted that Items 1 and 2 of the agenda pertained to the same property and suggested that perhaps the Commission might wish to consider them together. The Chairman then declared that both Variance Nos. 1926 and 1925, as well as Revision Nos. 7 and 8 of Tentative Map of Tract Nae 4230, would be heard at the same time. Mr. Roberts reviewed both variance petitions, the location of the property, the uses estab- lished in close proximity, and the fact thet the petitioner had submitted a revised tract map which incorporated only a portion of the Commission's recommended rev3sions since the lot width was still below that permitted by Code by 4 feet; that subject properties were to be developed with fourplex units; and that if the variance requests were approved, that a height waiver stil.l was necessary because of the R-A Zone to the west, which in all likeli- hood would develop for more intense use than low density residential, Furthermore, amend- ments would be necessary to the resolution of intent to rezone to the R-3, since the original conditions were outdatgdt and many of the aonditipns were ~o longer applicable or were en- compassed 1n the R-3 0~ C~1 Zone si$e devalopm~an~ standaxds. 3688 ' ~:~: ~ fi r.t ~l a t7 S''', 47.4~','~, -/ r '~ 1f ~ r .. ~ i.: ..F ~ t y~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CI'€Y PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 VARIANCE NOS. 1926 AND 1925 :.~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4230, REVISZON NOSo 7 AND 8 ~ ` (Continued) r.--.., y _fi. ,~ f~ ~~ J 3689 Mra A, Edelsohn, representing Empire Savings 8 Loan, appeared before the Commission and presented plot plans showing the new widths between ~ the proposed buildings, indicating that with the exception of the lot ~:: width, the structure would be within the requirements of the R-3 Code; " that the revised plans incorporated a portion of the recommendations I ,S made by the Commissions which afforded a better yard and patio with ~ more usable yard area; and that in addition to the lot width, because of ~ the proposal to split the fourplex into duplexes having a common wall j'!:` and lot line, the balance of the waivers was still necessary; also, ` I; that the yaxd area now would be 42 by 40 feet in the center of each ;1 duplex. ~ :.:; ~ ? The Commission expressed concern that the developer was proposing to overbuild the 66-foot ~~'' lot, thereby defeating the necessity for Iight and air as requixed under the Anaheim Muni- ~'' cipal Codee Mr. Edelsohn noted that even though a 70-foot Zot would be proposed, the variance still would be required; whereupon the Commission stated they were not opposed i,o the lot split " after construction - however, it was necessary to have a minimum width of 70 feet to provide for adequate privacy and light and airo ~', Mrs, A. W, Pfeil, 3064 West Lincoln Avenue, again appeazed before the Commission~ noting they were desirous of requiring single-story within 150 feet of their home since it was their intent to reside there for some time to comee Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that the front portion of subject property was proposed for commercial development~ whereupon Mrs. Pfeil noted that only the front 169-foot portion would be used, and even though a'LO-foot alley was proposed to the rear of the 169 feet, the two-story apartments would still be within 150 feet of her homeo Mrs. Beth Lancaster, 235 South Beach Boulevard, again appeared before the Commission and stated her concern now was that they were proposing to reduce the lot size, which would be overcrowding the area; that the three-bedroom apartments would encourage having many children coming into the area, said children climbing over the fence into the mobile park, disrupting the privacy of the mobile home owners, many of whom were elderly people; and that in her estimationy the drainage pxoblem was still not resolved since her agreement had noted Mr. Abandanto was reo,uired to deed the drainage easement to the City of Anaheime Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that he had reviewed Mrse Lancaster's document, which was also the document Empire Savings 8 Loan had submitted to him, and nothing was indicated on these agreements that the City o£ Anaheim now owned the easement; that the easements were given to a private party, and these might ultimately be dedicated to the C3ty - however, the City could decide not to accept them for dedicationy depending upon development or the placing of the dxainage easement - therefore, he could not prejudge whether Empire Financial should dedicate this easement to the City of Anaheim~ However, the wordage of the easement indicated that there was a 10-foot drainage easement granted over, under, tnrough, or across Mrsa Lancaster's property, and these would all have to be considerations that would have to be answered between the private partiese Mr, Thompson noted that Condition Noo 5 of the recommended conditions indicated drainage would have to be dischar.ged into the Orange County Flood Control channel by means of an underground system meeting the approval of the City Engineer and the Orange County Flood Control Districte Mrs. Lancaster then stated that she had sold the easement to Mro Abandanto after numeraus times of contacting her, and in order to accommodate him so that he could sell his property, ' '~ she granted the easement; however, it was her understanding that he would dedicate this to ` ~ the City, and it had been some time since she had sold this easement to him, ~ 4~ Mr. Furman Roberts noted that the City was one of the parties mentioned, but had not accepted ~.`~-;~ the deed of easement at that time; however, the City could, in the future, accept it under ' ~, ,r certain circumstances 4nd under cer.tain conditions, which would have to be met prior to the ~~,"r,_;.;~ City's considering acceptance of an easemento ~;i.; ;~a rK ~, Mrs. Lancaster noted that the easement would go through the back yard of the trailer spaces, <, all of which had already done considerable landscaping, and she was not desirous of having ° an open ditch adjacent to these trailer spaces because it would create an undesirable situa- },, tion and discourage renting of these trailer spaces; furthermore, the drainage easement should be concrete so that there would be no break~own of this drainage facilityo - ~r - + ;;~. ,~, .. . ~ , r. . . . . - . . . ~ ~ , . . ~~ ~. ~ ~ ' ~ .. . . - . . A~.~! MINUfES, CITY PLANNING CAMNIISSION, December 18, 1967 .V ~.. . ' ~ . . . 3690 VARIANCE NOSo - The Commission inquired of Mrso I~ancaster:whether or not she was ~ 1926 AND 1925 interested in granting this easement through her property, whereupon Mrs. Lancaster stated she did not desire having the drainage ditch TENTATIVE MAP OF open for an indefinite period of time in the xear of these existing TRACT N0. 4230, trailer facilities, and it was hoped the Commission could require REVISION NOSo 7 construction of the drainage facility within a minimum length of time AHD 8 after construction was startede (Continued) • The Commission advised.Mrs: Lancaster this would have to be between' her and the builder since it was a private mattere Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that it was the Engineering Division's intent that at such time as the storm drain was constructed and accepted by the City, the dedicated easement would also be acceptede - Chairman Camp then noted that the position the Commission would have to take if the tract were approved was to require the drainage problem to be handled as a private matter, and since the condition of approval indicated thisy any problems Mrse Lancaster had would have to be resolved with Empire Savings 8 Loane Mr. A,,,We Pfeil, 3064 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether or not the Commission would be required to grant both the lot width and lot area, and received a negative answer from the Commissiono Mr, Pfeil then requested considei•ation regarding traffic from the proposed development since Lincoln Avenue was very heavily traveled, and the traffic signal did not alweys work to the advantage o£ people who might have to have ingress and egress to and from subject propertye Mr. Thompson advised Mro Pfei7. that this traffic problem had been reviewed by the Traffic Engineer, and this was the reason for requiring a stub street; in the event the Pfeil pruperty was developed,the street could be extended to Wester.n Avenuea Mra Pfeii then inquired whether the City approvFd of having multiple-family residential traffic through single-family lots; whereupon, Mr, Thompson advised the Commission that this was not always desirable - however, where additional circulation was necessary, tlie multiple-family traffic`was routed through an;R-1'development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ Mre Thompson advised the Commission that they could act favorably on both variances and tracts end recommend them to the Council, thus giving the City Council a chance to review both requestso Considerable discussion was then held by the Cummission relative to the approval of subject petitions; however, the petitioner should be required to develop with 70-foot wide lots and a minimum of 3,955 square feet for building site area~ Furthermore, granting of the sub- division of the 70-foot wide lot should not occur until after the fourplexes had been develuped on each 70-foot wide, 7,200-square foot lot since it was not the intent of the Commission that vacan',•, property be subdivided into 35-foot parceis prior to the constTUC- tion of duplexes; that the action approving parcel maps to be filed subsequent to develop- ment was not to be construed as granting a waiver of the lot width requirement of the R-3 Zone, or as establishing a precedent of permitting lots of smaller width or size than the minimum required in the R-3 Zone, based on the fact that this could be justified on the theory that Subsection 1I535e1 of the Business and Professions Code allowed a subdivider to subdivide air space by the filing of an aix space subdivision map and prohibited the City from disapproving or otherwise regulating such air space subdivisione However, the present action approved only ~ slight extension of the air space subdivision concept, and by prohibiting the filing of a parcel map to split the four-unit buildings until the completion of construction of such buildings, the Planning Commission and City Council could retain the power to regulate the design end location of buildings on the land. Furthermore, since the petitioner was'proposing to sell off each duplex, it would be required that each duplex unit provide separate metering facilities covering all public utilities,and separate sewer connections, and'that the waiver of the maximum building height'limit was granted based upon the assumoti:on that the R-A parcel imr.iediately to the west would deveTop for more intense uses then single-family residentiale The Commission then discussed the possibility of determining that the existing home on the property to the west could be considered a non-conforming useo Mre Thompson advised the Commission that in a similar situation on the north side of Lincoln Avenue adjacent to the Zody property, a finding had been made that the waiver was techni~al duQ to ~h~ fact that ultima~g ~evaJopment w4uld ~Q for oth~r tha~ single- family U6Qee ~~75'~~•~; t~ f F~ ~~ J ~;~°f i4Y r'. ~~ ~: x y S . x _ ... ~ ~ ± ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . ,,~ _. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Dec=mber 18, 1967 . 3691 VARIANCE NOS. - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC67-271 and moved for its 1926 AND 1925 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Peti- ,, tion for Variance Noe 1926, provided, however, that the minimum lot 'TENTATIVE MAP OF width'shall be 70 feet, and the minimum building site area per 35-foot ` TRACT N0. 4230,' ~duplex sha11 kie;$;955> square feet; that waiver of the minimum building REVISION NOS. Z' site area and minimum lot width should be granted only after a subdi-' AND 8 vision with a 70-foot wide, 7,200-square foot lot had been filed and (Continued) recorded and fourplex dwelling units were constructed on each 70-foot ' wide, 7,200-square foot lot, at which time the abovementioned waivers could be approved, provided that a parcel map was filed which indicated ~;~, the division of each 70-foot wide lot into two 35-foot wide parcels; and that this action was based on the theory that Subsection 11535e1 of the Business and Professions Code allowed for the subdivision of air space by the filing of an air space subdivision map - however, the Commission was extending slightly the air space subdivision concept and prohibiting the filing of a parcel map to split the four-unit buildings until completion of c~nstruction of such buildings, in order to allow the Commission and City Council the power to retain regulation of the design and location of the buildings on the lando Furthermore, separate metering facilities covering all public utilities and separate sewer connections should be '• provided foi each duplex, since the developer was intending to sell each duplex separately, ~ and sub~ect to additional conditions•o (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst,AUnga1l,.Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoe Cort:missioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract Noo 4230, Revision No. 7, on the basis that the proposed 66(33-)-foot lot was not acceptable, and the petitioner- developer should redesign the tract map to incorporate a 70-foot wide loto Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. :`, Chairman Camp inquired of the petitioner whether or not he was desirous of withdrawing Petition,for Variance No. 1925 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230, Revision No. 8, whereupon Mr: Edelsohn advised the Commission that he wished to withdraw Petition for Variance No. 1925 ",s: and Revision No. 8 of Tentative Map of ?rect No. 4230. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion ~ ~: to'accept"the request of the petitioner to withdraw Petition for Variance No. 1925 and `' Revision No. 8 of Tentative Map of Tract Noe 4230. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion 4 MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-269 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommer.d to the City Council that Resolution No. 63R-678 ~ be amended, deleting Condition Nose 4, 5, 6, 7, S, and 9; amending Condition No. 3 to read, "That the final map of Tract No. 4230, substantially in conformance with Variance No. 1926, approved by the City Council; shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Orange; County, California"; and amending Condition No. 10 to read, "That a two-year bond in an amount' and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the construction of a six-foot masonry wall, reduced to 30 inches in height within 15 feet of the ! Lincoln Avenue right-of-way along the westerly line of subject property prior to readin9 of an ordinance". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Cormnissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-270 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 357 on the basis that the developer was no longer intending to develop a planned residential development. (See Resolution Book} On roll call'the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERSd Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoe ~'. ' , r... 7CiTW,E'r7 st e.k's l: CU ~ ~v~) ~ _, MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION, December 18~ 1967 3692 VARIANCE N0. 1932 - PUBLIC HEARING: DEWAYNE AND LORNp KROEGER, 328 North Brookhurst Street~ Anaheim, California, and EMPIRE SAVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; EMPIRE SAVINGS 8. LOAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van Nuys &oulevard, Van Nuys, California, A9ent; requesting a variance to ESTABLISFI TWO NEW SIGNS:AND LEGALIZE TWO EXISTING SIGNS~ WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM AREA OF SIGN OFFERING UNITS FOR RENT AND (2) MAXIMUM AREq OF SIGN IDENTIFYING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY described as: Those lots located on the east side of Brookhurst Street between Catalina`and Alameda Avenues and having a total frontage of approximately 369 feet, the southerly boundary of the southernmost parcel being approximately 110 feet north of the centerline of Catalina Avenue, and the northerly boundary of the northernmost parcel being approximately 121 feet south of the centerline of Alameda Avenue. Property presently ~ classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioner indicating he would be unable to appear before the Commission and requested continuance of subject petition until the meeting of January 3, 1968. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance Noo 1932 to the meeting of January 3, 1968, as requested by the petitionere Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe ' . RECLASSIFICATION -~NTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. MAURICE HAR'fMAN, ET AL, 2406 Ivy Place, N0. 67-68-39 Fullerton, California, Owner; ANN MADISON, 600 Sot,th Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: Portion 1- An VARIANCE N0. 1927 irregularly shaped parcel of land haviny a frontage of approxima~ely 100 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a ma.ximum depth of approximately 210 feet, and extending southerly to Berry Avenue, the ._ westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 284 feet east of the centerline of Palm Street; and Portion 2- pn irregularly shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approximately 145 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet and extending southerly to Berry Avenue, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 138 feet east of the centerline of Pa1m Streete Property presently classified R-1, -0NE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESI'ED CLASSIFICATION: C-O~ COMMERCIAL-OFFICE, ZONE. .°,EQUESTED VARIANCE: ESTABLISH A DENTAL CLINIC, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND,(2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHI' ON PORTION 1 ONLYe a ~ g~ i:T Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of December 4, 1967, to allow time for the petitioner to resolve access problems. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, noting that originally the petitioner had requested two waivers - one for building and structural height limitations and the other for landscaping required for yards and setbacks, noting that revised plans submitted by the petitioner had eliminated the waiver of the building and structural height limitations;however, the three feet of landscaping required adjacent to the Berry Avenue property line was still necessary; that the petitions were continued to this meeting to allow the agent time to discuss with the petitioner the access problems and circulation; that this problem had also been presented to the Traffic Engineer who had indicated that three access points would be permitted on Ball Road - one along the easterly property line where a 20-foot alley would be required, the second along the westerly property line of the first parcel, and the third along the westerly property line of the second parcel; that Item 5 of the agenda proposed C-0 zoning for all the property from Iris Street on the east to Palm Street on the west along the south side of Ball Roadf and that Reclassification No. 67-68-33 had also been continued to allow time to readvertise the property to include the small portion fronting and siding on Pa1m Street and Berry Avenuee Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, again appeared before the Commission 3nd stated that although they had redesigned the structure to be located 20 feet from the east property line, they would still require the waiver of the building and structural height limitations since the rear portion of the building would require a 30-foot side yard setback. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that on the interior setbacks in the C-O Zone, to which subject and the adjoining property to the west was proposed for reclassification, only a 10-foot setback would be required from the west property line. ~.~f'.6~~" _."~7Yil~~ 'i'~4'"+'c.7"~ 1 ~~S ~ ~2` '"iy~ ~,,•'~( r.~RU.~.~ 'K4Y,? C'' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ f ~~l ~ t t ' ~ +~ Tt ' ,.v ~~r ~ ,~~: -~~ wy1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINU7ES, CITY PLANNING COMN,ISSIOIv, December 18, 1967 3693 u RECLASSI:~ICATION - Mrso Madison then requested that the vehicular access rights to the ~ NOe 67-68-39 ;~eat~~•iy portion of sub~ect property would be necessar since a Y ~ , ~ residential structure still would be utilized until development plans ,. ;~;?;~ VARIANCE N0, 1927 had been formulatede .;,{~ (Continued) ~ Tl-~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. .. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-272 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 67-68-39 be,approved, sub~ect to conditions as recommended by the staff and an additional condition that the driveways along Ball Road and Berry Avenue, which were not proposed to be used at the present time,shall be removed and curb and gutter constructed as required by the City Engineer; furthermore, that Condition Nose 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall be complied with w.ithin a period of•180 days from date, or prior to the issuance of a building permit. (See Resolution Aook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COANuIISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoe Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-273 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1~27 since the original request for waiver of the height limitation was no longer necessary; however, the required landscaping along the Berry Avenue frontage, adjacent to the proposed masonry wall, was vitally necessary to reduce the harsh appearance of a masonry wallo (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMIISSIONERS: Allxed, Faranoe RECLASSIFICATION - CANTINUED FUBLTC HEARINGe INZTIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOe 67-66-33~~ 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described ae: All that certain property situated on the south side of Ball Road, extending g~nerally from Iris Street westerly to approxi- mately 126 feet west of the centerlfne of Palm Street and having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 166 feet, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL and R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES to the C-0, OOMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONEe Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, noting that it was initiated by the Planning Commission as a result of additional C-0 zoning requests for properties along the south side of Ball Road between Iris Street and Palm Street, and that subject petition had been cont!nued from the meeti;ig of December 4, 1967 to allow time for the readvertise- ment of the property to include an additional lot south of the intersection of Ball Road an3 Palm Street. Mrse Sylvia Rose, owner of the property at the southeast corner of Claremont Street and Ball Road, appeared ~efore the Commission and inquired whether or not they would be permitted to provide parking on the rear portion o# their property after it was split to provide for an alley intersecting their property at such time as they plan development of their property. 2oning Supexvisor Ronald Thompson advised Mrso Rose that she would have to file a variance requesting permission for parking purposes, at such time as they plan to develop,. No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noe PC67-274 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council'that Petition for Reclassi- ! fication No. 67-68-33 be approved, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: CpMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoo Commissioner Rowland left th~ Coyncil Chamber at 3:20 P,M, ,.~ ._ ~ `•~ MINUTES, C3TY PLANNING CAMMISSION, December 18, 196,7 as , ~''i- . ~i~ry _~ .._..__._ ~~~ 5 . ~ ~ 3694 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. IRI-CITy SAVINGS 8, LOAN HSSOCIATION, 801 Mission PERMIT N0. 984 Avenue, Oceanside~ California, Ownerp_HARRY Ii~USTON, 1808 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLZSH A RESI'ti~ME on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximately 263 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 320 feet south of the centerline of Palm Laneo Property presently classified C-O, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property the uses established in close proximity, and existing uses, as well as the fact that the petitioner was developing the property with a two-story, 78-bed rest home, and adequate setbacks and parking facilities were being provided; however, the plans indicated a 50-foot half-width for Euclid Street, whereas 53 feet would be required and had already been dedi- cated - therefore, the depth of the property would provide adequately for this variance of 3 feete Mre Harry Houston, representing the architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was available to answer questionso Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:23 P.M< Mr. Houston, in response to Commission quesiioning, stated that the recommended 3-foot change in setback along Euclid Street could be accomplished; furthermore, the requirements of the State, under which subject rest home would be governed, required more stairways and access for the Froposed facility than the City's code requirements, and they proposed to have four stairways, as well as an elevator. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TI~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDa Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-275 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 984, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing recolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: O~h4ulISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ABSTAIN: OOMMISSIONERS: Rowlande VARIANCE N0. 1934 - PUBLIC HEARINGo ANNA MAUERHAN, ET AL, 920 West Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ALPINE AM1~TEL. iNCARPORATED, 715 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 105 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 230 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 715 West Katella Avenue. Property preseritly classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and noting that the existing use was established in 1958 under Variance No. 985; that the petitioner proposed an additional 7 units with 7 addi- tional parking spaces - however, parking requirements had been changed for the Commercial- Recreation Area since the original use was established so that the original 26 units were short 5 parking spaces; and that the new addition would be an additional floor on the easterly wing of the existing motel, providing the required 7 parking spaces in the area where the wading pool was presently locatedo Mr. C. Fred Tierbach, 715 West Katella Avenue, president and principal stockholder of the Alpine Motel, appeared before the Commission and noted that in order to encourage tourism in the city, they were proposing to increase the number of motel units in their existing motel as well as provide 7 additional parking spaces, and that the present motel had been operating for the past eight years without having one parking space per motel unit, and no problem had been encountered due to this shortage of par.king spaceo Furthermore, since there were only 90 days where they could expect maximvm occupancy, they had noted that during the last convention at the Convention Center, they had had full occupancy for four days with only ten automobiles utilizing the parking facility ~ therefore, he felt the parking requirement should bp waived o~ ~hQ basis ~~ evicle~ce prese~ted by hime ,.. : ~; .,-. ~'.~c ~. ~f3 ;rt~~7"~ .7,- _ '~i rr v ~ r~.` s'"1 ' e'h`'9r~~ ~ xt'.. , ~.. ~ _ : ' r %.'1 A~v ~ ~ . __'~..__ _._" . ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CZTY PLP.NNING CONUu-ISSION, December 18, 1967 3695 VARIANCE NOe 1934 - No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitione (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CIASED, Zoning Super~~i.sor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that Condition Nose 1 and 2 ;; of the Report to the Commission had been met under Reclassification No. 66-67-61(8); therefore, these.and, in addition, Condition No. 5 should be eliminated from the `~` recommended conditions. The Commission noted that although a recent parking study of the Commercial-Recreation Area indica ted that parking requirements should be maintained at their present rate, the peti- tioner was providing parking in accordance with his new units, and the previous shortage of parking spaces was established some time agoo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, PC67-276 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1934, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESe COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Faranoo CANDII'IONAL USE - PUBLIC I-~pRING, BROOKHURST SEDPPING CENTER. 2293 West Ball Road, PERMIT N0. 982 Anaheim, California, Owner; ALLAN WALTHEW, c~o Cookery Restaurant, 2219 West Ball R~ad, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission for an ON-SALE LIQWR ESTABLISHMENT IN CANJUNCTION WITH AN EXISI'ING RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying no~th and west of a 147-foot by 130-foot parcel of land located at the northwe=.t corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street and having frontages of approximately 771 feet on Ba11 Road and approximately 626 feet on Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2219 and 2221 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the proposed request to permit on-sale liquor with the expansion of the Cookery Restaurant located at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road, said expansion to incorporate a cocktail loungee Mr. Robert Jo Ryan, manager of the restaurant, appeared before the Commission and noted they proposed to expand the existing restaurant into the small store immediately to the west, known as 2121 West Ball Road; that in addition to the cocktail lounge, the restaurant facility would be expanded to permit a steak house in the expansion; that a solid wall existed between the existing restuarant and the proposed cocktail lounge, said coffee shop seating 106 people, and the new facility would seat approximately 25 people; and that the revised plot plan being submitted to the Commission at this time would provide for a screen separation between the cocktail lounge and the dining facility in the new section. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the existing coffee shop and restaurant would cater to the family trade, and the addition would provide for broiler-type serving of food, as well as the cocktail lounge, No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitione THP HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa PC67-277 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition foz Conditional Use Permit Noe 982, sub~ect to conditions, and provided that the bar in the new section would be properly screened from the new eating area, as indicated by the petitionero (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoe ; ~'' `.::' ~ , ~:~ ~ '\~ ~' ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 189 1967 3696 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROY MARCUM, 732 North Lemon Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 987 California, Owner; HAYWARD LE CRONE,.1010 North Mairt Street, Suite 624, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesti.ng permission to ESTABLISH A GUEST FDME FOR SIX ELDERLY PEOPLE on property described ass A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 52 feet on the east side of Lemon Street and a maximum depth of approximately 119 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 312 feet south of the centerline of North Street, and further described as 732 North Lemon S::reete Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONH. Associat~: Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of property, existing zoning, and uses established in close proximity, as well as noting the petitioner had stated the rest home would be sub3ect to the supervision of the State of California, and that all of the guests would be ambulatory, healthy, and mentally sound, with none of the guests driving cars - therefore, there would be no increase in vehicular traffic into the premisese Mre Hayward Le Crone, attorney, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, representing the peti- tioner, appeared before the Commission and noted the properties along both sides of Lemon Street were presently classified for the R-3 Zone, and that in the petition for the conditional use permit eight persons had signed it, approving the proposed use. Mr. Le Crone also indicated the petitioner, who was President of the Guest Home Operators Association, was evailable to answer questions. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-278 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 987, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: AYESc COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FREDRICKS DEVEIAPMENT ODRPORATION, 524 West Common- PERMIT N0. 983 wealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; proposing to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR on property described as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue and having frontages of approximately 267 feet on Gilbert Street and approximately 295 feet on Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL OJMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property, the uses established in close proximity, and the previous zoning action on the adjoining and subject property, noting the fact that the restaurant qualified as an enclosed restau- rant as defined in Title. 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; that adequate parking facilities were being provided;"and that the plans submitted by the petitioner indicated a swimming pool was-{sroposed to be established immediately to the east, with a pergola consisting of _.. faur support structures with openwork or arbor-type roof to be located in the 35-foot building setback from Lincoln Avenue. Furthermore, the Commission would have to decide whether or not the pergola should be considered a structure or appropriate in the required 35-foot setback, Mr. Richard Garner, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the floor plans combined the cafe and restaurant which would seat 110 peoele, and entrance could be gained to either facility, said restaurar,t being similar to a restaurant located at Euclid and Crescent. The Commission expressed concern that the development plans did not provide for screening of the bar from the dining facilities, and inquired whether or not this could be accomplished. N4r. Garner replied that this was a problem which could be overcome by a slight change of design. Chairman Camp then indicated where the Commission was desirous of having the screening facility in order to provide proper separationo y~' „~?~Y' r~.~", ri ~ ~c '1,~~?"'~ {w~r ~ 3 ~' ~*u+ J ~i~'d '~ ,~~jtt' ~ ': `~'t~ ~ a r ~ y ar, r p +i .-+- ~ _,c ~ . ~ . . . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ ; ~,.d . . . . :,. .. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3697 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr~ Arvan Kent, 311 Archer Avenue, appeared before the Commission ~ PERMIT N0. 983 and expressed concern that on-sale li.guor was being proposed in close (Continued) ~ i i t ;~ rox m ty o the Savanna High School which had its entrance approxi- '~d mately 400 feet north of the northerly boundary of subject propertye ~' The Commission advised Mr. Kent that under the jurisdiction of the Alcoholic Beverage , Control Board, a special formula was established as to the required distance needed to ?,~ separate on-sale liquor from a school facility, and that if the students from the school ~y;' did utilize this facility, there would be adequate physical separation between the coffee ; ' shop and the lounge areao ;~4~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~'Y Commissioner Rowland indicated that a finding should be made that the pergola proposed ~ along the east of the proposed restaurant was permissible in accordance with the land- scape architecture of the development and should not be construed as being a structural encroachment into the 35~foot setback required along Lincoln Avenueo - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-279 and moved for its passage and adoption , seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 983 , with the finding that the pergola proposed was permissible to the landscape architecture of the development and should not be construed as being a structural encroachment into the required building setback9 and further provided that the bar would be adequately screened from the dining facilities, as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) ~ . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Although the Commission offered a motion to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 882 for a walk-up restaurant, it was determir.ed that this action had been taken by the Commission some months previouse . ~ . . . . ~ . . . ~~' ,~:Y RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for 1' ten minutes. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiona ~ MOTION CARRIED. The mee+.ing recessed at 3:58 PaMe RECANVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:08 PeM., Commissioners ~ Allred and Farano being absente ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC (-IEARINGe ELIZABETii LAW, 408 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, PERMIT NOe 985 California, Owner; DON DAVIS, 120 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 727, Long Beach, Californ±a, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A BILLBOARD~ WITH WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED LOCATION~ (2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIZE, AND (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parsel of land having a frontage of approximately 320 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 365 feet, the southerly boundary of sub3ect property being approximately 660 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZANEa Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property, the uses established in close proximity, and the requested waivers from the Billboard Ordinance, noting that the proposed billboard would be located near the Orange County ! Flood Control District channel; however, waivers were from the location of a billboard at the intersection of arterials, as well as the height and maximum sign area - there- fore, the Commission must determine whether or not the location met the intent of the Billboard Ordinance, and if the size was appropriate for the area. • NIr. Don Davis, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he also represented Movieland Wax Museum and the Palace of Living Art, and said sign would advertise the use of a facility located in the City of Buena Park; that a similar sign as being proposed has been located in Buena Park across from Van De Kamp's Coffee Shop - however, now the property was proposed to be developed, and the sign would have to be relocated; that the sign was not a billboard in the same sense as most billboards were with changeable copy, but was similar to an off-premises sign advertising the facility; that he was quite familiar with the Billboard Ordinance of the City of Anaheim and had viewed a number of locations to erect the proposed sign - however, subject property ' - would seem most logical because the sign would be located in close proximity to the Flood Contr4l cha~pel~ which wQuld ~ot be a€fec~ed by th~ heigMt an~ size of the signe ~ `"a+RLSN'~ t °~'~'~{,'~~1~`'~~~'~~`)Ar~ ~ ~f'r+t ~rf a .; ~ ,~ :r n~, i; ~a. ~.~ xr ., ~ ~: Y h ,. : ... .: .~~ '.~ . . ~. i'~' ~ '; . " -: ~ ' . - ~F »....... .~,~.... ...-. ......... ......,...:,.4.„e„ 7e. WM,~.,.....~.w«-..+v....«.,,.,,~......,2 ..w... ~ _. .1.....~. _....,:__.._ ~ ...... .:..: .. . _ ~ " ~„ ~ ,.: ~ . ` , ,:.. _ ' < i ~_~ ~ - -- -... MINUI'ES, CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3697' . _ . . ~,~'~' .; : CONDITTON IJSE - Mr. Arvan Kent 31I Areher. Aver.ue- ` a ` ~' ~ , ppeared before t;~e Comrt~issi cn ~~''~; . ~ PERMIT N0. 983 'and-expressed concern that,.on-saTe 1ii~uor>was beino proposed;i,n clcse (C ntinu d) im t 'f~y ,,:,; o e prox i y to the Savanna High ScRool which lied ,it'~ eritrance appzo~,i'- ~ w ~ mately 400 feet north o£:the northerly boundary of subject p.roperty~ ~ ra, ~ '--.~..,. .The Gommis,sion advised Mr. Kent that under the,jurisdictior, of the Alcoholic BevErag~ '-` ,+ ~ Control Board, a specia3 formvla was established as to the required distance needed to ~~" separate on-sale 13quor from a scncc: fac.3ity,,and that if ~lie students from the school did utilize this facilit~~ there wouid be adequate physical.separation betweer 'hr, coifee shop and the lounge aseae „ ,~' THE HEARING WAS CLGSED. . ~~ ~? , Coramissioner RowlanJ indicated that a find3ng should be made that the pergola prnposed ~~. along the east of the proposed restaurant was permiseible in accordance with the land- scape architecture of the deveiopment and should not be construed as being a strtictural ' encroachment into the 35-foot setback required along L3.ncoln Avenue., ~.? . . . . . . , . `. Commissioner Rowlan~ offerad Resoiution No~ PG67-27o and moved for its passage and'sdoption, v; ~.. -; seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petitio~ for Condiiionai Use Perm~t No. 963, - with the finding that the pergola proposed was permissible to th; landscaoe archiiec~ure ;; of the development and should not be consir~c.1 as being a stxuc~ura~ encroacYunent ir.to c ' required bufldiny setback, and further provided that the bar woul.d be .adequately screened ,y„ from the dining facilitiee, as stioulated oy the petition~r. i~ee Resolution Boo~:; h ~~ '. ~ ~, ~ On roll cali the foregoing resolution was pass~d by the following vo'_e: ~ ~, ,~ ?~; AY~S: COMMISSIOtiERS: Gau:r, Herbst, Murgall, Rowlanu, Camu:" ;,{_,~ " NOES: CUMhiISSIONERS: None„ ;>;;.;;;.~ ABSENT: (~1i1M.ISSIONERS: Alired, Farano, Although the Commission offered a motfon io te*minate Con~iticnal Usr:~ Permit ;do. c~82 for ~ a walk-up restaurant, it was de±erm,ir.ad 'r.cat ;:his action nad been taken ~y ;.he.Commission ;some months previous~ _ RECESS - Commissioner Herbst oifered a:,otian to r2cess the rneej:in~ fcz ten minutes:~ :;ommissior,er Rowiand seeord~d the motion,. ~4CTIGT: CAR~IED~ ine meeting recessed at 3:~8 P.'.?: RECANVENE - Chairmar, Camp reccrivened th~ mee±in G;: 4:CE P,.~A> . . g p ~UQINI15b1D(?a?.TS - Alired and Far~no beina ;bsent.: " COi~UII'IONAL US~ - PUBLIC h: pR2Nv ;~iiZAn~.ZH L~W~ 408 oou*n Fseach` Bouievard, Ananeim, i P~~HMTT N0,_: 985 Cal±fo.;n~a, ~roner; JX)Pd DSVIS,• 120 ~ast Ocean Boulevzrd.~ Suite `727. ' Lona '~~~act,, ;'alifurn+_a,'kgent; reaur•sting permS:FSion to L-STABLIS~' A L~IiLi3JARD, WiTI? WkIVtR~ GF (1? PtftMITTr.i,.LGCATION,, (2j ldARIMUM ~ P~:t~.MI;TED SIZL-, AND (3) ;v'~XI1dUM 1-~IGF±T on prop~rty described as: At~ irxegularly shaped parcel or" land having a frontage of approximately 32G ,eet on i:he east side of iieacrt Bouievard and a maxinum depth of approximately 365 feet._ the southerly boundary of subjec~.; property being approximately 6b0 feet north of the centarline.of Orange Aaeriue. 'Propertv p.^~s ntly cio55if1~d n-nr nGt"~I~UI:?URtiI., GUidY. t-j;~ ~iN ., ~ . . . ' . . + ~~ ':r 1 , d. ' Fiy~nv,x :..~n ~ ,~ -:~~4y , . Associate Planner Charles Roberts revieWe ~µ ~~'~~~ ~ ~ y ~,'`ro ertv d;. ,~ 3e~ «;.,p . , tlie uses established in close ptox~m3ty~ a~~~~~"'~,~~h~~'~s ~' o~~Q Ordinance, noting that the ~op~'s'edi{bi 4 0~~;'" +'~r'c+'~ ~, f nt}i Flood Control District chai~,~e Y;a"We'v~y ''~ ('~ ~T at the intersection of arter ~"'', "~~' ~~~ d y~ fore,. ~he. Com.mission ,must `q " ~ ~;,. B~llT~oard :Ordinance,' and ~; . , ~ `"~, atr n~ , 'i5~..i ~ ~ .~v-.~...r'? _ ~ ~~'•,'~, "' ...,~+"~` ~ff'! c f,.:; r~51w~'v~y'ti^ m' ,1~~Y$'"~c'~/ ,y!! ;, ~ ;;'1z 5 -: F if - ~i ~ ~;.. ~~ ~ ' ~ ' . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ / f `/ MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING CAMMISSIOr, December 18, 1967 3698 OONDITZONAL USE - The Commission inquired why the petitioner was requesting a sign PERMIT NOo 985 that was three times the size permitted by Code; whereupon Mr, Davis k (Continued) noted that one of the functions of the conditional use permit section ~ of the Billboard Ordinance was to permit other standard size signs of " 900 to 950 square feet which had special painted bulletinsa Further~ `` more, the Movieland Wax Museum was inte,rested in having their advertisement within the ~ general vicinity of their original location; and that he did have an alternate location ~~• r`or a sign on Lincoln Avenuea w~-: ~ No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition, ~ ~;:.:., :;' THE I~ARING WAS CLOSEDo °~~ '': ~~ ~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of establishing an ~ undesirable precedent for similar requests of off-site signs on vacant R-A parcels; that ~! ~~+ the Commission had attempted to maintain establishing the Sign and Billboard Ordinances as a tool and guide to approval of other sign requests, and if the City did not support these ordinances by making constant exceptions, there was no reason for having sign and billboard regulationso ~ 1` Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 985 on the basis that the petitioner was asking a waiver of the size of the sign that was three and a half times that permitted by Code, which would set an undesirable precedent „ if approved; that the Sign and Billboard Ordinances should be enforced where reasonably ;~~ practical; and that the petitioner had not proven a need for the waivers as requestedo ' '.fi: Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiona ',;,,.;,;,`,,: ~ i ~ After roll call was taken9 the ager~t for the petitioner reouested consideration to be ,.•~ ~.,;-;~;,~= heard again by the Commission and advised the Commission he would maintain the standard ~ ~',~~' billboard size and height provided that the Commission would approve the location of the ~ sign. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the possibility of rescinding the foregoing motion, taking into conside~ation the petitioner had withdrawn his request for waivers for the s'_ze and height of the signe Deputy City'Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the sign was still a bill- board without changeable copy, and although it could be cor.strued as an off-site sign, it was not a gutde sign even though it was adveztising a recreational facilitya Commissioner Gauer withdrew of the motion for deniale his motion for denialo Commissioner Herbst withdrew his second Commissioner Mungall offered Resolutio~ Vo, PC67-281 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, tc grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 985; permitting the location of a billboard and denying the request for waiver of the maximum permitted size and maximum height of a sign since the agent for the petitioner had withdrawn said request9 and subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ODMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~~oneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranon i~J ~ j~ I ji y i ,< I i i ,~ ~ '~ i~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DALE SELLON, 1675 Pampas Lane, #30, Anaheim, California, PERMIT N0. 986 Owner; WILLIAM WILLBUR, 405 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN SIGNS, AND (4) MAXIMl,7ri SIGN HEIGHT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 130 £eet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a maximum depth of aporoximately 274 feet, the northerly boundary of:sub3ect property being approximately 195 feet south of the centerline of Broadway. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL ~MMERCIAL, ZANEa Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property and uses established in close proximity, noting that where a former walk-up restaurant, known as the Dog House existed, a cake shop is now in operation, and the Kentucky Colonel restaurant was also on subject propertya Furthermore, the petitioner was now proposing to establish a"Bronco's Hamburgers" walk-up restaurante Mr. Rob~rts also Rot@d that the enti~@ parcel w~s ~ot proposed for development at this time~ ~ryd th6 ~om~p~,~~~@R m~pht wish ~~ qu~s~ip~ ~h~ p~t~,ti,e~e~r ds ~g th@ proposed use W ~ti~„ ~~-~,r~S~'r ; ~1~" a ~'lx; r n ~vr.' ,x ~rzY' Ye J'm~ ~_ .;f ~ Z~ ~wT"/ ~ _~ T :' t ~, p ;: "v , e'. , ~. ;,w , ,~: ~„~, i `~ ~~~x;~ . ... §~~ `,~ . l ' J ~ ~ ~r i r:. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OONWiISSION, December 18y 1967 3699 ~ ~tiy , ~'. CONDITIONAL USE - of the rear portion of sub~ect property, as well as the rear portion ~,.; PERMIT N0. 986 of the two parcels immediatel.y to the south of subject property since ,~, .. (Cortinued.) there might be some question as to whether these parcels would be ~ '.: ,' landlocked in the futuree ~:.r,. ~,~,, Mr. William Willbur, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated ~"~•` that a third sign was necessary due to the type of operation proposed; that he had dis- i~„ cussed at some length with the staff the leases on the property relative to permitting <.r,A.,.;; the sign, since Mra Sellon, zhe property owner, had leased the property, and the lessees ~~`` ' would be required to pay t~xes on the property, although it would still remain under one Yar ~' ownership; that the leases had been submitted to the staff and no lot split had been '~~~`~ required because the land was still under one ownershipo ~ ; ;. @~ ~ Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that adiscussion was held between members oi -`~ the Engineering Division regarding subject property and the City's ordinance for a lot ~,' ' split, and it was decided it was more desirous to require a lot split regardless o£ the ~`•" sale or lease of the land, although short-term leases had not been required to file the - parcel map, br~t medium and long-term lease arrangements reauired the filing of lot splitse ~, ~ Mr. Willbur stated he had also discussed this with the Engineering Division but wanted consideration to be given to the proposed sign, with the possibility of obtaining a parcel map on the portion of property under consideration; that the Fs oposed type of operation ~;'_`'::''? would have a difficult time in operating if adequate signing for its proper identification ~'~" "`~' were not permitted on sub~ect property; that if a problem existed as to the height of the ~ ~' si9n, as well as the size of the sign, he would withdraw the requested waivers and build r,•..•'r:~~ within the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, provided the number of free-standing signs ~' a and minimum distance between signs were approvede Furthermore, if flashing signs were not ~-,~~;-rs.~~ permitted, as was being proposed, this would be deleted, and the sign would be in conform- ~.;,':-;`is'~ ance with the Sign Ordinance. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that upon review of the plans, there was a possible indication that flashing signs would be required, and the staff felt this should be clarified between the petitioner and the Commission if sub3ect petition were to be approvede Mr, Willbur, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the only portion of the rear property that would be utilized would be that necessary for parking, and there was a possibility an alley would be constructed along the east property 1ine, giving ingress and egress to Broadway - since Mro Sellon already had a 28-foot easement for this alley, and this, then, would give additional circulation for other commercial businesses there. ;;r~ Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that approval of the other "'" two signs was granted because documents had been submitted showing they had 25-year leaseso ".,`~, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that in order to get additional free-standing y signs it was necessary to have at least a 25-year lease, with frontage along the street; ~„~' that he had not seen a lease in connection with the proposed hamburger shop - however, he " would presume the lease was not for 25 years, and this was the reason for requesting a ;s'i ~ variance. y~ Mr. Willbur noted that the lease for the hamburger shop was for 15 years; whereupon ;,Y~ Mr. Roberts stated that "f a 25-year lease were obtained, the petitioner would then have ~:~ to file a parcel map N'~..h :.he Engineering Division. 5i ~ ;•1 ;~ ~ ~~t a .; ;. ij ` ::;;,: :'r, Mr, Arvan Kent, 311 Arc~.er Avenue, appeared in opposition, stating his property was adjacent : to subject property; that he had lived there for four years and he had realized when he purchased the property that there would be commercial uses established immediately to the west of his property; that ~vith so many signs being proposed and permitted for i:he area, the commercial shopping area was becoming brighter and brighter during the evening hours, and noises from cars were also increasing - however, he was much more concerned with the fact that the lights and the size of the signs were constantly disrupting his rest since the bedrooms of his home were immediately ad~acent to the commercial property, and he had made every attempt to screen the lights with blinds and trees and shrubbery, but so far had been unable to do so, and these lights were not turned off at any reasonable hour; furthermore, there was also a billboard which existed immediately north of the existing signs, which seemed to be a non-conforming usee Mre Thompson noted that the billboard approved today was the first request since the Billboard Ordinance had been adopted by the City Council, and in 1968 a considerable number of non-conforming signs would be removed - many of them•along :reeway frontages; however, he was not certain whether or not the sign mentioned by the opposition was scheduled for removalo r' ipa~ 1 ~q _ ~~ ~ ~ y ~ rr ~' ~ ii §r :'~' ~~~~' '` J ,~ ' 4 < ~l ~t, ~ t ~t i ~ `s 1 .:: ~ ~rs~~ .~~___ ___ ... ~ .. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLA~NfNG COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3700 CONDITIONAL USE - Discussion was then held by the staff, the Commission, and the City PERMIT N0. 986 Attorney's Office relative to signs and billboards permitted in (Continued) commercial areast and what constituted a non-conforming sign which would have to be removed after an expiration date. Mre Thompson further noted for the Commission that the only sign permitted witnout a conditional use permit or variance was a wall sign, and that the pians indicated t:he proposed free-standing sign would be to the front of the proposed structure and wc~uld not be visible from the R-1 to the easte THE IiEARING WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC67-282 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 986, denying waivers of the maximum sign height and maximum sign area, and approving the number of free-standing signs and minimum distance between signs, and further subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoe RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DIAL CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORpTED, 8732 Westminster N0. 67-68-41 Avenue, Suite 1, Westminster, California, Owner; proposing that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having TENTATIVE MAP OF a frontage of approximately 280 feet on the west side of Haster Stxeet TRACT N0. 6184, and a maximum depth of approximately 615 feet, the northerly boundary REVISION N0. 1 of subject property being approximately I50 feet south of the center- line of Wilken Way, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY 7ANE. Subject tract, located on the west side of Haster Street, containing epproximately 3e95 acres,'is proposed for subdivision into 24 R-2-5000, One-Family Zoned lots< Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub,~ect petition and tract9 noting the location of sub~ect property and indicating that previous zoning on the property proposed was approved for reclassification to the R-3 Zone in 1965, proposing a planned residential development; however, the zoning had not been effectuated because the conditions had not been complied with, and since the City Council had deemed R-3 zoning appropriate for subject property, the proposed request for R-2-5000 was considered reasonableo Nlre Dick Huff, representing Dial Construction Company, appeared before the Commission and indicated he had nothing to add to the petition and recommendations of the staff, and he was available to answer questionse The Commission inquired what price range the homes were proposed for; whereupon Mre Huff replied they would be selling for between $24,000 and $25,000. Mre Robert Pettit, 121 West Tiller Avenue, appeared before the Commission, noting that his property was immediately adjacent to subject property and inquired whether or not, with the proposed reclassification, two-story buildings would be permitted since the previous approval had required only single-story constructione Chairman Camp advised Mr. Pettit that since this was a single-family zone, there would be one home cn one lot, and the City of Anaheim's single-family zone did not limit the height of structure on the lot to sin9le-storyo THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, PC67-283 and moved for its passage and adoption, 'seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclessification Noe 67-68-41 be approved, subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book) Oq roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranoo ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ , ~- ~. ~ , . ~ ~ MINUTES,:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Deoember 18, 1967 3701 . '~ ~ ~ - °, " RECLASSIFICATION = Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve;Tentative Map of ~ ' ~.. ~ NO : 67 68 -41 :Tract Noe 6184;`Revision Noe l~,sukiject to:the follow3ng conditions: "• ~t t~'~ Fz TENTATIVE MAP OF _ ~ (1) That the.approval'~of Tentative>Map `of Tract Noe 6184 is granted rw , r.' ~,:' ~,~ TRACT NO.; 6184, : subject to'the ap'proval 'of Reclassification Noe 67-68-410 ~?~ ~,~ , REVISION N0: 1 : : ~~ G ~5 Continued ~ ) (2) That,should this sub"division be developed as more:than one ~ ~r' ~',~~ subdivision,.each;subdivision-thereof shall be submitted .in '` ~" ~; tentative form:for approvalo ' t; ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ . . ~ . _ . : . . . . ~ ~ . ~ . ,. ~ . (3) That the vehicular access rights, except.at street and~or .7' '~' alley openings, to-,Haster Street, shall be dedicated to'the . °~ , City of `Anaheimo `:a ~.:, (4) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6=foot masonry 4;a ~' well shall be constructed on the easterly property line ;_` ~,'; separating Lot Nosa 1 and 24 and Haster Street, except that ,~,,., r~j corner Lot Nose 1 and 24 shall be stepped down to a heighi, of -;°, ~ '~~ thirt inches in the front Y yard setback, and except that '~~` ~ pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls where cul- d b » . e-sacs a ut the planned highways right-of-way line o.f an arterial highway, 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 landscaping.to be submitted to and subject to the ;i approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Follow- ing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall zY assume the responsibility for maintenance of seid landscaping~ ,.~- ~ . ~ ~ . ~, ~ , 'i'::;s~ (5) That the drainage shall be discharged in a manner satisfactory y: to the City Engineero . ;.~. y.w (6) I'hat any existing wells on the subject property shall be abandoned>in conformance with the specifications of the ~~ City of Anaheim Water Divisione . "~' . . .. . ~ .. . , . . . . .. . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . .:s;4~ . _ (7,) That all lots within this tract shall be`served by underground `'y utilities. , ~; Commissioner Mungall seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ . ~ . , . . . .. . ~ . ' REPORTS AND. - ITEM NO`o 1 `h' RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Case Noe ZC67-43 (Sectional District Map 7-4••10) - ~ , . Prooosing a zone change from the R-1 Single-Family Residence ~ `, District to the C-1 Loca1 Business District for property ~ ~,~ located at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and . ~ Woodley Avenue. i `j. ~ ~;. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Orange County Case Noe ZC67-43 to the Planning ; ' Commission, noting the lbcation of the property and the proposed zone change, as well as j ,. the uses established in close proximity which are in the City of Anaheim„ Mr. Roberts. ~ further noted that'after necessary dedication for street widening purposes, the dimensions ~ ' of the parcel would be reduced to lOl feet on Brookhurst Street and 114 feet on Woodley ~ ~ Avenue, and that since the o ert owner does not have vehicular access ri hts to Brookhurst P' P Y . g 4 Street, any commercial deveZopment.on the property would be oriented toward a local, interior l ~ residential street. n_ Discussion was then held by the Commission as to the recommendation made by the staff that a 4 ~ <~ more restrictive zoning such as the RP Zone, which was comparable to the City's C-0 Zone, :` should be'recommended in order to provide.the least conflict.with the existing single-family I ° residential tract to the south and west; the Commission concurring,that this would be more "r desirable than'general'commercial uses for this areao : • £ _, :., . Commissioner Rowland of'fered a motion to recommend to the City Conncil that',the Orange County ~ Plenning Commission be,urged to approve RP, Residential Profess3onal District for property under consideration in Orange County Rezoning Case Noe ZC67-43, on the basis that the recom- ~ mended,zone would provide the least confltct with the existing single-family residential ~ tract, and that'no waivers be granted for the parking area locationa Commissioner Herbst ' ~ seconded the motion. MOTION'CARRIED, ~ !; . ~ *~. , ~F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ' . . . ~~ . - ~ ~ ' . . ~ . ~ . ~~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ .. - . . .a.n~ . _... ~~~I - . ~ __ _ .. ~ . . ~.:'1 ~ ~ . _ . ;,_: _..~ ~: ~ : ~ ~~ MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3702 . REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No, 780 - William Ce and Ada Ie Higdon - (Continued) Property located on the west side of'Beach Boulevard, approxi- mately 700 feet north of the centF•rline of Lincoln Avenue - Travel trailer park - Request for:extension of time. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Conditional Use Permit'No. 780 - request for'an extension of time to permit the establishment of a travel trailer,park located' on the west side:of: Beach Boulevard, northerly of Lincoln Avenue, noting',this was the -` fourth request for'an extension of time, and those previously granted,were on March 28, 1966, November 21, 1966, and%Apri1 24, 1967; furthermore, none of the conditions of approval had been met as of this date. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a 180-day extension of time for completion of conditions of Conditional Use Permit Noe 780, granted in Resolution Noo 1842, Series 1965-66; said time extension to expire May 15, 1968. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ITEM N0. 3 ; ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 931 - Nicholas and Lucy Barletta - ~' ~ Property located on the south side of Broadway, approximately F~ 410 feet west of Loara Street - Establish a rest home - a;'~'~ Request for extension of time. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request for an extension of time to complete conditions in Plannin C mi i R ;h~ g om ss on esolution No, PC67-92, dated Aiay 8, 1967, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 931 nofing that e f th '`~ , non o e conc7itions of approval had been completed as of this date " ` . ` E, :~r Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a 180-day extension of time for completion '''~'~ of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 931 , granted in Resolution Noe PC67-92 '' ~ , : dated May S, 1967, said time extension to expire May 8, 1968, Commissioner Mungall ~°" seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~}° ;~~ . . . . . . ITEM'NO. 4 _ ~.?k.. ,_~, Canditional Use Permit No. 936 - John Grayson - James J. Woods, ~~~;~ Convalescent home - Property located on the east side of F ~ Stinson Street southerly of the Flood Control channel - ~ ' Request for extension of time. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ „~a } ~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Conditional Use Permit No. 936 to the Flanning Commission notin th t ''~ , g a none of the conditions of Resolution No. PC67-78, dated Apri1 24, 1967, had been met :and the six-month ti i' , me limitation had expired; therefo~ , the petitioner was requesting an extension of time to meet the conditions f ; o approval. . Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for the cort~letion of conditions of Plannin Com i i R g m ss on esolution No. PC67-78, dated April 24., 1967, granting Conditional Use Permit No 936 said tim t i . , e ex ens on to expire April 24, 1968. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 r, ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 939 - The Fairmont School - ` 1557 West A~able Street -£stablish a private school and i,? related facilities - Request for extension of time. !~` Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Conditional Use Permit No. 939 to the Plannir,g Commission n ti ' i~; °:~~ , o ng that a request had been received for a six-month extension'of time'for completion of conditions in Resolution No PC - ~ . G7 105, dated May 27., 1967, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 939; furthermore, none of'the conditions had b `a I~ een completed as of this date x~ , Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for the completion f d on (.. ~ ~ ' o con iti s in Resolution No. PC67-105, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 939, said ti e e n o ~ m xte si n to expire Apri1 22, 1968e Commissioner Mungall.seconded the motion. MOTION,CARRIED., ,.~. RECESS FOR DINNER - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess for dinner. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeti~g rgcgssed a~ 5:00 PeM. « :~ ~ ~ ~ y-r- -....~'i ~.., r •;\~:; n ~T - ~i:~.=: ~/ ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3703 RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the mee"ting at 7:30 P,Me, Commissioner Allred being absentd 'VARIANCE N0. 1931 - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK HORNY, 353 South La Brea Street, Los Angeles~ California, Owner; DR. RICHARD B:TES, c% Dr. We CD Bryant, 1408 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISfi A 14-STORY, 125-FOOT HIGH SENIOR CITIZENS' APARTMENT BUILDING, WII'H WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT~ (2) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER UNIT, (3) MINIMUM LAND AREA PER UNIT, (4) MINIMUM PARKING SPACES, AND (5) REQUZRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL on property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land located west of the northerly extension of Lido "~• Lane and north of the'westerly extension of Lido Place, and being bounded on the north by ~ the Orange County Flood Control channel and on the east by an existing Anaheim city parke Property presently classified R-3, MULTZPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEa Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, the location of the property, noting that five waivers of the R-3 Zone were requested to build a 14-story, 153-unit~ senior citizens' development on a 1.25-acre parcel located northwest of the intersection of Lido Lane and Lido Place, and then reviewed statements made by the agent for the petitioner in the Report to the Commission. Dr. W. Richard Bates, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the La Mirada Baptist Church was the sponsoring group under HUD202 for the proposed Anaheim Christian Tower, which in their e~timation would be a needed facility for the older people of the City of Anaheim and would be an asset rather than a detraction to the community; that he, as a minister, was constantly aware of the need for this type of housing through contact with ~`:e church, and that he was now serving as Vice Fresident of the California Benevolent Society of the Baptist Church, who has sponsored similar projects in Californiao Dr. Bates reviewed sub3ect petition, summed as follows: (1) need for the proposed develop- ; ment to encourage persons over 62,to be independent--however their fixed incomes sometimes were insufficient to take care of i:hese needs, and, therefore, the proposed type of apart- ~ ments was a means of solving rising costs of living on a fixed income; (2) that under HUD202, ; selection of a site was based on proximity to shopping facilities, bus service, entertainment ; facilities, and price of land, together with cost of constructioni (3) that it was the founda-! tion s intent to pay taxes as norma~ly required of private industry, even though this type of facility would be operated on a nor.-profit basis which qualified the pro,~ect for tax exemption;!~ and, furthermore, any agreement drafted would be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for approval; (4) that the sponsoring group :eould have seven directors appointed, with at least four residents from the City of Anaheim on the board, and that all directors wou13 be investi- gated by the Federal Housing Administration; (5) that the loan would be granted by HUD and would extend over a period of 50 years, with the sponsoring 9roup not having any profit from this development; (6) that the apartments wauld rent from $70 to $110 per month, and all recreational facilities would be within the development, both on the ground and the L•op floors (7) thet a survey was made by representatives of the church to explain to the affected property owners in the area what was proposed, and 21 had signed a petition indicating no opposition - furthesmore, 13 other property owners had indicated no opposition, hut refuaed to sign the petitions (8) that a survey of the number of senlor citizens in Anaheim indicated 11,130 over 60 years of age in 1966, and by 1971 there would 15,000 persons over 60 years of ages (9) that because of the high cost of land and the proposed structure, the requested waivers were necessary - furthermore, larger apartments were unnecessary due to the fact that older persons were more active in outside activities and would not i~ave time for the upkeep of a larger home~ (10) that the data submitted with the petition indicated the proposed number of parking spaces would be mare than adequate to serve the tenants as well as their visitors. Dr. Bates, in response to Commission questioning, stated they were not waiving the right as a non-profit organization to request tax exemption~ that they recognized the need of the City to have a tax structure to support its services, and they would enter into an agreement which ; would be ixrevocable; that as long as the facilities were used as a senior citizens' apartment complex, they would pay for any servica the City rendered the facility. The Commission noted that taxes assessed to property owners paid for services rendered, and although the agent indicated they were willing to pay taxes,and still hold on to their exemp- tion rlghts as a non-profit organization, they could, at ar,y time, exercise this exemption and stop payment of taxes. ~r. Bates noted that this could be made a condition of approval - that the land use would be sub~ect to taxes, and they were n~w proje~ting these taxes into the rental figures of the ap~artments. Fuithermore, if taxes were not paid, the rents would be lowerede The Commission noted that such an agreement could not be entered into since it was not enforceable. i f a wr+~~~~r.s~ ~ ~ ~ .r..~~,F.. ,;;°"" _ _ _ . , , . , ^} h ~.:C wM ~„ ' °M~.y.y -' ~ {,;o n. ~..4... i ~ ~ . ,. ._ . . . . . . .. . . . . .~i . . . .~~ ., . . . . .. ... 4 ~.:..~Y~. : . l~r.~....~f ~~ v:.~,:~..~...,.,.~~: ..2..~..._.n. .a ~: . Y . ., , I ; ' _ . ' " 0 ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3704 VARIANCE N0. 1931 - Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect for the development, appeared before the (Continued) Commission and noted that the corporation would be entering into an agreement with the City to pay for services the City would provide, such as police and fire protection and other services, but would still be exempt from other taxese~ ~, '1 ' Commissioner Farano noted he had two basic questions that needed clarification: (1) why ' .;. ; was Anaheim chosen over La Mirada, and (2) why hadn't private enterprise been consulted r~ as to the possibility of financing this type of developmentl lL ~`~4 Dr. Bates noted that in their survey it was determined that Orange County needed the proposed facilit a d L Mi d i ' ~ y,, n a ra a d d not q_ualify because it did not have transportation facilities - '"``'~ ~ ~ e Furthermore, they had contacted private industry - however, no one had come up with a loan ~ :~ to buy the land and construction of this type of project for lower income persons - all the •~ financing that could be obtained from private enterprise would be for apartments renting for between $250 and $300, '~ ~~ ~ != Commissioner Farano further noted that the Commission's primary concern was land use a~d . ~ , Federal financing was not within their ~urisdiction; therefore, the petitioner had not ~~; proven a hardship existed when asking for the waivers for the proposed development, other ~_, than land cost and price of building and financingo The four findings which had to be k proven by the petitioner were then read by Commissioner Faranoo ~ Commissioner Farano further noted that the agent for the petitioner had presented a very ' ;3, detailed history of financing and requirements for the proposed project; however since the , Commission was concerned only with land use, no evidence had been submitted that the land ~ use was proper since there was single-story R-1 to the north, east, and south, together 7 ' with vacant land, and that the high-rise building referred to in the petition was at the ~ ;t intersection of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street, and was only a six-story building located ' ~. in the center of a commercial areae Mre Rose noted that the different uses established in close proximity provided for recrea- tion of the senior citizens, but he could not prevent them from using Sage Park; that the use would not be incompatible with the YMCA, and that the building was so designed that people in the upper stories would not overlook the single-family residences, and the school in the area would not be affected by additional children9 nor would there be additional traffic in the area sincethe majority of the senior citizens would not have automobileso Furthermore, these older people could be a great asset to young people in the area, The Commission fur.ther noted that the previous senior citizens' complex had indicated there was a possibility 90~ of the tenants would be from outside of the City, and asked the agent whether or not the City could be assured this facility would be for Anaheim residentse Dre Bates noted that it was the group's intent to serve Anaheim senior citizens first and the outside people after Anaheim`s needs had been fulfilled, and that they would make every effort to assure that the facilities would be for Anaheim people on;y, The Commission noted that under a section of HUD no discrimination could be made as to who would be permitted in this facility; therefore,the statement made by Dr. Bates was debatableo Mr. Rose noted that an 18-story senior citizens' facility was under construction in Costa Mesa across the street from the old city hall, and that residences were located directly behind the city hall, which did not seem to be affectede r. , ,;; *,~, .a'x . : Mrs. June Pettibone, 1960 Glenoaks Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that they had recently purchased a home at 1261 Catalpa and stated that the proposed develop~nent could create a traffic problem since Lido Lane was a rather narrow street lead- ing to Sage Park, a little league park used by many small children playing baseball; that the shopping facility proposed to be used was a considerable walking distance for elderly people, adding to the foot traffic at the intersection of North and Loara Streets where the always busy YMCA was now being constructed; that the statement made that many persons were in agreement with the proposed project was erroneous since the only person on Catalpa Avenue signing the petition was a man who had just moved into the area and was unfamiliar with the location of the proposed facility; and that one of the considerations given by HUD was the locat3on of the facility near entertainment, and Century 21 was the only theater close by, and that would be too expensive for senior citizens. Furthermore, the noises made by many children in the area would be very annoying to these older people, and she doubted very much that more than a handful of older people in her church would want to live in an area which would be so noisy. Mrs. Pettibone further advised the Commission that residents in the area were in the process of having petitions signed by all persons in oppositian, and requested that any decision be held up, pending receipt of the petitiop of oppositione t~ _~ ;:- ..~.~..~.- , ,... .. . ,. .. - "•~ l; '{'1~ f~ ,; t ~j 1 . . .. 5 i yr..u5~~~ ri. ~ i ' .. . . ~ y e . . . _.. ., .... ._... , . .. .. . . . . _ . _ . ,I . . . . SaF~k s..~.; w~, .c'~ x .- ~yf ~•r,~ r ~ ~ (.J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Deceinber 18, 1967 3705 VARIANCE N0. 1931 - Mre Herbert Lawson, 1318 Ateca Place, appeared before the Commission, (Continued) stating he oK~ned three buildings on Lido Place and was opposed to any waiver of the parking requirements since with his 14 units, they had 19 parking spaces, and they were already experiencing problems in parking their cars - thus the requested waiver of more than half the parking spaces required could create parking problems in the area. Furthermore; waiver of the square footage for apartments could:set an undesirable precedent for the balance of the undeveloped property in the area; however, he was not opposed to the type of building proposed, but wanted the standards established for the R-3 Zone maintained. Mrs. Eugene Testi, 1260 Catalpa Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, and stated that if this area was so attractive for a high=rise, senior'citizen buildin;~,`it could be located in the vicinity of the Security National Bank on Crescent Avenue, where considerable land was still undeveloped; this would bring the people closer to the shopping area and would eliminate having a high-rise in a one-story, single-family area. Dr. Bates, in rebuttal, stated that he had not polled the entire area, but only within 300 £eet; that considerable recreation fac:lities were provided on the property as required by HUD, which would in no way interfere with the use of the park in the areae Mr. Rose, in rebuttal, stated that the opposition to parking was clarified in the documented evidence submitted with the petition, since most of the people patronizing this facility would be over 70 and would not be operating automobiles - therefore, parking proposed would be adequate to serve both tenants and visitors. Commissioner Gauer, in reviewing the eligibility af occupants as required by HUD for approval, indicated that families or persons would have to be admitted, regardless..of creed, color, or nationality; therefore, he could not understand how the petitioner could make the statement that oniy those from Anaheim would be selected first9 since the operators could not discrimi- nate regardless of their origin. ~r `~ IJr. Bates, in response, stated that HUD made a study of i.he area to determine whether or not ~r ~ the area was in need of the proposed facility; therefore, HUD required sufficient local `~ M~ residents in need of these facilities before approval would be giveno y r -.~ Commissioner Farano again noted that his concern regarding the required showings for approval ~ of a variance had not been met; therefore, he could see no reason for approving a petition `.~,~ which had not proven hardship existed other than economics. 1 Mr. Rose, at the request of Dr. Bates, indicated that the waivers were based on economics, ~ as well as the fact that the City of Anaheim Code did not permit the proposed type of facility ;~ that the C~ty did recognize the need for high-rise apartment development but suggested that ?! the facilities be located nearer the downtown area - therefore, it would be up to the Commis- '"~~ sion to determine whether or not this was a '"=`~ proper lana use. ~ Mr. Rose also noted that HUD required that the unit cost for this type of development be ~ between $12,000 and $13,000 per unit, including all services, such as architecture, land, building, etc. - in order to meet this criteria, high density was necessary, and perhaps the ' City should establish a zone which would permit this heavier density development, such as ;~ the City of Los Angeles which permitted 200 aquare feet per unit, and that the type of z facilities for recreation cove'~ed pool tables, shuffleboard, etc. u~,+ THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that in a recent work session with the City Council regarding R-3 development for the City of Anaheim that concern had been expressed by the City Manager regarding increasing costs for utilities for high-rise apartments, and then inquired whether or not the water and sewer lines would be adequate, or whethex additional requirements had been reviewed by the City Engineering Division, or whether a Wtudy of these r~quirements had been made since considerably more pressure of water was necessary for high-rise than one or two-story development'because if subject petition were approved, this could set a pattern for other R-3 high-rise development in the area, requesting more than that permitted by the R-3 Code. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that these problems had been studied by the Water and Sewer Division and it was determined that the sewer facilities would be adequate; however, the Water Division had indicated a 12-inch water main would be needed, and only a 6-inch-main extended easterly from Loara Street along North Street and northerly along Lido Lanes that the Utilities Director had conferred with the Assistant City Manager with regard to extension of water mains,and the responsibility for a 12-inch main from Loara Street to just east of the YMCA property on North Street would be provided by the City, and any extension of the 12-inch water main to subject property would have to be borne }~y the peti~ig~gr in ordQr ~g p~oyide adegu~te fire protection since the existing ~ . ... . • ,, ...,, . ~ ..... .. ... „ . -,.. . , 1.M '. , '_ . -: . ._ .~. ... ... .. ~,.... - .r -:. , :. .. . . . . J;..,, s. ., lJ.., .. _. . ,. . . .. ~ ~V°"'~rt'~'C~+" ~'~F+~mm~~ f '~,cr ~~ a~ ,: r a s ve~.w- ~,~,3::~, rr 'a.~+ t L Y'' ~' ~ ~ '~ %' f __ _ ~ ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 i .:T#~ r'7r~ .,,~.~ d 3706 VARIANCE N0, 1931 - facilitias were only suitable for domestic serviceo ];owever, there (Continued) was an alternative route-this pipe could be taken from Loara Street along the Orange County Flood Control channel, but approval for this route would have to be obtained from the Orange County Flood Control District, Commi~sioner Rowlend noted that Commissioner Farano hacl made some very interesting observa- t3.bn~ in that no hardship had been demonstrated except speculation of land values and putting a price on land because of land economics, thereby m~king prices too high, and this had only a small effect on land u~e from the Commission's viewpoint; that there were some things of ma3or concern - one being that if this one-acre-plus parcel were approved for high density, this would set the pattern for development of the more than six vacant acres, and there would be no way in the world•that the City couJ . deny any other request in this vicinity, thus in~ecting between 300 to 900 dwelling un e in this very small area; that one could easily imagine the existing municipal water facilities would be inadequate for the proposed facility; that North Street had an engineering configuration which carried considerable water and it might be difficult to have access to North Street; that the tax exemption was not a consirleration for the Commission, nor the use of Federal funds for financing - however, the park and recr~~ation facilities for this general area were now inadequate based on a maximum density of 30 units per net acre, and to in3ect 900 or even only 300 units into this area could create such an impact that it would make it totally impossible to provide these facilities since there was no place to expand the present park; thatthe park usually served an area of one mile, and if the proposed density were approved, this would lower the area served to one-eighth of a mile, or near2y four times the park facilities presently available with no chance for expansion~ that the demand for senior citizen housing could create a burden nn parks and recreation since the senior citizen program was one of the most active groups in the nation, and to his knowledge, there was no great need demonstrated that Anaheim needed low rental housin9 for the older people since the families generally took care of their own relatives, even though HUD had indicated there was e~tdence Anaheiin needed thise Furthermore, from recent census reports~ there was evidence Anaheim was one of the younger communities in the nation, and the percentage of older persons was considerably less, and by approving sub~ect petition the City would be encouraging development up to 50 units per net acre, which would be contrary to t!:e recommendation made to the City Council to adopt the Victor Gruen Report which pro~ected high-rise in the Northeast Quadrant of the Center City Study, an area that would provide for a sorely needed housing development that could help support the downtown area, and that it was difficult for private enterprise to compete and build the proposed type of facility since they could not afford to lend money at the rate the Federal Government did on a. low interest ansl long•-term bas16. Commissionfr Rowland furth?.r noted that the formula for maintaining single-story for R~3 ` when applied t~ ±he height of sub,~ect building would require this atructure to be located approximately i,000 feet from any R-0 or R~1, and that the Commiasion and City Council in their recent denial of one-story R~3 uphqld the fact that• multiple-family development ad~acent to R-0 or R-1 was incompatible, thereby retainir~g the integrity of the R-0 Zone. Furthermore, since this structure was proposed between 3Ci0 and 400 feet from R-1 on the north side of the Flood Control channel, it would have the same effect as being 60 feet from two-story development. A showing of hands indicated 15 persons present in opposition to sub~ect petition. Commissioner RoKland offered Resolution No~ PC67-284 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1931 on the basis that the petitioner had not demonstrated there were exceptional or extraordi.nary circumstances applicable to the property that did not generally apply to property in the same class or vicinity; that the petitioner had not demonstrated the variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substa:.;ial property right denied them and gxanted others in the same area; that granting sub3ect petition would set an undesirable precedent for similar requests for remaining vacant parce~s in the area which could result in possible development of between 300 and 90C :,artments on approximately 6.6 acres; that the R-3 Zone required single-story constxuctio, .ithin 150 feet of any single-family residential zone - therefore, the formula for di~tance from R-0 or R-1 would require a distance of 1,OG0 feet from such high-rise uses; ;,hat the present park and recreation facilities in this area would be inadequate with residential densities projected for 30 units per acre, and since the area did not have sufficient land availsble to provide additional facilities for the vast increase in population which could be expected with the development of between 300 and 900 units, the impact on the existing recreational facilities would be monumental; and that previous zonfng action by the City Council where one-story R-3 was propesed adjacent to R-0 zoned property demonstrates that heavier densities were not compatibla with the single- family residential environment already established in this general areao (See Resolution Book) _ ~ . . .. ~ . . ^•~, w,• r f . .. . .. . . . . ^ ~ .YI..~~ I .. . .,.. ... . .... .. .. . . ~ . . ... ~.: ~~ ~ . . -~ ~ V 11 t: ~w~ q 9 ~ ..~,.G 'Y' . ~ ... ,JM r.: ~ Y _ ~ 1 V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3707 VARIANCE N0. 1931 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following (Continued) vote: AYES:. OOMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Farano in voting for denial of subject petition stated that the petitioner had failed to meet the required showings of a variance; that he was certain the proposed pr~ject would serve a very worthy pu•rpose if there were a piace for a 14-story building - however, this area was most inappropriate for a high-rise bvilding, and it would set a precedent for the balance of the vacant parcels in the area. Commission Gauer in voting for denial of subject petition stated that the facilities did not even meet the motel standards of the City of Anaheim and were inadequate for apartment requirements. Commissioner Herbst stated in his denial of subject petition that Orange County was fast becoming an area to which older people were moving, and in the future there would be a need for this type of facility - however, the location of the proposed facility was not proper, and, therefore, he voted for denial. Commissioner Mungall in voting for denial of sub3ect petition stated there was no demonstrate need for this type of facility in the city. Commissioner Rowland in voting for denial stated that if subject petition were appealed and heard by the City Council, the mailing list for notification of legal notices should be expanded to include more than the minimum 300 feet. Chairman Camp in voting for denia? of subject petition stated that the location was not proper and should be located in the designated high density area, not in an extremely low density area as proposed. RECLASSIFICATION - PUgLIC tiEARINGe ALBERT Se TOUSSEAU, 6672 Richfield Road, Anaheim, N0. 67-68-40 California, Owner; COVINGTON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 2451 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; property described VARIANCE N0. 1933 as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 530 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 1ENTATIVE MAP OF a maximum deptlz of approximately 660 feet, the westerly boundary of TRACT N0. 6526 subject property being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevardo Property presently classified A1 (County). REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: PERMIT ~NSTRUCTION OF 120 DWELLING UNITS ON 30 R-3 IATS, WITH W AIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A RESIDENTIkL ZONE, AND (2) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKe TENTATIVE I'RACT REQUEST: PERMIT THE SUBDIVISION OF APPAOXIMATELY 9 ACRES IfJTO 30 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RFSIDENI'IAL~ ZONED LOTSe Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the developer requesting withdrawal of Reclassification Noe 67-68-40, Variance Noo 1933 and Tentative Map of Tract Noe 6526e Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to 9r.ant the request of the developer to withdraw Petitionsfor Reclassification Noe 67-68-40, Variance Noe 1933, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6526. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. 4~' ^-~ ,~,•~,F~?~~'; ~-+rr~trx~ ~~W r ~d : ` .. . . . _. . .. .. .. .. . _ . ~ . . .~'1 ., ~ 9 ~~' ~ t ~ "'il Y K~rrJ ~,R j~''T"}ag' rT V~,~ ~ ~''~:,E ~ ' ~ .. ~ ~s ~ ~ ". ~ w..e. 4 ~ ~ s , i ~srr ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 18, 1967 3708 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noo 813 - Restaurant on property located at the northeast corner of Sycamore and East Streets - Request for clarification of intention of the Planning Commission as to the permitted uses and hours of operationo Associate Planner Charles Roberts presenied a xequest from the present operator of the existing restaurant located in the small shop.ping center at the northeast corner of Sycamore and East Streets, noting that the Comn,~,:sion, in Resolution Noa 1938, Series 1965-66, had approved on-sale beer in approving .,onditional Use Permit Noa 813e However, the present operator was requesting further clarification as to the intent of the Planning Commission to dete:mine whether they intended to include on-sale wine in conjunction with the serving of food as wella Mr> Roberts further noted that Find~ng Noe 5 of the aforementioned resolution indicated that the petitioner had stipulated to hours of operation from 1I:00 A,UI, to 12:00 P,Me; however, the new owner was requesting permission to extend business ho•ars for Friday and Saturday only until midnighte Discussion was held by the Commission regarding their original intent, it being their opinion that the sale of wine in conjunction with the sale of food was construed as being a light alcoholic beverage similar to beer; thereforey it should have been included in their approval of subject petitiono Furthermore, the request for extension of hours of operation would be substantially in con;~rmance w3th the stipulation made by the original petitioner as to hours of operatione Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo PC67-285 and moved for its passage and adopt- tion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, amending Resolution No> 1938, Series 1965-66, dated February 16, 1966, approving Conditional Use Permit Noo 813, as follows: FZNDING N0, 1: "That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: establish a restaurant with on-sale beer and wine, and waiver of Section 18e40e070(4-a)(2-e), whict. requires 78 parking spaces for the proposed devel.opment, to permit development with 67 parking spaces on sub~ect propertye" FTNDING NOs 5: "That the petitioner stipu7.ated to hours of operation from 11:00 AeM, to 11:00 P.Mo, except that the ho::rs of operation on Friday and Saturday shall be extended to 12:00 midnight; and that the serving of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) would only be in conjunction with and incidental to the serving of food," (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ITEM N0. 7 ilariance Noe 1785 - Proposing to establish a re:staurant on property located on the north side of Lincoln .Ave-~~e, west of Aladdin Street, of which the front 215 feet ;s zoned C-1, and the rear 400 feet R-A, _ _`N, ;r ~; a +<':';f ,:::~ Associate Planner Charles Robests presented plans for Variance No. 1785 to the Commission, noting that the petitioner was proposing to establish a restaurant with waivers of three : sections of the R-A Zone; that these waivers were necessary since the facility would be located on botFi C-1 and R-A property; and that these waivers include: 1) permitted uses ' in the R-A Zone, 2) maximum building height adjacent to R-A property along the west property line (60-foot setback requiredj 5-foot setback proposed), and 3) required 6-foot masonry wall along the west property linea Mr. Roberts noted that the plans submitted by the petitioner indicate the proposed construc- tion of a 16,000-square foot restaurant which would be two-story within the front 215 feet whicrt fs zoned C-1, and only one-story on that portion zoned R~A; that the 35-foot buildin9 setback required by Council policy along Lincoln Avenue was to be maintained; that the '~ petiti~ner was proposing to provide screen landscaping along the easterly property line where sub~ect ~roper~y abuts thQ R-1 zot~ed proper~y; ~Rd ~hat the petitioner was proposing ~ ; `...~r.-r~°,~ - - -- ~-r,~ . ^k,_ "'. Y°ft,i: . ~ : i ~ ~ ~ ~...,~+z,::= - ~ . .. . , i~, .. ~ . _ -i l _ . ~~~ ' i r:_ ~ ; J . ;,~ ` r ~.! y ~-'i S ~' 1 '' 7 -~ > >"~ - y ~ ~ 2~ ~i . . . .. ~ . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONUu1ISSI0N, December 18, 1967 ' 3709 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NOo 7 (Continued) to locate the structure only 5 feet from the west property line., where a 2:1 setback ratio , would normally be required; however, it was doubtful that the front portion of the property , to the west would ever be used for residential purposes, and the City Council might wish to consider this facte The recommended changes to the Planning Commission Resolution Noe 2017, Series 1965-66 were reviewed as follows: "~NDITION N0. 7: That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit Nae 1, Revision 'i~oe 2a "CONDITION_NO> 8 (additional) That the R-A portion of sub~ect property shall be developed in accordance with the C-1 Zone site development standards with appropriate landscaping and screen plantinge "CONDITION N0. 9 (additiona5,) That all parking area lighiing and~or any other external lighting shall be directed downward and away from the abutting residential parcels to the easte" The Commission in reviewing the plans noted that all the requirements of the Council approval of any development of subject property had been mete Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendations for amending the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017, Series 1965-66 which granted Variance Noe 1785, and that the develop- ment plans for a restaurant wpre substantially in conformance with the Commission`s intent for development of the property. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NOe 8 Proposed street name changes: (a) 4Yalnut Street west of Jefferson Street; (b) Walnut Street from its iratersection with La Palma Avenue to Lakeview Streeto Associate Planner ~'harles Roberts presented a request of the Engineering Division for C~~ consideration at public hearing of a street name change for Walnut Street(since La Palma ~ ~ Avenue from its intersection at Jefferson Street and its precise alignment easterly to ~'~+~~ Imperial Highway was presently under cons.truction and almost completed) to La Palma Avenue ;~ easterly of Jefferson Street and Coronado Street westerly of Jefferson Street. Furthermore, ;~ the Orange County Board of Supervisors should also consider the street name change. ~~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to set for public hearing consideration of a street ~ name change for Walnut Street west of Jeffexson Street to Coronado Street, and east of its intersection with La Palma Avenue to La Palma Avenue, extending easterly to Fee Ana Street and Fee Ana Street to Lakeview Street under the jurisdiction of the County, Lakeview Street to the future extension of Orchard Drive and thence easterly to imperial Highway, '' also under the'jurisdiction of the County, said public hearing to be on January 15, 1968. f Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJO~RNINENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Farano offered a motion to ad~ourn the meetinge Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ' ~~C/N/~'(~i~/~`.-C~`,.~'_/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~ ~ rr, '~