The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/03/25~Y`S'i.;"{,.~'~3R ~. .CY'::- ~+1"_ji -5:~~`-~3S'7=-~...~ .p, .)~:h7ti~y. ~r,.._; 'S4F''s Ti~ `f~ :,:h `'~'~ R ':`.; i. ~' T t, ri:~~li R.. a'; : . . ., , ~ .: .~ . , ~ . ..,.,, ... ... : ,- ~x.s(..~„ .. .. . ':. . . - .. :~._. .: .':' ~;: . ''.... 1,~. .. j~~ ' .. ' .. ~ . ~ . ~ ~ .~ ' .. . . . ~, Y~'. ~ ... ~ ~'. . .. . ~ ~' " ~ . . , . ~7 ~% City Hall ~ Anaheim, California March 25, 1968 A REGULAR MEETING'OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING = A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2e00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. _ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred (who attended the evenin9 public hearing), Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. A3SENT' - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoping Supervisor: Roaald Thompson Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowery Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones Associate Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Donald F. Carter, Pastor, Grace Brethren Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Fla9. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer THE MINUTES and motion carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of March 11, 1968, as submitted. VARIANCE N0; 1957 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN 8, SIGNAL , CORPORATION, 1100.North Main Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to. ELEVATE AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN T0 35 FEET, WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIG[-IT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described asc A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of North Street and Anaheim Boulevard and having approximate frontages of 150 feet on the south side of North Street and 104 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified G2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of March 11, 1968, at the request of the petitioner. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subj.ect property and the current zoning of the property, noting that the service stdtion had been rebuilt, and that the requested waiver was to increase the height of the existing free-standing sign from the permitted 25 feet to 35 feet as stated by the petitioner, "due to shrub growth and expansion of the immediate area, the business had suffered economic loss because of this concealed identity". Furthermore, the Commission might wish to 9ive consideration to the fact that residential uses are established to the east of subject property, and the increase in height might have ~ deleterious effect on the residential integrity of the area. Mr. W. E. Lenz, agent for the petitioner and renresenting the Federal Sign 8 Signal Corporation, appeared before the Commission and steted that the:existence of the service station was in dire economic straights because of lack of identification due to the growth ' of the trees around the area and the number of other signs identifying commercial uses, and that if the reouest were permittea for the additionel height, this would assist transient.trade in identifying the area prior to arriving at the service station. The Commission inquired as to the peYCentage of increase which miqht be gained from the increase in height of the existing sign; whereupon the agent stated that approximately 30%,:of the service station business was gained from transient traffic, and the idea that a service station served only a neighborhood was erroneous. - 3809 - , ;:, ~ ; ~ : . \ : y ~ p~ (~ ~J `r' 3810 ` 1968 ` March ~ ~ { ~ , ISSION, CITY PLANNING E ~, S, MIhUT Commissio rwould be. Th u h a u e the hours that VARIANCE N0. 1957,-. stated agent whereupon the the evening; (Continued) . until approximately 10:00 or 11:00 P.M. . The Commission then inquired whether or not the agent had statistics regarding the whereupon the agent stated 1 s amount of decline in businees during the past few years; vice station site, the increase in business " that with the amount.of remodeling of the ser this was not so. - however , , should have been coneiderably more t lser~ice stationssco petingsforstheabusiness The Commis a s e n >:u many there were too fact the was increased fetheent n would no i W ~ o e ~ ~ g Operator o the in thie area, and that a s assist attempting t was r stated that the Ricinc eas~in9 the height of the sign. ' "~ r x service station by . ;;, No one appe,ared in opposition to subject petition. s THE HEARING WP.S CLOSED. ght i close The Commission noted that waivi mmission when dwellin91unitssin e C e o th anted by of a sign were normally .only g consi ~ e n r ' e protection, proximity to the commercial uses were some have to right every had roperty re ct b , p je residences so the east of su ~ ar ~ a a h petitioner as the ince and it was likel beneficial s' be not nnwould in happen m r Uth h s g e ht of hei t1ie increase in 9 e obliterating the existing sign, this could aga claimed shrubbery and trees wer had a habit of growin9• - ~ in a few years since trees ~ p n that basis I Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution NPet~tion7fornVariancefNo.11957asongthe ' seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny ~ to the l 1 i n r c l r l a y y app 9enera not did that there were no exceptionalintended property the of use olved or.the where ; d been permitted only i h ` nv a property the ; properties in the area; that the waiver of the sign height t l e ~ probability in all residences were nonconformi some timemaand idential uses~for afforded F as res east have,been estab~.ished ~ tit4 next 25 to 30 years - therefore, these homes should be for in r ~ t r n + 3 . so ema would sign ~ higher some protection from the intrusion of signs in the area; a erectioniof a circumvented by b '` :; ;.; ; e and growth of the existin9 trees could not an increase in the hei9ht of the sion. ~ ~. since the growth of the trees would mean ~ , i (See Resolutton Book) y; ll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ; ~, On ro ~ COMMiSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~~ AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN BIBLE SCHOOL, 1345 South Ca'lifornia, Owner; FAITH COMMUNITY l es, P E R M I T N 0. 1 0 0 9 B u r l i n gton Avenue, Los Ange 631 South Wes tern A v e n u e, A n a h 2 i m, C a l i f o rnia, A gent; S A H , B APTIST CHURC r e q u e s t i n g permission to ESTABLISH AN EXISTIN G C H U R C H FACILITY A RUC- E X de scribed as propert y CONFORMING USE AND TO PErZMI WITH~THEICHURCHSFACILITY Non D ~x, ON UNCT T U R E T O B E O P E R A T E D I N C O N J ed parcel of approximately 5 acres o f l a n d h a v i n g a f r o n ta ge of roxi- m depth of app ha i 7 p mu A rectangularly s roximately 337 feet on the west side of Western Avenue and a maX the northerly boundary of said nue a Av ~ r- , pp e mately 662 feet from the centerline of Western Ler RvAnuA uth of the centerline a ~;~: GRICULTURA parcel being approximately 330 feet so ified clas Property presently ?;~' described as 631 South Western Avenue. w~'4 , ~~ ' ZONE. . _ noting that Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subjectresentltywas being nE* P1 ~r - . an Associate arcel consisted of approximately 5 acres; that thused pehowever, the petitioner th i b y~` e p ng e used for church facilities, and a residence was sidential structure for a day care, child nursery; nx,~ , ~?= was proposing to utilize the existing re hurch had been established pri ermit for se l n a ~~~~, `f p u conditiona and that the existing q a uiring to the enactment of an ordinance req imum of 34 children i ~ ` ~ ~ or to have a max Anaheim or pr ~ hurches. Furthermore, the petiniag r ifive years, and that a six-foot pt t ~ ,, ,~,,, e c o wo from enrolled in the school, ranging ubject property since there was a large portion which wae d ~ ~ ~t.~~s s masonry wall would surroun d for recreational facilities for the children. .'3 ~..';' vacant land and would be use ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. . . ,^, .. . ~ .+~,,,r"~9!~~ ~~ ~1"Y 1 X i ~ ~ ~ tl) iL {J F f 4 1 ~ * _ " ~ . ~ "~ "t~~ ~ -. ~ ~ .'. ~ i ~ L 5 ~ : ti: '~'v~ ~ I~+ 'r~~~ji,,,.k„~~N,~'`~ .,.,r.~,,,~y+`~+~'., a 1 i > ~,~ ~ tl, .~ „ ~~:! . , _:.,.Pr ~',.h+'V..i~~:is ` ..' ~:~Pw. ':i „?''~ ~~ t'~ ~..'_,i ~ . _ . s . . . 4~'~~' . ... ,~in ~ .~`•.',sn '~,~'' .~r,.~.i'~~ i ,~'~?,. k3..~" ~~ r~ ~~ ~' ) y~~ ~` ~i. "'~ yr . ~4a~' wr ,r~ ~ {' ~ . _~ d •; t ~.. . - k"~ ~ ~, r ~j i,j~ ~Y. _ ~~<• 1 t~~: _ _ .i ~. ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . ~ . .. . . ' ~ ~ / ~~ r:i \, ~ ~~ . V ~~~~ ~ ~'~ -4 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION, March 2~3; 1968 ~•"' 3811 s CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared to represent the petitioner.. `PERMIT N0._1009 (Continued) .Ko one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petiti~~, ,~ The Commission determined they would consider the conditional use permit latei in the meeting in order to give the petitioner an opportunity to answer ~ questions. (See Page No. 3824-a) '; CONDITIONAL USE -.PUBLIC HEARING. MR. & MRS. EDWARD H. PELZER AND MRS. JANICE K. DUNN, PERMIT N0. 1010 666 Locust Street, Corona, California, Owners; MRS. DORIS SCHNUfE, 4092 Santa Anita Street, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to~ESTABLISH A CHURCH AND RELATED FACILITIES, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 112 feet on the west side of West 5treet and a maximum depth of approximately 315 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 930 feet north of the centerline of North Street. Property presently classified R-0., ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE. :1;`1, Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject.property, noting the ~: ~ land uses to the north, south, east, and west; that the petitioner was proposing a church and relat~d facilities with waiver of the minimum setback abutting,the property line to y: the south; that the church would be located at the front portion of the property, with a ~:;.,;;~~, 28-foot building setback from the front property line; that a 20-.foot access drive to ,# the parking area to ~he rear was proposed along the north property line; and that a ' r+~ 6~foot masonry wall would be constructed around the periphery of the property. ~ *~ r;y,:;:;,,.; ~-'~ . -=, Mrs. Doris Schnute, agent for the petitioner, indicated her presence to answer questions. '~:~£~;;`~ Mr. Robert Muro,.870..Redondo Drive East, appeared before the Commission in opposition ?`t?t~• and stated that his property abutted subject property to the reax for the entire 138-foot ':'u".'4? distance, and inquired what type of church and number of arishioners were i;';;^~.;y~, P proposed since ,~.,;,..~, the church facilities in all areas throughout the city were notorious for having traffic F.~ ~l .:iF~:~,T~, problems due to inadequate parking facilities, and that this increase in traffic for one ~fM1: parcel would create problems to the residential integrity of the area. ~~ !' Chairman Cemp advised the opposition that the church facilit was y proposing the number of ~'~~ parking spaces required by Code, and that the church was known as the Calvary Tabernacle. ti i ~ ~ . . ~ . . ' ~ . .. ~ . ~ ~ . . . . ~~~, Mr. R. G. Maus, 907 North West Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, ~~d~ stating his property.was ad,jacent to subject property; that he questioned the proposed F"'d"~~~ setback since setbacks in the R-0 Zone were required a considerable distance and not the y'j.;'~S 28 feet proposed, and it was his understanding that the setback along West Street would ,ti'?~,g;: require 100 feet from the property line. , ,~,',z,,4 , Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission and the opposit~on that the R-0 Zone required a front setback of 25% of the depth of the property, but for church facilities, only a 15-foot setback was required. Mro Maus then stated that at the time he constructed his home, he had been informed that there were special setbaaks along West Street. 0'Ir. Thompson noted no special setbacks were provided in the Code for West Street; however, the R-O Zone would govern the setback for residential uses. Mr. Maus then stated that the three homes adjacent to his were also required to set back considerably more than.what was bein9 proposed, and if the 25~ required for residential uses were also required of the proposed church, this would mean a 75-foot setback, and on the basis of the request outlined, this would leave only 24,000 square feet for parking and a driveway, and this would not be adequate for a sizable congregation. Mr. Thompson further noted that the westerly portion of sub~ect property would be used for off-street parking, which should be adequate for the proposed seating capacity of the sanctuary. `Mr. Maus then noted that the proposed church would be 2,600 square feet and the parking - lot would handle only 36 cars, and this would leavE no rooie for growth of the church - thus would not be adequate for continued utilization of the property for church purposes. Chairman Camp noted that the proposed church could not expand its facilities at that location. ~r7 itP ~ ., c~' 2_ t.3~'~'j ~. " ,~ "' ~11~ ~~,~a. ~m.. ^r I r ~ ,~ z ~tiR ~ ~i a'. ~ ~ ,} ~~ F \ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ tiY ~ ~ `" MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 ~"', ' 3812 •, CONDITIONAL USE -.Mr, Maus then continued that a similar request f.or church facilities { PERMIT N0. 1010 had been projected for subject property some time ago, and at that '~5 (Continued) time discussion was held thet the facilities were not adequate for '' ii,~;. off-street parking and growth; thereupon, he submitted a opposition signed by 47 property owners who vuould.be petition of ~;i affected b the primarily '+'fi y proposed use. ,,. Mr. Maus atated the primary concern of the opposition was the traffic that would be injected onto West Street which was now beginning to be a problem, and the Traffic Engineer had initiated an amendment to the Circulation Element to widen the street to ~alleviate this problem,' and this had been denied by the City, and 3f the proposed type of facility were approved, it would aggravate the existing traffic problem on West Street. Mr. Maus, in response to Commission questioning, stated that since control of the use of the church property was not within the jurisdiction of the City for specified days or hours, the traffic on West Street would be affected dependent upon the number of days of operation.the church facility was experiencing. Furthermore, the City would have a tax loss since church facilities were considered non-profit, and the property could better be utilized for R-0 residential development. Mr. Maus also noted that West Street, between North Street and La Palma Avenue, had investments in excess of $250,000 in new and existing homes,.arid it was the desire of the residents of that area to maintain the residential integrity of the area by denying subject petition. Mrs. Schnute then stated that it was their intent to have a church facili.ty for 180 people, and the parking space layout was in accordance with Code requir~inents, and there was still room to the rear of the proposed parking for any additional parking. Mrs. Schnute, in response to Commission questioning, stated they would have Wednesday evening services with a maximum of ten cars, and services on Sunday, and the proposed structure would not depreciate the residential properties ad~oining subject property. furthermore, a number of inembers of the church had visited residents in the area to present the proposed.plans and obtain their reaction. Mr. Frank Kraatz,.916 North West Street, appeared before the.Commission, stating his : property was directly.east of subject property, and traffic along West Street was so difficult in the.morning'he had difficulty backing out of his driveway,,and this was true for a number of the other properties along West Street; therefore, the injection of an additional 36 cars into the area would create an undesirable traffic hazard due to inaccessibility to the street from the homes. ', Mrs. Ruby Meier, 967 North West Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and:noted that at the time they built their homes in 1968, the Building Department had informed them that anyone building on subject property would have to put in pilings since there was only fill dirt since the property was a portion of the riverbed at one time, and regardless of the type of building that went on the property, these pilin9s would have to be placed into the ground to obtain a solid surface for structures. Furthermore, this was the third time a church was proposed for the property, and each time they were turned down (no apparent zoning action was on the property since records did not indicate this). Mrs. Meier also noted that the size of the church would not be of benefit to the residen- tial area since many of these homes were quite expensive, and that when the Reese home was built on West Street, they had been informed that nothing would be built south of the flood control channel. The agent for the petitioner noted that Mr. Tozier was the previous owner, and he had sold sub3ect property.; that the present property owner had held the property for ten years; that the area did not 3ustify paying g23,000 for the lot, and a small church was the only thing...the property could be used for; that the rear portion would be for parking only, and the building,would not be on the filled ground - therefore, she could see no reason why anyone would ob~ect to a nice church; and that if subject property ' were only usable`for residential purposes, it could have been so developed in the past ten years - however, this was not true since the owner had held the.property for that length of time. Mrs. Doris Ohanion, 821 North West Street, appeared in opposition,.noting that her,home was valued at $50,000, and that anyone who had purchased subject property had purchased it for speculation purposes; that many children lived in the homes on North West Street, and since there were no sidewalks, these children were sub3ected to using the street #or access to and from school; and that she could see no reason for changing the character of the neighborhood. ., ~~ ~ _ _._..__ ._ ~.-~.: ~a. ~t3 N~? J -r-r*c^x ~~. ~'`} lh' `-~sn~;vc~- ~~~,o~i ~,3";~..~ I ~ f~~ . "~ _ iE ~..,~+r r~~s~.s.~ +~~ ~ . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~~ ~ <.,°,3_f MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~ISSION, March c.i; 1968 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3813 ~ ~r~ CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. Bonnie Pryor, 1004 Karen Place, appeared in opposition, stating PERMIT N0. 1010. that none of the seven homes on the cul-de-sac stree~ she lived on (Continued) would sell for less then $40,OOOj that ~.hey were now considering an addi.tion of $5,000 for improvement of their homes;_that others on the.cul-de-sac were also thinking of expending,considerable money for improvement of their homes, and none would have purchased their properties at the time they, did if they.had known a church would be approved for sub,ject property, and that she and her husband had attempted to purchase a home where the character of the area was entirely..residential; and that no other lots existed which could be used for anything but residences - therefore, she could see no reason for consideration of subject property for other than residential purposes. Furthermore, it was her opinion the seller of the property was placing a valuation on the property in excess to any properties developed or undeveloped in that area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . The Commission inquired of the staff why the area maps did not indicate previous peti- tions for which a church was proposed; whereupon Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that many old use vaTiances were never placed on the maps if they had occurred some time ago. The Commission further noted that the entire area had always been coneidered suburban residential, and the,Commission and Council had always maintained the area for that purpose, and a number of applications had been considered for properties in this area, whtch had always been denied for other than residential purposes; furthermore, with a church proposed for sub3ect property, this - although being a limit'ed use - would be injecting a type of use not normally permitted in the R-0 Zone; and that churches, by nature, were expansive, and a church, in order to be self-supporting,..must develop in accordance with the economy of the country, and there was no sign the economy would not expand - therefore, there was no cause for a very small site being used since the church would not be able to maintain stability without an opportunity for growth, and the site was not suitable by orientation of the site,and by access,for a church to expand. A showing of hands indicated 11 persons present in opposition to subject petition. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-74 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Oommissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1010, on the basis that the proposed use would adversely affect the residential inte9rity of the area; that the size and shape of the site proposed for the use was inadequate to allow for future expansion in a manner not detrimental to the area and to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and that the proposed use would in~ect an increase in traffic on said street. Furthermore, the Commission was of the opinion that parcels of land less than an acre in size were inadequate to provide for church facilities and still allow for growth of the church. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:, Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEONARD G. MUSKIN AND DONALD T. LEAHY, 7805 Sunset PERMIT N0. 1011 : Boulevard, Los Anqelps3 California, Owners; A. 8 W. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND CARL ARTHOFER, 922 Broadway, Santa Monica, California, Agents~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT, WITH WAI4flR OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 200 feet by 200 feet, ex•tending between the east side of Harbor Boulevard to the west side of Acama Street, the northerly boundary being approxi- mately 195 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2108-2120 5outh Harbor:Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Assoclat2 Planner Charles Roberts"reviewed the location of sub3ect property, noting that at the previous public hearing the Commission had reviewed a similar request for a walk-up restaurant 110 feet south of subject property; that the plans submitted for sub~ect petition indicated a 4,300-square foot, drive-in restaurant; that in the original review of the plans, the staff had advertised for waiver of the parking requirements - however, upon further analyzation of the plans, it had been determined this waiver was no longer necessary~ that all parking for persons entering the restaurant building was proposed along the north and,south property lines entering from Harbor Boulevard, and the parking spaces for carhop service were located to the rear of the proposed structure; that the ~ :ti; , , ( 't~ ,'r~ ~~. ~°~ ~ '*: 'i'~e ~ ~tt~ ~ y~ 4'~ ~~ ~ ~Y i ~ .J F~ ,7~I . . ~ ' 7' ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ZS ~ ~ l I n. ' ~ , rA r r ~ ~ • ' ~. u r,~ 1 + ` ~ ~,i 1s..s t ':J 1 )-i ., ~~ - ~, ' _ ~ ~ y~ \ ~^~PS: ' - . . . . _ . . . . . . .. ~•`C11 ` r ~ ~ . V ~ ~ i t, ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CpMMISSION, March 25, 1968 3814 \ '- _ •~ CONDITIONAL USE - plans indicated considerable landscaping would be~around the struc- y ~ PERMIT N0._1011 . ture - however the interior of the parking area indicated no land- (Continued) i nd scap ng, a the C-1 Zone required landscaping; and that two drives ~~'; were proposed, spaced 110 feet apart, having ingress and egress to ~ both Harbor Boulevard and Acama Street, the latter street separating th e commercial property from the multiple-family residential development easterly. :i Mr. Robert Drew, representing the A. 8 W. 'Development Company, appeared before the ' Commission, noting that .the A. 8 W. Root Beer Company had been purchased by the United l; Fruit Company - therefore, they were now an international corporation, and they were ;~ just entering the drive-in restaurant field, with their first facility heing under ~',1 construction in Santa Monica. # ;>.~~ The agent~then presented two views of the proposed facility, noting it:would be a$200 000 ~f1Yi , facility, covering the cost of the structure and the interior furnishings, and a similar amount of money was..paid for the land. It was also noted that the landscaping was not shown on the plans submitted with the petitionf however, it.was their intent to comply with the C-1 requirements for the park- ing area relative to landscaping. The agent, in response to Commission questioning, stated it was proposed to have a complete menu for various types of ineals which would be served within the xestaurant building it- self, and the drive-in area would be primarily served with hamburgers and steak sandwiches; furthermore, it was their intent not to consider a cocktail lounge or bar facilities and concentrate on the sale,of root beer and food since the plans did not provide for bar facilities. Commissioner Gauer ad.vised the petitioner that if a cocktail lounge were proposed or contemplated, it would have to be separate from the dining area. Commissioner Farano noted that the plans submitted did not provide for a sign, and inquired whether the petit„ioner was proposing to request a variance for a sign on ' subject property. Mr. Drew noted that the~architect had indicated a separate request for.the sign would be " ' submitted. ..r~ Commieoioner Fa•rano then stated that it was his own personal feeling that the numerous '~ requests for waiversof the Sign Ordinance during the past six to eight weeks indicated ~ developers were desirous of more or less circumventir.g the Sign Ordinance at the time ' development plans.were reviewed by the Commission, and that he would.suggest the staff !.~ urge prospective petitioners to submit their sign requests at the time a conditional use permit was considered in order to reduce the excessive amount of time the Commission spent on consideration of public hearing of sign variances. Mr. Drew then stated tha± the architect was well aware of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance since he was also the architect for the Howard Johnson facility in Anaheim. Mr. Ray Mathews, sepresenting Affiliated Properties and Katella Valley Savings 8 Loan Association, appeared before the CommPssion in opposition, noting he.was manager of a 215-unit, R-3 development on the east side of Acama Street and had se~eral questions to ask of the representative: (1) How many automo6iles would be traveling down Acama Street from subject property, and (2) would the facility be open 24 hours a day? , Mr. Drew, in response to these questions, stated the restaurant would be open 16 hours a day - however, he.could not explain at this time the number of automobiles which would be utilizin9 Acama Street since they could be either comin9 from that street or going out that street,.and since this was the second facility of this.type, the other ` being under construction in Santa Monica, they t~ad no figures upon which to base statistics relative to vehicular traffic. Mr. Mathews then stated that the owner of the 215-unit apartment development had expended ~~ over $100,000 on the_property to the east; that 12 apartments faced Acama Street and , : the automobiles would turn onto the street at night, and with the lights flashing into these apartments, it would be objectionable to the residents of the apartments; that he urged the Commission to consider prohibiting vehicular access to Acama 5treet since many commercial facilities were required to dedicate access from their property into the ' residential street; and, furthermore, it was his desire to see a 6-foot masonry wall along the easterly boundary of sub~ect property. `.i > w~m~1$3' ~ f~_ t„ .; ru~i l. tt! S~V ':l~ ~ kt 1i`~ ~ + ~ ~.; . IlY~,'I ii' I. j ~ i.~ F~,Y',i 5 *i t} N 4 ~, ? "~ ~ . ~ . ~. . ~ ~ . . . MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING.C~ ISSION March 25 19 8 ~ . ~ r .' ~ , , 6 3815 ~ , :;:;: CONDITIONAL USE - Considerable discussion was then held between the Commission, the PERMIT N0. 1011 staff, and the opposition relative to vehicular traffic being ha (Continued): eliminated to Acama Street, the number of units that would be r affected along Acama Street if vehicular access were permitted, ~ the fact that the Tic Toc Market to the north had an access drive ,; to Acama Street, and numerous garages were located providing parking facilities for ,,r;,;;,:~; the apartments easterly of those facing on Acama Street. ~r ~M"~ ~ Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that when the Commission had considered a previous pe`tition for the property approximately 110 feet south of subject ~,{ property for the Arby walk-up restaurant, access rights to Acama Street were required ~:, to be dedicated since the plans submitted by the petitioner then indicated only pedes- ~ trian access was proposed and no vehicular access. ~~ : ~+° Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the arcel ma was ' ;f the Engineering Division regarding the split of aub ect p P Presently in ~ property and that property d approved for a walk-up restaurant southerly, and if any change in access rights to > !: Acama Street were contemplated by the Commission due to the possible detrimental effect ~.,j~ vehicles might have on the residential integrity by coming from these various commercial :~ facilities into a residential street, the Commission should advise the Engineering Division so that the parcel map could reflect the Commission's desires. _. ~ ~;; Mr. Mathews then noted that,in his opinion, he felt the main reason for proposing access ~ to Acama Street was to provide for additional _ ~ parking spaces along~a residential street. ~~:;:= `..;~ Mr. Drew then stated that with the present plans, a number of parking spaces were ' .; ~ eliminated b 9 , y providin access to Acama Street; however, they were attempting to develop 'r`-;':.> ~ the property in accordance with the recommendations of the Traffic Engineer. .;,,,.:::~ '"~ `"'%~ The attorne p Y ~~;,';;~;~ y for the_A. 8 W. Development Com an noted for the Commission that the street ~''~''~,;k alsopartially paved by the commercial property owner, and half of the improvements were ,,:.~~_ paid; therefore, use of the street should be granted the commercial facility. ~a.:s;s'~: ~ p 9 +~~:''i~+~ Furthermore the a artments which mi ht be affected would be partially sc~eened from the area due to the method of construction, and the lights would not hinder them since there ~~i~, were also lights coming.from the Tic Toc Market. ~ ti '~` The Commission inquired of Mr. Daw what amount of traffic was expected for Acama Street; ~~~t whereupon Mr. Daw,stated that at the time the tract was developed, there were 20 acres ~~^~ involved with four lots - No. l being the commercial lot and the a.thers.were for R-3 ~'~~ development. Thi.s property, then, was under one ownership, and the street was not ~~i~, designed to serve_just the residential uses~ however, under the original plans for the ~z~.° commercial project,, a large office bui2ding was contemplated, at.which time all access ~~ ~a~ was proposed from Harbor Boulevard, and a condition of the tract was.dedication of access hy~l~ rights to Orangewood.- however, when this did aot develop, the dedication of access rights ~;,- to Oran9ewood was removed, but access to Acama Street was never denied the commercial ~ property, and the amaunt of R-3 traffic was so minimal that any commercial traffic for ~.i~ this local street would not overload this street. ',~ ~.~~a Mr. George Plasco, an employee of A. 8 W. Development Company, appeared before the y~~~a' Commission and noted that if the rear access were not permitted, a traffic ~~'`~'~ problem might ??',~~~'-' be generated on sub,ject property, and it was im ortant that access be ?'~~~~~~ ~ Street p granted to Acama ~,,,~;~+. , primarily in.the event of an emergency. ~~ t'~ c~~'~,~ After discussion_as-to the type of access that would be permitted with.the lot split, "~~ the Commission determined that to prnvide for proper traffic flow and eliminate any ~'^~~' traffic p g ~ ~ p n-;;~r~ problem in the arkin area access should be granted to Acama Street whereu on ~ ~ ~4~ : i ~~~` Mr. Daw noted tha.t i~ would be almost impossible to impose one access .to each parcel #;'~r~ since the Traffic Engineer would permit only access at specific points. ':Y...,~ ~ {~~+~}~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to a '~~'~ 1011 sub ect to PProve Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. ~ 9 permitting only one access to Acama Street immediately ad,jacent to the `~i~ Tic Toc Market in order to protect the R-3 integrity. Commissioner Mungall seconded the ~ motion, and after considerable discussion, Commissioners Gauer and Mungall withdrew their motions. Commissioner Farano offered'Resolution No. PC68-75 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commi.ssioner Mungall, to grent Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1011, subject to conditions., a'nd requirement of landscaping~in accordance with the Gl standards, as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~'~' . ,\ \ ,~~ ~ U . . ~) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 ~ 3816 CONDITIONAL.USE -~PUBLIC IIEARING. FIRST WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, 10931 Chapman Avenue, PERMIT N0.'1012 -. Garden Grove, Californie, Owner; WHII7IER DISTRICT.OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, c~o William Hobbs, 1135 Glassell Street, Orange, Californ3a, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH AND RELATED SCHOOL FACILITIES, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped,parcel of approximately 1.9 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 336 #eet on the north side of Ball Road and e maximum depth of approximately 227-feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 350 feet east of the centerline of Gaymont Dxive, and further described as 2885 West Ball Road. Property presently classified ',-p,'pGRICULTURAL, ZONE. • Aseociate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property, noting that the F buildings were in existence - however, the minimum required setback fox churches adjacent to a property line.was 15 feet, and the existing structure was set bac!: 11 feet along the westerly property line,~and the existing structures would lend themselves to the proposed use - however, the..plans do not indicate any landscaping in the interior parking area or adjacent 'to the•Ba11 Road right-of-way; that the staff had discussed with the agent ~ the requirement of.a 6-foot masonry wall along approximately 50% of the northerly boundary, separating the chuFCh and the school from the R-1 subdivision, and the Commission might wish to give consideration to the possible need for continuation of the wall along the remainder of the boundary, especially if this area is to be used for recreational activi- ties; and that the landscaping normally required along the Ball Road frontage was only for a portion and did not provide for the three feet normally required,adjacent to the right-of-way. Mr. William Hobbs, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and requested clarification as to Finding No. 5 of the Report to the Commission. Did this mean that the proposed nursery would be included, or would they have to file an additionalpetition? Zoning Supervisor_Ronald Thompson advised the petitioner that subject.petition included the nursery. Mr. Aobbs then inquired whether, at a later date, a small chapel could be erected; whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that this could be approved by the submission of revised plans. Mr. Hobbs further.inquired as to the amount of landscaping needed since there already existed some landscaping in the front setback. Mr. Thompson then stated that the'Code required a three-foot wide strip of landscaping alung the Ball Road frontage adjacent to the parking area, and trees and~or shrubbery in the parking area.ad3acent to the structures to the east. Mr. Hobbs then noted that the requirement of a maso nry wall and the landscaping could not be accomplished immediately; however, if they were given some time, this might be done. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson noted for the Commission that the amount of time that could be given to complete these two requirements would be at the discretion of the Commission; howev.er, if the wall were starLed within the time period specified, this would indicate to the City that the petitioner was diligently pursuing the condition Mr. Hobbs, in response to Commission questioning, stated that there were 100 members at the present time, and that they were not planning an elementary school-- only a nursery school - since they were not in competition with public schools.• Mr. Thompson noted one of the reasons the staff recommended a wall to be installed was for the protection of the R-1 properties to the north adjacent to the proposed playing area, and that at one time the property to the east raised horses - therefore protection of both the animals and children was deemed advisable by the construction of the masonry wall. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS~CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-76 and moved for its passage•and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditio-nal. Use Permit No. 1012, subject to conditions, and the requirement of landscaping on the gall itoad frontage and a 6-foot masonry wall-along the north property line, to be commenced within six months. (See Resolution Book) . . . On.roll`•call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fa'rano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. „.,... ..,...:~.. ..,.~.. ~ ~ . ,.:~_ ,.{~.:.;, :;s: . . . .... . . .,... . , . ... ..\ ~ ~ .. . . . ~ .,- , C~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 3817 CONDITIONAL USE .-.PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND AND ESTELLE SPEHAR, 913 Paloma Place, PERMIT,N0..1013' Fullerton, California, Owners; BARBARA HESS, 1031-North Euclid S.treet, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTA'URANT on property described ase A rectangularly shaped parcel of land havit~g a,.fnonta9e of approxSmately 150 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and a meximum.:depth of approxi- mately 180 feet, the northerly boundary of said par~el bein9 approximately 180 feet south o£ the centerline of La Pa1ma Avenue, anc further described as 1031 North Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMM~RCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property and existing zoning, noting that the existing restaurant was part of a group of retail stores and service businesses,.and eimilar uses were established both to the north, west and south of subject property. ~ Mr. Roberts noted_that the development,plans indicated a substantial modification to the existin9 hofbrau, and the petitioner was proposing a separation between the cocktail .~~.. ' lounge and tb.; dining area; furthermore, the kitchen facilities were-proposed to be enlarged considerably and would constitute approximately 16% of the oross floor area. ~ Findings of the Engineering Department were reviewed relative to ultimate street widening of Euclid Street between La Palma and Crescent Avenues which was projected for the 1968-69fiscal year, and since the ultimate widening of Euclid Street in this area would requir= ,~ modification of.the.front parking area ad3acent to Euclid Street, the Co;nmission mi9ht ~-,, ;,}:! wish to require the front parking area to be redeveloped concurrently with the Euclid '~ -` Street project in.accordance with the landscaping provisions of.tha. Gl Zone. ~' ~ ~' Mrs. Barbara Hess, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated I u~ `' it was proposed to add.a cocktail lounge and increase the food serving facility in the ~ °~ ' existing hofbrau; that they had been in operation for six years, and while the operation ~i;r~4:'~:r~ had made a number of improvements both to the inside of the structure and outside, this ~ : would be another step .to improve the facility. Furthermore, in response to Commission i';~ questioning, Mrs. Hess stated that the cocktail lounge would be screened from the dining ~;~;,.,,~ area. I ~~~~~~ Office-Engineer Arthus Daw advised the Commission that the right-of-way had been accepted j ~yti~ ~ for the ultimate width of Euclid Street on subject property, but with the ultimate widen- i ^~b~~ ing, it would be necessary to re-angle the;front row of parking facilities proposed, as ~ ,,~'~,~, well as re-landscape it. , ~ ~~ _ , '~"~"Fr,N' No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~t ~J ; ' ~'J ~' I'[-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED. `{ ~~~{~'~ 'w,y ~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-77 ar.d moved for its passage and adoption, ~,~„.~~. seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1013, 1^~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the followino vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. {Upon further investigation ~y the staff, it was determined that the only condition necessary to be.complied with would be Condition No. 9 of the recommended conditions.) CONDITIONAL USE .- PUBLIC 13EpRING. L. AND M. DUNN, 2415 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 1016 California, Owners; JOSEPH H. FROST, 2415 South.Manchester Avenue, • Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to MANUFACTURE ~ COMh1ERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BLEACHES IN THE M-1, LIGHI' INDUSTRIAL, ZONE on property described as: An irregulaxly shaped parcel of approximately 3 acres of land located contiguous to and easterly of the intersection of the Southern.Pacific and Atchison, Topeka 8 Santa Fe Railroads, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approxi- mately 870 feet xest of State College Boulvard as measured along-the southern boundary of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Property presently classified M-1, LIGIif INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property, noting that ' the proposed use was not a permitted use in the M-1 Zone, nor was the outdoor storage o£ bleaches, and that adjoining land uses included the Edison easement'a~d"railroad rights-of-way~ to the norih and west and industrial uses to the east and south. ~ - --- - - - ~'Ni ~ ' ~ ~ ' . . ' ~ ~ + ; .i .. ~ . . . - . ~. ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ .. ~ .. . ~ ~. .~~. . ~ .. ~ \~. ~. . ~ . (`.~~ , . MINUTES CII'Y P ~. s~.~ .,`..CL i , IANNING COMMISSION, March 25; I968 ~'~ 3818 ~ '!'~'' . ` CONDITIONAL USE - Mr.:Roberts,further noted that the storage and proaessing of liquid . ~ ;~~ . PERMIT N0. 1016 chlorine used in the manufacturing of commercial: and industrial (Conti u d) b ~`-~;; . n e leaches was rigidly controlled by the State, and given this control '' ~ and the locat.ion of the property itself, and the locetion of the „ ou.tdoor storage.tanks adjacent to the reilroad ri9hts-of-way the ~`~ , ube should not be detrimental.or hazardous to the ad3oining properties and the future ~ industrial dEVelopment in'the immediate area. . ~ No one appeared to represent the petitioner. '~ '`~?~ Mr. Joseph Bowman, attorney representing the Brunswick properties located'westerly of ~~ subject property at 1620 South Lewis Street, appeared to express concern that the ~ `;~ company he represented had a million-dollar facility with both a sales.and a warehousing nt d A t '; ~~ ce er, an if the pstStioner werepermitted to manufacture chlorine ble aches this would ''x , , bring odors into this area which would be ob3ectionable. `~~'~ i ~ .;;; ; ;K THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.~ ~ ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated that in discussions with ~the petitiioner, he had ~ ~ expressed that there would be no problems with odors from the facil3.ty;. that under Section 18•52.020 it could be permitted, sub3ect to the fact that the use would not be ~ ` detrimental by reason of dust, odoxs, etc., and this condition could be•made a condition t of approval; that.the staff had been in contact with a number of industriee in this area ! , and they all indicated their concern regarding odors; and that the tanks would be located ~ to the northwest.por.ti.on of subject property and would be a leased portion of the railroad i ~ ' right-of-way and the Edison easement, a considerable distance away from other facilities. „ ; :f't The Commission inquired what woul~ happen if the proposed use did prove to be detrimental - ~'z~~ to what degree would_the offense be measured? - ~;:~ , ~ A Commissioner Farano.noted that the State had~considerable control over the emission of ' odors of this type, and it was his desire that the petitioner or his representative be '=' available to discuss this problem prior to any vote by the Commission. ~ Mr. Thompson noted.the Report to the Commission had indicated the State had very rigid ~;; r~ contro L ,, ;f, ~ Commissioner Farano then inquired whether there was some type of a license given by the t ~ '~ Sta e that would ercait this t P ype of use; whereupon Assistant City_Attorney John Dawson 1i; n stated the State had control over this type of facility. ~ ; ,~ ~ ~'i~ I Commissioner Fareno offered a motion to defer consideration of subject:petition until ` ! the petitioner or his representative was available for questioni.ng. (See Paqe No. 3837) ±p; VARIANCE N0. 1961 - PUBLIC HEARING. GIBSON GREETING CARDS, INCORPORATED, 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; C.-A. EWALL, 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT LANDSCAPED SETBACK IN ORDER TO PE ' i RMII ,A PRIVATE PARKING LOT WITHIN THE REQUIREI~ LpNDSCAPE AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard ; , having approximate frontages of 1,070 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue and 550 , ` feet on the east.side of Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 1500 South Anaheim ~` Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ;~~ Associate Planner Chaxles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the proposed e ~" us and waiver requested, and the Report to the Commission, noting that development plans i dicat d th ~ n e e proposed.parking bay was for 90-degree angle parking and was three feet !' short of complying.with the minimum off-street parking standards-adopted by the City of ;` y Anaheim, and if a v_ariance ot this nature were approyed, the only landscaping that could b de e ~' e velop d would be.in the public right-of-way between the property line and the curb `% face; furthermore, it was dopbtful the current City policy would permit the proposed ~ hedge and specimen:trees ind~pated on the site development plan:in the.sidewalk portion I'' ! : of the public right-of-way. ~ It was also noted that if the petitioner were to develop angle parking:.with a separate t ~ en rance and exit.drive, the required landscaping could be developed,..arx3 a parking layout , ; ~ of this deaign would reeult in fewer parking spaces. ~ Mr. Roberts also noted that the City Council had granted temporary waivers of sidewalks for subject property on July 2, 1960 and July 21, 1964, and it was recommended that an ~i extension of time be granted to these waivers as there did not appear to be a need for -'~ sidewalks in this area at this time. '' S. ~~~, ~ . ~ F., ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~i ~ ~ : MINUTES, CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION,.March 25; 1968 3819 ~ VARIANCE N0: 1961 - Mr.:Anson McArthur, representing the petitioner.,:appeared before (Continued) -the,Commission and'advised.the Commission he~wished;to clarify,one or two points 3ust read by the staff relative to tlie;expansion;.., . that`the four-million dollar expansion'was underway at'this time and parking as shown.on:.the photograph he submitted was.ba"sically:;eubstantia'lly`iq; accordance with what,was;proposed,,and they intended to maintain,it -.fiowever, this would riot be for executive parking, but.would be for visitor parking-only;s that employee parking, except.for a few executives, was on<the roof of the.structures;`,and that it was'their,desire.to.maintain the landscaping;which was done by a:professional,,, as it:.' existed. However,` the.proposal:made by the staff as'-to a'ciroular drivew,ay would be undesirable'because this would destray the effect of the entire structure ard the ; park-like atmosphere. Mr..Joseph Bowman, representing the Brunswick Corporation, appeared before the Commission and stated thei=.o.nly.concern reletive to the proposed weiver was.its effect'on the perk- ` like appearance of the other industrial areas due to customer contact and-sal'es"represent- atives at their location at 1620 South LErris Street, and it was their desire to heve some buffer between the parking area and the street as other:industries in that area were required. . - THE HEARING WAS CLQSED.. Commiesioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-78 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No..1961, on the basis that the petitioner.had done an outstanding job in the landscapin9 and`planting of this entire area, and it was a credit and asset to the City. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the.,foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: . COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICAI'ION - pUBLIC HEpRING. G. K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 811 South Euclid Street, , h0..fi7-68-62 Anaheim, California, Owner; TOM'KEY, 811 South Euclid Stree;t, Anaheim, California,' Agent; requesting that property described as '' pll those lots located on the east side,of Euclid Street and~surround ~'~ ing Niobe Place, extending sou±hward from,approximately 150 feet south.of;Alomar Avenue to Crone Avenue, be reclessified'from the R-1, ONE~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-O,;. CCYMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE`to permit the establishment of a commercial-professional office complex on subject property. Associate Planner Charles Roberts revieWed the,location of subject property, noting that no oonstruction existed on a portion of these lots, and that some of the homes had been constzucted as model lots on Niobe Place, Furthermore, in 1965, a GeneraT Plan Amendment was approved by the City Council establishing professional office uses as appropriate for this area, and the petitionsr had indicated to the staff that the existing homes would be I~ removed on Niobe Place and abandonment of Niobe Place would be accomp.lished to develop this office complex. Mr. Tom Key, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that only Lot Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the ll lots had been developed with model homes,'and at the time the tract was ~eveloped and proposed for development, the original acreage was reduced i since.the City had purchased a ten-acre site for a park adjecent to this'tract, and as ~ time.had passed, the character of the neighborhood had changed, and they felt'that build- ' ing.homes on the remaYhing lots would not be the highest and best use .for the land. Furthermore, the C-1 Zone was also'not the best use since it was a heapier use, and it i was.felt professional and business offices ehould be`built.' J I Mr. Key further noted that there ~~dld be some'advantages to the City in the redevelopment ! of,thi.s land because of the proposed abandonment of the Niobe Place cul-de-sac, which would I be iernaval.of street maintenance, and development would be somewhat in con.ormance with { Area.Development P1an No. 58 which had proposed professional office use. Furthermore,; two,.lots adjacent'to subject property to the north had already been rezoned tq the C-0 `~ Zone,.iand it was their plan to have a well-designed office complex'which would:be an asset.to the community. ' Mr. Key, in response to Commission questioning, stated he had one prospective tenant who i was desirous of having 4,000 square feet for office space, and the Commission was familiar ' with the types of'structures he constructed in the city; therefore, he requested favorable 1 consideration of the proposed reclassification. ~ •:~:.:ar.w,..~,.._ _,.,:..__.:..._.:,~;.._..,_ :~....:..._~.._ o,S!d~ t ? ~.~ a .Y3 .n& 5i*°#'a~a~~~r''~`~'~`~H~~` r-2 e ~'~lY~ ~c^~ ,'~ j .~. ^~ i t' .~ : *~7f . t e ;s ~~ ` .~~G;~ iat '~r ~ ~ ~ .. . . ~ . . ~ . ~ , ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , MINUT,~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 3820 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission inquir^d as to the type of facility that would be N0. 67-68-62 proposed, and whether or not the Mt. Vernon-type facility formerly (Continued) projected for subject property was also considered. Mr. Key then stated that it was proposed to have a Spanis'-type fecility similar to that in Town and Country in Santa Ana. Mrs. Thomas Royston, 715 1,'_~ry Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and notQd_.she had a number of questions to have answered relative ta subject property: (1) Does the petitioner intend to remove ihese homes; (2) dces the final design plan indicate an alley; and (3) where does the petitioner plan to have his parking since no ~ plans.of development were submitted for review by the opposition? Mr: Key, in response to these questions, stated that the homes would be iemoved; that no plans were proposed to p:;,ject an alley to separate the commercial and the residential use, and a.fence a minimum of six feet in height would be constructed to separate the two uses; a.^.~ that since no final plans had been drawn, he could not answer the question relative to parking. However, he had discussed the proposed reclassification and Fossible development of the proparty with som~ of the property owners in that area, and they had all indicated any type of development of these vacant lots was more desirable because of the many complaints relative to bugs in the vacant property. Mrs. Royston then inquired whether the petitioner was planning one or two-story construc- tion and whether outside lighting in the parking area would be projected in such a manner that it would reflect into the residential homes, and whether or not access to the allAy immediately adjacent to the northerly parcel was proposed, since she would be caposed tr any plans which would project commercial traffic into the residential alley to t::~ rear. Furthermore, because of,the Euclid Street traffic, there was always the possibility that occupants of the commercial structures would be bypass~i:g cuclid Street by utilizing this.small alley and leaving their property thzough a residential area. Mr. ~ey noted that additional property woL'~. •~e dedicated for street widening purposes along Euclid Street, and that a desirable ~~~:ce complex would be an asset to the area; however, he did not know whether the 20-foot alley :vouid be used at the extreme northerly Pnd•..of the property. Chairman Camp noted for the oppositior. that any construction other thar. single-story would have.to be placed in the area of the Niobe Place abandonment since this would be the deepest portic;; of the property. Mrs. Royston then i~quired whether or not parking was proposed for the narrow lots; 'i whereupon Mr. Key stated that in all probability there would be sincle-story construction for the narrow lots siding on Crone Avenue, and since these would be offices, people would be leaving at 5:00 P.M. - therefore evening noises would be considerably reduced. Furthermore, offices constructed on the Euclid Street frontage would act as a buffer for the traffic noiEes along Euclid Street. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, in answer to all the questions of the opposition, stated that under the rpcommended conditions, air conditioning facilities would have to be shielded from view and the sound buffered from the residential zone; that the lighting in the parking area would have to be downlighted a maximum of six feet in height_and directed away from the property line; that landscaping i.n.the C-0 Zone was not required adjacent to the masonry wall, but the parkiny area would have to have trees and landscaping to break up the sea of asohalt; and access drives would have to be permitted from Euclid Street in order to develop. Furthermore, the Commission might wish to require dedication of access rights to the alley since the alley was designed for residential use, and because of the narrowness of the property, any additional alley space would be ruled out since adequate parking could not be provided. The Commission noted that the alley along the northeasterly porti.on of the northerly lot would be o:. no benefit to the petitioner. Thereupon,.the opposition stated that he would like to have the access rights to this alley dedicated as a condition of approval. Mr. Thompson noted that the bui2ding height setback was at a 2:1 ratto, and two-story construction would have to be developed along the Euclid Street frontage, with p~rking provided to the rear. Mrs. Royston stated she still was opposed to the proposed reclassification unless development plans were su~mitted. ~ t . : .. --~ - ".~ ': r 4 '~ t: , n ~ ~yti ~~:.;, ~,; a~„ . ~ ,,~z , . : ,. ~ ~i~~+•~tq~!.r~a ~s~. '~FYA1+ti"~-u~.r"N~rJf,'nw2.~ _r~ tt~a~ .~~~~^ r ~ . ~M ~. r r t .'i, u _~,w t ~ .;IF ~ ,.'`~ ~ r ~ u . '+ " , :f , , t~. ` ~~' l , . ' V `~ ~ ~ MINUTES.r CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MaiCh 25, 1968 38?_1 p REGLASSIFI.CATION - Mr. Sigfried.Karnitz, 1667 Crone Avenue, appeared before the %• N0. 67-68-62 Commission in opposii.ion and stated there was only;~one~residential '~`h~-- unit located at Euciid Street and Alomar, and one vacant lot at }, (Continued) ~~ ~ Euclid Street and Crone Avenue, and if Niobe Place were to have {t the three homes removed, this would present an unsiyhtly situation as far a~. the block was concerned, and if an office building two or more stories high were ='~:~`'~'~: proposed, many of the windows would,be facing easterly, looking into the rear yards of ~r;,::; ~s:: ; PP ~9 ~ ;~?';~='' the R-1 homes, and if he had known two years ago this would be ha eni he woul no ~:r:~;:s. .,: . ~;,~'s have purchased his property; that specific plans should be submitted as to the type o #.,;; . +''•~~ ' buildings to be erected, and if a dental office were approved, all television programs J~~~ in that area would be affected due to the high frequency electronic units that were .3~x~i"irf ~-~ i, rl being used. Furthermore, he had talked with seven of the adjacent property owners and z none had indicated their approval of subject petition. ~9 Mr. M. C. McHale, 717 South Alvy Street, appeared in opposition, and noted that because '~ of the shallowness of the lots on the west side of Alvy Street, the east side of the ~ <' street.wo~ld also be affected by more than single-story construction, and if a further ~' setback were required from Euclid Street because of street dedication, there would be ,` little left for buildings,and then inquired whether or not the City had specific ordinances relative to the type of access that could be given to Euclid Street. ~ ~ The Commission noted that the construction of the building could be in accordance with r" -{~' the C-0 Zone and could be erected at the fro.^.t of the lot; furthermore, G-0 parking ?s'•:;;,'~~; required parking to be in close proximity to the entrance of the facility. Also, if ~ development occurxed on this property, ingress and egress could be at any place so long '.'us as it was not near an intersection and met with the approval of the Traffic Engineer. s~ The question of the height of a building was determined by the C-0 Zone, which required ~,.:;,:~~;~'~ a 2-f.oot setback for each font in height of a structura adjacent to R-1 property, and ~~, the C-O Zone was the most restrictive commercial zone,which had basic site development ~ d standards included to orotect the residential uses in close proximity, and that homes constructed on this property would not be the highest and best use of the property, ~''''`''`` since it would create a front-on problem. Furthermore, the Traffic Engineer advised ~j ~~ the Commission that major arterials as constructed in the City could handle any type ~' r'~ of increase in traffic wi~ich might occu: later on with a more intense land use of subject ~~~f~'4' prope~ty, and that it was poor busimss to insist that these lots remain vacant because ~;~'' ''.~; there might be an increase in traffic. Mr. McHale then indicated that as far as he knew, the twelve property owners that were affected by the proposed reclassification had not ind}cated their approval of the proposal; therefore, the statement made by the agent that adjoining property owners had indicated any form of development would be better than the vacant lots should not be considered. ! The Commission advised the opposition that this Nas a statement made by the petitioner, but nothing was documented in writing - therefore the Commission-would not take this into.consideration. Mr. Key further noted that the developers could submit a variance to the Commission and construct two-story R-1 homes; however, they did not feel this was what.the City was desirous of having for these properties, and they also did not want to have piecemeal development of each lot - therefore the land assembly of ail these lots was obtained. Also, it was his opinion that the people who were now objecting to the proposed develop- ment would be in favor once they saw the plans. Mr. John Chrzan, 1654'Richard Place, appeared in opposition, stating he would be opposer~ ~ to any use of the existing alley for commercial use as a service entrance, since commer- cial use of a residential alley was impractical. ,~ The Commission noted they could require dedication e~` the existing alley, and if the ,,~ petitioner~constructed his own alley, he would ha~'e to have access to the alley from Euclid Street rather than through the x~esidential properties since the Commission also was not desirous of having commercial uaes in a xesidential area. Mr. Chrzan then stated he would like to see some type of design of the proposed develop- ment before the zoning request was approved, and if a development sirtular to Town and ; Country, as indic~ted by Mr. Key, was proposed, this wouid be an asset to the area. '~~ The Commission further advised the opposition that two-story construction would be the maximum permi.tted because of the depth of these lots. .I 3 , ...°~:r ,a, - ^rm , :.. , s' ;::. : ~ - . - ;, . .. -~ ~.., _. . , s V../ Q MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 , ;:~ ~ i?! ~ ~ 3~ 3822 ,;i~ RF~CLASSIFICATION - Mr. Thomas Royston, 715 Alvy Street, appeared in opposition, stating ~:.~ti N0: 67-68-62 he was not necessarily opposed io the C-0 Zone; however, they had ~,i:'; ' (C t' on inued) had an instance where an ambulance service was permitted in the C-0 Zone, and it was his opinion they were operating illegally; that the neighbors had had no end of problems due to the ambulance service, and any additional commercial uses would be detrimental to the area. Furthermore, access to the alley was a very critical point-because of the depth of these lots, many children in the area could be hurt because of being unfamiliar with traffic problems; therefore,:he was opposed to the proposed reclassification. Chairman Camp then inquired of the opposition what they would like to see developed on subject property; whereupon Mr. Royston stated that one of the basic problems was the fact that many of these homes had swimming pools in the rear yeards and they were desir- ous of maintaining the privacy they presently had, and if two-story businesses were permitted, this would mean an invasion of their privacy. Furthermore, X-ray machines playedrhavoc with the television sets, and they were not desirous of having commercial uses in these struotures where high-powered electrical apparatus would interfere with their facilities. TFIE.HEARING WAS CLOSED. Considerable discussion then was held by the Commission and the staff relative to requiring plans, the staff noting that if development plans had to be reviewed, this would have to be done after an advertised public hearing, if the Commission wanted the ~djoining property owners to review the plans. Additional discussion is summarized as follows: 1. Ihe C-0 Zone was the most sophisticated zone, havin9 site development standards written into it to benefit the residential uses, with height limitations because of the 2:1 setback requirement and interior parking landscaping, and that the reason for these site development standards was to reduce the possibility of becoming bogged down with approval,of development plans which could amount to four or five different plans before final development took_place. 2. Possible consideration of continuance of the petition for precise pians; however, this would be defeating the purpose of the Commission's desire - namely, assembling lote and developing with professional office buildings compatible with the R-1 Zone to.the east. 3. That the C-1 Zone was the most appropriate zone for these properties since it would be the least offensive to residential uses to the east. Mr. Key, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he would have no objection to submission of plans, but they intend to develop as soon as possible, and that the staff_had indicated the C-0 Zone was the most restrictive zone - therefore they felt development plans wer,e not necessary. "Ihe.Coriunission noted that if the developer maintained his relationship with the adjoin- ing property owners, there would be less opposition. The Commission further noted that the concern of the property owners was understandable since they felt there would be some effect on the value of their properties and the possibility of invasion of their privacy due to height of structures. However, with the exception of submission of development plans, the Commission would be defeating their attempts for the past several years to assemble these lots for de~e:opment into a desirab.le C-0 building, and the development being in accordance with site development standards of the C-0 Zone which would not require the submission of plans by now requir- ing the submission of plans as a prerequisite for approval of a change in zone, since plans originally submitted might be revised and the Commission and City Council would be,bogged down in review of revised plans. Several property owners, ir. response to Commission questioning, stated they were concerned not only with the invasion of their privacy, but wanted to be informed as to the type of facility proposed. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Reclassification No. 67-68-62, sub~ect to the submission of development plans and conditions. This motion lost for want of a second. ~ _ . ="~,~ ~ . ; <: , ti, . _ .. „, ,-. '~•~ ,, T ., ! _ . ~~ .>-3 . _ ~'~'-.tY r"u' ~~' ^\ ,~Ffi~,`~,' -'L. .,: t4E~.~3 :i `~~ fj.~ ~. 4`; . Mv~l:" s ~ f .w • ~ la~_ +Y ~wssr--= ! ~ ~ . ~ ~ t .., ~ . ..... ~ ~ . f~ ~ . . . . _, . . . ,. ', ' i . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING CO ~ .s~~ : ` , MMISSIOI~~ March 25, 1968 gg22 ~p ~ R CLASSIFI.CATIO - . ~ N Mr. Thomas Royston, 715 Alvy Street, appeared in opposition, stating "" NO. 67-68-62 he was not necessarily opposed to the C-0 Zone; however, they had '(Continu d) h d e a an instance where an ambulance service was permitted in the C-0 ':'=~'~ Zone, and it was his opinion they were operating illegally; that ~ the neighbors had had no end of problems due to the ambulance ~ service, and any additional commercial uses would be detrimental to ~the area. Furthermo re ~ ~ . access to the alley was a very critical point-because of the depth of these lots, many , ,;.; ;,~ ' children in the area could be hurt because of being unfamiliar with traffic problems; i '~ therefore,_he was o osed to the pp proposed reclassification. , "' ,~ Chairman Camp then inquired of the opposition what they would like to see developed on i ~ ~ ::y subject propertys whereupon M.~. Royston stated that one of the basic problems was the ~ :~ fact that many of these homes had swimming pools in the rear yeards and they were desir- ~ E ous of maintaining the privacy they presently had, and if two-story businesses were i ~ permitted, this would mean an invasion of their privacy. Furthermore, X-ray mac h ines ' ~ + played,havoc with the te~evision sets, and they were not desirous of having commercial ' `+~ uses in these structures where high-powered electrical apparatus would interfere with ` their facilities. i : , THE.HEARING WAS CLOSED. `' ~ j Considerable discussion then was held by the Commisslon and the staff relative to requiring plans, the staff noting that if development plans had to be reviewed, this ~ would have to be done after an advertised public hearing, if the Commission wanted the adjoining property owners to review the plans. Additional discussion is summarized as follows: -;~ ' -`~ 1. The C-0 Zone was the most sophisticated zone, havin9 site development standards ,~~ written into it to benefit the residential uses, with height limitations because r of the 2:1 setback requirement and~interior parking landscaping, and that the reason for these site development standards was to reduce the possibility of `; becoming bogged down with approval,of development plans which could amount to `_ four or five different plans before final development took place. 2. Possible consideration of continuance of the petition for precise planss however, r this would be defeating the purpose of the Commission`s desire - namely, assembling ;s lots.and developing with professional office buildin9s compatible with the R-L Zone ': to_the east. ~; 3. That the C-1 Zone was the most appropriate zone for these properties since it would be the least offensive to r_sidential uses to the east. Mr. Key, in response to Commission questioning, stated that he would have no objection to submission of plans, but they intend to develop as soon as possible, and that the staff_had indicated the C-0 Zone was the most restrictive zone - therefore they felt development plans were not necessary. The.Commission noted that if the developer maintained his relationship with the adjoin- ing property owners, there would be less opposition. The Commission further noted that the concern of the property owners was understandable since they felt there would be some effect on the value of their properties and the possibility of invasion of their privacy due to height of structures. However, with the exception of submission of development plans, the Commission would be defeating their attempts for the past several years to assemble these lots for development into a desirab.le C-0 building, and the development being in accordance with site development standards of the C-0 Zone which would not require the submission of plans by now requir- ing the submission of plans as a prerequisite tor approval of a change in zone, since plans.originally submitted might be revised and the Commission and City Council would be,bogged down in review of revised plans. Several property owners, in response to Commission questioning, stated they were concerned not only with the invasion of their privacy, but wanted to be informed as to the type of facility proposed. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Reclassification No. 67-68-62, sub~ect to the submission of development plans and conditions. This motion lost for want of a second. . ~7F"~a~r~ ~ b~n.{er ~ tF~h~'-~Y+rsx 5 a 7 i~ ~i ~~ r • a N r: s;x a,>.r ~: t '~'~ . , i . ,,. ~ .. .. . ~ J ~ -.' ~Y f ~ - ' `b:~ 3' f {F ,. ';. ~'.. `~I :,' . ~: .. . . . . ..:. ~ '~'. "..~ .,j~ - ' . :Y1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . . . .. ~ . 9 . . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ '~~ ~3 MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 3823 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-79 and moved for its N0. 67-68-62 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend (Continued) to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-62 be approved, subject to conditions, this being the highest and best use of the prcperties, and a further condition that dedication of access rights to the alley at the northeast corner of subject property be made to the City of Anaheim and development in accordance with the C-0 site development standards, as stipulated by the.petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the fo:egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COAM"TSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COM SSIONERS: Allred. ;~~i` :, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TFIE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ~''` N0. 67-68-60 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim California• t;,; ;s , , proposing that property described ~ as: Two parcels of land totaling approximately 30 acres: Parcel ' .~'. No. 1- a rectangularly shaped oarcel having a frontage of approxi- mately 660 feet on the west side of Sunkist Street and a maximum depth of approximately ;,`• ~` 1,300 feet, the southerly boundary being approximate•ly 660 feet north of the centerline .;s of Ball Road, and Parcel No. 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel having a frontage of ~"` ' a roximatel p pproxi- ~ ~; pp y 629 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street and a maximum de th of a mately 668 feet, the southerly boundary being approximately 690 feet north of the center- =` line of Ball Road, be reclassified from the COUNTY A-1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT to >.~,. ?~;:'" ~`'' the R-A, AGP,ICULTURAL, ZONE. ~;~, Associate Rlanner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property, noting that ..~-;~; the property had been annexed into the City February 23, 1968, and that resolutions of '~';~'.~ intent for the R-2-5000 were approved by both the Commission and Council on Parcel No. 1, ~~;; `:` ~j, and R-1 Zone for Parcel No. 2. i~:`r No one appeared in oppositior. to subject petition. ~ ~- ~'' THE,HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~}~ ~;r~~' Commisf.ioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-80 and moved for its assa e and ado tion ~s,,.", P 9 P ~ ~':~~;? secopded by Commissione: Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ~' Reclassification No. 67-68-60 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) ~,;:. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: ~~~ ,~,~:T pYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano,, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ NOEE~: COMMISSIONERS: None. , ~ ;~, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 67-68-61 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parce: containing approximately 9.5 acres of land, having a frontage of approximately 660 feet on the south side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 630 feeL, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (INTERIM ZONING) to the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (PERMANENT ZONING). A6sociate Pl.anner Charles Rob~rts reviewed the location of subject property, noting it was across the street from the existing shopping center and R-3 development on the north side of Ball Road, and that the northeast corner of subject pxoperty was developed with Fire Station No. 7; furthermore, the annexation ordinance would be forwarded to the SecY~etary of State on March 27, 1968, and the staff recommended that the property be rezoned to permanent City of Anaheim R-A Zone upon certification of the annexation of the properi:y to the City of Anaheim by the Secretary of State. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~,~: r - ~ i ,, ~ _ , .r.: MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~ ISSION, March 25, 1968 .~..~ wr a: , , ~ ~~ 3824 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC(~8-51 and moved for N0. 67-68-61 ita passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to (Continued) recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-61 be approved, subject to establishing permanent City of Ariaheim R-A,Agricultural, Zone upon certification of the annexa- tion of the property to the City of Anaheim by the Secretary of State.- (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ,.COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, HerUSt, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1009 (Continued) See Page No. 3824-a. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber•at 5:05 P,M. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1000 (Tom Taketa., et al, Owners; Ronald Alshouse, Agent) = Proposi.ng to establish a pony ride in conjunction with an existiny amusement facility on property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 560 feet east of the centerline of Magnoli.a Avenue, and further described as 2535 West Lincoln Avenue. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Mr. Robert Martin, representing the petitioner of Conditional Use Permit No. 1000, was present in the Council Chamber to answer questions relative to the request for amendment to conditions, since it was proposed to relocate the pony ride to the old skateboard property. Mr. Robert Martin, repxesenting Percy H. Goodwin Company, appeared before the Commission and noted that letters had been submitted to the Commission relative to a recap of the costs to comply with the conditions established under Resolution No..PC68-40, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1000 for addition~of a pony ride. Furthermore, they had been unable to obtain the proper reciprocal parking agreement with the City of Anaheim School Board for the property known as the 5ammy Lee Swim School, wher.e it was proposed to.have additional parking,if necessary, for the amusement facility, and-because of the excessive cost, it was dete=mined that relocation of the pony ride would be on the old skateboard property, and the ponies would be trucked in and trucked out every day rather than utilizing the small building originally proposed, and that they plan to blacktop the 67 feet to the rear to the school board property in order to comply with requirements as originally stipulated. A plot.plan.was submitted, showing the relocation of the pony ride. After considerable discussion by the staff and the Commission as to the proper procedure in handling this request, it was determined that a resolution was necessary, deleting Condition P7os. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and amending Condition No. 7 by deleting reference to Condation No. 5, and subject to approval of the revised plot plan. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-86 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to amend Resolution No. PC68-40,..approving Conditional Use Fermit No. 1000 on February 14, 1968, sub3ect to approval of the revised exhibit, amend~nent of the legal description to encompass only that portion on which the recreation facility was proposed, and the deletion of Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of said resolution and amending Condition No. 7 by deletion of reference to Condition No. 5. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregcing resolution wae passed by the following vote: AYES: C.OMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES~ COhIMISSIONERS: None. AB;'~itT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. RECESS RECOP7VENE - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion t~~ recess the mee~iing for dinner. Commissioner Gauer seconded :. motion. MQTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 5:17 P M. - C' 'rman Camp reconvened the meeting at 7:00 P.M., Commissioner !" .~Qd being absent. ~ ~ \~ ~: ~ 1n~;' H~... .. . . I r~ . ., ~~d~~ ~j ~x,y y~ k .. a . k ' t h ! .l: .. '~ `~ ' +4~.'. ~ ~~ y 1 y ' t` ;t ~ ,d I+ . ., "' ~ ~ `r.~ ~ 1 ~ ~r ' x ~~ ~4 " 1 ,; 7 l:: ~.t ~. ' ' . ~ ", ' ' ~ a q . ,~ :. . , :r , ~^:. . . ' . . .. ... ..,. , ,. • , ~ ad , k ~ ~.C ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ..- ~ ~~ ~ ~ - .. . ~ . '.~ ~ ~ ~: 1 . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 3824-a ~' CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Camp inquired if there was anyone present to answer ,z`, PERMIT N0. 1009 questions regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 1009. 'r (Continued) ~ Mrs. Duncan, representing the agent for the peti.tioner, appeared '• before the Commission and stated that it was proposed to use the `~ ~ ` existin y y ~ g 9 private residence for a nurser da school for children a es two to five ' + ';s years; that no physical changes would be made to the outside, and that the church was es '~r pr ently renting the facility and wented to realize some financial return until the `}~; time.the p*operty would be developed for a seminary in 1969, and the existing residence c ~3_ s~ zn would then be removed. -, ;,~; , : ~ ~R Mrs. Duncan further requested clarification as to the recommended conditions of the , '~s; Report to the Commission; whereupon the Commission stated that these conditions would have to be taken care of either by the present lessees of the property or at the time the seminary building plans were submitted for a building permit. No one appeared in oppositio.n to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC6S-73 and moved for its passage and adoption , ~ seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1009, s~~bject to conditions. (See.Resolution Book) ~ f , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ I i '""~: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~"'i~i ~ ~._,~r'`u"1a~~~'h~"~~:r. r a; f ( f Jf~ .va.ti ~ ~~.5+ . . . . . . .G ~. ~ . ~ _ . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,,CITY PLAKNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 S" ft ~Y ~ \ ~.. 3825 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE VANDENBERG, 1112 North Lowell Street, Santa N0..6Z-68-63 Ana, California, Owner; HHROLD L. RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California, Agent; property described as: VARIANCE N0. 1959 A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 19 acres of land, having a frontage of ap~roximately 630 feet on the east side of TENTATIVE MAP OF Euclid Street and a~~eximum depth of approximately 1,270 feet, TRACT N0. 6585 the northerly boundary line being coincidental with the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the southerly boundary being _ approximately 150 feet north of the centerline of Sumac Lane. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY ZONE. REQUESTED VAR7ANCE: TO PEk2MIT A SUBDIVISION OF 113 SINGLE-FAtdILY LOTS, WITH . WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND (2) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK. ~ Chairman Camp advised interested persons in the Council Chamber that a request had been received from the agent for the petitioner to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 67-68-63, Variance No. 1959, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6585 to the meeting of April 8, 1~368, due to a conflict of dates that it made it impossible for him to appear at the hearing. A number of persons in the Council Chamber inquired whether or not subject petitions could not be heard since many of the people were present in opposition to the proposed petitions. The chair advised the interested persons that the Commission always honored a request of a petitioner since interested persons would not be present if the petitioner had not submitted subject petitions, and advised all interested persons this would be the only notice that subject petitions were being continued to the meeting of April 8, 1968, and would be considered at the 7:30.P.M. hearing. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Reclassification No. 67-68-63, Variance No. 1959, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6585 to the meeting of April 8, 1968, 1:o be scheduled at 7:30 P.M. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBL7C HEARING. RICHARD W. HENNING, 2861 East Lincoln Avenue, N0. 67-68-64 Anaheim, California, Owner; WILLI~M S. PHELPS, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An VARIANCE N0. 1960 irregularly sha~ed parcel of approximately 12 acres of land,having a frontage of approximately 890 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 750 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 460 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESSED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL HEIGHT LIMITATI~NS. Chairman Camp advised interested persons in the Council Ghamber that subject petitions wo~ld have to be continued to the meeting of April 8, 1968, in order to allow time for the petitioner to submit a tentative map for the proposed subdivision of subject property since complete plans were not submitted for the Commission to consider the requested variance. A number of persons present in the Council Chamber expressed concern that subject peti- tions were to be continued since they had contacted the department and had determined the petitions would be heard later on in the evening; that no indication had been given them that subject petitions were to be continued, and therefore requested that the Commission consider subject petitions at this time. The chair then advised interested persons that due to the fact that incomplete plans were available for the Commission upon which to base their decision, continuance was in order. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petitionsfor Reclassification No. 67-68-64 arid Variance No. 1960 to the meeting of April 8, 1968, to be considered at 7:30 P:M. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Camp advised the interested persons that no additional notifir.ation would be mailed to them. Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber at 7:15 P.M. _ ~i., ~i RECLASSIFICATIODI - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 2U4 East `~3 N0. 67-68-68 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property ,!± described as: Portion No. 1- All those lots fronting on the ~'Y'~ east side of East Street extending from approximately 220 feet h f th t 1' f L Palma Avenue to Wilhelmina Street and Portion No. 2- ~_~ ~, ~ sout o e cen er ine o a All those lots fronting on the south side of La Palma Avenue from approximately 225. feet east of the centerline of East Street to approximately 140 feet west of the center- line af.Hawthorne Street, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. (-~, Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the location of subject ~(~'.;'7s? property, noting that the Commission had initiated the petition, proposing to establish "i R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone for 20 parcels now zoned R-1, and the fact that land uses to the north, south, east, and west were all single-family residential sub- divisons. The previous actionstaken by the Commission and City Council relative to Area Development Plan No. 22 and General Plan Amendment No. 90 were also reviewed. ~~:: z; : ,1 . _ - ~' r.. t.~ ~f Mr. Roberts also noted that as a result of a request for R-2 zoning on a parcel approxi- mately midway between Wilhelmina Street and La Palma Avenue scheduled for March 11, 1968, the Commission had determined that this petition should be continued in order that all the other parcels within this immediate area, fronting on the east side of East Street and the south side of La Palma Avenue, could be advertised for R-3 zoning in accordance with the adopted General Plan Amendment. This action was due primarily to the anticipated effects a multiple-family development might have on all those adjacent parcels, and as a result of additional investigation into the need for secondary circulation and also for access from these parcels to the arterial highways, it had been determined that rather than the City requiring the dedication of secondary circulation facilities to serve the area, each of the affected property owners should be encouraged to develop his parcel in such a way that access drives could be provided for joint use by adjacent parceis; therefore, the staff had prepared a"Specific Plan of Access" which illustrated what would.appear to be the most logical and efficient locations for the joint access points since..there were 22 separate F.~ints of access to East Street and La Palma Avenue, and the '~Specific Plan oi Access" would provide for eight access points in total. Mr. Roberts also noted that due t~ the height limitation within 150 feet of the R-1 Zone to the south, west, east, and north, this would be a relatively low-medium density predicated on the fact that each parcel would probably develop as an individual project, it' would seem to be inequitable to require a full, 20-foot wide drive from each parcel as they develop - therefore temporary relief is granted to permit a minimum 10-foot wide drive on each parcel, and when the adjacent parcel was developed, the remaining width could be installed, providing for the minimum of 20 feet of needed access. Furthermore, if it is determined that the "Specific Plan of Access" is desirable, the Commission should adopt it as a guide for the development of the accessways to all of the deep lots froniing on the east side of East Street and on the south side of La Palma Avenue. Mr. John Laurie, 1216 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that his property was that immediately adjacent to the service station on the south side of La Palma Avenue and inquired what could be done to provide commercial uses of the property rather than the multiple-family residential use as proposed under this petition. Chairman Camp advised Mr. Laurie that a property owner always had a right to apply for whatever type zoning he desired. Mr. Ken Dunlevy, 728 Juniper Place, appeared b~fore the Commission and noted that he lived . on a cul-de-sac with approximately 140 feet abutting the proposed zone chan9e; that he and his family had moved into that area because they wanted a quiet area, and although he realized changes did come about over the years, and the City Council had approved a General Plan Amendment which provided for multiple-family development .for subject properties, ; he was opposed to any consideration of two-story construction; that multiple-family devel- opments could be very attractive - however, he was concerned that the proposed development would be an intrusion on the privacy of the people, since they purchased the property because of the ideal rear yard living environment it afforded; that he did not want resi- dents of the apartment looking down into his rear yard; and, further,more, he would i,' recommend a six-foot masonry wall be provided, as well as maintenan;;e of the single-story height limitation. The Commission advised the opposition that the ft-3 Code required that any two-story construction proposed must be at least 150 feet from the R-1 Zone; however, to make a blunt statement that this would never be changed is unpredictable, but during the ~ast seven years there has never been any development on which waiver of the two-story l,eight limitation was granted - however each applicant or property owner had a right to ask for, and apply by variance for, two-story, but this did not necessarily mean he would receive it: _ ~s' ~r`....~TM. '~ 4+~, l~n ~ ~ ~' i ~ . .~. ~ . .yr . ~,;~ ~ ~ t~ MINUTES,. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 3g2~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Dunlevy then inquired whether or not there was a minimum parking N0. 67-68-68 requirement since this also would add to the traffic problems; (Continued) whereupon the Commission advised the opposition that the Code required 1~ garages or carports for each apartment unit developed. Mr. Jerome Lang, 702 North Poplar Place, appeared before the Commission and noted that nothing had been expressed relative ~co the increase in population for schools and other facilities, and the increasedtraffic flow, with parked cars on the street. The Commission advised the opposition that La Paima Avenue was designated on the General Plan as a:najor arterial, and upon acquisition of street dedication for street widening purposes, the street would be sufficiently wide tr provide for any increase in traffic and still provide for parking spaces without having any undue effect on traffic. However, East Street would be a secondary highway with exception, proposing a 40-foot half-width for ihe street rather than the 45 feet required; this would mean a reduction in the parkway area. Furthermore, the amount of traffic 9enerated would not be much more than if it were divided into R-1 lots, due to the fact that it would have to be maintained at one-story height limitation and there~would be fewer children. Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted for the Commission and the interested persons in the Council Chamber that the reason the Planning Commission had initiated subject petition was because they did recognize there were problems in developing subject properties, and a policy had been established through a General Plan Amendment for this area; that the multiple-family lot cuts would ultimately be adopted through a resolution of intent by the City Council to change the zone - however, any development of the properties would have to be in accordance with the recommended condi- tions by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to any change in zone. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that in researching the General a Plan Amendment file, a traffic projection count for La Palma kvenue indicated 15,000 cars i per day, and a ten-year projection of 22,500, and that the traffic count for East Street ;,,,~ was 12,000 per day, with a ten-year projection of up to 25,000. ~ The Commission noted that the traffic count o~ La Palma Avenue had already reached the , ~ 17,000 mark. Mr. Rich.ard Daniel, 1248 Wilhelmina Street, appeared before the Commission, stating thai he was present to support the proposed reclassification - however, he suggested that sin9le-story construction be required instead of two-story construction; that all of the property owners had purchased their homes on these cul-de-sacs to eliminate any traffic flow into the residantial area, and with the addition of apartments, the residential streets could expect a higher traffic flow through their streets due to the fact that residents of the apartments would find short-cuts throu9h the local streets, and this would chan9e the pattern of livin9 for the area - therefore, some privacy would be lost, and additional privacy would be lost if two-story construction were permitted. The Commmssion noted that in line-of-sight studies relative to height limitations, it had been determined that two-story height limitations more than 150 feet away, together with the six-foot masonry wall, would eliminate any possible intrusion into the privacy of the rear yards of any of the property owners. Mr. Daniel then noted that through traffic was impossible on Wilhelmina Street due to the fact i:hat it dead-ended at the railroad track on the west, and at.the east both a home and St. Anthony`s school yard w~uld make it almost unlikely.to have the street cut through to State College Boulevard. The Commission was of the opinion that residents of the multiple-family residential development would be unlikely to use a local street when ingress and egress would be to La Pa:ma and East Street, rather than an alley to the rear. Mrs. S. J. Szot, 727 Juniper Place, appeared in opposition, stating that the masonry wall adjacent to her property, which was also adjacent to the nursery school located on East Street, could be seen from the nursery school since the height of the fence along the nursery school was only four feet, although it measured six feet from her side. The Commission advised Mrs. Szot that the R-3 Code required the measurement of a masonry wall be from the hiqhest grade level, regardless of which side - the~efore, if the nursery school property were developed for multiple-family use, the height of the fence would be six feet from the grade level of the nursery school property. C:~ c:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS'SION, March 25, 1968 , .~ -~ r.r ~ ~. { ......r ..~'~ . ~,: ..r. . .,~ . . ~~ ~~ , r ~ `\ .. ~ t~ ~ 3828 ~ `' ~ ~:~ RECLA$SIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland asked that the opposition visualize what N0. 67-68-68 150 feet meant by noting that another street would be located to (Continued) the rear of the home, then a lot approximately 100 feet in depth, anr~ the width of another street be£ore two-story construction could be developed; that the architect could so design the multiple- family development structurally in such a manner that no invasion of privacy could occur - however, the Commission could not control the design of people to prohibit them from invading'your privacy by looking into the rear yards from a distance of ?50 feet. Mrs. Szot then stated tnat most of the outdoor living would be facing the R-3 development, and the Commission should have viewed the properties along East Street and La Palma Avenue from the viewpoint of the single-family residences which would be affec~ed. Mr. Thompson noted that a staff inember had made a detailed analysis uf the existing drives and approaches which were presented in the "Specific Plan of Access" exhibit. Mr..Gene Knobloch, 715 Poplar Street, appeared in opposition, stating that he concurred in all. the previous arguments ~resented to the Commission; however, he was further concerned with tile investment of all the property owners since he had been informed his appointment ~iould be changed in a year and a half, and he would have a choice of driving to work or selling his property, and inquired whether there was a m/ possibility property values would be 9reatly reduced. Mr. Knobloch further inquired -'did the Commission have any choice as to which home would be adjacent to two-story apartments, and stated that in his opinion, the proposed reclassification would have an effect on the value of the property,and he could see no reason for rezoning these properties if only one-story were permitted. The Commission, in response to Mr. Knobloch's statements, stated they could not answer whether or not a change in property values would take place if R-3 developed; that two- story. construction was also permitted in the R-1 Zone; that the west side of East Street still was classified R-1, and this would minimize the amount o-f two-story that could be constructed on the properties under consideration; whereupon, the Commission r.;quested the staff to delineate on the "Specific Plan of Access" exhibit where two-story construc- tion would be permitted, and that because of the depth of these lots, and wi•~h only one home presently existing on the properties, the R-3 Zone would permit utilization of these deep lots by placing one or more units on them, since many of these lots were three times as large as the R-1 lots in close proximity - therefore not necessarily two-story.construction would be developed, but an increase in dwelling units on the properties in order that the property owners might realize some return for the expense of taxes on their properties. i;`r~ Mr. Richard Kirk, 703 Juniper Place, appeared in opposition, stating that the exist?ng {y; schools already were overcrowded, and heavy traffic already existed on East Street and La Palma Avenue; however, he was concerned with access roads from La Palma Avenue ancl ~'~ East Street, and would the freeway be connected to link with ~ Juniper Place. property adjacent to ';: Mr. Mickelson advised the opposition that this conceivably could be done; however, it would be impractical, if not possible. 1 ~ ~ It was also no~ed that garages could be placed along the east and south property lines .~ to further eliminate any possible visual intrusion and reduce the possibility of access '-j~ to the local residential streets. x Mr.,Kirk then inquired what the difference was in density between R-2 as proposed under ~ ~i=; Reclassification No. 67-66-54 and subject petition. a': - 'i ~ ~~. The Commission advised that the density for R-2 would be 18 dwelling units per net ~~ residential acre; however, the one-stor~, height limitation also applied, while the ~'; R-3 permitted up to 36 units per net residential acre, as well as the single-story ~k ,~~ construction. w ~~~r}I Mr. Clifford Beckler, 1242 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he had been paying taxes for more than 20 years on his property; that he was in syinpathy with all the people when they were concerned with increased traffic on the street - how- ever, the traffic on La Palma Avenue had increased to such a point he had difficulty gaining access or leaving his property, and reconversion of these deep lots along East Street and La Palma Avenue with other than the present uses was urgently needed so that some relief could be obtained from the taxes already assessed these propert.ies. THE HEARING WAS C1A~ED. _.,, .r -.,, r ~ ':` ?~ , ~ .. , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` i~ ~~ x; y~ ~~" ri ~v, t rtt !: 7~6 X 'r'y a 7.~ nc~ ~f x~~ ~ r /~~ `: .~ ~; ~ .r.~.~~..__ .. .,,L~' \ ~ . ' . ~~ .. . . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ .. . . ~~ MINUTES,..CITY PLAN'NLNG COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 gg29 RECLASSIFI.CATYON - Commissioner Herbst noted that he was also a resiY?er.; bE the area, N0. 67-68=68 and~the traffic along La Palma Avenue was consi..:~aoly c:~creased (Continued) since it extended through the inr3ustrial. area ±s; :~n;a~ri.~l Highway at the easterly terminus; tha: 'r.he !'ommibsior,'.:ao. ~~gvi~:;ed these ' properties m~np ~imes, and also many of t"nee ot :er pf•~~perties within t}~e ci±y.which fronted on arteria? ~vt:Tk°tS and highways, and fi.he E~.nrni.ssion was of the opinion that commercial development ,'c:c ti3ese properties was not *?•<; highest and best use becaaase commercial uses had to be supported by resizientivil us,5, and the existing commescial uses in the area~already were more than adequate to acc~R~rodate the presbnt, residential use - there#ore the proposed hiqher density for these pr.operties was in orrla.r. ~.o assure the owRers of the deep lots some economic value for their properties, a€~:, tkr4 r~quirement of single-story within 150 feet of R-1 was che 5est protection the .:o~nm3ss~Ion covid offer to the single-family homeowr•?rs. Co,nmis~sii+~Wi Herbst offered Resolu:ion No. PC68-82 ana mcved for its passage and auontion, seco~ided L;r Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Counr,i,l that Petition for Recla~s~fi~:ation No. 67=68-68 be a;~proved, subject to condi±iona and the adoptioii of the "SE~ec.i~ic Plan of ~9ccess" as a guide for developmt;nt uf, acr.essvuays to all de•e~~ lots fron•ting on t,he east side of East Streei ar..d on the ses;:~n. side of La Pal.ma Avenuer (See Reso~lution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol~owing vote: AYcS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst. M~~ngall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Cc~n~nissione.r Rowland, in voting "aye", stated that r.eclassificatio,: of subject properties to the R-3 'tione did not necessarily mean that the ~size and shape -, the propertiE+s ~;s they exi,:ted did not automat~cally qualify them as a hardship for a variance, and 3t n~ould be ~~xtremely difficult to develop these prnpertie~ fcr the k:ighest density R-a. and the market value of the properties should not be cc~~s.idered at a.higher rate than normal because there would be no way to constru~:t 25 units•on these lots, which wou_~d be the necessary density for rxpecting a r~turn unde* an R-3 7.one, which vacant property would normaily retuxn, , and t naa ~s f..r. as hE: wa, cc~r~cer:ied at this point in time, the,re .+as no hardship whicn ~:~~: rrcperty ownerrs could claim by the approval of R-3 zoning ior these properties> RECLASSir"IGA'TxON - CONTINU~D PUBLI~ }iEARING. CLIFFORll C. BOTTENFIELD, 732 North East N0. 6,'-08-54 Street, AnaY,eim, California, Owner; A. E. SANDORf, 13224 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California, Agent; property described as: A VARIIINCE N0. 1954 rec+,angularly shaped parcel o.f land having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the east side of East Stre~t and a maximum depth of approximately 2~? :eet, the southerly boundary of said parceloeing aprrnximdtely 245 feet north ot the ce.~~terline of Wilhe~mina Street, and fur~ner described as 732 North.East Street.. Property p~e.ently classified R-!, ONE-FAM.ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIPICATION: R-2~ MUiTIPLE-FAMILY P.ESIDENTIkLp ZONE. REQUESTED VAR:[i,NCE: TO CONSTRUC:T SIX 1Vi0-STORY APARTIVIEhT UNI'1';i, WITH WAIVERS . OF (1) MAXIMUivi H;3ILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FE~T OF SINGLE-FAMILY F'iESIDENCES AND (2) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL. SubjQCt petitions were con:.inued from th~ meeting of March 11, iy68, in order that additional parc~tls in !:he area could be ad;~ertised for R-3 zoning, and ir.;,rder that vari~us de~artments in the City m'ight give e.d~itional ;onsideratior. ta vehicular circulati~n and access probleRS ln tn? area. Aesociate.Planner Charles Roi~ertb reviewed tha petitions, the location of the property, arid the waivers requested, stating that the waiver of the requirement for masonry walls tio be, adjacent to the R-1 on `.he north sn~' south, which now were proposed for reclassi- fic~tion to R-3, was a technicality, and that the plans ~.ubmittEd by the petitionex indicated that the~ existin9 .residence wculd remain and six. studio-type apartments of two-story coi~structin~n would be develQp'ed within 73 feet of the R-1 property to the east; however, if the Cokmission and City Coun~il felt the "Specitic, Plan of Access" should be edopted, then the dev~lopment plans shouid be reve.rsed so th3t the driveway presently proposzd for the south property line should ~e in line with the north property line. a !f ~~ uu ~. q^'~'~C t~ r1 N. ..~ .rpwn ca ,« ~ .+ - .. .. , . . . , ~ . .. .~ . ~~ . . . ~ +~',.~~ ~`~y. ,~-l ~ ~ ~ . .. ~~ ' ~ ~ rS . . .. ~ .. -~ . . . . . i v --~ - .. ~ : !/ ! , `~ -... . '. ~ ~ . . ~ ~.~ ~ . . r MINUIES;.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,.March 25, 1968 3830 RECLFS~IFICATION ' - Mr, Clifford Bottenfield, the petitioner, appeared before the " N0. .5?-~9=94 Commission and•stated that the developer had drawn new plans, incorporating one-story within.150 feet of.the.R-1, and it was VARIA,~CE IVO. 1954 proposed'to relocate ~he exi ti h e t he (Co'nti ued) s ng om o t rear - however, ' r o q . the xequi ement f walls still was one of the variances being requested,.and that the six apartments now were being proposed fox single-story cons~ruction. Mr. A. Ic. Saridorf, thF ,- •nt for the petitioner, submitted revised plans to the Commiss;ion, notin9 the • ~ges being proposed. ~ The.Comcr,ission then noted that the plans had not been reviewed by the staff or other ~ ~epartmer,ts: within tlte City. Mr. Sa:~~~-rs st.eted h~ had tried to maintain the development in accordance with all Code requiremenis, ,nd that the plan could be reversed to provide access along the ; northerly property line. Mr. Tom Fitzgea;aid, 721 Juniper Place, appeared before the Commission and inquired what ~.'ie fencing reqii3rements would ioe between °he R-1 and R-2 Zones. T.he Commissio;i advised Mr. Fitzgerald that a six-foot masonry wall, measured from the hiahest finistied grade level, would be req~ired between the R-1 and subject propezty, and ±:hat the F~lans submitted indicated one-story constxuction - therefore, the ...,iver reque~ting two-s:ory construction no longe~ was necessary. THE H.EARIt•~ WAS CLOSED. ~ Discussion was held by the Commiss3on relative to t.';e wei~~er of walls as they applied f being.adjai:ent to any proposed R-3 as recommended for approval under the previous ~ petition sincr the R-1 would now be the nonconformin~ use; furthermore, any decision on subject petit~ons should be held in abeyance until the Caty Council acted upon Reclassification No. 67-68-68, since approval of subjeat petition might create spot zoning. Zoninc Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that subject petitions could be te;•.ninated or withdra~wn, and development could occur under_Reclassif:lcatio'n No. 6?-6f3-68; however, the (,ity.still would require the petii:ioner to bond for walls along the ~,orth and south bour.daries until those properties developed. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to contiraue Petitions ior Reclassification No. t~ 67-68-54 a.~d Variance No. I95a to the mee~inc~ r~~' May 6~ 1968, in or~3er ie allow time ;' ~ for.action on Reclassification No. 57-68-68 by r,he City Councii. Commi.= s=oner Gauer . _ seconded ~he motion. MOTION CA~tRIED. Mr. T,hompson advised the Commission that the staff would revieH~ th~a sup~itted plans and ad~ise the Commission accordingly at the public hearing. RECLASSIFICATlON - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITLATED BY TY.c" ANA M31M CI7Y COUNCIL , N0. 67-68-35 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; ?roposing that . pioperty described as: A rectanqularly sh3ped ('n3~'.e:l r,:,t Zand having a frontage of approximately lI2 feet on •ihe s;:uth side of South Str~et und a;naximum depth of approxzmately 159 feet, the easterly boandary of subject propexty bei~g approximately 2b5 feet west of the ~enterline of State Colle9e Boulevard, and further described as 1906 East South Street, te reclassified from the R-A; AGRICULTUftAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL ~OMM'eRCIAL, ZUNE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings ef December 4, 1967 and February 26, 1968, in order to allow additional time for the property owners to determine the future use of the property, to present plans for development of the property, and to be ccn- ~ sidexed-in conjunction with a petition filed as a result of said deY~lopment plans. j CONDITIONAL USE - PUgLIC HEARING. CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, i906 East South Street, ~PERMIT N0 1014 . pnaheim, California, Owner; ANN 1. MAL~ISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Californir, Agent; requesting permission to ' CONSTRUCI .A 36-UNIT, THREE-ST~JRY MOTEL on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parce,i of land having a frontage of approxin,ately 112 feet on the south side of 5outh ( Street and a maximum depth of approximatel; 158 feet, the easLerly ruundary of said parcei being approximately 265 feet west of the centerline of State College B~ulevard , and further described as 1906 East South Street. Property pr=sent~y classified R-A , AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. 1 _ .._;: k^, :. ~... . - y'f.:, f ~ ... .-. .. .~'Y .. ! . . ~ , . .. .. . ~ . ~+`.n~" ,';l?"F'~'1 "6 E %Y4Y??~"~.~.~,~,~ ~~H~ ~,~ ~lc+„ +..~~,Fa 5'1~,,..L,~ 'x'~' f ~~$~ X- ir'~'Y ~~ ~ C ~x~~n~~itw~'~r ~' ~ q a. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ C 5 ~ .. . ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ .. . - . .. . t/ .. . V;~/ V ~ ~ ~~ ~.,F` MIP~UTES, CITY PLANNIN(', COMMISSION, March 25 1968 ~ , 3831 ;,? RECi.ASSIFICATION - Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject N0, 67-68-35 ~ ~ _. property and the reasons for continuances for additional time to submit development plans. It was further noted that Reclassification CONDITIONAL USE No. 67-63-35 was i iti t d b i , n a e y the C~ty Council t~ allow full-range, PERMIT N0. 1014 C.-1 Zone uses to round out th ~ e commercial uses in the area; further- Continued) more, the agent for the petitioner of Conditional U P {~ se ermit No. lOla had submitted a Tetter requestin9 withdrawal of said petition on the basis that the develo er c ld I p ou not perform, due .to his inability to obtain financing. ~ ~~ , Mrs.. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, indicated her pr.esence to answer questions. . ~ #; ~. Commi.ssioner Farano inquired whether or not the conditional use permit which the agent had said would be fil d ~ ' . e was being withdrawn, and if it were being withdrawn, therF: would be no plans for the reclassification _~ . ~ 3 Mrs. Madison stated that inasmuch as the developer could not perform it was fou ne d s ~ - ; , n ces ary-to withdraw the petitiony that the church property had been under consic;era- ' tion,for the past eight months that i ; ; ne ghbors had not been in agreemen: as to the uses whi.ch were desirable for the property; that the Commission did ~ ~ not want to grant G1 zoning without development plans; and that the church n " ever was given the opportunity to express their opinions and were now faced with financial problems because the unabl w t ll ~ y e. ere o.se this pro?erty. ; ~ Mrs.,_Madison then noted that since submitting the iatter of withdrawal of the conditional use permit she had b ' j ~ , een contacted by the operators of the restaurant now under construc- tion for.possible future expansion; however the wanted ~~ , y more latitude in the use of the property by requesting C-1 zoning, with the possibility of utilizin the h f i ~~ g ome res or a dence for one of the managers and the church chapel for an office or shop and for storage ur o F 4 p p ses. urthermore, the conditional use permit for th, church expired in September, and the day school ~ was no longer in opexation. ~ Mrs..Roberi Matheison, 1915 East South Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, noting that the ~ proposed purchaser of the property wanted a blanket C-1 zoning - however, her oppasition was to the fact th t t `' I a he C-1 Zone permitte~ many undesirable commercial uses which were not comFatible with the residential ' uses e:,tablished there; that.a majority of the property owners in the area were not opposed t~ the church nor the school th t h ~ i ; a s e was aware of the financial problems a church was faced with - however, economics should not enter i t r ;;~ n o consideration of the type of zoning subject property should have - it should be zoned on the b i f ~ as s o the compatible uses applicab~2 for the area, rather than financial problems; that she would ~ recommend consideration of a possible two or three-family unit apartment development, oz in the future l th ;:1 , p an to use e:,property for C-0 uses since the Front-On Study indicated that properties to the north could be consider d f 'j e or C-0 uses whenever the property owners deemed them unsatisfactory for residential uses. ;,;;~ The Commission inquired of Mrs. Matheison whether or not the R-1 property owners would Le opposed to use of th ~` , e property in conjunction with the restaurant. ~ ~' , Mrs. Matheison advised the Commission that all these homes fronting on the north side of South Street sti11 were being used for residences, and it was the intent of the proper.ty owners to live there for i / some t me. s Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility.of requiring dedication of:access rights in th e event subject petition was approved for use in conjunction with the restaurant fronting on State College Bouleva d C i ~ ~ r ; omm ssioner Rowland being of the opinion that the City Council felt thi s property shoulc~ be part of rounding out the C-1 uses - however he felt nothing had changed to t 1 warran consideration of G1 uses, ar:d to require dedication of access sights might create a landl k j~ oc ed parcel. The agent then advised the Commission that she did not wish to give the wrong impression - however the restaurant a , operators were only leasing the property from Voge, Incorporated, and they would like to be abl t "~ e o use the residence for that purpose since there were substantiel improvements on the property, and the church buildin could b ~ ~ g e used for a storage,area for other restaurants. Commissioner,Farano inquired whether or not the restaurant people would be using this in conjunction with th ;~ `~ e restaurant operation. . ~ The agent.stated they had informed her they would be using it in conjunction with the operation of th ~' e restaurant, but how, she did not know. ~ ~;~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CIIY .PLANNING COMMISSION, M2rch 25, 1968 ~ e,~ ~ ;;.r~ . ~.~,r.;; ` ' \.. •t ` ' _..~ ~ \ 3832 RECLASSIFICATION - The Cortunission then noted that if the petitioner wanted the use N0._67-68-35 of the church structure for storage purposes.and use of the house for living purposes, it would be necessary to file an additional CONDZTIONAL USE conditional use permit, which would mean another delay. PERMIT N0. 1014 • (Continued) Commissioner Farano noted that the use now proposed was a nebulous type of use in conjunction with the restaurant. Mr.. Robert Orth, representing the proposed purchasers of the property, appeared before thE Commission and stated i`t was their desire to.utilize subject:property..without creat- ing disharmony with adjoining property owners; that at the present time it appeared the property could bE used for a residence and for storage purposes, and that wds the rea~on for requesting flexibility for uses of the property without a hope of chan9e in the future for the area. Mr. Orth also suggested that a portion of the property could be used for office parking, and the possibility of developing the property later for R-2 or R-3 uses since with the price asked for the property, it would be difficult to develop it for anything else. Mr. Orth also asked whether the C-0 Zone would permit the utilization of the existing church structure for offices. Commissioner Rowland noted that access rights for the property could be taken for most of tne frontage, and if the petitioner were allowed the maximum driveway permitted by Co~e or 30 feet, this would limit most of the uses which would be detrimental to the residential uses, such as a liquor store, a bar, a gara9e, and a small market. ,~Ar. Orth then stated they had a 20-.year lease on the restaurant property; therefore, it would bc 3ifficult to utilize tn~ property if access rights were dedicated to the City. Mrs. Madison then stated that if the Commission were going to consider a change in the method oi ..Ataining the type of use for the property, she would prefer consideration of.approval oz denial at this point, rather than continuin9 it again. Mr. Ron Sims, 1909 East South Street, appeared before the Commission and stated they were not against the church or the nursery, and if subject praperty were to be considered part of the restaurant property, would a masonry wall be required, and would parking be prohibited; whereupon the Commission answered "no". THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that a decision on subject petition should not be considered by the Commission by referring it to the City Council since the petitioner should be allowed only to utilize the property for what she was entitled to have, and not for what she was requestinq. Commissioner Farano stated the Commission did not create the situation, but the property owner had refused to submit the plans, and when plans were submitted, these were then withdrawn. Commissioner Rowland again stated that the property was not suitable for the full ran9e of C-1 uses. Commissioner Allred then noted that the Commission had been attempting to assiat the church in utilizing the property for the best and highest use; however, the negative approach of the petitioner indicated little concern for what the Commission was requesting. Mrs. Mad~son then requested to be heard again and stated it was not her intent to be disrespectful to the Commission, but the church had been made a victim of circumstances because the developer was not able to perform, and since the church had received another offer, the only reason she was requesting consideration to either approve or deny the petition was because the City Council had initiated the petition, and it was not her desire to bypass the Commission because of this - her only concern was to be able to sell the property for the church. The Commission noted they appreciated the remark made by the agent - however, it was also noted the Commission was a victim of circumstances as well, and that they did not believe in rezoning property in order to increase the value of ihe property so that the owner could sell it. Mrs. Madison noted that the chu.,•ch already had sold the property for the day school. purposes at a considerably higher price than the offer made for the property at the present time. ::::'il r ,, ; - - --~-~r-.°,-z ' MAti .7.~,~~(~ "~"~r . "ySm ~.' ~ aN~fi~,,. .,..,. . .r .,z.,, . -e., . . . . .. . .. . . , .... . .. . .. ,. . ~ x~ -, a .. `~/ t1.J 1~.+~ . ~ 1.tIN.UTES, CITY PLANNING CGMMISSION, March 25, 1968 3833 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PCbB-83 and moved for N0. 67-68-35 its passage and adopti~n, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommeno to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification CONDITIONAL USE No. 67-68-35 be disa~proved on the basis that the property was not PERMIT N0. 1014 suited for the full range of C-1 zoned uses because of its close (Continued) proximity to the residential uses to the north and west; that even though the Front-On Study recommended C-O uses for those homes fronting on the north side of South Str.eet, ail the homes were now being,.used for residential purposes, and the owners had indicated it was their intent to reside in these homes for a number of years, provided that undesirable uses w~r~; prolaibited for sub3ect property; that if the City Council deemed a change of zone xe~e needed,.consideration should be given to the development of the property for G-0, P-1, F-2,.or R-3 Zone uses which could a~t as a transition between ttie heavier commercial ~se~ established along the State ~ollege Boulevard frontage to t;~e east of subject property. Furthermore, if any more intense use is approved, access should be limited to one 30-foot drive placed directly across from the drive of the residence to the north in order to eliminate lights from vehi,;;les leaving subject property shining into the windows of these residences; that although the Commission requested the plars of develop- ment ~hould be submitted due to possible deleterious effects general commercial uses might have on the residential integrity of the area, the plans were withdrawn before they could be reviewed by the Commission. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the ioregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlar„1, Camp. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 1014 as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst.seconded the motion. MOTI0~I..CAP.RI ED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. AUBREY ANDERSON, 2947 West Lincoln Avenue, Ariaheim, PERMIT N0. 1008 California, Owner; U-DRIVE KARTS, INCORPORATED, 9521 Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXIS7ING "GO-KART" RENTAL FACILITY WITH SALES AND SERVICE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a-fronta9e of approximately 315 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 775 feet,.tha westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 340 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and further described as 2947 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in ciose proximity, and the proposed petition, noting that a go-kart rental facility had been in operation for several years, having originally been established under Conditional Use Permit No. 95. Mr. Roberts further noted that on February 14, 1968, a petition signed by 131 tenants of the adjacent mobile home park had been submitted to the Commission, which indicated the residents of the mobile home park were opposed to the existing go-kart facility, and that revised plans had been submitted which indicated that the proposed expansion was substantially great=r than originally approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 95; therefore, the Commission recommended to the petitioner that a.new conditional use permit be initiated by the petitioner. Mr. Roberts also noted that the plans submitted by the petitioner indicated substantial improvement and upgrading of the exi~sting go-kart facility; that additional parking was bein9 provided; that the go-kait track would be revamped and improved, and the existing building located on the easteriy portion of the property would be removed and a new, modern structure would be provided on the westerly portion of the property near the Lincoln Avenue frontage; that new light standards were being proposed, and the light would be directed away from the pr~perty line; that a five-foot planting area would be provided adjacent to ,he Lincoln Avenue right-of-way and additional planting provided around tr,e front portion of the go-kart track, out no planting had been indicated within the pa:king area located along the westerly boundary of subject property; and that if the Commission gave favorable consideration to the petition, they might wish to require landscaping in compliance with the G-1 site development standards. Furthermore, in ~riew of the fact that the mobile home park had recently been established immediately to t;~e east of subject property, the Commission might wish to give consideration to specific hours of operation. `;;'z ~ ; `6.': ; - ; ~ ~ ~ MINU'I'ES, CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 ~' ,: 7 y- ~ ~ `n `` ..~ri r^~ ~ \ ~:; `j \ _ , 3834 CANDITIONAL USE - Mr. Myron Van Ells, represen~ing the agent for•the petitioner, PERMIT N0. 1008 appeared before the Commission and noied that the building located .(Continued) on tne easterly portion of subject property, originally used for repc~ir of the go-kart facilities, would be removed and a new structure would'be developed on the westerly portion of subject property; that he ha~ attempted to contact the trailer park tenants in order to ascertain whe,ther or not they were opposed to the go-kart facility, and some had indicated no opposition - however, they were not desirous of indicating their preference at a public hearing; furthermore, a letter was on file with the City of Fullerton relative to the establishment of 'a similer facility in that city, which letter indicated the residents of the mob:le home park did not oppose the go-kart facility - however, the newest peti- tion signed by 131 property owners adjacent to subject property might have been instigated by the operator of the mobile home park in hopes of purchasing subject property, or a portion:of it. Furthermore, Mr. Anderson, the petitioner,had attempted to present the proposed plans to the mobile home park owners, and had been warned by the manager of the possibility of being arrestted for soliciting. Mr._Van Ells, in response to Commission questioning relative to the existing chainlink fence, stated it would be removed adjacent to the trailer park; however, if subject petition were denied, they still would be adjacent to the trailer park facility, and if approved, the structure where repair work was done would be relocated to the west side of subject property. Mr. Van E11~, in response to staff que~stioning relative to present hours of operation, stated that Mondays through Thursdays they were open from 4:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., and Fridays and Saturdays to 12:00 or 12:30 A.M., and on Sundays to 10:30 or 11:00 P.M. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired as to the reason for maintainin9 such late hours, and were informed by Mr. Van Ells that maintenance of the go-karts was usually done after the track was closed, and that the children utilized the facility during the day and th~ adults at night. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-84 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner 3owland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1008 on the basis that it hed been in existence for the past seven years, and the petition of opposition was not backed up by a personal appe.aran^e, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 1958 - PUBLIC HEARING. MARTINDANIEL, INCORPORATED, P. 0. Box 10101, Santa Ana, California, Owner; DANIEL C. COHEN, P. 0. Box 10101, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting the following WAIVERS TO PERMIT A 16-'VIT, TWO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX: (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHI', (2) MINIMUM SIDE YAk., ':GTBACK, (3) MINIMUM BUILDING S:TE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (4) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PEn DWELLING UNIT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 106 feet ~n the sot~th side of Juliann,~ Street end a maximum depth of approximately 186 fe~et, the westerly boundary of saiC, parcel being appTOximately 224 feet east of the centerline of Citron Strset, and further described as 710 West Julianna Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY,RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the proposed request, and previous zoning actions on the property, noting that a similar r:~uest had ' been disapproved by the Planning Commission and City Council in November, 1966, and that the Planning Commission on June 5, 1967, had partially approved a variance to permit the exten$ion of Julianna Street through subject property, dividing it into three lots, the nori:herly lots being developed with sin9le-family residential uses and the third lot for multiple-family residential uses along the south side of Julianna Street. Mr. Roherts noted that the proposal indicated a two-story, 16-unit apartment building to be .~nstructed within 20 feet of the single-family property to the east, and that on previous occasions the Planning Commission and City Council had denied requests for two- story construction on the basis that it had been a long-standing policy and Code require- < ~'' -., : , ~w r"~'r*,;. ',~ ~-~°$+s ;~T,~'Rs~c~~Y'rn'~.~ ,._ c~~rJ'~'~i,C,'"i 3:"n ~ 7 ~ I ~, ~. ~t ~ ~ ::` ~ ~.a ~ s: ~ c l • , ~~ O ~ . `~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Masch 25 1968 , 3835 VARIANCE N0. 1958 - ment that all mul#iple-family (Continued) 15~ construction be single-story within feet of any R-1 property - therefore, the-Planning Commission must again examine this request in light o f the single-family residences in close proximity whether there have been sub t ti l in order to make a determination „ s an a changes which would warrant requirement. a waiver of this F Y3~ ~ ~ \' ~t ` ', ~.. `:4 j _t f l ~ t .Mr. Daniel Cohen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that.he.was aware of the City's policy not to permit two-story construction within 150 feet of R-1, but there were mitigating circumstances which should be brought to the Commission's attention, and there have been many meetings with the staff and other property owners in the area in trying to establish some way to develop subject property; that the petitioner felt there was some merit to two-story construction and appealed the Commission s previous denial of two-story construction to the C~ty Council. At that hearing, after considerable discussion by the Council and the opposition, and after a temporary recess at which time one of the Councilmen met with all interested persons, it was his opinion that the single-family homeowners were desirous of having Julianna Street extended through subject property and would forego opposition to two-story construction. Furthermore, he was of the opinion that the•City Council had denied waiver of the single-stery height limitation without pre~udice, and this was their indication that if a proper development were presented, it would be considered favorably by.the City; that some consideration had been given to construction of multiple-family units of one story - however, after a feasibility study by one of the lenders, this study indicated this type of development could generate a costly type of construction, and since two-story apartments existed to the west, in order to develop:-the property more economicaily, two-story was necessary - therefore the access drive was proposed along the east side of the development,and an additional five feet in width was placed there as an additional buffer to the R-1 property, and, therefore, the request for waiver of the side yard setback along the west property line. Mr. Cohen further noted that he was aware not all of the property.owners were in favor of the proposed development; however, the property owner to the east felt that any form of development of the property would be to an advanta9e to the easterly single-family property owners. A showin9 of hands indicated eight persons present in opposition to sub,ject petition. Mr. D. R. Parsons, 700 West Julianna Street, appeared before the Commission and noted the single-family homeowners were not opposed to construction of apari~,::nts on subject property, but they were desirous of having development in accordance with the R-3 Code, and the petitioner was proposing to increase the density of that permitted by Code by 25y6;.that Julianna Street was a residential street and was very narrow, and since the street.has been extended thruugh subject property, there has been a noted increase in traffic problems-with residents of the apartments to the west creating somewhat of a problem; furthermore, the petitioner was proposing a substandard apartment of only 20 by 30 feet., as well as proposing only 19 parking spaces where parking was at a premium in this eiatire area; and that the Commission should not be considering the financial problems ~the petitioner was having since it was a matter of land use and development in accordance with the zoning on the property. Mr. P,arsons also noted that when subject property was reclassified to the R-3 Zone, the one-story height limitation was not in effect; however,the propeity owner has not devel- oped.the property, and at this time the R-3 Code now provided for single-story construc- tiQn.,within 150 feet of R-1 property - therefore he was opposed to any deviation from the Code requirement.. Mrs.,Cora Wooldridge,705 West Julianna Street, appeared before the Commission and noted she was on the north side of Julianna Street adjacent to the tw~ homes which had just been moved in, and was a portion of subject property which had been subdivided when the street was put in; that they~were aware there were problems in developing subject property- however the proposal for 16 units was too dense for such a.small parcel, and this would increase the parking and traffic problems on the street; that when La Palma Park had some,.activity, Julianna Street was completely filled with parking, and the residents of the street were unable to park their own cars in the front of their property; that there were or:ly three spaces for ,parking cars in front of subject property and only 20 spaces were provi.-',ed, and it was a matter of knowledge that the majority of homes and apartments had two cars - therefore, this would be inadequate for the amount.of parking necessary. Mrs. E. A. Leon, 701 West Juiianna Street, appeared in opposition and stated there were a number of apartments on that street which were in a run-down condition, and this run-down condition attracted only the type of people who were not desirable for their neighborhood; furthermore, the proposed type of development would not attract the higher quality type h ,`it;;! - _ - --~-~-: ~ , : , ~ ~"- $~ ~ . ..N`i."~":ebl,..,M. . ...J{w~r ...~.~nk:t+~;~ .....:n. , .. . .,~ ....,. . . ..,.. ,.. ~~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 ~I a' L^1 ;;'f` Y ~t. r;m~ +T:,!i~ ' ''.?,f.~r _._ _ , r~ \ pt V ~ \ -:: ~` 3836 ~ ''' VARIANCE N0. 1958 - of resident for the area because of the smallness of the ~ proposed (Continued) apartments - therefore she recommended denial of the petition sznce this ld b ~ wou e detrimental to the residential integrity of the area and degrade the entire property on that street. Mr. Ed Troutman, 704 West Julianna Street, appeared before the Commission, stating that he was immediately adjacent to this vacant land, and many children•played in the dirt in the mounds there, throwing rocks and debris, and recommended that subject property be developed in the best manner poss~ble because of the undesirability of the present appearance of the property; that he had lived in the City of•Anaheim for 45 years, and L he.was desirous of seeing this property developed. Mr. Cohen, in rebuttal, noted that the density question arose when the plans were sub- mitted to the staff for consideration, and the difference was based on the fact that the square footage was calculated after the drives were removed; however, as far as the size of the apartments was concerned, they had built a number of apartment units and had operated them over a period of years - where only 600 square feet were developed - and thes,e apartments were rented by adults; that the comment was mac3e that children were running around and becoming destructive by use of subject property for a play area - and if subject petition were approved, developme.nt would occur in accordance with plans submitted. Furthermore, where apartments were in a run-down condition, this was the fault of the owner and operator, and it was their intent to maintain the property in the highest and best manner in order that they cou~d attract young adults, and these young adults never had more than one car per family - therefore the required 1~ parking spaces were within the Code requirement, and if covered parking were provided in close proximity to the home, parking would be within the development rather than on the street. Mr. Cohen, in response to Commission questioning, stated that his company had assumed the.entire project at the time Mr. Kevorkian had encountered finaacial problems and had dedicated the street and filed a parcel map, moving two homes onto the northerly parcel as_projected in the plans submitted in 1967 - however, if the street had not been extended through subject property, they would have constructed 19 apartments; that he had made every attempt to discuss the proposed development with all the property owners in the area, and many had expressed the desire to have Julianna Street extended through his property, but now they were unhappy with the extension of the street. It was further noted that the Police and Fire Departments were desirous of having Julianna Street extended through subject property because of the excessive length and inaccessibility to the apartments in the event of an emergency. Mrs. D. R. Parsons, 700 West Julianna Street, requested that the Core:^.iission consider additional evidence and stated that when the previous petition was submitted, it was felt by the property owners on Julianna Street that extension of the street would be the lesser of two evils - however, there was no talk of one-story construction. The Commission advised all interested persons that•the discussion and suggestions made at the City Council meeting were never presented to the Commission for consideration. Thereupon, Mrs. Parsons stated that they were still opposed to two-story construction within 150 feet of the R-1. THE 1-IEARING WpS CLOSED. Discussion held by the Commission relative to the request for two-story construction determined that the petitioner was requesting a reduction of 20~ in the minimum floor area and 23% in the minimum building site area - this could create an undesirable living environment for the apartment dwellers and covld also be del.eterious to the residential integrity of the area. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-85 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1958 on the basis that the requested reduction in minimum floor area and minimum building site area would create an undesirable living environment; that the request for two-story construction within 150 feet of single-family uses was a waiver which had never been granted by the Commission or City Council; and that the requested waiver for required building site area would reduce the amount of recreation-leisure area which is needed for a desirable living environment for apartments. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following voi:e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Murigall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= None. Commissioner Rawlsnd,. in voting "no", stated that the undesirable development of R-3 apartments in that ar~ea was one of the basic reasons for revision of the R-3 Code - to provide a better liyi:n9 environment with more than minimal standards. - ~`_'' h.. \ _ M . .. t T~t.µ ~~ r ,_..1~ ~ . . . t . . ! . . , . 1 ::~? J`~' :;3 -z7r~+S G,:,1 k '_'m`Ct+. ~ ~ `/ ~ ~ ~ ~ '4~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 . 3837 CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that PERMIT N0. 1016 telephonic contact with the agent was made by the staff, and (Continued) a request was received to continue the petition until the meeting I of April 8, 1968. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petit~on for Conditional Use Permit No. 1016 to the meeting of April 8, 1968, as the first item on the~ agenda. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS ORANGE COUNTY USE PERMIT N0. 3009 (Francis Beckett) - Property located on the south side of Mariposa Avenue, at the intersection of Lakeview Street and Mariposa Avenue, in the south Yorba Linda area - property zoned County A-1(0), General Agricultural (Oil Pro~duction) District. Petitioner is proposing to establish a horse stable for 42 horses and an exercise corral. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Orange County Use Permit No. 3009 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of the proposed horse stables and corral; existing use of the property; the fact that the Yorba Linda General Plan projects this general area for low density residential us~, and the proposed use would be commercial in nature; therefore, a time limitation should be considered because of the existing chicken ranch and the proposed horse stable which might have a deleterious effect on the development of the undeveloped properties in this general area. Furthermore, the horse corrals were proposed to be located in the ultimate right-of-way of Lakeview Street (Taylor-Lakeview alignment); thus they should also be'relocated. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider establishing a time limitation of two years, if Orange County Use Permit No. 3009 is approved, based on the fact that a chicken ranch and horse stable with outdoor corrals could have a deleterious effect on the ultimate development of the undeveloped properties in this general area. Further- more, consideration also should be given to relocating the horse corrals in such a manner that they would not be within the.ultimate right-of-way of Lakeview Street (Taylor- Lakeview alignment). Commissioner RowTand seconded the motion. MUTION CARRIED. ITEM N0..3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIi N0. 971 (Reichert 8 Son) - Request for extension of time for the completion of conditions in Resolution No. PC67-239 dated October 23, 1967 - Property located on the west side of Manchester Avenue southerly of Orangewood Avenue - Proposing the establishment of a mobile home park. Associate P~anner Charles Roberts presented a request from Reichert 8 Son regarding an extension of time for completion of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 971, noting that considerable problems had been encountered because of the City of Orange wanting to extend Meyer Street and the Division of Highways proposing an overpass of the Santa Ana Freeway, which might encompass a portion of subject property. Commissioner Farano offered a.motion to grant a 180=day.time extension for the co~pletion of conditions in Resolution No. PC67-239 dated October 23, 1967, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 971, said time extensian to expire Octobe.r 22, 1968. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOI'ION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 VARIANCE N0. 834 - Approval of master plan of development for a Boy Scout facility lbcated on the south side of West La Palma Avenue, easterly of West 5ereet. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a master plan of development :or the Boy Scout facility, noting that additions were being made to the largest structure on the pro,perty; that a portion of the bu.ilding would be coming to the front property line - however, a portion of the existing building already has been developed to the front property line, and an average of the front setbacks would be well over the required theyfshouldFbetsub~ect~tohthetpayment~ofestreethlight and streetetreeafeeseTtoaberpaid~ at the time the building permit was issued. I~ ' - - - ~ . . _ . .~ti . . . ~ . . . . ~. . . ~ . . O ~." ~ . MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 25, 1968 ~ ~i,.~. f ~ ~: ~ f~~ ~ :. .~ .. . , ~ . . .. ,.. ~;:°,t4 . ' ~ . 1 ,: N/i~! f7 1^~ vey ~ ~ ~I I- 'i`B 38~8 ~'i : a;. REPURTS AND - ITEM N0. ~ (Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) • Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve khe~ti~aster p~lan, of•develnpment of the Boy Scout facility under Varia,nce No. 834, subject to the payment of street light and street tree fees at the time the building perniit is issued. Commissioner Gau~r se~onded the :notiono MOTION CARRIED. Commis~ioner Rowlend abstained from voting: ITEM N0. 5 Amendment to Chapter 18.62 of t~e Anaheim Municipal Code. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented the proposed amendment. to Title 18, Chapter 18.62 of the Anaheim Municipal Code covering "Signs, Advertising Signs, and Structures", specifically Section 18.62.076, Future Establishment Signs, and noted that the Report to the Commission indicated the proposal should be considered at public hearing. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to set for public hearing on April 22, 1968, amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code covering "Signs, Advertising Signs, and Structures". Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 6 Amendment to Chapter. 18.62 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Associate Planner Charles Roberts prese~ited th2 proposed amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.62 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to "Signs, Advertising Signs, and Structures" by the amenc~ment to the description of a parcel or lot of real property and to the number oi signs which would be permitted in the R-A Zone, and that the recommended amendment was stipulated in the Report to the Commission. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direc~ the staff to set for public hearing amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.62 of the Anaheim MunicipaT Code, to be considered et public hearing April 22, 1968. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ZTEM N0. 7 VARIANCE N0. 1742 - Requestfor approval of revised plans for property located on the south side of Belmont Avenue easteily of East Street - Proposing an add].tion of 158 square feet to the existing development., Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented revised plans for a 158-square foot addition to the ~existing development approved under Variance No. i742, noting that the variance was approved in 1965, to permit development of a single-family home on an odd-shaped parcel, and that the waiver of the minimum lot coverage when subject petition ~iginally was approved was 43%, and the proposed addition would increase the coverage to 48%. However, all the setbacks still would conform with those approved under the original variance. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve revised plans of Variance No. 1742, permitting the addition of 158 square feet to the existing structure. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MO:ION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C~4~ ~~~'~'~J ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission _ _, ~ ~nr :~.:_ _ - • . , ._ : ^sr ,,..•'~..~.'~' , _ ,:, . . .._ _ ~ ., ~ , ,-. .. , ~ ~~z.i i ~ - i , -rc "°'k1M~ ~~i '~~N.~~.,,~ ~~2~` "~ k~+k, i '~ °a . ,~ t t ° ~, ~ ' 1 :~ Y r~ -~ ~ ~ r ~. .. ~ ~~, 3 • '~ 1~ ~ ' R~. V ~3 2{ ~y{ IS {1'~.il. , '+1 l ~ .+` ~.. ? G J 1 ~ t ~ -~ ) ~ ~ t t A ~ > 4 ~ '~ ' ~ ''~ d . y i . ~ t Y 1. f9 ' ! i ,~~ `A.: ~}Y R~' Y ~. ~~ 0. t { .~ yy ~ . , ., t ~ {3 1. i 1 M ~ ~ ~ _ J ~. ~ < . ~ C ' h .' q.. ..Y ~ f t I~ ~L ~ { ~ ' ~~ K ~ ty ~ . ~ ' J ~, t 1 J.~.'t~ P ~r ~;',c t :'~ ~< ~ ~ ~ . ' t , ~ ~ {`r ~ ~ a ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .. ~. F .~ ~ Y . ' ~ • ~ ~ ~ S ]i~ ~ t ~ . ` ~ . ' h 1 ,` 6 ~, Y ~ t ~ _ r F ~'~~ ~ y . . . ~ .~.X r ~ [' ~' F ~. ~ t ~~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ i i i i ;js~ t ~ ir I ' ~ ,~ ' . ~'" ~ _ - ~ . . I ~ . ~ . . . .. , ~ .. ; ~ . . . ~~I I I I - - ~ -~ ,. - .. ~'' ~' " Yl i.. . ~ ~ .. . t u , . ,. „ .; .. , _ .. ._ . : ;' + . ., ~ .; ;-.~. f ~~: ~ : ~ ~ i - ~ . _ ,. . . .: : . . '~ ~ ~ 1 - i' ~. i ~ ~ i ~ ~ . ~ I ~ a :.. 1 ~.( . • , y . , . ~~ ~~ i 'i ,H~ . . . . ' . - . ~~~1.L"¢~•i_J . . . ~ ~O~ .~~~~.~~ . , . ... . ' . . . .. ~ 1 ^ , n ' . _ . ~ . . . . . . .. ~ . . . . . , 5... . , , . ~ . ~ . ' .. . . .~ . -. .! • .. ~ ~ ..