The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/06/17x. a.~ . ...~.. ~. . ~ ~ ~~ City Hall Anaheim, California June 17, 1968 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ '~t ~ 1~,~,' x 1;::,~~: ~~ ~ ~; ~f~~~--~ ~. ~ ~ , ~ ~~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman pro tem Allred at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Allred. - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Directors Robert Mickelson Assistant City Attorneys John Dawson Deputy City Attorneys Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Assocfate Planner: Gharles Roberte Assistant Planners Pat Brown Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commiasioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APP,ROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of May 20, 1968, were approved with the THE MINUTES following corrections, on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commiesioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIEDs Page 3913~ paragraph 12, line 2 should read: "six to eight ~... .regular . Aage 3914~ paragraph 3, line 3 shouid reads "of 20 pieces of equipment ..., approval of". Page 3922, psragraph 6, line 2 should read~ °for this one-foot atrip ..:. was". VARIANCE N0. 1972 - CONTINUED PUHLIC HEARING. EMPIRE SAVINGS & IAAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owner; property TENTATIVE MAP OF described as~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 7RAC'f NO. ~~OQ~ 9.7 acres af land having a frontage of approximately 657 feet on the eaet side of Aladdin Street and a maximum depth of approxi- mately 642 feet, the northerly boundary of said pazcel being approximetely 619 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue, and the westerly boundary being approximetely 1,3b0 feet eaet of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Property presently clas'sifl.ed R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEMIAL, ZONE, REQUESTBD VARIANCEi WAIVER OF MINIMUM LAT WIDTH TO PERMIT A SUBDIVISION COMPRISED OF 3f, R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED LATS. 7EN7'ATIVE 7FtAC7' REQUES7~ PERMI7 THE SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY„INTO 36 R-3 ZONED IATS. 5ub~ect petitiion nnd trect were continued from the meetings of April 22 and May 6, 1968, to ~11ow the petitioner time to submit a revi~ed tract map. Associatie Planner Charlee Robexts noted for the Commi~sion that in reeent diacuseions with thm petitioner a,requeet was made that an additional two months would be necee~ery p~nding final deciilona on the future developmant of thi• property. Therefore, the ati~ff,r~commended continuance until Auguet 12, 1968. Conmis~ioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1972 end 7'~ntiatiiv~ M~p of Traet No. 6509 to the meeting of August 12, 1968, aa requeeted by the pstitionor. Commiesioner Gauer aeconded the motion. M07ION CARRIED. 3470 ~'t 7Z::i /.: . . . . . . . ~ ~~ MINU'fES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June 17, 19b8 GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AMENDMENT N0. 101 204 East Lin,~ln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider a proposal '• '` to increase the residential density designation for properties• i generally south of the Riverside Freeway between Rio Vista Street on the west and Glassell Street on the east. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ARTHUR AND HULDA HEMMERLING, 114 North PERMIT N0. 1029 Coffman Avenue, Anaheim, California, and ROGER PANNIER AND LORRAINE PRATER, 2056 South Loara Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; . ARMOUR BUILDING COMPpNY, P. 0. Box 3236, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting.permission to ESTABLJ-;H A MOBILE HOME PARK on property described as: An ixxegularly shaped parcel of approximately 26 acres of land located north of the Santa Ana River and south of the Riverside Freeway and having a frontage of approximately 1,100 feet running west from a point approximately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer.Boulevard, said frontage being on the south side of Frontera Street south of the Riverside Freeway. Property presently classified R-A, RGRICULTURAL, 20NE. Subject General Plan amendmPnt was continued from the meeting of May 20, 1968, to allow time for further study. Subject conditional use permit was continued from the meeting of May 20, 1968, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that since both General Plan Amendment No. 101 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1029 encompassed the same property, and since the petitioner for the conditional use permit had requested an additional four weeks of time in order that he might resolve problems in connection with the property and the precise plan of.development for the property, that the General Plan amendment also be continued. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue public hearing of General Plan Amendment No. 101 to the meeting of July 15, 1968, to be considered in connection with Conditional Use Permit No.~1029. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to conti we :'etition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1D29 to the meeting of July 15, 1968, as requested by the petitioner, in order to allow time to resolve problems. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JENNIE L. DINKLER, 8262 Rio Vista Street, Anaheim, N0. 6'7-68-98_ California, Owner; HAROLD L. RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped VARIANCE N0. 1989 parcel of approximately 20 acres of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 660 feet on the east side of Rio Vista Street.and a maximum TENTATIVE MAP OF depth of approximately 1,320 feet, the southerly boundary of said TRACT N0. 6647, parcel being approximately 560 feet north of the centerline of REVISION N0. 1 Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTcD CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM IAT COVERAGE AND (2) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: S. 8 S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 8857 Nest Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California. ENGINFER: Raab and Boyer Engineering Company, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, W estminster, California. Proposal is to subdivide subject property into 11b R-2-5000 zoned lots. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the proposed request for R-2-5000 zoning, and the waivers of maximum lot coverage and minimum front setback to permit garaqes opening onto a street, with a 14.5-foot setback,.and that the property would be subdivided into 116 R-2-5000 zoned lots with the square footage of the homes ranging in size from 2126 feet to 2376 feet, which included the garages. Mr. Roberts also noted that the General Plan indicated this area for low density residen- tial use which the City had adhored to in the East Anaheim area, and that the Commiseion would have to determine whether the R-2-5000 Zone was appropriate for subject property. ~'~~'~~'~i!''~',~c~~r s*~% S,~~y.,~~l ~~s r~-c~'~ ~Y~`a'~a?`~Jr=x7""'~„',",y+e' r y~; ~'*s 7,. ~t~, ~: .:~,x arr y ~` -•C;' ;vr , s,~ ~ F ~' T ;./ + ... . .: ~ ':. . ' .. - ~ ..:' . . '•. . ; . ~: .l /'.:~~~ ~.~ - ~ .: ..: .I.~i.:.. •' .. _:______ ~.:......_ ~ ._.:_._._~.._~... .:~.. ~ .. . ~ `~ . \`~ \~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 3972 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Roberts then reviewed the Planning Commission and.City Council N0. 67-68-98 action on the previous request for R-2-5000 on the 13-acre parcel VARIANCE Np. 1989 to the south and east of subject property, noting that the City ' TENTATIVE MAP OF Council had disapproved the reclassification petition that th ' ;;`~ "' ~ ; e TRACT N0...66,47, General Plan amendment would be considered by the City Council at ~ ; ~~~ REVISION N~. 1 their meeting on June 18, and the Commission, again, was confronted (Continued) i '~ w th the problem of consideration of greater density for this area, a~ and to determine whether the character of the area had changed to warrant consideration of a higher density. Furthermore, the Commis- sion also would be faced with the fact of considering the waivers ;;;~ requested for coverage since the City had recently amended the R-2-5000 Zone to reduce ~ the cove a f 4 % ; •::~~ r ge rom 5 to 40~, on the basis that the development on these 5000-square ~~'•'~ foot lots did not give adequate open area, arid that a safety factor was involved since it `~'~ was necessary, because of the size of automobiles required a 20-foot apron between `:~ the sidewalk.and the garage in order to prevent automobiles from hanging over the public ~~ right-of-way. ".~ ~ I Mr. Bernard McCune, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and ! 1 ' noted that at the time the tentative tract map was filed, the concept was similar to ~ ~ that considered by the Planning Commission several weeks agc on the Vandenberg property ~ ~ , and after di,scussions with the staff, it was determined to have the sidewalks closer to ~ the home than adjacent to the curb; that the price range of these homes was from $28 000 , i to $38,000, and the square footage would be between 1800 and 4000 square feet - however , the same problem occurred relative to one-story homes, and it was impossible to build the one-story homes with all the amenities the prospective homeowner required; that they expanded from the minimum 5000-square foot lot to 5200 square feet, and rather than pro- '~ pose one subdivision with all two-story homes, he was requesting the Commission to u consider allowing at least 35~ o£ the lots to have the variance waivers, which would ' apply only to the one-story homes; and that the requested waiver for setbacks was being wfthd a i r wn s nce they were cognizant of the fact that one could not park a car without obstructing.the sidewalk, and furthermore the c ld t bt i , , y ou no o a n loans on the type of home proposed in the R-2 Zone unless the setback was a minimum of 20 feet. The Commission inquired whether or not the one-story homes would be interspersed with the two-story homes, and whether they had any difficulty selling one-story homes adjacent i to two-story homes. ~ . ;~ Mr. McCune noted that the one-story homes would be interspersed with a varied front 4 ,, , t; ~" ,~ setback; that the buyers of these homes were very discriminating; and that they had ~ no problem selling the one-story homes adjacent to two-story homes. Reverend Gabriel Ashie, 141 South Kingsley Street, appeared before the Commission in ) opposition and stated that he represented the property owners of the R-l tracts to the ~ east and nor.th of subject property; that all were in opposition to approval of the lots ~ '"' which were less than those developed adjacent to subject property; that the City Council h as concurred in the opposition of the homeowners in this area by stating that the ; property could be developed for R-1 by denying the request of the petitioners of the `~+ property immediately to the south of subject property; that the trend of development ~ of homes in this area east of Rio Vista Street had been established for 7200-square foot lots, and if the 5000-square foot lot were deemed acceptable, they should be considered for•the properties immediately adjacent to the Orange Freeway where the area is con- sidered appropriate for low-medium and medium density development; that the argument that 7d3; f th o e residents working in Anaheim did not reside in the City was not valid since 1 the converse could also be stated - that many af the homeowners of the properties to the ` east and north lived in Anaheim but did not work in Anaheim; that the reason the 7096 did '~ not reside in Anaheim was that there was an insufficient number of hiah-quality homes; and that high-quality homes on Brookhurst Street north of Cerritos Avenue were built and being sold rather rapidly because they were of higher quality than some of the R-1 `' homes adjacent to them. , + i Reverend Ashie further noted that his home was 2725 square feet on a 7200-square foot ~ ~ lot, and the developer indicated they planned homes up to 4000 squarF feet on 5000- ' ` square foot lots; that the petitioner was proposing an increase of from 4.2 homes per ; acre to 6.5 homes per acre - or a difference of from 85 R-1 homes to 116 as proposed; ; f and that this would have a detrimental effect on the adjoining homes. , Mr. Roberts noted that the 6.5 homes per acre was based on gross acieage, not net ~ acreage as the 4.2 homes for R-1 was based. '.i Mr. William Hiner, 227 South Kingsley Street, appeared in opposition and stated that he had spoken at the City Council public hearing, suggesting that the property owners of ~ the remaining large R-A parcels aasterly of Rio Vista Street should meet with the ' Commission and City Council and develop a master plan that would encompass 7200-square ~ ; ~ ,,? ~~I r~r "'~;'u~' ,~'."~ a ~~,~?T/l+~f ~ "~c r y ~ ~ ..-,.: t + - u nr~ ;f 2 r x '; 9" .,i.., ~ ~ ~' `.. ~ ~~ u~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN;~ COMMISSION, June 1Z, 1968 3973 ~~~;. `~' RECLASSIFICATION_ - foot lots and build executive_type homes in this area; that if ~ i. N0. 67-68-98 _ this arrangement ~ere approved, this would probably require new F VARIANCE N0. 1989 ownership in order to make the'change; that it would raisa the ,~~ TENTATIVE MAP DF value of eact~ lot, ar,-3 this was the laEt large area in the City "`^° TRACi N0. 6647, where this could happen; that if Mr. McCune, of the con,truction ry REVISION N0. 1 company proposing to develop the property planned to build the ~~? ' (Continued) type of homes he proposed on a 5200-square fuot lot, this type "~?:`:"`` of home would be much more desirable on the R-1, 7200-square ,~~, ' foot lot; that if a master plan were designed for this area, which would encompass the entire area from the frontage road to Lincoln Avenue, this would ,,,,,~'~, be one of.the biggest factors in the City where the City could establish a quality, ,~.~:~ti executive type_of living area; that he felt this was a very important project; that ,>'~~'">?:~ he had an opportunity two years ago to purchase a home in Tustin and the hill area - ~`;'"~;' however, he was more des~rous of livin9 in Anaheim, and, therefore, he w~s residing on Kingsley Street; and that he knew of many people who were mcre..desirous of living in ~ this area but did not want to own:a smaller lot or a hodge-podge home. i ~-• Mr. Hiner further noted that by proposing 7200-square foot lots, the owner of the ~~ property still could obtain the asking price per acre for his property, and the developer a_ still could develop the quality type homes and obtain the price for them also. t+- Mr. McCune, in rebuttal, stated that he feit the proposed homes would be equal or better ~=;:: •" than those.in the area; that the price range would be up to $38,000, or hi9her; that c, ~ the price.of,the land and price of construction of a home in this day and age were ~;.•-;,;:;~; considerably more than the average wage-earner could pay, and the homes were priced ', for the top 18~ - the people who could afford these homes; that if the property were ~ >, subdivided into 720G-square foot lots, this would not be economical_y feasible and no ~ !}; builder would want to build a better home; that the Commission should cor.sider the ~ ~ quality of the home being proposed rather than the coverage of the lot; that the ~ •j~ Commission must consider they •~vere proposing 6.5 lots per acre, and there was always ~~ _'-.,~ the possibility someone could request construction of apartments or a condominium, or s~, ~ concept which would be in excess of the 6.5 lots per acre he was proposing; and that '~~~, ~ they were proposing homes similar to the ones they had developed in College Park in ~-; .-.a,~ Seal Beach, and one of every seven homeowners there worked in Anaheim - this was one .r~'J~{~ of the reasons they wanted to come into the°City, because they felt they•could offer ~~1~~°~,~' the' City something 'to be •proud of. tw, ,~°r~ ~°1~"~~' Asststant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that the-R-2-5000 Zone ~~ ~; was created'for ultimate development of areas approved for low-medium or medium density .~, y: on the General Plans that the property north of Orangethorpe Avenue, known as the ~~rr~,J,; Butler-Harbour tract, originally was zoned for R-2, and t}7e Rinker property was zoned ~:~:..:;';q: for R-3. Mr. Mickelson further noted that there were varyin,g stages of zoning when the R-2-5000 Zone first was approved - namely, that a General Plan amendment as well as a reclassi- fication t4 the most appropriate zone was required.- however, at the direction af the City Counci], that the property be considered along with the General Plan amendment as well as just the R-2-5000 2one request; that when the Commission recently considered a General Plan amendment for this general area, six different proposals were presented, and the final determination by the Planning Gommission was to indicate medium density around a shopping center and the balance to be developed for low density residential uses; that.the staff felt that since the General Plan amendment already had been con- sidered for this area previously, there was no need to advertise another General Plan amendment. Furthermore, the Commission should be cognizant of the fact that still another Geoeral Plan amendment and a trailer park application were undex consideration for proper•ties.in this generaT area. Mrs. Ann Madison, realtor, appeared before the Commission and noted that the size of the lot was not the criteria on the quality of the home, and the ~homes located on State College.Boulevard north o£ Ba11:Road•`had'more.than 5000-square foot 1ots; furthermore,.even though a lot might be 7200 square feet, this did not mean it would be a desirable home - that an undesirable home could be erected. Reverend Ashie again appeared before the Commission and noted that the R-1 tract immediately adjacent to the park was now having a difficult time selling these homes; that there were 250 homes in the combination of Buccola and Showcase homes, with only one entrance and.exit; that he was not desirous of seeing homes along the east side of Rio Vista Street which were less than the 7~00 square feet required of the R-1 homes on the west side of Rio Vista Street; and that no R-2-5000 homes have been develo~ed in this area, and if smaller lots were approved, this would establish an undesirable change in the area. Furthermore, i£ R-2 homes were proposed on 5000-square foot lots, how did they expect to sell them if R-1 homes were not sold at the same price. Y ~ ~^;:f " t ~'G;~v/ .~ ~ ~;;~ '7 - r,;- .,,~ ~ I ~~ --.. _ --- -- ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 19'S8 3974 RECLASSIFICATION• - Fifteen persons indicated their presence in the Council Chamber N0. 67-68-98 in opposition to sub~ect petitions. VARIANCE N0. 1989 TENTATIVE .N1AP OF TE~ ;HEARIN,i WAS CIASED. ' TRACT N0..6647; REVISION N0: 1 The Commission noted that the City Council had already established (Continued) the pattern for the area by denying the request for the Henning property southerly of subject property, artd this action would pre-empt anything the Com~~ission would be proposing. Mr. Mickelson noted that the City Council still had the General Plan amendment to consider. T,he..~.ommission noted that the General Plan amendment was very general, b~'G when a plan was presented to the Council with people to people and parcel to parcel, it took on a different set of values, and one point that should bz corrected is that the Commission had authored the R-2-5000 Zone, and at the time the Commission reviewed this zone, they emphasized the fact that the first point was to determine whether the area was suitable for the proposed uses that the proparty had been determined to be suitable for the,R-3, Multiple-Family, Zone, and the reason the zone was developed was to reduce the density of the R-3 and not reduce the size of the R-1 lot. Furthermore, the reason the Commis- sion had proposed the ~tep-down zoning adjacent to the shopping center was because this would act as a buffer between the commercial uses and the single-family uses - however, the variance request proposed would make the R-2-5000 development undesirable, and the Commission should not consider entertaining any reduction in the lot coverage by releas- ing control to the designer; that the designer would have an opportunity to build a better product, but should develop within the confines of the site development standards of the R-2-5000 Zone; and that in order to permit single-family homes on 5000=square foot lots, the site development standards would have to be adhered to as to coverage in order to provide for the open space needed for play arQa, and it was incumbent on the designer:to fit the home on the property, thus preserving the value of the General Plan. I'he Commission further noted that it might be desirable for the Planning Commission and ' City Council to meet to determine the pattern of development for the entire area; that executive type homes were necessary in the City; and that if the City~'.decided the area should be retained for single-family homes on 7200-square foot lots, rather than apart- ments, R-2-5000, or mobile homes; this would establish the criteria for the area and reduce the number of ap~lications to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that every property owner had a right to zsk for whatever he was desirous of having, and the Commission would have to listen to all requests. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-176 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for.Reclassification No. 67-68-98 be disapproved on the basis that the R-2-5000 Zone was designed to provide an alternate means of developing property zoned or found suitable on the General Plan for multiple-family development ar,d was not intended to replace the existing R-1, 7200-square foot lot; that land uses to the east and north had been developed for R-1, 7200-square foot lots, and subjeci property has no peculiar site problems that should warrant consideration of less than the required density as depicted on the Geraeral Plan. (See Resolution Book) _ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENf: OOMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-177 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny ?etition for Variance No. 1989 on the basis that the lot coverage as =equired in the site development standards was needed in order to provide for adequate open space for recreational purposes. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe~ by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 6647, Revision No. 1. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ,~::~, ~~ ' i'.. ~ ~ MINUTES, CII:Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 3975 ! : . "; CONDITZONAL.USE - PUBLIC HEARING. VOGE, INCORPORATED, 7601 Crenshaw Boulevard, PERMIT N0. 1034 Los Angeles, California, Owner; ROBERT W. ORR, 336 North Central, Glendale, California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CO.NJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on ~roperty described.as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of South Street and State Col~ege Boulevard and havin~q frontages of approximately 200 feet on the south side of South Street and approximately 170 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, and further described as 801 South State,College Boulevard. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL CONWIERCIAL, ZANE. ' 4-~ ~"`~ Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property, the existing uses ~_:~::~ ; in close proximity, and previous zoning action, noting that the petitioner was again ~ , ::, : ;;; :; ~'; requesting on-sale beer and wine although the City Council had previously deni~ed their request for on-sale beer and wine, and that the petitioner stated the circumstances had ,,,'_':-' changed since the church and school no longer occupied the property to the west, and _'' they had negotiated for the purchase of the property, with final papers being signed ~. within a few days. F:'` _~:; Mr. Browr. noted that the Commission would have to decide whether on-sale beer and wine `,^•-, was appropriate for subject property when the City Council had denied a similar petition seven months ago. ~ ~ Mr. Robert Orr, agent for the petitioner and repxesenting the owner of subject property, ~'"::;:~~: the restaurant oparator, and the new ownex.of the property formerly known as the church 4, property adjacent to subject property, appeared befor~ the Commission and stated that `'~' `~ the church was now located in a new facili~t and was seilin the y g present facility to the * t~' restaurant operator, and a letter was to b~e presented to the City advising them of the ~;?,:.:F~~ fact that the church was vacatin and had sold the ro ert ad acent to sub ect y. ~;:::.,-;,,,:a 9 P P Y J J propert Mr. Orr then noted that when the p evious petition had been denied by the City Council, it was based on the fact that the ~hurch and school were locat~d too close to permit on-sale beer and wine; however, at the time they were not familiar enough with the requirements-of patrons and had agreed not to have on-sale beer and wine. Since that time, however, they had opened their Costa Mesa facility and it was determined that •with the type':of. food they served,,many requests were made by adults for beer and wine, but they were,primarily a.family-t~ype restaurant,,and the sale of beer and wine would only be with.the.serving of food. ~ Mr. Milton Fidellaes, General Manager of Amigos Restaurants, appeared before the Commis- sion, noting the restaurant would be,a franchise operation, and then•reviewed the type of facility they propoeed, indicating this would be a family-type restaurant engaged primarily in the nale of food; that approximately 12R~ of the business would be the sale of beer and wine, this being noted from experience gleaned from their new c,~zration in Costa Mesa; that the reason they presented their request again to the City was because of the comment made by a member of the City Council - that the church and school were the only reason the beer and wine requ~st was denied, and since this facility was not in existence, it was felt approval would be made. Mr. Fiosllaes, in response to Com~ission questioning regarding the statement made that they could operate the•restaurant without the on-sale beer and wine,_stated that since the Commission had approved the previous petition;.and because of their previous in- experience regard~ng these matters in the new operation, the statement that they could operate successfully without the sale of beer and wine was made; however, they had a one-quarter million dollar operation, and it was determined they could best serve their custtomers if sub~ect petition were approved. Furthermore, there would be no intent to later request on-sale liquor since no bar was incorporated in the plans, and it was not their intent to sell liquor. Mrs. Ann Madison, realtor, appeared before the Commission and stated that she wished to conf3rm the sale of the chuach'property to the operator of the proposed restaurant, and the sale would.be consummated some time durin9 the week of June 17, and that the church would vacate the property as soon as the escrow was closed. Mrs. Robert Mathison, 1915 East South Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired what assurance would the residents of the erea have that beer and wine would not be served at a bar, and whether•the petitioner would later request on-sale liquor - that they were not.opposed to the sale of beer and wine if only as an incidental part of the serving of ineals. ;; ' I .'(i Mr. Fidellaes noted that they had no bar proposed for the restaurant - only booths and large, family-type tables. ' ' rt~• q ~skk 4~,~, ~a*'~ v ~r tu'mTME,"~'~yl~, ,~`~y~e . . S~ ~ .~''i~'~ ~ ~t~ rt~~SL } ,:. `''~e~" ~~t: r'Y~ ~Y .. i,? P ' ~ 3'-~-" L 7 r 1 ~( ~«^.. r ~~ . . ~ ~ . ~ ' _'_~ _ \ .~. I~ ~.k . . . . . . ~~ . . `/ (~ 0 ~ ! \ ~ - j ~ °'~, MINUTES, CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 3976 { a`~ CONDITIONAL.USE.:- Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised Mrs. Mathison that the y,i~ PERMIT N0. 1034 plans indicated no bar, and the ABC license would permit only on-sale '~;,,... (Continued) beer a~d wine, and if a later request for liquor were made, this ~~L,.~ would. have to be a new conditional use permit to be considered at a y;y. `y:,;_ , public hearing. ~u_'•;;,;', , ~ ~ Mrs. Mathison then noted that the masonry wall approved by the City Council did not .Iz'~,,~; sexve the purpose of keeping automobile lights from shining into the residential windows 3 on the north side of South Street since the inside of the wall was higher than the side- ~ ~_, ~ walk. .±~y ^_ !~ The Commission then directed the staff to determine if the wall wese measured from the ,.°~F~~, hi9hest finished grade levei as required by Code, since the City Council resolution ~:~~',: ~x only indicated a 42-inch high wall. s w - ;t.~';~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' ~, a Associate Planner Charles Roberts inquired o: the Commission whether they.were interested `_- ; in terminating the conditional use permits covering the school and the church, or whether _ -: they should be terminated at a subsequent meeting upon receipt of documented evidence 1; • ., that the sale.was consummated. Y The Commission directed the staff to submit these conditional use permits upon receipt ~,4:., of documented evidence that the sale was consummated. >: ,. ~ +~'. Commissioner.Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-178 and moved for its passage and adoption, < <; seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1034 , permitting the sale of beer and wine as an incidental part of the serving of food, said ~ ~i petition being granted on the basis that the use of the property immediately to the west ~=.,;,;,; was no longer being used.~oara:churchior a schoo~.'.•(See Resolution Book) ~ ~,~ 1 ~' ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: ~ ~ ~~~ ~ . i ~ ~( AYES: WMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Rowland, Allred. ! ~'~ ~'~i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ r~ ,, ~ ~,,~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS6 Farano, Camp. `"~~~.~ ' ~~~?~ht~~1~ VARIANCE NO. L990 - PUBLIC HEARING. DAVID DOW, 1160 South Street, Long Beach, California, ~ f~, ~ .- Owner; FIRESTONE 1'IRE AND RUBB~R COMPANY, 2525 Firestone Boulevard, ~ ~i `~l, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permis~ion to WAIVE ~ ~~ '.,~~ PERMITTED USES..IN ARDER TO ALIAW A RETAIL TIRE, BATTERY, AND ACCESSORY STORE on property ; ~~4~~~~'~, described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ;~~~,~ 90 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 125 ~ feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 580 feet east of the s x centerline of Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ., ,;; 20NE. ~ ~ ~ Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses estab- lished in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the Report to the Commission, noting that subject property was a portian of a larger, 8.3-acre parcel approved for G1 zoning by_the City Council in March, 1965; that although the property had been zoned for commercial use for approximately three years, there had been no development on this par,ticular portion of the property to date; that the plans submitted by the petitioner indicated the preposal to establish a Firestone tire, battery, and auto accessory store on subject property - heWever, the Anaheim Munici~al Code permitted such uses in the G2 Zone; and, furthermore, the uses already established, such as the Lin-Brook hardware facility and the Standard Brands paint store were indicative of the types of .uses that would be proposed for this area,•and the us4 of'subject'property would seem'to.be appropriate'for that proposi!d. Mr. David Todd,-representing the Firestone ?:lre and Rubber Company, appeared before the Commission, noting that most of their operatjons were in the C-1 Zone, and the type of work performed.was no different from that perGaitted by service stations; that adjoinin9 . properties did not seem to have the landscapinct as was required of subjact petition; that most tenants asked them to cement the enti,re area rather than having planted areas which were catch-alls for papers and debris, anc they were more intent on having a clean operation. The Commission advised Mr. Todd that the G1 uses established in close proximity had been established prior to the adoption of the site dev~lopment standards of the C-1 Zone. \ _ r~.~ _ :~ - _ _ . ,_ . ,,. ,s_ , ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIIS COMMISSION. June 17, 1968 3977 '1ARIANCE N0: 1990 - Associatp Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that •; :Continued) the Fuller ~aint store and carpet company used their front setbacks `,;, for park:nc purposes, and since they were using these for parking ~t purposev, Lhey were only r,c-quired to ha~e a 3-foot strip of land- ~ s~-~pc~~:,~g however, the pla,a of the petitioner did not indicat~ they would use this for ;,,~::;.R;"~ra purpos~s, and it Nould be up to the Commission to dEtei•ui ne whether the C-1 :' :e ~Sevelopment stan~:^:.;ds requiring 3 feet ot l.andscaping in th:e rront setback, plus ~ ftsr interior park;;~, would be appropriate. Discussion was ti~en !•eld by the Commission and the agent for the petitio~.~- relative to what coul~'be prc•~osed for the 35-foot setback, the Commission stating i~NOUld be up to the ;etitione~ to determine whether or not he wished to landscape the t_~~t ' setback :ntirely oz' use it partially for parking and only a portion for landsca~.t~g, HoweveT, because o~ the small area for parking purposes, and only 11 spaces provi•e~~ trees~:n the parking area would not be required. `` O;:~ce Engineer Arthur Daw advised the petitioner that a parcel map would have to be ~ iecorded prior to the issuance of a building permit, and that it took six weeks for ` a parcel map tc be processed. ~ ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED. ~ E ~ Commissionel A!ungall offered Resolution No. PC68-179 and moved for its passage and ~ adoption, se~;,ided by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Pet",ion for Variance No. 1990, ~ subject to 4:1e filing of a parcel ma ~ p prior to final buildin9 and zoning inspections. (See Resoiution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tHe following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allx~ed. NOES: COMMISSIONER~: None. ABSENT:: COMMISSIONERS: Fara7io, Camp. VARIANCE N0. 1992`.-•PUBLIC HEARII~. WILLIAM M. ROESCHLAUB, P. 0. Box 4124, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDI~ HEIGHT AND (2) MINIMUM PERMI?TED SIZE OF COVERED PARKING SPACES, TO PERMIT THE ~NSTRUCTION OF A Z'WO-STORY,IWO-UNIT APARTMENI'BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of ap,p~oximately 49 feet on the west side of Lemon Str.eet and a maximum depth cf approximately Y5t3 f~et, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 365 feet south of the cer,ter- line of North Street, and further described as 731 and 733 North Lemon Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIpL, ZONE. Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses estab- lished in close proximity, and the proposed development of a two-story, two-unit apartment building on subject property, emphasizing the fact that a combination of single-family and multiple-family dwelling units existed to the north and east, and single-family reside~~ces to the south and west, and that the petitioner was proposing to develop the two-unit apartment building approximately 22 feet from tha R-1 Zone boundary line to the west. Furthermore, the waiver of the minimum size of covered ' parking spaces was'necessitated by the fact that subject property was only 48.5 feet i in width, and in order for the petitioner to provide the required five parking spaces, it was necessary to reduce~the width of each parking space by approximately 3 inches. Mr. William Roeschlaub, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that no precedent.would be established by approving'the proposed request since two-story development already existed within 1 00 feet of subject property, and similar two-story -apartment buildings existed in the same block. Furthermore, only bedrooms would be facing the alley to the rear, overlooking the single-family homes on'the west side of the alley. No one appeared in opposition to subject petit3on. THE HEARING WAS,CLASED. Commissioner.Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-180 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1992 on the basis that some of the R-l zoned parcels immediately west of subject property had been developed with'more than one residence on each lot, some of which were of . _ ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 VARIANCE-N0. 1992 - two-stor construction and it was determined that the a ! Y ~ pproval ~ (Continued) of the height waiver would not be detrimental to the area, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was oassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, He'rbst, Mungall, Ailred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ' ~ I I VARZANCE Np. 1991 - PUBLIC HEARING. MILTON WINTROB, 1527 Chateau Avenue, Anaheim, ~ California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF MINIMUM REQI~IRED REAR YARD AND BUZLDIN3 SETBACK TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a fronta9e of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Chateau Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 103 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 155 feet west of the centerline of Gilbuck Drive, and further described as..1527 Chateau Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the existing ' zoning, and uses established in close proximity, noting that the requested waivers ~ were to construct a 605-square foot room addition to the existing residence and 522 ! square feet of the proposed addition would infringe into the required rear yard to i within 6 feet of the rear property line, and due to the size of the lot and the arrange- ment of the existing structure, the petitioner was unable to provide additional open space equal to the area of the proposed addition elsewhere on the lot. Therefore, the Commission_would have to detes:nine whether there was a hardship in existence that would justify approval of the variance request. ~ Mr. Milton Wintrob, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that since , they had purchased the home they have a larger family, and they liked the area and ~ schools and their friends - therefore they felt the addition to the property would improve it, and after having talked with neighbors, they expressed ~o oppo,sition; furthermore,.a precedent had been set at 1580 Cheteau Avenue where a simil'ar project ~ had been approved. No one app.eared in opposttion to sub~ect petition. f rHE HEARIISi WAS CIASED. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-181 and moved for.its_passage and ' adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Alo. 1991, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call.the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: O~MMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMIS$IONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. VARIANCE ND. 1993 - PUBLIC HEARII~. ALVIN F. NELLESEN, 1173 Cherry Way, Anaheim, ''a California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND (2) MININUM IAT WIDTH, TO PERMIT A IAT SPLIT OF AN EXISI'ING R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY IAT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of Cherry Way and a '`' maximum depth of approximately 123 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being ,; approximately 325 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1167 Cherry Way. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONE. Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the existing s zoning, noting that the requested waivers were necessary for a lot split, and they were unable to subdivide #he'property in accordance with the R-1 Zone requirements because of the location of the existing residence on the northerly portion of the lot. Furthermore,.waivers have been granted for single-family residential uses of lots of less than 70 feet ofi frontage and 7200 square feet, and the proposed subdivision would seem to be.a..logical continuation of this development for single-family residential uses as depicted on the General Plan. Mr. A1vin Nellesen, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that they ' have had a difficult time with maintenance of the large parcel of land, and, therefore, !i have decided to subdivide the property. :>9~ ;~:t r~ a 4~i .~ii. ~~ei. _ .. _ . . :!~ :.,•~.s . . i.:.,~ r i , a., .. . ie .... ....,. .e,_e,..,.u.., ,..s. ,.:.s,.::.:.~.. .,..:,..._.._....... . ~~II~l~ ~~ ': . ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~'/ ;.;iiT 4 ~:. MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~ COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 . VARIANCE N0. 1993 - No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition., (Continued) - THE HEARIN3 WpS CIASED. MJ 'I;d ~+c„x, ~ 3979 Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-182 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1993, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the,foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rawland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABS~NT: COMhliSSIONERS: Far.ano, Camp. Assistant City At~orney John Dawson left the Counc4,1 Chamber ~t 3:40 P.M.• ~:,,,;.~;~,~ Deputy City,Attorney Frank Lowry entered the CounciZ Chamber et 3:40 P.M. ~Y~. ~:,~..... . k{ ~`; RECLASSIFICAI'ION - PUBLIC HEARING. ORANGE ~UNTY WATER DISTRICI', 1629 West 17th Street, NO• 67_68_104 Santa Ana, California, Owner; OSCAR WHITEBOOK, 5062 Lake View No. 23, x ''' ~ Yorba Linda California A ent re uestin that ro ert described fi ~, as: An irregularly shap~d9parcel of landghavingPa frontage of r, ., approximataly 64 £eet on the west side of the northerly extension of Jefferson Street ^• ''b: and a maximum depth of approximately 216 feet, the southerl boundar of said ~L ' bein a Y Y parcel R g pproximately 230 feet north of the centerline of. Riverdale Avenue as measured R,,.,.,.;~f along the northerly extension of Jefferson Street, be reclassified from the R-A, i ;~;~ AGRICULTURAL, ZIJNE to the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~@ . , r Z ' Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subjec~ property, the uses estab- .+:r-..;..,;.-;` lished•in close proximlty, pre~~ious zoning action on property to the south, and the ~':- fact that the Jefferson Street bridge spanning the Santa Ana River would place subject t, prflperty at the intersection of two arterial highways upon completion of.the bridge, ~E ~.'~ and that since the City Council had already approved C-l zoning on the parcel immediately ~~y`„ti'. to the south and;_the parcel to the east, across Jefferson Street, it would appear that ~a%~~ the proposed request was logical. .~ u~r~ _ . ~~~,;~~ Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:45 P.M. 9 ~~~'~ ~5~. Mr. Oscar.Whitebook, the aqent, appeared before the Commission, noting that He represented ~~4~~", not only the.Orange County Water District but the owner of the property immediately to ~' the south, who was proposing to develop sub,ject property; that the Commission on ,'~y:~~ February 14 had inquired as to what was being proposed for subject property - however, U at that time he was unable to give a positive answer relative to the Orange County ~" Water District, and at this time he had convinced them that the reclassification and ' ~ ~ develo ment of the P property would enhance the area since there would be a 30 to 40-foot ~~ '^~ strip between the levee and the property to the south which could develop into a ~ ~'ir^~~`'' mosquito breeder, and by fillin the ~r+~; g property, this would increase the size of the ~~,F~,~ service station proposed for sub3ect property and the abutting property to the south. , "~~s ~~ No one appeared in o ~ ~ ~~»r ,~,, pposition to subject petition. ~~ ~~ ,~ rM1, THE HEARIIS~ WAS CIASED. ~ ~+r`~ 4}~a~~~ Commisaioner Herbst,offered Resolution No. PC68-183 and moved for its passage and L~fyFl~' adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that ~~ 1,~ Petition for Re~iassification No. 67-68-104 be approved, subject to conditions. r,,.-^t?~ (See Resolution Book) a ~ ~~ jr~,~~ ,, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~~ ,r~,'~ AYES. COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Allred. ,~i?~ NJES: COMMI8SIONERSs_ None. ;~~y~ ABSEFiT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland, Camp. ~, z"'`9 !~r I<, r r~^a s ai? - ~ ~`~.J ,:! MINUfES, CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 RECLASSIFICq~ION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING.ODAMGISSION, 204 East N0. 67-68-99 _ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Celifornia; proposing that property described as: Seven lots fronting on the west side of Euclid Street AREA DEVEIAPMENf between Broadway and Orange Avenue, the northerly boundary of said PLAN N0. 95 lots being approximately 320~feet south of the centerline of Broadway and the southerly boundary being approximately 210 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, be reclassified from the-R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND.THE R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONES to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Area Development Plan No. 95 encompasses property on the west side of Euclid Street and proposes the recommended secondary circulation for these lots in the event the proper- ties are reclassified. The Commission Secretary advised the Chairman that a letter had been received requesting that subject.petition and area development plan be continued to be heard at the evening session so that more oppositi~n could be present. I` ~' Chairman pro tem Allred asked for a showing of hands of those present to hear subject I` petitions and to present a~guments in favor or in o ~' indicated 15. ersons pposition. A showing of hands ~._ p present. The Chairman then indicated that the Commission would ' consider the evidence since a sizable showing was present. ' Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses "-,,~` established in close proximity, noting that it was as a result of the City Council's i ~• adoption of "A Study of the Problem of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways" ^~ ,- ;~ that Area Development Plan No. 95,was , p 9 prepared de ictin alternative methods of provid- { ~~ :~; ing secondary circulation. Mr. Brown then reviewed ~he area development plan, noting that there were seven parcels, five of which.were low--'=nsity, single-family residential homesites; that the sixth parcel was.a large pr,r:.r~ on which two single-family homes were located; and that the southernmost parcel h::d a single-family homesite and a parking lot used by an adjacent commercial use. Fu.rthermore, that the lend uses to the north were retail'.bommercial; to the east retail commercial, commercial-professional~a:.+sia low-density, single-family ' residentiaL structure on land planned for commercial use; to the south commercial- professional..and retail commercial~ and to the west low-density, single-family residen- tial homes. - Mr. Brown noted that the traffic count for Euclid Street, a primary highway, was presently 32,000 vehicles per day and was projected to carry 40,000 vehicles per day within ten years~~that the properties had curbs,_gutters, and sidewalks, and a half- width dedication of 50 feet for Euclid Street, while 53 feet were required for a.primary street; that the minimum depth of any of the lots after ultimate dedication would be 97 feet~ and that the maximum front yard depth of the lots would be approximately 17 feet. Furthermore, because of these setbacks, rear parking could not be develoged on the northerly fi;ve parcels without removing.the existing structures since rear yard depths averaged only 20 feet, the width of an alley~ however, the three structures on the .two southernmost parcels could be retained for office or professional use conversion since lot areas were large enough to accommodate parking toward the rear of the lot and the side of the structure - in any event, the structures would have to conform to all of the pertinent building:and zoning provisions of the Code. Mr. Brown, in conclusion, stated that after reviewi~g.,the above factors during the deliberations on the Front-0n Study, the Planning Commicsion fe1L these properties did have a potential fox cortuaercial or commercial-professional use~ that reta~.l ansl service commercial uses would probably be preferable in this area since by right they permit office and professional uses; and that subject properties were presently adjacent at either extremity to developpd retail and service commercial and office and professional uses. Mr. Pau1 Lindstrom, owner of psoperty at 401 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission, noting that after having talked with the Development Services staff, he was not sure whether he was for or against subject petitions~ however, there were a number of questions he was desirous of having answered: Who would bear .the cost of relocation of the curbs and gutters and street widening? Office Engineer Arthur Daw replied that since the curbsand gutters and sidewalks were in, the cost of replacing them would be borne by the City. Mr. Lindstrom then inquired what was meant by "tentative C-]" - h~w would this affect tax appraisals and how would it affect real estate appraisals? ~ ~ < 2~,~ 1 ~,~~..~i. l i ,~ I : ^,~ ~~ ~~ ,, yx .., ~'# ,'.b 4 --- -~ _ _ ... . -----~: '~ ~ : ~ , . ` , . l . . ., . ~ \..J MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING'COMMISSIONy' June 17, 1968 •, - " 3981 RECLASSIFICATION - Daputy•City Attorney Frank Lowry advised Mr. Lindstrom that a N0. 67-68-99 resolution`o£ intent for Gl meent.that the'pTOperty:would not AREA DEVEIAPMEIJf have to be.readvertised=or considered for commercial:ruses when PLAN N0.'95 and;if he decided to exercise the right of the`resolution of (Continued) intent by meeting a11 conditions contingent up.on said:reclassi- fication, and;ar far as'he knew;r`alative to tax apptaicals, the change in'.rate.would not occur u~ntil.after the'property was utilized for commercial p.urposes. Mr. Lindstrom then noted that tax appraisers were not concerned whether or not property had been mezoned, but what the market value of the'land was, and if this:were considered to',have commercial potential~ then the tax would be proportionate. Mr. Lindstrom then inquired whether or not the action taken by the Commission today would be proposing a master land use for those parcels fronting along Euclid Street. . Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:58 P.M. Mr. Brown-noted.that the reclas~ification petition was tentative and for potential ,~,, use of the property~ however, any action taken by the Commission was only a recommenda- tion to the City Council, and a resolution of intent wouTd have to be approved by them - prior to any further action being taken on the property. Furthermore, subject proper- ',•~ ties were still R-1 2nd R-A until they were developed after meeting the conditions of the resolution of intent, and an ordinance would not be read until all these conditions ~' `'~ ~ j tiad been met, reclassifying the property to the G1 Zone. -- , . , . , y.'~~3 Mr. Lindstrom then noted that the property owners along Euclid Street were in favor of ? `~ !.`~ the proposal~ however, they were concerned relative to the alley, and they were not V' aware of the...fact that a 2:1 setback would be required. Furthermoxe, he was cor.carned about the requirement of an alley and what setbacks and parking would be requ~__d. ,~ - , Mr. Brown noted that if the buildings remained, the parking would be to_the rear of `'i the.st~t~ctLres~ however, if they were removed, p'aF$ing would be in the front. ~`~ , , . .. - ~ . •~ ~ Associate Planner Charles,Roberts`noted that if the Commission adopted the area devel- ~~,~~ '~''~ , 'opment plan, only the acce'ss points approved by the Commissi'on woul`d be 9ranted eccess ' ;'Y~~ to Euc11d Street; however, the Commission would be in a position to permit.temporary ~' r~;~~ access to Euclid Street' until the alley.wat developed. , =i~~~~ ,,,;~~ _ Office Engineer Arthur Daw noted that ttier~l~yos~nq alleyway coming from the west and ; ~,r; a~''~ , the proposed.,accessways were oniy tentative foi aligrment and could be shifted; however, ~ y '. approval could be given for a 10-foot drive having access to Euclid Street-until such ~'~'' time as the entire neighborhood developed and the alley was constructed. i I ; ` The Commission noted that land ~esembly was desirable - however, this had not been too ~ ;,! successful but still a desirable aspect for developing these lots fronting along Euclid . Street. . i Mr. Lindetrom then indicated he was in favor of the proposed reclassification. ~, ; i;~ . Mrs. Virginia Edwards, 424 South Fa'lcon Street, appeared before the Commission in '!~ opposition,.and inquired where would tfie pioperty come from to supply this alley; ;,~~ whereupon Mr. Brown replied that the entire width of the alley would have to be ;~~` dediceted by the property which would be requesting commercial zoning. . . " I` Mrs. Curiian~ Behnke~ 414 South Falcon Street, inqyilr~cl as to whQttier a wall would be `~{ considered if these propertier were approved,for commerciel usea. ~'`~°~+~ ` Mr. Brown replied that one:~af the conditions of the rite development standards>of the ' C-1 Zone required a si~~foet:n~aeonay::rall between commercial and residential uses. ~' s ~ Mrs: Robert Briggs, 505 South Falcon Street, appeared before the Commission, noting ',~' that although she was not abutting.subject properties, she still was concerned'that ~~ " ` in the future commercial lots would require additional parkin9i and,then.the single- i ''.r; family homes on the east side of Falcon Street would be converted to commercial ' ~° purposes,:and she was not desiroue of having to face commercial even though it would t ,: ~'; be across the street from heri that the entire neighborhood was a very quiet neigh- borhood and should not have any traffic but the local traf£ix of the neighborhood. ~ The Commission advised Mrs. Briggs that any property owner' had a right to ask for rezoning of his property, but ttihls did not necessarily mean it was granted, and there ' seemed to be no problem relative to this at the prerent time since the Commission ? , '~, ' , ~ ~si~--~~ 'r. ~ . ~ 'S ~t r : ~4 ~ rt ~ _.-_ tr~ '-t'``" i"3~- ~ '~ tv',ry'+~ ~ ~; J ~ r ~,~ ~. tr ~ ,,t r t i ~a U ;~~ r,., ,~i - b:Y" _ _..... . . r,.,,, . . .. . . . . . .. . . ~- ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ V MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 3982 RECLF.SSIFICATION - would require adequate parking for commercial uses of subject N0.'67-68-99 property. Furthermore, the extent of commercial uses throughout AREA DEVEIAPMENT the City was considerable, and it was hardly likely that this resi- PLAN N0. 95 dential area would be converted unless all lots were developed (Continued) for commercial purposes. Mr. Brown noted that any commercial dev=lopment of the property must provide adequate parking, and where adequate parking could not be ~rovided, then land assembly would be required of two or more parcels; however, v nder the present Code requirements; there would be no need to require additional parking by encroaching into the residential area along Falcon Street. Mrs. Behnke then noted that she could not understand any reason for converting these homes for commercial purposes since the professional buildings on the east side of Euclid Street had many vacancies during all the time the building was erected, and there was no reason for having ali these empty buildings on Euclid Street since they were undesirable and detracted from the residential uses. Mr. Lindstrom noted that he had purchased his property six years ago with the intent of developing it for a dental office, and that the vacarcy factor of any professional buildin9 should not be the concern of single-family homeowners because this was part of the normal occurrence-for commercial buildings to have a certain amount of vacancies. THE HEARIAt3 WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Gauer noted that since a good representation was present to hear all the i evidence, there seemed to be no reason for continuing subject petition for an evening meeting, and that the Commission was only recommending action on this petition, and if the persons 3n opposition still desired an evening meeting, they could address a letter to the City Clerk, requesting consideration of an evening meeting. Commissioner Gauer offere~ Resolution No. PC68-184 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-99 be approved, subject to conditions, with an added condition that ordinances might be read on individual parcels as they develop for commercial uses. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; ,GOMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Allred. NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-185 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 95 be approved as a method of providing secondary circulation for those lots fronting on the west side of Euclid Street southerly of Broadway, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CpMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Allred. NOES: ~tr1MISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ABSTAIN: OOMMISSIO[JERS: Rowland. RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting _ for ten minutes. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meetin9 recessed at 4:17 P.M. RE~NVENE - Chairman pro tem Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:27 P.M., Commissioners Farano and Camp being absent. ~i.. } . ;' ~f a ~ h{4'` i f" , ~ ~ . . .~ i.' ' T ~ \~ W/ MINUTES, CITY.PLANNII~ COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 3983 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. TNITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N0. 67-68-100 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: All those lots fronting on the north and south sides of Lincoln Avenue between Vine Street and Rose Street, described as follows: Block 1- Those lots located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and..Vine Street, having a frontage of approximately 230 feet on the north side of Lincoln.Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 132 feet; Block 2- All those lots fronting..on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, bounded on i:he west by Vine Street and on the_east_by Rose Street; Block 3.- All those lots fronting on the south side of Lincoln.Avenue and being bounded on the west by Vine Street and on the east by Bush Street; and Block 4- All those lots fronting on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and being bounded on the west by Sush Street and on the east by Rose Street, be reclassi- fied from the R=3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, C-1, GENERAL OOMMERCIAL, AND C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONES to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~"- = Assistant,Planner Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, previous zoning t actions, and.the existing zoning action, as well as the uses established on the property, '"; noting tha~the parcels were a portion of those deemed appropriate for commercial uses ~~ in "A Study.of the Problem of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways" adopted - by the Planning Commission and City Council in an attempt to resolve certain problems relative to ~the commercial conversion of these homes, and that all but one lot were ~~° -~ being served presently by a standard alley - therefore no area development plan was t piepared and available for the Commission. iE'_ `:~`, °:='~~~:~ Mr. John Knutzen, 801 Ken Way, appeared before the Commission, noting that he was owner "'3 of one of the parcels under consideration and inquired whether or not the G1 Zone set- ~ fz~„~ back of 10 feet would be permitted on these properties. `~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts then stated that the 10-foot setback could be permitted ,j;,,;,;;.~ provided that all parking was limited to the rear of the parcel. ~i:.;.;:'s••. x';'; ~e_;~ ''r%'``"`~+ No one appeared in o osition to subject ~.;;~ ;~;t~a pp petition. THE HEARIIS~ WAS CIASED. The Commission Secretary advised the Commission that there were a number of typographi- cal errors in the.Report to the Commission under the recommended conditions: Block 3; the first paragraph should read "Vine Street and Bush Street"; the second paragraph should read "for alley widening purposes"; and the fourth paragraph should read."Vine Street; Bush Street,'and Lincolrr Avenue"; and under Block 4, the second paragraph should read,"for alley widening purposes". Commissioner. Mungall offered Resolution Rio. PC68-i86 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbat, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for.Reclassification No. 67-68-100 be approved, subject to conditions as amended by.the recommended changes. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. STREET NAME CHANuE - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue; to consider str.eet name changes for .cul-de-sac portions of Miraloma Avenue and Sunkist Street and the new alignment of Sunkist Street and Miraloma Avenue across the Riverside Freeway within the jursidction of the City of _ Anaheim. . Assistant Planner Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the Report to the Commission, noting that the Sunkist-Miraloma overcrossing of the Riverside Freeway had been completed; however, no street names had technically been assigned to that portion of the street which constituted the overcrossing, and it would seem logical that the new portion of.the street south of the Riverside Freeway be named "Sunkist Street", and the new portion of'the street north of the Riverside Freeway be named "Miraloma Avenue". Also., there remained the cul-de-sac portions of the original alignment of Sunkist and Miraloma Avenue which created some confusion because of the dual assignment of names. Therefore, the staff recommended that portion of Miraloma Avenue which is cul-de-saced at the Riverside Freeway be renamed "Miraloma Way", and the existing Sunkist Street north of the recentl com leted ~ y p portion extending northerly from Romneya Drive be renamed "Sunkist Way". l ;~ . r p ~ x / ' ~ - ~. . .~ . . . . . ~ . , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~ COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 STREET NAME DHAI~E - The Commission secretary advised the Planning Commission that a 3 (Continued). letter had been received from the Division Manager of the Beverly '~~" Hills Transfer 8 Storage C,ompany, owners of a portion of property on the cul-de-sac portion proposed for renaming ta Miraloma Way, ; onposing any street name change since it would be inconvenient and costly at the present time_to change all of their printing and advertising material. • Mr. Ernest Heal, representing the Beverly Hills Transfer 8 Storage Company, appeared ~~ before the Commission and noted that a letter submitted to the Commission reiterated ;~ the opposition by the company and requested consideration that the name be retained; furthermore, he Y:ad received a call from Mr. William J., Hurke of W. J. Burke Construction Company, Inc., requesting that he also express their opposition to the proposed name change. ~ The Commission noted they recognized there were difficulties in a street name change - however, it was obvious that the ma,jor traffic pattern should require the name changes be retained for those portions, and the only thing that could be done relative to street name changes would be requiring dual posting of street names for a period of two years so that any property owners adjacent to the cul-de-sac street might project their future advertising and stationery purchase to reflect the new name change. The Commission then inquired whether or not a time limitation of one year for a complete conversion to the name change would be adequate; whereupon Mr. Heal indicated this would j be sufficient for them. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that most streets were dual named for only one year, except for major streets such as Anaheim Boulevard, which streets were dual posted for two years. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-194 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that street name changes be made as follows: That portion of old Miraloma Avenue which is cul-de- saced at the Riverside Freeway be renamed "Miraloma Way"; the existing Sunkist Street north of Romneya Drive be renamed "Sunkist Way"; the n?w alignment of Miraloma Avenue from Blue Gum Street-to the Riverside Freeway be officially named-"Miraloma Avenue"; and that the_alignment of Sunkist Street from La Pa1ma Avenue to the Riverside Freeway be officially named "Sunkist Street". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ODMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: .CAMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. REPOR7S AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1032 (Reverend H. A. McPheeters; Christ Church Truth of Orange County) - Request for amendment to conditions - Property located at 1648 West Broadway. Associatt Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Commission a request from the agent for the petitioner for an amendment to Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. PC68-155 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1032, dated June 3, 1968, in which the Commission required relocation of the parking to the easterly property line. The request noted that there was a 10-foot private easement running along the easterly property line for the full depth of the parcel, and if the parking spaces were redesigned as suggested by the Planning Commission, the stalls would be located directly over the easement and would prohibit the utilization of the easement for its intended purpose. Therefore, the agent for the petitioner had requested that parking be in accordance with the plans as originally presented; however, the agent stipulated that the owner of subject property would erect a barrier of sufficient size and strength along the easterly boundary of subject property to prevent cars from backing into the garage wall of the ad~oining propertye Mr. Roberts further noted that he had attempted to contact the property owner of the apartments to the east; however, he had been unable to do so since the property owner to the east was the mafn ob3ector to approval of the plans as originally presented. The Commission inquired whether or not parking was permitted~on an easement; whereupon Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that if the easement were for public utilities or a sewer easement, parking was permitted, but this could be a private easement to permit ingress and egress to the property immediately adjacent to the south of sub;ject property. . . . , . . . . _.---.. ~ c~ ~'E : _. ,, i ;;~, c ::~t v MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CpMMISSION,.~ne 17, 1968 3985 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Cor,tinued) Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-187 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to amend Resolution No. PC68-155, dated June 3, 1968, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1032, by amending Condition No. 9 to read: "That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim; provided, however, that a barrier of sufficient size and strength approved by the Development Services Department shall be provided along the easterly boundary of subject property, as € stipulated by the petitioner". (See Resolution Book) ~n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rotivland, Allred. NOES:, ~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT:. OONWIISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ITEM N0. 2 VARIANCE N0. 1898 (John &alaam) - Property located at the southwest corner of South and Lemon Streets - Request for deletion of conditions. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission previous action taken by both the Planning Commission and City Council relative to subject petition and the fact that the petitioner had asked on February 3, 1968, that the variance be terminated because of the cost involved in meeting the conditions of approval, and that on March 5, 1968, when the Clty Council reviewed the Commission's action terminating all p*oceedings, and upon report and recommendation from the City Manager, the City Council referred subject petition back to the Planning Commission for further consideration since it was their feeling that the imposition of such fees for a request of this nature was excessive, and that the staff recommended Variance No. 1898 be reactivated and Condition Nos. 2 and 3 of Resolution No. PC67-162 be deleted. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-188 and moved for,its passage and :adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to reinstate Variance No. 1898 and 'd'elete Condition Nos. 2 and'3 of Resolution No. PC67-162 dated July 17, 1967 on the basis,that the recommended conditions were in excess of that necessary to approve the proposed waivers. (See Resolution ~ook) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT:. C4MMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ITEM N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 702 (First Christian Church of Anaheim - Dahl property) - Property located on the south side of South Street, approximately 150 feet west oi Harbor Boulevard - 12equest for an extension of time for completion of conditions. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from the First Christian Church of Anaheim to consider an extension of time for completion of conditions, the peti- tioner noting that their building program was not complete, and they were hiring an architect in September; that the Commission had already granted four six-month exten- sions of.time, the most recent expiring November 13, 1967, and to date Condition No. T, requiring a bond for street improvement and Condition Nos. 2 and 3,'requiring street lig.,lt and tree planting fees, had been met, and that the staff recommended a eix-month extension of time. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 702, said time extension to expire December 13, 1968. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. NqTION CARRIED. ~ . ..... -- ....._...,~- . . ... . .,~~.:~..~i :.:. j ~ , . .... . . ...~ , .~e -... Q , . ~ . ~.. . . ~ ~ ~_ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN,; COMMISSIAN, June 17, 1968 3986 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4 RECOMMENDATIONS CANDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 985 (Elizabeth Law - Don Davis) (Continued) Property located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 660 feet north of Orange Avenue - Establishment of a billboard in the R-A Zone - Request for an extension of timea Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from the~agent for the petitioner for an extension of time for the completion of conditions of Conditional_Use Permit No. 985, to permit the establishment of a billboard on subject property, noting that the property was to be developed in accordance with the requirements of.the Billboard Ordinance regarding structural height limitation and maximum display area, and that no conditions with a time limitation had been imposede Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of Conditional Use Permit No. 985, said time extension to expire December 18, 1968. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ;;~:'.,~` ITEM N0. 5 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 780 (XYZ Corporation - Travel e Trailer Park) - Request for termina{ion of subject petition - Property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, ~ ~;~y,`;,;~ approximately 600 feet norih of Lincoln Avenue. ?.;. ~, ( Associate Planner Charles RoberEs presented the request From the XYZ Corporation, noting it was their intention to relinquish any right to exercise Conditional Use Permit No. 780 for a travel trailer park, which was approved by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 1842, Series 1965-06, dated November 8, 1965, and that four extensions of time had been granted, the most recent expiring May 15, 1968. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution vo. PC68-189 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cortunissioner Rowland, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 780 on the basis that the petitioner did not plan to exercise the use of the property as requested. (See Resolution Book) On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs; CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NJES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CONIMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ITEM N0. 6 ` CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 803 (Harry Jung Enterprises, Inc. - ~ Establish an automobile rental agency) - Property located on ~ the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard ~ in the Commercial-Recreation Area - Termination of the petition. ~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Conditional Use Permit No. 803 to the ~ Planning Commission, noting thet the Commission in Resolution No. 1926, Series 1965-66, dated January 31, 1966, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 803, and Condition Nos. 1 ~ and 2 of the resoiution required the dedication of a 25-foot radius corner return ~ 1 i and repair of the damaged or nazardous sidewalks along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, said conditions to be complied with by August 8, 1966; that.a letter on January 8, 1968 from the agent for the petitioner sequested the deletion of both conditions on the basis that the property owner would n and ot com 1 wi that at th P Y th thes e regular meeting on January 15, 1968, the Plannin9 Commissioncconsidered the petitioner s request for deletion of conditions, at which time it was determined 1'~ that the requirements were part of the normai site development standards of the C-1 Zone in:which subject property,was.located, and that the request should be denied. Furthermore, since the agent for the petitio~ier had'indicated that the had no;intention of complying with the conditions, this conditional useProperty owner never.,legally take effect - therefore, the Development Services Departmentrrecommended that all proceedings relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 803 be terminated. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-190 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Munga~ll, to terminat e all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. b~3, on the basis that since the property owner had no irrt ention of complying with the conditions of approval, the conditional use permit would never legally take effect. (See Resolution Book) ~ ' - ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CIiY PLpNNIl~u COMMISSION, June 17, 1968 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMM7SSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMM'ISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. i3~"i 'vC ~'f 4 ~ - r~~ ~~ ; ~, ~ % ~ t 3987 , :~ „ ITEM N0. 7 :,,,,,:, ~ • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 872 (Elden Kanegae) YJ''~ Property located to the west and south of a service ~ ~ station located on the southwest corner of Lincoln !~ Avenue and Dale Street - Termination of petitiono ;, Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Conditional Use Permit No. 872 to the Planning Commission, noting that subject petition had been granted by the City : Council on September 27, 1966, to establish a beer bar in a shopping center, and `~ that on February 26, 1968, the Planning Commission a ;, No. 1001 on the same pProved Conditional Use Permit .. property, permitting on-sale liquor in addition to the already ,, ~ permitted an-sale beer in the existing restaurant; therefore, Conditional Use Permit ~~ ` No. 872 no longer was in effect and the staff recommended termination of same. N y. ~~~1 Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-191 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that ~i ~"~ Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 872 be terminated on the basis that the r,;~M use had been superseded by a later petition, namely Conditional Use Permit No, 10010 ~a -~='•.` (See Resolution Book) ti!:s ,,..~. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSZONERS: None. ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ITEM N0. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 894 (Alwyn S. Jewell) Property located on the north side of Katella Avenue, approximately 725 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard in the Commercial-Recreation Area - To establish a 12-story, 151-foot high office building - Termination of petition. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Conditional Use Permit Noe 894 to the Planning Commission, noting that subject petition was granted on November 7, 1966, in Resolution No. PC66-138, subject to conditions; that the Commission on May 22, 1967, granted a six-month extension of time for completion of conditions, provided that dedication for street widening purposes along Katella Avenue be completed within thirty days, or by June 21, 1967; that dedication was not completed as required for the extension of time, and the applicant requested an additional six-month period on;March 11, 1968, at which time the Planning Commission indicated that the requested time extension would be granted provided that the petitioner completed the dedicat3on requirement for street widenin9 purposes along Katella Avenue by April B, 1968; and that unless such dedication was accomplished by that date, Conditional Use Permit No. 894 would be terminated. Mr. Roberts further noted that numerous attempts had been made by the Development Se'rvices Department staff to contact the agent for the petitioner regarding the required street dedication, and a letter had beerr sont to the agent~outlining the Planning Commission's most recent action. However, to this date no evidence h~id b~>en submitted that the petitioner intended to make such dedication or that he intended to pursue the privileges granted under Conditional Use Permit No. 894, and that the staff recommended termination of same. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-192 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 894 on the basis that the petitioner had not met the requirement of dedication for street widening purposes as stated in the most recent six-month exten- sion of time - by April 8, 1968. {See Resolution Book) ~ ~.j: ~d `, t ;? ; i: ~ ~. . . .. . ~ . . .. 4~ . . . ini,:;TfES, CITY PLANNZNG pOMMISSION, June i7, 1968 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 8 (Continued) r7,~~ ~ r.~. .~y . r rt ~:~..:~.,~; V ' l 3988 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Al1Fed.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Campe ITEM N0, 9 VARIANCE N0. 1917 (Peter Warnoff) - Property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 80 feet west of the centerline of Bush Street - To establish a commercial building, with waivers of site development standards - Termination of petitiona Associate Planner Cha;les Roberts presented Variance No. 1917 to the Planning ~ommission, noting that the Planning Commission had approved subject petition October 19, 1967, subject to conditions, in Resolution No. PC67-228, and that the staff had contacted the petitionet on April 24, 1968, relative to exercising the variance by completion of conditions, at which time the petitioner had stated that the sale of the property was never consummated, and that he no ionger intended to develop the property as proposed under this variance and requested termination of same. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-193 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 1917, on the basis that the petitioner had requested said termination. (See Resoiution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSI~NERS: Gauer•, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSSNTc COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Camp. ITEM N0. 10 ORANGE COUNI'Y USE PERMIT N0. 3015 - Proposal to establish a carwash in the C-1 Local Business District, located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Orange County Use Permit Noe 3015 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of avbject property, the proposed use, uses established in close proximity, and emphasized the fact that a convalescent hospital was located approximately 70 feet to the south which could be affected by the inherent noise•prob2em associated with a carwash with its vacuum stands, gasoline pumps, and blowers. Discussion was held by the Commission as to the possibility of the property and the convalescent hospital eventually becoming a part of the City of Anaheim; whereupon the staff advised the Commission that the annexation had been ooposed by the City of Buena Park, and it seemed unlikely that it would be a part of the City of Anaheime The Commission also noted that a carwash in close proximity to a convalescent hospital was an incompatible use because of the noise problem inherent with operations of this type. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Permit No. 3015 for the establishment of a carwash with gasoline pumps to serve gasoline, due to the fact that the noise problem inheient with operations of this type wbuld heve a deleterious effect on the convalescent hospital located in close proximity. ~ommissioner Mungall seconded i:he motione MOTIOrI CARRIED. ADJUURNMENT - 1'here being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn to a work session on June 24 at 7:30 P.M Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. NATION CARRI~D. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P,M. Respect~subm`,~~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ l i