Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/07/01.~ t _ . ~ g~ ~ ~s k ~ ~ l j ~ y``j °i ~ ' ~~ ~ ;:'~Nu :i; ~ ~~ ~ ; ~ - ~e ~ , , ti ~ I~ £ `~ ~ ~ I ~ 'rIX :~ . .~' ~ .~ ' .. „ .. ... . ,, .... . . „ ~ . ~rr t . . . -'~ .:~ .'~' . ~' . ' ' .,, ..' : t t I t ' `~ ~ k ~ : .:. r' '.. , ~- j , .. - ~ ~ ~ , . 'y • - _. . ~( .. . - . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ . . . . . . . ~ . .. . ~ .. . . . ~ ~ ,.~ ' .. ~ . ~, .. ~ . .. . . . ~ .. ,~. ' - ~ . . _ . . . . . ~ _ . . ' . . ~ ~ ~~ - . . .. . . . i . . . i . ' ~ . ~ . . . . . , . . ~ ~ - ~ . . . .,, .. . JI . ; , ...~.: . . ~ . ~. ~ ;1, , _ ; . . . - . . , . . ~ . . i'{ ~ I`. 1 ~i~ f r ~ ~ _ ;i . . . ~ 1 I' . ,:~..~ ~ . i~ .;t . . .,~:j . . , , -~ ~ . ~I,~ '' . . . . , ~ - . . . .. . . . . . . . . - . . . . ~ , :.j. ...'~' . ~ . . . . . ,.... . . . ~ .. ~:~.:' . ~ ' . ' .. . ~ ~ ~ . ... . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . .; ~ .. . . . . .tl~ ~ ~ . . : ~ f. , ~ . . ... .. ' . _ . . ~ . . ~. ~ ; _ ~~ ~ . ~ , ~ 1 . . ~` ~:Pl r ~. , :j . . .. . ' . : ' ' . 1 ~ -~.i . ~ ~ .. .. , . . 1 :e .. ;~ .,i . ~ ~ . ~ .. ~ja '~1 ~ ro;~. ~ ~, , ~_. ~'~ ~'. ~~ ; 3 ~ ~. ~: ~:, ; ~ ~ ~, . ~; , , . ` ~ ,~y ~ . j'. ~.5 . .. . . . . ~ ~y :~H::. . ,; . . . . . . y~~~ C.( . , . . . . . . .,+; ~ . . W ~~~.; ~~.~, .. . . . . ~ ~ . . . ~' ~'. k . :,I:' , . , , , . Q y ~ u~ ~' ~ ° t~~~~ . , ' ~ - ~ . t ' ~ id : S ~ .~ ~. ~ , , , ~ G~ ~ }~,"`. `t,;'~ f ~~ ~ .~a w ^a :~ 4: ,4~ "' ~,q'~"" ~ ~~~~ ~ , 'r . ~ ~ ~ ~ .,.~.; ~. v~~"°j' ~ w t v~' a5 ° '. ~ = Y ~. -. ,~. a ~.~~~ k;iJ . ~. . t.. 4a.~., ,.. ."S6j : _ _._. vn#~_ _ ~.C~.. ,...~r.~.iC.4...Y. .t:.u. 1 , ~~.... ... .. ;~~'...1D?iff~IG= ! ,' .~ . i . . ` . ~ . . . . , -.' . .. , G'f' q" c tf .CM1Io-~k ..~~7"P~1 .'~+~g~^ '~'~~ ~ 4 zi >Y t .~ . ! x~ ~k r'-~W `'i i - u R ?z-' v t ~" 4 .~ rl t.c r ,+r t a 2,~ / 'Y~~ ~ C ,, { t .yt { 4~: Z~x :. .~~; ~~ '~ J~, a. i.r i ~ ~--~ a il ft~~ J , ~ ~ ~v ~ty~. ~ ` "v~*'~~`~ ~ , = . ~ r } ' ----=..` -~ ~ ,~ fi ru`~~ ~zi' . a ~ , ,~~? ' `'~ - ~ ' 1 ". / ~ . ` ` i ~ ,~~°lxr.~t, . . . - : . . . . ' ~"'~ . . ~ ~ ~~ (,IyC,X ~ L tT T Y - . . ~~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ . ' . ~ - ~ ' : .. ' . ~ ~ ~ "~Y ~~ ~itY Hall ~ 1 Anaheim, California ~ SY ; ~7 .., 4 . JUly 1, 1968 - ~ . . . . r~~ f.._ ~ ~j' , . ' ~ . ' ' . ~. . ~ ~ ~ -. . . .: . . ' . . . ~. . ~ ' ti~ ~ ~~, ~ r " A r~EGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ . ~ ~~,.r, • • ,. REGULAR MEETING.- A regular meeting of the.Anaheim City Planning Commission was called ~~~ r `;,~_ to order by Chairman CamA'at 2e10:o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. ~~ , PRESENT . . - CHAIRMAN: Camp. . ~ ~ ~. ~* Y7, ''.' r~;,, . . .. . . . . , . .. ~ -~COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. 5 `' F, s' ' j, ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~'`'~~ ~~ ;,j 1 PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson ~ ;~ ~° Assistant City Attorney: . John Dawson ,, . - ~~ Deputy City Attorney: . Frank Lowry : { ~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw ~ . Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson '; `~ . Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown r` ' PLEDGE OF Planning Co:nmission Secretary: Ann Krebs r, ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Alle i t th F ~ , g ance o lag. e _ ti1 ~ APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meetings of June 3 and 17, 1968, were approved as \ ~ t, THE MINUTES submitted on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner ~; i!erbst, and NATION CARRIED. '~~ ?-s ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR - Chairman Camp appointed Commissioner Allred to act as temporary h irm ~ ~%~ , - c a an during the election of officers of the Anaheim Planning ~ ~y. 1968 69 Commission. <;, `- NOMINATION FOR GHAIRMpN: Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reappoint Commissioner Camp N },~ as chairman for.the ensuing year. ;;, - F:; h~ Commissioner Camp expressed appreciation, however requested that his ,, ?~'~ ;. name be withdrawn from the chairmenship since he had served in that I F%i ~y capacity for the pas~ two years, and he felt the chairmanship should ~ ~' ` ~~ be shared by other Commissioners. 1 ,; i ~';4 ~ Commissioner Camp then nominated Commissioner Lenzi Allred as chairman for the ensuing year. Commissioner Gauer seconded the ~ 1~;, i~~' nomination. r i ' ~^' Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to close the nominations for '• ~~ chairman. Ccmmissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEII. ~ ~ ~r Commissioner Allred was elected unanimously and then assumed permanent ahairmanship. ~ NOMINATION FOR CHAIRMAN PRO TEM; ~'3 ~ Commissioner Herbst nominated Commissioner Dan L.Rowland for chairman ' pro:tem for the ensuin9 year. Commissioner Mungall seconded the ' '' v, nomination. _ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to close the nominations for ;;s ~ chairman pro tem. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. :"~' MOTION CARRIED. . ;, :; ' Commissioner Rowland was elected unenimously. ` ~ ;~~ ~ NOMINATION FOR COMMISSION SECRETARY: '• ~';' " ~ ~ ~ Commissioner Gauer'nomineted Ann Krebs as Commission Secretary for ,~ ~ ~ ~r ;~ the enauing year: Commissioner Rowiand seconded the nomination. ~^'tii Ann Krebs was elected Commission Secretary unanimously. x= ~ - ':;; ~ 3989 f'; ~ ,h 3. _..~;: ~,: i~, , ~;'~; ~;J d . . , ~ ;.~~ . . ~' ~. . .. ~. . ` . ,. ~. . . ~ - e~~ ~~. j ~ "V ,. .a.S~e+2:m.+w+a.e~.rnw.saw... . ...... ., . . .. . _.. '_ ___ _ .. _ ' . , , .. ~P~ .} : lt fi!5_. p ~ ~ ~~ 'y'"-F.3~.P~1~ d~.y~ ~•'~F~3 "Y1 ~T1 k ~ A7~1A'J+S - S k 1 +v '~"f ~9 p~ ~4) Y t ._ ~ T ~` i r. IF~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~1 h tt' ~y i l T ! h~ ~ ' t ~~ ~ r~ ~ ~ 't! .~ ~r ~~ l ~ J A, '~hji { ` 4 a vY , 7~ k ~ { j- ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~4's {~ ~~~ y~ ~ ~"'o~7y .~w ~ ~; . ~ -.--.. ' ' ' ' ' . . ~. . ~ ~ . . . ~ , , '~r j y. • ~ . . . ~ ~ .. ~ . ~ . . . . . ~ . Ay' ' ,' f / - . . ~ . . . ' ~ . ~ . . ~tFr{fL} X {1~ MINU7ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 1 1968 Y , j , ... ~ ~. ., ~ . . . . ... . , .,. ... .. . . . 3990 `~yE~_ , VARIANCE N0. 1987 - OpNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EVERETT DEAN, 419 North West Street ~ r"` , , Anaheim, California,,Owner; requesting'WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM ~~' ~ :;:'~•-~- ~ PERMITTED DISTANCE OF LIVING UNITS FROM A STANDARD STREE7 AND (2) M XIMUM PERMI ~ t ~ ~ A TTED BUILDING SITE COVERAGE on property described.as: A rectangularly ' 1 ~ t ~ shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 127;feet on tlie west side of ~y,; ; ~ `; Webster Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet,;:,the;,southerly boundary of ~ m,~~~~ ti "' ~ said parcel being approximately 515 feet north of the centerllne~of Ba].1 Road. Property ~~'$~~ presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ' ~°g .4 :~ .' , - • $ ~~ . t Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 3, 1968; to allow the staff - time to study the overell impact the increased density would heve on public facilities - ~,,, F _, ?~z ; and traffic in this area as requested by the petitioner. ~ ~; ~ . ~, '., ~~' ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub ect 3 property, existing ~r, ,~ ~ ~ ~ zonin g, pending zoning, and waivers nequested under _suli3ect:petfition inordei.to-permit the ~.~ ` ~ establishment of a 30-unit apartment development on less than an acre of land ~;i i ~" . Mr. Brown then reviewed the Report to the Commission regarding the study made by the ~ _ ' staff at the direction of the Commission to determine the~impact the increase i:~ density ~! s would have on the balance of the properties if developed in a similar manner, emphasizing the fact that in order to have a street with four, 12-;oot clear lanes of traffic to ~ handle the traffic on Webster Avenue, this would locate the street within 2 feet of ~ ' the existing R-3 developments and 13 feet from the R-1 development existing on the east , ;,y; $' side of the street just southerly of Orange Avenue, and that an increase in scnool ,; ~ ~ children to that projected by the General Plan would be 82, with an increase of 907 ~ ;; ! for park facilities. s~? Mr. Brown, in conclusion, noted that the key to maintaining a balance in an area such r ,;~~ as Webster Avenue, was the proper sizing of the community facilities, and that an increase ~~{ ~ in dar.s?.ty could be accommodated as long as there was capacity in the public utilities ~`.;}~ , on the highways, in the schools and parks, etc. However, the evidence indicated that , ,~~ _„~ +- ~- physically the Webster Avenue area had its limitations as to further density increases b r ~:~ a ove those establisned under Resolution No. 64R-200, which permitted 18 dwelling units w F ;4;~) '~ per net acre ~. site. Furthermore, if Webster Avenue were to be widened in the future ,. ;;~i » ~~~+' ~`~~ ~ ~~ , the City undoubtedly would be involved in extremely expensive condemnation proceedings, and y f r ~~ ~ r, 4 ' an urthe .increase in density as a result of changes in policies, could produce n ~, ,,ti ~~ ~ ' o ly detrimental effects on this area. G '3 r ~~ ` ~~, ~ ;ti N~r. Everett Dean, the petitioner, eppeared before the Commission and took issue with ~~ ' ~4; the statistics the staff presented in the Report to the Commission, noting that they ,rj were unrealistic since they were basing them on standard R-3 requirements and the ,- } ;~{ , proposed development was less than the maximum permitted under R-3; th•^t the report i , ~ 4 ~,yi regarding traffic increase could not be applied to Webster Avenue because it extended ~ only from Orange Avenue to Ball Road; that R-1 areas with which he was familiar carried ;; more traffic than Webster Avenue - namely, West Street which generated 8300 vehicles ~ ' per day; that Westmont Avenue generated 2700 vehicles per day, and both streets were ~ ~ in areas which had the highest tax base for residential use; that Fay Lane a two bloc!c ~; ~ ' ~' , long street developed with R-3, carried 2000 vehicles per day; that the figures presented ~a ; a~ regarding widening Webster Avenue were not true; that it would not be unreasonable for -;~, the Commission not to accept the statements made which were not in existence; and that hi ~ s property would ba zoned R-3. Furthermore, the plans presented by him would provide ~ ~Va " 2:1 parking underground, whi~h would increase the cost of the development but would '~ enhance renting the apartments, and that the neighbors would be shielded from automobile ,,;;, lights and noises. Mr. R. D. Miles, 809 Webster Avenue, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition, noting that the Report to the Commission indicated that if subject property were developed as required, at 18 dwelling units per net acre, 20~ units would be permitted, while the petitioner was proposing only 30 units; that the "Report" also indicated a similar request would be made at the July 15 meeting - however, this involved 2~- parcels,- since he would be primarily involved, he was quite familiar with what was proposed on that petition; that arithmetic and statistics could be used in many ways to give different answers; that the ratio of 2.4 persons per apartment if developed under present:regulations was rather high since his present facili.ty on Webster Avenue never had more:than 33 residents, or 1.6 per apartment unit and represented a 25% reduction from the data submitted; that because of the reduced yieTd of the conventional R-3, this factor of 2.4 could not be considered true for ~Yebster Avenue properties; that the R-3 developments on Webster Avenue did not cater to young, newly married persons or couples with'children, but to a different type of clientele, thereby not overcrowding the apartments, and it was his hope this trend would continue; that he was the developer, owner, and operator of apartments, and chose to reside on Webster Avenue because he liked its environment. I t I ~,., , . ;~; ;;:;~ ~::'i i'>~': :,Q c ,;: . ~i:?;° 7 o a~ ~ MINUTES;.CIlY;PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1,-1968 3991 VARIANCE N0. 1987 - The Commission inquired wheth^r or not he intended to develop his '(Continued) parcel in a similar manner as subject property; whereupon Mr. Miles replied that his development would consist of 2~ parcels, and that he hed made a traffic count of the R-3 developments on Webster Avenue and could'not come near the ten trips per day which the traffic department indicated would happen - however, he was speaking only from ezperience from his development, and Webster Avenue was different from other streets ~r~ ahich apartments had been developed because of the reduced density permitted in developing the parcels. Furthermore, any increase in the need for park facilities was not in order since each development provided for its,own recreational facilities, this being adequate since only 55% coverage of the lot was'permitted. m~„ Mr. Miles,.in'response to Commission questioning regarding the method of calculating the coverage, stated he was fully aware of the method of calculation - however, on those parcels which were less than an acre, they were permitted to develop up to 26 units per net acre, or 18 units on the site, and in the development he proposed, it would be an increase of only 4 units per acre. The Commission then inquired whether he presenting data regarding his petition, or was he presenting statements in favor of subject petition; to which Mr. Miles replied that any decision made on subject property would also affect his development. Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission questioning, stated that West Street was a 66-foot wide street while Webster Avenue was 64 feet; however, the Traffic Engineer had recommended a change in classification for West Street from a local street ~ to a secondary street since it was his opinion that West Street was inadequate at i:s present width to carry the traffic, and based on the projection of th? number of units for Webster Avenue, the street would be carrying a traffic count greater than a local street would carry. Mr. Dean.again appeared before the Commission and stated that he recalled very well the proposal for West Street, and the reason for the proposal was to carry traffic across town, using it as an out for carrying traffic to the freeway; however, he was not proposing this for Webster Avenue since the only traffic would be local traffic. Mr. Daw advised the Commission that at the time the change in street clessification was proposed for West Street, it was for the area between Lincoln and La Palma Avenues, and there were no on or off-ramps to and from the freeway between these two points; that no change was proposed south of Lincoln Avenue; that the traffic count on West Street was 8300 per day, and based on the projected dwelling units for Webster Avenue, the traffic count wouTd be 8430 vehicles per day. ~ : ~' ~,~ ` ~''~; Mr. James Hodges, designer for the project a eared before the Commission and reviewed ~ PP x~ the proposed development, noting that even though an increase in density was proposed, > " ' they were not sacrificing quality, size, privacy, and livability in the design of the ; . ' ~ project; however, comments made at the hearing seemed to stress more importance to ~~ tp}; density rather than to the living environment proposed - however, they still planned .~ ~ to meet a1T R-3 requirements. i `+ ~ ' ~ i~a~, Mr. Manuel Mendez, architect, 2556 Rowland Avenu,;, appeared before the Commission in { ! F ` i opposition and stated that he lived within a short distance of subject property; that ~ ,~~y he wished to commend the Planning staff on a very comprehensive report - however, no ~ :~,,; j~„'~ ' mention was made on the social aspects and the proble„~s which can be created by this ; ' ~ `T,`~ particular type of development; that he was presently working with the Federal Government , ; ~i s~ on housing projects'in trying to solve the urban problems the country was faced with, and ~ '~ ' ~ 1f~ ~ ~ the solution was found in what would happen in the next 20 to 30 years; and that when one ' ! ' ry ~`,~ %~ ~` talked about redevelopment of cities and towns, one must plan in terms of what existed t ~' f r ~+~ e-~ here and what could be built around it and how they xelated to one another. Further- n ~;- ~~ `` more, when the reclassification of the Webster Avenue property was considered by-the ! J • '~"~+,: Cit CounciI it was their intent to Y e permit not more than 18 dwelling units per net ! ix'~ ` acre; that he lived in this area which was basically residential in character, and if ~ ; + ~ A~fi,r~~ the 18 units per net acre were maintained, then the residential character of the area " ~ ` `;;~,r ~0.~ would remain - however, since 26 units per net acre nad already encroached into the e ~-~ ~ '~ ` rea; this.constant emasculation of`the ordinances by permitting this.was actually a r` ~•! A~' "~f betrayal of the citizens' truat in the Cit that when he viewed the Y9 ~general area upon ~ ,~; ~ ~ ~~~ y~~ ;~{~~_~ deciding to live in Anaheim, Mr. Mendez stated, the owner of his property, prior to '~ ; ~° ~ah4~ti~ ~ ~ his purchase of it, had requested R-3 zoning also, and when it was denied he had built h i e h e ; !,;~~~ i , ~ . ~ om s n t e rea; furthermore, now he found that the encroachment of 26 units per net °;;'; t;, ~f ,~~ u acre was being further violated by the proposed request and the subsequent one to be he ' ~rr; , ~,* ~ ;' ard on July 15 for 30 to 35 units per net acre - when would all this encroachment . ? `~' r~` "~ ~ stop? Mr. Mendez continued that the Commission had to maintain its inte9rity by backing , ; , :M; ~; ' ;~~~~ up the commitments made tothe single-family homeowners adjacent to the Webster Avenue ' " ~ , ~k~ ~~~ properties, and if this were not done, the single-femily homeowners would be faced with ~~i ~. ~L~ ~~ .. ~ 1 ~ _ ~ . ~ .. ~ . ' ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . .. . . . . ~ :r~l ~j. r', ~, . ~~l . 4 ~ { 4~ `~ 1 ~ ~ . . .. . . . . . . . . , . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . 5~ r ~.u}', •ii t ~ `'~ .~,......: ~i3~:4.~e < . . .. . _ ~ ,s.......~.. .... .. . ___ '~ t' ,w {' t ~ l~ . ~ , . „- - - . .. ,_. ..~: , ~ O ~ ~ a - MINUTES,~CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1, 19b8 3992 VARIANCE_N0."`1987 - having homea that.were "white elephants° if the encroachment (Continued). continued. . . . . .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ' c..w Mr. Mendez then urged the Commission:to take the Planning staff recommendations seriously; that the;staff was a:very'competent, profe~sio naT.staff, . ` and if i:he City were going to grow, the fntegrity of the City's master planning and `- the research made by the staff must:be maintained = therefore, he recommended that ' the Co mmission deny sub3ect,petit'iorr and retain .the._original~.intent.of the City: Council when the reclassification.petition we~ considered at a lengthy,public hearing, ;~y establishing the density of 18 units~per net residential acre. . . ~ . ~:; . , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . '` . c.`. THE HEARIISi WAS CLOSED. "°~ , ~ '' _ , . ~ .t. The Commission.discussed at length the proposal, summarized as follows: 1. Webs.ter.Avenue had always been a problem atreet. 2. The City had put in new sEwer and water facilities, as well as a new street. t ; ~ ti 3. All of the existing R-3 developments had developed in accordance with the City Council requirements, and no evidence had been submitted tha+, the petitioner could not also comply with these requirements.~ 4. That.all property owners on Webster Avenue were put on notice at the public ~ I., A: hearing.as to the City's requirements for their properties, and these ,w~ requirements were made in order to assure the single-family homeowners in c~ the,area that the residential character of th~ area would remain. ' ~ ~~ ~ 5. Tha~.it was imperative that the City maintain its integrity as stated by ,~t"~ the opposition. _ ~;; 6. Th~t consideration should be given only to waivers from'the Code when evidence ` was submitted that a hardship existed. i ~, 7. The statement made by the proponents that the multiple-family development did ''' '`{ ~~r,~ "' 'r'~T?~~ not.:` ut an demands on 'the ~ +' 't~` ° ~"~"~" °"~'4~ Y tiPthe 55% covera e wes inaerror~si~ements`because the 'could develop only ~ ~ Fy wit g ce the R-1 properties were:required to ~~ 1 ~;' '~~ develop with a,40~ coverage in'order to provide open space, as well as a "~~+~~ ' ;; ~ ~~: recreation~play area, and it was more valid that a•coverag'e of 55~ would ,~, i place a`greater demand'on park'facilities than the'.R-l development. ';r 8. The late.arrival of the Report to the Commission to the petitioner was ~~ necessitated by the fact that the staff had to review all the aspects of the impact of the proposed development on the City's facilities in order , ~ to present a comprehensive report to the Commission. ~. ~i 9. That the statement made by Mr. Miles regardin9 the density of each of his units could not be guaranteed since no written assurance was available, due to the law of supply and demand for fac33_ties, and the statistics the stafi presented were based on the City census of 1966, which projected 2.4 person: pex.. unit. ' 10. That the ?raffic Engineer had made meny trips to various areas, including I ~ ~ Webster Avenue, to take actual counts per apartment development, as well ; as counts for R-l developments, and the count of 9.7 per unit was prevalent ~ throughout the County, as well as in the City of Anaheim. ,. ; Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-195 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ ' ~ ,;t ~~, "' ~}t seconded:by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition.for Variance No: 1987 on the basis that ~;` ~~' the requirement establishing 18 dwelling units per net acre for the existing,parcel was ' i ~ ' ` necessary in order to maintain a balence between the population densi.ty in this area and ; '.~' the community's facilities; that the'proposed request would set an undesirable precedent i ' for not only the esteblishment of more dwelling unita on,.small parcels on 'Nebater Avenue, j !' but throughout the City, which could create insurmountable traffic, park and school , ' ~~~ problems;:_tnat the traffic that would resuTt'from `the increased densities if the City's -~ v~; policies,were chenged could not be hendled by the existing street width: that the widen- , ing,of Webster Avenue-would not be physically possible because.of the recently constructed i ~ single-family and multiple-family developments, and if'Webster Avenue were upgraded to i ~ Y"+! secondary highway..standards, the City, at some time in the future, would undoubtedly be ; f~' involved in extremely expensive condemnation proceedings; and'that any further increase in r~! ' density in the Webster Avenue area as a result of changes in policy would upset the - , '~ balance between the people and community'facilities and only be detrimental to the area. ~,"'; (See Resolution,Book) ~ • ` ' ' .. . ~ ~ ; ; . . p , , ~ .. .. . .. . . . ' ~ ~ .. ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i b_{'S .~ ~1~ -. ~ . . . ~ ~ . u~~ . . ,~ . .vi' y ,;~~Fr~~ ~° '~'.~^~~ ~~~:.~c,~"-~,~~^r`'u'~.~~^„~'S'.~,~~r ~, ~t»~t~~'kfi,u~'"'v x.r~~. ~xv ~ . ~'~uva, ri .r `~ x' ~n ~ ~ ~ ~'~'c t r'~~n ~ ~ y ~ ~'a. ~u a ~ ~ ~ti 3 ~t ., r ti . '~" ' _ ., - ... , , ~ . , -' r~ftt;~.d~ r .-f+..:.+~i~,. h,..,.,~. .! .~_.". ~.5.`a.'_;~: ~ 1: r .~,hr i ~.~.., ~ _._.sr y ..._ ..___,.....~~__. ~ ..._. . .~...:~. ., .. ~ ' ... a 0 ~ :' MINUTES,. CITY:PLANNIIS COAM7ISSION, July 1, 1968 3993 ;,,. ";' VARIANCE NO.: 1987 - On ro1l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following '-(Continued) vote: ~. AYES: COMIJIISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. `~.r NOES: , CAMMISSIONERS: None. _ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. c~'i , .. . . :~ ~ ~ . .~. ~ . . . ~ ~ . - . ~ ~ ~.. . . . . . . .. VARIANCE N0. 1994 - PUBLIC HEARING. GENE AND OLIVE $TINSON, 1226 West Cerritos Avenue, - - Anaheim,.California, Owners; DIANNA L: STINSON, 1226 West Cerritos . Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM. BUILDING HEIGHT TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1W0-STORY APARTMENT UNIT on property ~, , described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ~,~ 72 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 100 _ feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 330 feet west of the centerline of Walnut Street, and further described as 1226 West Cerritos Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of ~subject property, the uses established in close proximity, the fact that the property was reclas'sified to the - R-3 Zone in January, 1958, and that the petitioner was proposing to construct a 12~-foot by 55-foot wide extension to the two-story section of an existing one and two-story fourplex,.and the purpose for this enlargement was to increase the existing owner's apartment and not to add additional apartment units to the complex. :~- Mrs. Olive Stinson, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that their only reason for the expansion was to provide for more living area for their ~ four children. , ~~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARII~ WAS CLOSED. `-"~~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-i96 and moved for its passage and adoption,...seconded by Commissioner Camp, to-grant Petition for Variance No. 1994, ' ; subject ta conditions. : (See Resolution Book) ^'.?" ~,:, On roll call the'foregofng resolution was passed by the following vote: ~'~ `AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 'Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS': Farano. ,;;. CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARII~. GRACE E. DICKINSON, 252 South Elder Street, ( PF.RMIT N0. 1035 Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT E. SINGER, 2692 Main Way Drive, ~ Rossmoor, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A ~ 99-BED CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL on property described as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of approximately 1.7 acres of land having a frontage of approximately ~ 371 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 202 i feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 780 feet west of the ~ centerline.of Cliffrose Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown review~.cl the location of sub~ect property, previous i and exieting zoning actions on the property, and the proposal, noting that the Anaheim General.Plan designated this,general area as being appropriate for highway related ~ commercial uses,,and the uses that had been established thus #ar within the area would seem to fall'within this framework; furthermore, there already existed a convalescent hospital,located some 300 feet west of subject property - therefore it would appear the proposed.use would_be compatible with tne existing and proposed uses in the immediate ;;; area, and that hi'storically, convalescent homes had proven to be preferable to many ~;'; other general commercial uses which could be developed on property which abutted commercial property, which abutted residential properties. , Mr. Louis S. Mi11er, architect, 403 East Wardlow Road, Long Beach, appeared before the Commission, representing the petitioner and submitted a colored rendering showing the proposed development and noted the plans-indicated the building was not overcrowding the lot,.and a great deal of space was proposed for a planting area. ' Mr. Robert Ray, 1514 East Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that __ he was connected with the Parkview Convalescent Hospital 300 feet west of subject property; that although they were one-half the size of the proposed development, they ~• ' le r~' r;r 1; ~ .: : . -., ~ 0 ~ MINUTES,_CI'LY.PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1, 1968 3994 - CONDITIONAL USE`- - had'never been filled;,that'convalescent:haspital6 sh~uld be placed PERMIT':N~.'1035 in close proximity:to.:hospitals and doctors';:complexes; that it (Cont'inued;) _ seemed where large parcels of vacant land were available, the owners or developers felt a convelescent home was .the'ideal thing - however, many of these convalescent'homes were either bankrupt or were facing bankruptcy.kiecause of the inebility to utilize their facilities to the fullest capacity; that there was a definite need throughout`the Orange County area for nur3ing homes - however:this type of facility did not return the.same type of revenue a convalescent `hospital;would; that Medicare covered on1y,90 days in a hospital and 100 days in a~ nursing home,_and the physicians wanted their patients to`be close to.the hospital or their offices, and this area was not too o4erly populated with phyaicians or that physicians would be paseing in this area to go to the hospital; tha.t there were several pnysici'ans_in the general area - howe~~~r, from these physicians a total of four or five people have utilized his facility; that he was not opposed to the proposed development, but he wished to express his opinions relative to an oversaturation of this type of facility in the area; and that he urged that consideration should be given by the developers to the need for facilities for board and care of elderly people which is offered in a nursing home since there wasn't a large facility of this type throughout the Cou.nty. The Commission advised Mr. Ray that their duty was to decide whether the land use was proper, and not whether economics entered into the picture. Mr. Edwin.Cliff, in rebuttal, stated that he was the attorney for the proposed developer of the project, and the remarks made by Mr. Ray were out of order as far as the Commis- sions' function regarding consideration of subject petition was concerned, and that perhaps Mr. Ray was desirous of not having competition in this area; and that they had had a professional survey made which indicated the hospitals were within close p;oximity to subje.ct.property, and the proposed use was a necessary service for this area. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. The Commission noted that the zonin9 for subject property and the proposed use were appropriate in regard to the surroundings, regardless of the need or not for the type of ~facility. . Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-197 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded,by Commissioner Mungall, to grent Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1035, sub,ject to conditions, with an added condition •that subject property be developed sub- stantially in accordance with p2ans marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3. (See Resolution Book) On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COARufISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JACKSON J. R. GREGORY, 1272 East La Palma Avenue, PERMIT N0. 1036 Anaheim, California, Owner; GEORGE W. PERKINS, 8132 Fourth Street, Buena Park, Celifornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A REST HOME IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately .9 acres of land having a fr~ntage of approximately 158 feet on the south side of La Pa1ma Avenue and a'maximum depth of approxi- mately 280 feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 230 feet west of the centerline of Hawthorne Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZANE. Assistant.Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the existing. zoning, noting that it was developed with one single-family home on the easterly portion,of the property; that sub3ect and adjoining properties had been epproved for R-3 zoning under Reclassification No. 67-68-68'in April of 1968; thet the..petitioner was proposing to utilize the existing single-,femily structure for a rest home for six_elderly persons; that the petitioner-had indicated his willingness to meet the.conditions of the resolution o£ intent for R=3, since this was necessary to grant the proposed type of use, even if the oonditional use permit were approved; and that due to the fact that the number of ,guests of the rest home was limited and the existing facilities would be utilized, it would_appear that the proposal would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Mr: Brown further noted that one of the requirements of approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-68 was conformance with the "Specific P1an of Access" for properties along East Street and La Pa1ma Avenue, and since subject property had an existing vehicular ~ ~ Q ~ MINUTES,,.:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1, 1968 3995 CONDITIONAL,USE - accessway on the easteily boundary which conformed to the "Specific PERMI'[' N0: 1036 Plan of Access", t6e.addit;_nnal ?ccessway;to,the west did not conform - ,(Continued) to this plan,'and since no appreciable density or structurel changes were contemplated at this time, the Planning Commission might wish to recommend to the City Council that dedication o.f the westerly vehicular:accessway.be.obtained prior to final building and zoning inspections, with permission,for`temporary use of said accessway until more substantial expansion or construction had taken place on.subject property. : Mrs. Mildred Rinaldi, 137 South Trevor Street, representing the agent for the petitionEr, appeared.before the.Commission, noting that she had been requested in the morning to represerit:the petitioner, and that the use for which they were applying was for a gu~st home for the board and care of elderly persons, and all the residents would be ambulatory. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARII~ WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-198 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded.by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1036, subject to conditions, and a finding that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the petitioner be granted permission for temporary use of the westerly accessway until substantial expansion or construction had taken place on subject property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CLARK W. WINGERT, ET AL, 125 South Rio Vista Street, N0. 68-69-4 Anaheim, Cali:ornia, Owners; J. W. KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California,:Agent; ~;roperty des- V..RIANCE N0. 1995 cribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 22 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 661 feet on the west side TENTATIVE MAP OF of Rio Vista Street and a maximum depth ~f approximately 1,200 feet, TRACT N0. 6659 said parcel lying north and west'of a rectangularly shaped parcel oP approximately 630 feet by 990 feet located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (2) MINIMUM IA? WIDTH, (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (4) MINIMUM REQUIRED FROM YARD, TO PERMIT 107 ONE-FAMILY LOTS. TENTATIVE TRACI' RBQUESI': Subject tract, located on the west side of Rio Vista Street, bounded on the west by the proposed Orange Freeway and on the north by a point approximately 580 feet aouth of the ~ centerline of Mardi Gras Avenue,:is proposed for subdivision into 107, R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property, noting that its westerly boundary would be the Orange Freeway on-ramp, and the freeway its.elf; that the petitioner was requesting R-1 zonin93 that the adjoining land use to the north was single-femily, to the eaet vacant agricultural, and to the south vacant agriculiural land with a resolution of intent to R-3; that no previous zoning requests have been made on subject property; that.the petitioner proposed approximately 6000=square foot lots in area, with 40 of the lots to be 5700 squere.feet in area, and 25~ of the;proposed homes would have a minimum floor area of 1460 square feet, while the balance:of the homes would have 1525 squere feet or greater; that approximately 25% of the lots also indicated e 20-foot front yard setback rather than the required 25 feet; that the majority o£ the Tots indicated a 60-foot lot width; that the proposed street pattern had been linked with the existing stub street to the north;'that additional circulation was being provided by a 64-foot width street having access to Rio Vista Street; and that by the reduction of the lot sizes`below the 7200-square foot minimum requirement of the R-1 Zone, the number`of lots would be increased by 25~.- approximately 86 lots permitted under the R-l standards as compared to 107,1ots as proposed by the petitioner. i~~ _ ~ , l' r ~ '; r?;ti J , ~~ `u T,.~.m F ~ b .{R' ry t ~` ~i ~ f\~s`~~~c 3~yjaa ~'~`~:~ ~~~~~t'~ -uF ~ t' It~ 1. ..~ ~ h r ~.~"~~w ..,n x7. X' i e r''y lv^ Y .. .~ur t~ /~: ~ .~i ~ ~~ t v a r x ~~,: ~F 1~~.}} ~ K?~? r r..~.-. d cH:`.T.'1'''.~ ~ c~ ,"~ .~ j r K. fr _ i - _ .y .,,+ i ~~'. ~ t ~ ' ~ . . ~ . ~\ . ~ ~ ~ . . . . .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . .. . . ~ ' ~ . . . . . . . " MINUTES,:CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, July 1, 1968 3996 ~`~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr.'Brown .`urther noted that the Generel Plen designated this area NJ: 68-69-4 for low-density residential development - a land use development ~~ VARIANCE~NO. 1995 policy thet had been`fairly consistently followed in the East "''`~~ TENTATIVE MAP.OF Anaheim area;-that.the proposed use would be in conformance with TRACT N0. 6659 the density standards set f~rth in the AnahEim General Plan - ,.~ .- (Continued) therefo~e; the Planning Commission must determine whether sub3ect ~ti .~ property, due to its size, shape and orien-cation, would be extremely . difficult to develop as a standard R-1 subdivision, and if so, it would appear that the propo~ed development would be a logical use of the property. 4 ,~' . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~. . Mr. James Peters, representing J. W. Klug Development Company, appeared before the !?~.~ Commission.and stated the reason for the waivers asked was because of the unusual shape ~~' = of the proper.ty at the southerly boundary, due to the on-ram of the ` as well'as a~proved R-3 zoning for the abuttin p Proposed freeway, `" 9 property, and this made it difficult to lay out a standard subdivision; that in his estimation, the proposed sizes of lots could K` be developed with.substantial homes which would be a compliment to the community, with homes ranging in price from $28,000 to $34,000 and up; that the plans (exhibits presented) were similar to two developments in Cypress and outside of Tustin; that the smaller type ~ homes were for couples with no children, but the largen c~mes would range from 1760 square ;~; feet to 2300 square feet and would complement the adjoining R-1 tract; that under the _ requirements of the R-1, 7200-square foot lots, a yield of 4.2 homes could be accomplished ;:; and they were proposing 4.8 homes per acre; that he lived in an area where originally t'~ 70-foot wide lots were required, but as the property was developed, it was determined `-,,~; that the cost of the land and the structures was becoming considerably more than people ~: could afford - therefore they reduced the size of the lots to 60-foot widths and the ;~. ':rh- price of the homes .was now as much or more than he paid for his, end, therefore, the ~•~ size of the lot did not necessarily control the type of development or people in the ;~f+ area; and that a good environment could be developed with smaller lots. Furthermore, ~. the lots ad.jacent to subject property,to the north, would have a full 100-foot depth. ,.;~ Mr. Peters further noted that since subject property was adjacent to the proposed Orange A~ Freewa { -•, y,and approved R-3 property, it was important to have a six-foot masonry wall to R ].,{'S..~~ ~~;;,~:~.a separate the uses; that this would mean an additional expense for this property - however, ~ ~ K it was only proper that the walls be constructed; that four floor plans were proposed - ~ a three one-story and one,two-story; and that only one-story homes would be proposed for ~wA~~k those lots on the'northerly portion since the tract to the north had deed restrictions ~f .~ limiting the construction to one-story, and they were desirous of giving them this ~`~'r~~~ added protection - however most developers these days were constructing two-story homes. Y '•,i~ ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~' ;:; Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that ~ r; there would be additional circulation to subject property from Rio Vista Street since a one of the conditions of, approval of the tract required the cul-de-sac street at the ,~~s;, southerly tip of the property be 64 feet, and as the property developed adjacent to it, ,\'~ the street could be extended to Rio Vista Street, providing additional circulation for ~,~`?}r. the portion of the tract southe:ly of the main exit. ~ :~, = Commissioner Herbst expressed concern that more circulation was not required since the G Commission had discussed at length requiring better circulation of these lar e ,';y~ than:had beer. reyuired in the past. 9 parcels ..:.:: _~ Mr. Thompson then noted that the Traffic Engineer felt that with the additional street at the southerly tip of subject property, this would provide for adequate circul%~tion. Commissioner Rowland noted that the best residential areas were those which were more or less blocked in, and subject property had a large portion of it fronting on Rio Vista Street. Commissioner Herbst again expressed concern that the waiver reguested from the 7200-square foot lot requ~rement was more than 1200 square feet, and the lots adjacent to subject property at th`~ north had been developed in accordance with Code at 7200 square feet, and protection should be afforded these property owners; that if subject tract were to be considered favorably, those lots backing the R-l to the north should be developed with a minimum;70-foot width, thus making the balance of the tract subject to the more undesirable aspects of less than Code requirements. Furthermore, one of the lots to the north would be subjected to noises from the rear yards of three of the proposed lots. Mr. Peters noted thet two-story construction would be permitted on these lots - however, they planned to have 100-foot depth lots and one-story construction backing the R-1 to the north. Mr. Ray Negus, 200 Royal Place, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition, noting his lot would be affected by three of the lots of subject property; however, he much preferred the pioposed,development than having apartments adjacent . ~ ;' r;; r ~ '"4 ' ~': w.~ c ,y~ ~,. .~ii TM~i, j~~c rr a 1 5?~ t i- vN< f `~ x . p ~.'~ d„ tiF°`.`.3~ n . ,'&, ~ [~Kk,~, t -5~ ..`C R~ s s '7 1 f ~H ~F4 . L""~f6 ~ ~~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ r ' ' ~ {~ , . i 4..~, ~ k:. . * f r¢. ~ -.. { r 4. . ;. ~ +. 4 .`'r ~' ~ : : 7 ~ . Q . .. ~ . ~ . . . . ~ .. ~ , . .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ca ~°~ s ';r MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSIODI, Juiy 1, 1968 . 3997 s 1,:<,.: RECLASSIFICATIAN - to his property;_that he was familiar with what the petitioner , ~ R~. 68-69-4.. _. proposed for his land, and the proposal was for the better interests .~ ,;~ VARIANCE N0. 1995 of the neighborhood; and that he would still be in favor of subject ~ TENTATIVE N1AP OF petition even if three two-story homes were abu.tting his property. • ~i .~ ' TRACT NO . 6659 ~(Continued) Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning relative to ~'~,_;, , requiring development in accordance with the colored renderings presented by the petitioner; stated that if the Commission considered the proposal favorably, plans or renderings could be tied into the variance, but not to F the reclaesification or the tract map. L~ M ~rw i~~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED. ~~ ~ ~ '.; r.,. ` Commissio.ner Rowland noted that no hardship had been demonstrated that the minimum floor r,, area of 1525 square feet could not be met, and that the only evidence submitted was the ; fact that.the property was odd shaped due to the freeway on-ramp. ~ _. -~,2 ;:i. Commissioner Herbst stated that the petitioner was requesting a waiver from the~72D0- ':' square foot lot of more than 1200 feet, and the Commission should have a policy which '.^;i would require where R-1 property abutted R-1 property, all lots be a minimum of 70 feet in width and 7200 square feet in size ~ then the developer could develop the balance of --i the property with the waiver requested; however, the existing single-family homeowners .;.,~, should not be subjected to less than Code requirements where iheir property abutted ;,r property requesting waivers from Code requirements,and they should be afforded this ::i`, protection since their homes met Code requirements. t, Commissioner.Gauer noted there was a demand by persons who no longer had families for -•:`>;i smaller homes in a good neighborhood - however, these were not available so they were ~:17 resorting to moving to trailers where the homes were less than 1400 square feet and very attractive, and even though the City had a Code requirement of 1525 square feet V~~ for homes in certain areas of the City, there was no reason to feel there was no demand for less.than 1525-square foot homes. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission as to the various waivers requested and how they affected the General Plan and`land uses to the east of subject. property, and. the fact that only a small portion of,subject property was difficult to develop,for R-1 due to the freeway on-ramp and pending R-3 zoning had been approved ` immediately to the east - the balance could be developed with standard-R-1, especially where they abutted the`R-1 to the north; that any action taken by the Planning Commission would have.a considerable affect on the proposed R-2 development to the east; and that wherever Rc2 or less than Code required lota•weie perinitted, these should not be permitted to abut immediately.to R-1 which.were required~to deuelop in accoidance with Code. Mr. Peters then requested to speak to the Commission again, the chairman granting his request,.and noted that since all the single-family homeowners to the north had reviewed the plans as they proposed and had not presented any opposition, some consideration should be given to this fact; furthermore, comparison of subject development with the R-2-5000 was unfair since there was a considerable difference in design on the smaller lot, and if the Commission desired 1525-square foot lots, this could be accomplished, but they were trying to provide for the demand for the smaller type homes which were two-bedroom homes. Commissioner Gauer noted that when the Code requtrements were established, the costsof property, materials, labor, etc., were considerably less; however, prices have gone up considerably, and there would be a day when every segment of the economy would be asking for a raise which would affect all deyelopment', and many,people would find it almost difficult to purchase a sin9le-family home because of the price. Furthermore, Oran9e County was one of tlie hiyhest average salaried counties in the United States, and prices of homes were compareble to the salaries given, but there we:e many salaried and fixed income people who were unable to afford the prices of many of the homes in Orange County today. Commissioner Camp, in commenting on Mr. Gauer's comments, stated that the construction costs of a home were 10% to 12A; higher than a year ago in Orange County, and real problems could occur if prices of homes were constantly being increased since even with the salaries '~ being paid in Orange County, few could afford $35,000 and up homes; however, it was his feeling.the single-family homes to the north should be afforded some protection by increas- ing the.width of the lots to 65 feet and maintaining the 100-foot depth for the lot. Mr. Thompson then noted for the Commission that in reviewing the tract map there were' ten lots less than the 5700 square feet as advertised, and this was due to the fact that the Interdepartmental Committee had requested the "E" and "F" streets should be 64-foot wide streets. • ~,~,~ ' ~'^ ~,' ~ ~ i~~.~,., 4' ' h'~~ ~~ fiT "'r Y''y 2~s 3~ .J'~7a4~ +~x e}r~G' b, X N..' ~r f~ ~ n @~ 7 r, 5 ~..: .X"r~~ s v rr'^r J'"r ' t h x F qn~'t~f~ ~'..r ~~'^ '"~~, m ~:4 m~1 ''~ ~.~. i n:'.. f' ~, ~y. 1 N. 4., SF i y p r,. 1 r ~ ~ :{ ,~ ..ic~..c-_"` _ . ~ ~ ' .. ~ . . ' ~ . . . . ~ ~ MINUTES,..CITY.PL'ANNING COMMISSION, July`1, 1968 3998 - RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Nor. PC68-199 and moved for N0. 68-69=4 - its passage and adoption,`.seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recom- -VARIANCE N0. 1495 - mend to the City Council that'Petition for Reclassification No. TENTATIVE MAP;OF: 68-69-4 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) TRACT N0: 6659 . (Continued.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowb3nd, Allred. NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None. ~ AHSENTe, COMMISSIONERS: Ferano. ~`,, w,~i~";,~~, Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-200 and moved for its passage and adoption, h~x~ ~~;; ~f 3 seconded.by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1995, requiring that ,~~ ~. < ~? those lots backing on to the R-L to the north shall be developed with a 65-foot frontage ~"x _ and a.100-foot depth; that only 25~ of the proposed homes should have a minimum floor `~ area of 1460 square feet; and that variable lot widths with a minimum of 5500 square feet ~ -~ be permitted, and sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) .'!F ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 3 " !~: AYES: COhIMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. ~: NUES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Allred. °^.; ,;:; ~;; ABSENT: CO~M~IISSIONERS: Farano. ,,; `~~ Commissioner Herbst stated that he voted "no" on the basis that it was his opinion that ~ .~' where 7200-square foot lots were adjacent to any proposed R-1 property, the abutting lots ' 1 ~~~ also should be required to have 7200 square feet. '~ ~~ `~ ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6659, subject , ~ to the following conditions: ~y '~,~ 1. That the approval of Tentative Ma of Tract No. 6659 is i* z~ approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-4 and Variance No9r1995d subject to the ~.;~^ ~f1 ~, ~,,~~ 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each j' ~~/,~,~ ~,~,.Y subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. '~Jty, /1 ~y~J~`' ~ .. ~. . . ~ . . . . . ,' ~y~, ~ 3. That all lots within this tract shell be served by underground utilities. r ~f ~' ~;f` ~1~.~~~ 4: That the vehicular access rights to P.io Vista Street shall be dedicated to ~k .~ the City of Anaheim, except at street and/or alley openings. ~ ~ °'~ Y'~ • ! } j;~? 5. That in accordance with City Council policy, a six-foot masonry wall shall ; 3 R~ be Gonstructed on the easterly property-l:ne separating Lot No. 1 and 103 ` a ~ through 107 and Rio Vista Street, except that corner Lot Nos. 1 and 107 ~ ~{1~ shall be stepped down to a height of thirty inches in the front yard setback, ~ ~,~ ,;~ and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls where ' ~ •~~ cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways right-of-way line of an arterial highway. ?~' Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in t~; the uncemented portion of the arterial hi9hway parkway the full distance of ~'~ t''? said wall, plans for sa~d landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the a ~ approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation - .~~ ~ and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for main- y" -}' tenance of said landscaping. ~%, ~` ~i f~ 6. That in accordance with City Council policy, a six-foot masonry wall s~all be ~~~ "~; constructed on the westerly property line seoareting Lot Nos. 17, 18, 31, 32, h "~ 45 through 50 end 63 through 66 and the Oxange Freeway. ~"a' . ~~~ 7. That Carousel Street (Streets "E" and "F") shall be 64 feet in width. r; ,x'~~ , ~ 8. THat Carousel Street (Streets "E" and "F"} shall be improved with a 40-foot ~ +: ~'^ry~~ roedway within the 6U-foot•right-of-way. t „f ~ ~~,r _ tiw ~ 9.' That`drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to the ~ ; ~~, ',~ City Engineer. ~ {~ ~ ~~; 10. That Carousel Street (Street "E") shall provide for the extension of a future '' N' i~ street, 64 feet in width, at the easterly tract boundary. r T`,+~~ 11. That Street "A" shall be named llutch Avenue; that Street "B" shall be named ~ ~ Hempstead Cir•cle; that Street "C" shall be named Ward Terrace; that Street "D". ~ ,,~-,,~ ahall be„named Chantilly Streetj that Streets "E" and "F" shall be named ' --- ~: {+ S^~ Carousel Street; that Street "G,' shall be named Royal Place; and that Street • ~~ ~'~,f "H" shall be named Plantation Place. ~ ~~~~ Commissionor Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Herbst voted "no". i~a h;~' ~ ; ~i ~ ':~ U 1~M~ . . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ ~ , ~ . . . . .. .. ^.. ~ yCy t, { ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ . . . . ~ . `~, ~ ,`; 1,~ , `N n~r~~.3+,A4c ~ . ~ ~:: r p~.. ~`' F1~ui !~`~ '~` :; d .r . x 4~ ~..t ~`"1'''-~ .~.~.~~d u.' rt~'+~.j y~-0 a~.: n7 or J. 7_+ ~: ,i r ~"f ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ r ~ i:~ ~ ~ t._.. t~. . O . . . , . ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1, 1968 +, ~ ,~".i~ _ ~ ~ .. 3999 RECESS• . _ - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recess the meeting ` for ten minutes. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion.• x~ '~,' ~ MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:20 P.M. ::i>r ` '~ .- RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:30 P.M., Commissioner „ ; Farano being absent. ,,r ; RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK STUECKLE AND FRANCES MILLINGS, 842 North .`:~'::::~' N0. 68-69-5 Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California,'Owners; FRANK STUECKLE, 842 North Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting t~•~ that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of ~.~;f land located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Water Street, havin9 j~_ ~~ approximate frontages of 163 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 421 feet ~9,. '.,' on the snuth side of Water Sireet, be reclassified from the G2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONES to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZANE. F~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property, the • uses established in close prorimity, the existing uses on sub~ect property, and the ~' proposed..~equest, noting that the petitioner was proposing to establish a new auto sales facility on subject property (American Motor Company franchise); that the existing restaurant and used car facility would be removed if the pxoposed reclassification were approved; that the concept plan submitted by the petitioner indicated the westerly ~~ 195.5 feet,would not be developed at the present time, and the petitioner should be made ~.~_ aware that no storage of equipment, autos, etc., would be permitted in this futuxe r< develo ment area unless this p portion was brought up to the Code requirements as speci- ,:n fied in the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to surfacing, walls, etc.; that the General .~ Plan indicated highway-related commercial uses for subject property; and that the ;~ proposal would appear to be a logical one for subject area since the majority of auto dealers within the City of Anaheim, both new and used, were located along Anaheim ``;;r:,~ Boulevar.d. However, the Commission should consider the effect of the future total "'~ development of subject property since it would be extended some 450 feet westward Yy n~ from the centerline of Anaheim Houlevard, in close proximity to existing single-family y4:~~ and mul.tiple-family residential homes. ~y' ;~+ , ~""! Mr'. Albert Lester 706 East Toussau Drive Fullerton a ,~a' ~., , , , ppeared before the Commission , ~A~~ speaking for the petitioner, and noted that they_proposed to erect a'new showroom, ~~~~ office, and customer service on the front portion of sub,ject property, with a work shop ?~~;s and garage toward'the rear, and the westerly 195 feet would be developed in the future. ~;~ Furthermore,tHe petitioner also owned the property to the south and to the west along ,.~~`` Water Street. t i ''. T .. . . f4, w~! No one appeared in opposi+.ion to subject petition. ,. Kha ~`''4 THE HEARING WAS CIASED. `, ~.~ ,''~. ,~~.~; Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-201 and moved for its passage and ~i`+~! adaption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that ,.i, },;~q Petition.for Reclassification No. 68-69-5 be approved, subject to conditions. (See ~z~ Resolution Book) ~ y' i '~ ~.~, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~ t:~ AYES: COMMISSION£RS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. 4:'~,~ NOES: COMMIS8IONERS: None. „?:~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. CONDI7IONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIN3. WILTON B. AND RUTH ABPLANALP, 3345 West Lincoln PERMIT N~. 1037 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MpBILE HOME PARK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land approximately 100 feet by 150 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 350 feet north of.the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and the westerly boundary being approximately 990 feet east of the centerline of Knott Streetr Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, e~isting uses and adjoining land uses, noting that the adjoining property to the east already was developed for a mobile home park, and the proposal was to extend the existiny mobile home park westerly. _._ ._~ ~~ .~..;_ .. .. . ~,~~~_.. Q ~ ~ MINUTES~:CITY PLANNII~ COMA~IISSION~ July 1, 1968, 4000 CONDITIONAL USE -'Mrs. Ruth Abplanalp, one of the petitioners,~appeared before the PERMIT N0. 1087 Commission ar,d corrected the spelling of her name as it was printed (Continued) on the.legal notice.and noted that it was ttieir intent to delete one of the existing trailer spaces in order to provide for the expansion of the trailer park to the west. No one appeared in opposition;to subject petition. THE:HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-202 and moved for its passage and ~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1037, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~°'::°';, On roll call the foregoing resolution was patsed by the following vote: ` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. ' ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. _ ''*'~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. t, 1. ;~ RECZASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. E. H. BAUMANN, 3254 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, •~,• N0. 68-69-6 California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped kf parcel of approximately 1.1 acres of land having a frontage of ~~ VARIANCE N0. 1996 approximately 215 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and a T maximum depth of approximately 225 feet, the southerly boundary "• of said parcel being the Carbon Creek channel and the easterly `~'~. boundar bein a ; y g pproximately 965 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZANE. '.;~! r;:., f ~~°~~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ; , >~~. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE'IWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (3) PERMITTED IACATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, T0 PERMIT A 23-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, existing uses established in close proximity, and the waivers requested, noting that single-family residential development was located within 130 feet of the proposed two-story structure, across the Carbon Creek channel to the south. ", ~r Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission questioning relative to the ''` ~?~'`~' plot plan indicating location within 150 feet of the R-l property, noted this was measured ~. ~ , ~J '' to the structure itself and not to the property, and that the flood control channel was >~ approximately 75 feet wide; furthermore, the single-family homes abutted the flood control ~~:: ,. ~:u'~ channel. Mr. Dwight W. Mize, 9252 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, real estate representative of the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that subject property was difficult to develop because of its size and shape and did not lend itself well to sub- division into R-1 property because of the excessive depth of the street; that the width of Orenge Avenue required excessive de~ication-from the properties on the south side because of ti~e location of the school property, this depth being 57 feet; that the peti- tioner had dedicated a portion of his property to the F1ood Control District for the Carbon Creek channel and had also given the parcel to the west for church purposes. Discussion was then held by the Commission, the staff, and the representative of the petitioner relative to the one-story and two-story height limitations, and at its con- clusion, the representative stated that since the petitioner had given so much land to the City of Anaheim for street purposes, amounting to a~proximately two R-1 lots, some concession 5hould be given to consideration of the two-story height waiver, and in order to protect the single-family homeowners to the south, windows could be eliminated along the south side of the property. The Commission noted that waivers had never been granted for development of apartments ~ within 150 feet of R-1 property, and if subject variance were granted, this would be setti'ng a precedent; furthermore, the 150 feet was necessary for line-of-sight require- ments. Mr. Mize then stated one tu'vo-story unit could be dropped where it encroached into the required 150-foot setback, but he felt this was excessive. ,, ,; _ ;''r;i ;~ ~• ,9~~ . t ~,:h ~.` ~~i^~.~~~ ~l fr ~~..wt(+`~' .'~~~T` ~'~~ `~ ;a~ ~.,~.,;v~~ ~ i~ ~jeti~*~'~ '9xa7r "t~~~F t '~''C. ~ ~ r~y,va'~;55~ ~ ~*. .^ v~. ~r5~ , r.~5. y%~~~C~ 7,A" k I'~ ct ~4FrT~ '~ ~q +~'° r Y y~ tt~ ..r n.i~ 1s+ "',Y f 'v e.. a . ~ T ~ ~ : ~~ .~ ~ y >.~_j Trr'eTE,Y Y~ ,~ 7 u~5~ ~* ' . ' .. . ' .. . . - ~ ~ f ~J}~' .~ ~ ~~ . . . ~ - ~ ~ ..~f.~ {*y :. .. ..`~ . .. . . ~ MINUTES; CITY PLANNIN:~ COMMISSION,•July 1, 1968 4001 %~ ' ~ _ ;.: ~~ RECLASSIFICATION. - No one appeared.in opposition to subject petitions. '~" NU , 68=69-6 '':~' THE HEARING WAS` CIASED. ~ _ , ... `i~?, VARIANCE NO 1996 ~, ?rk (Continued)' . Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-203 and moved ,!~ for•its:passage and adoption,' seconded by Commissioner Herbst, -iS to recommend to the.City Council that Petitiqn for Reclassification No. 68-69-6 be approved, subject to conditions. ~9s - (See Resolution'Book) ~,~ : s~;P On roll.call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '~`~ AYESs OOMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. 'r~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ?~~ ABSENT: OJMMISSIONERSe 'Farano. i~~ ~~t Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-204 and moved for its passage and '47 edoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst to " in part, denying the waiver of the two-story height limitation~within 150 feet1of6R-1 ~ property to the south, and subject to conditions, with a revision to the plans to ~ incorporate one-story within 150 feet of the property to the south. (See Resolution j Book) ~ On.roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i. ~ AYESo GOMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. ~~`~ NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ,;; ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: Farano. ` b~ ' REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 765 AND 113 - West Winds Trailer Lodge - Request for approval of revised plans to incorporate an additional 7 overnight trailer spaces. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Commission sevised plans indicating ~ '; the'addition of 7 overnight'trailer spaces to an existing trailer park located on the "~ noTth side of Wilken Way,-east of Harbor Boulevard, and reviewed the previous zoning ~ W~,~ actions relative to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 113 and 765, noting that the area proposed } for the travel trailers was where 18 garages formerly existed. ~ Mrs,. Lela Hatton, owner of the trailer park, appeared before the Commission and noted ' that the overnight travel trailer space was needed since they had to turn away as many i as 70 trailers a day and received as many'as 30 calls requesting reservations per day. ' Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve the revised plans for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 113 and 765, to permit the addition of 7 additional overnight trailer spaces, provided they were subject to being in accordance with the requirements of the State Trailer Act and that plumbing should be provided in order that the mobile home park could accommodate all trailers and not be restricted to "California approved trailers" only. Commissionei Canlp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITE_ M Np,~ VARIANCE N0. 1372 - R. E. Williams, 1829 Sout:.•-.~,.ntain View Avenue - Request for an extension of time. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request from the petitioner to permit the..use of an existing residence for the establishment of arr office and outdoor storage ~'~ of;equipment and vehicles located at 1829 South Mountain View Avenue; that subject petition'originally was approved in 1961 for a period of two years~and three time exten- - sions had been granted since'then, the most recent having expired June 26, 1968. Fur.thermore, the petitioner requested an extension of time for a period of three years. Mr. Brown:further noted.that due,to the fact that the land use charecteristics of the ~ area had remained unchanged since subject petition was granted, it was recommended that a two.-year.extension of time, to expire June 26, 1970, be granted. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to granting the three-year extension of time; whereupon Deputy,City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that since sub3ect petition had been originally granted for two years, an extension of time could not be grented for longer then that period for each request. +~' Commissioner Herbst of#ered a motion to grant an extension of time for two years for j ~~~ Variance;No. 1372, said time extension to expire June 26, 1970. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. t; lu~~s~ ~~+ sat~ ~ ~ i - ~ _ _ ~ ~ . . . r R , A5 Ki~~ ...;, . ~ ~ ~.: ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1;, 1968 ' 4002 REPORTS.`AND - ITEM N0. 3 : REOOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ND. 931 - Ni~holas and Lucy Barletta - '(Continued) Request,far an extensiorr of time. ' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request from Mr. and Mrs. Barletta for a six-montfi.extension.of.time`in which to meet conditions of.,;Resolution No:: PC67-92,-dated May'8, 1967, for the esteblishment of a rest home located on the south side of Broedway; approximately 410 feet,west of Loara Street, noting.thet the previous time extension had expiied May;B, 1968, and that the petitioner had stat'ed the additional time'was:necessary to obtaim financing for the proposed development. Furthermore; the staff recommended'an extension of time provided that ~ the petitioner pey the required street light:fees within 30 days. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time, to expire November 8, 1968, for the completion of conditions under Conditional Use Permit No. 931, granted in Resolution No. PC67-62, dated May 8, 1967, provided that the street light_fees be paid within a period of 30 days. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ,_ MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION N0. PC68-170 - Recommending approval for Reclassification No. 67-68-93. The Commission Secretary noted that a portion of subject property had a dual identifica- tion;, namely, "parcel" and "portion" for the northerly five lots known as Parcel No. 2, and that the lead paragraph of conditions failed to delete reference to Parcel No. 2. ' Commissioner RowZand offered Resolution No. PC68-205 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to amend Resolution No. PC68-170, dated June 3, 1968, recommending approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-93, Finding No. 5• making reference to the northerly five lots of subject property as Parcel No. 2, and that the lead paragraph of the conditions be amended to exclude from the described property any reference made to Parcel No. 2, which would be the R-3 property. (See Resolution ~ook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by.the following vote: 'AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES.: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT r COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ITEM N0. 5 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18~ ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Set for public hearing. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that in order that tne Front-0n Study could be implemented as to permitting 8-foot walls, fences, and~or screen landscaping within the.front setback of any single-family residential zone except the R-2-5000 Zone, which the Commission deemed necessary for the retention of those homes fronting on arterial highwa•~s, should be set for public hearing on July 29, 1968. . Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the staff to set for public hearing consideration of amendment to Tit1e 18, Sections 18.16, 18.18, end 18.20, to implement permission.to.erect 8-foot-walls, fences, and~ox screen landscaping within the front setback. Commissioner Geuer seconded the motion. M~TION CARRIED. I TEM N0 . 6 "THO'TFUL STOP" FLOWERS, 446 Robert Avenue, Santa Clara, California -_Request for permi'ssion to establish flower "kiosks" in certain mejor shopping centers throughout the city.. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented the request of representatives of "Tho'tful Stop" flowers to the Commission, noting t:se design of the "kiosks" and their method of outdcor display, emphasizing that the operation was similar to flower shops which are permitted.es retail uses in the G1 Zone; however, this use was required to be conducted wholly within the buiiding; and that the petitioner had two "kiosks", one.at the Disneyland Hotel and one at the Ba11~Brookhurst Shopping Center, with one proposed for the Broadway Shopping Center. ;,1 ~v ~ ;r~ ;; ~ `.1 1 . ::' :+ . `' {'°+it'~ k~c- :: ~. fC ,' - ~ ~ ~- ~ .. - .. . ~ ~~. . ~ Q . ~ - . , y~ . ~e ~ r ~ 5 ~ ~ i / ~0 0. 3 , fK..~. . . , .. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . , . . . . .~ri ~f ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1, 1968 4003 3 1, :; * . S ~ ~ ::. REPORTS AND : . . RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6(Continued) ° • 4i' ~ , t ~ ~ ' It was also noted by Mr:• Brown that the "kibsks" at the D?,sneylend Hotel and the ~ _''' $roadway Shopping Center were granted adminietrative approval to display flowers on ;r ~ jy ' the'open platform, as their location was within.an interior mall.or.part of an overall s,i~ ~' commercial complex; however, administrative approval'had been denied to display flowers d " " ~`~"''~ '? . ~ out oors at the• kiosk :located in tne peripheral parking lot of the.Ball~Brookhurst ;`:a ,~ '~ center, on the basis that such outdoor dis la in the g p y perkin lct would not meet the ' ti~~," °~'' ~ basia purpose and intent of:the ordinance. Furthermore, a Kodak "kiosk'.' for the pick-up ~4i ~ ~~*~, ~~4 and delivery of film wes also located'in the same parking lot - however, there was no ~,~ , y 4 :~ Y ~~~, outdoor display or sales of products conducted at this facility. . .. . ~ . . ~ '' ,: v- ~': s .. . . ~ . . .. ~ . The Commission discussed at length the aforementioned proposal, summarized as follows: 51 ...,~+ k.4Kr c lr};~ I ''~ ~ L:That "outdoor" flower sales within a pedestr.ian mall or sight-of-way, or whe th f ilit i ~.~ , ; re e ac y was an ntegral part of a commercial complex,•would meet ~;~ :~ the basic purpose and intent of the C-1, General Commerciel, Zone and would ° ',,~ .~, not.pose a traffic problem and, therefore, could be administratively approved. ~ ~' `..~'l 2. .Thet "outdoor".flower sales located in the center of a parking lot of a - shopping center wn~~ld be in violation of the basic purpose and intent of ti ~~ the C-1 Zone, and furthermore, such "outdoor" uses of this nature would - oftentimes occupy 2-3 parking spaces within the center, where most centers have a bare minimum required parking'sQaces; in addition, uses of this nature ~ ~'. could pose a traffic haz~rd due to the lack of adequate vehicular and pedes- '~`' ~ ,~~ ~ trian circulation. - ' : ~` it ~ . . . ~ ~`x " 3. That regular flowes shops are required to provide for adequate:parking and .,~ Ar are not permitted any outdoor display of their goods, and to grant the pro- ~~ r~ posed request would be granting a privilege not granted other businessmen ~ y;f;-, in the C-1, General Commercial, Zone in the City of.Anaheim. ~ y t~ ,, ~}r „ 4. That public hearings should be held on an re uests for outdoor flower dis la , Y 9 P Y ~ ,~w other than those within a mall or commercial complex. ; ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ '; 'Y~"~~"~ ,+~, ~ ~~ , . . ~ . . . .. ~. :: :. ~ Y ~. /- tltN+t~~ rl , _ 5. That granting the request for "kiosks" in the parking areas of shopping centers '` ;¢,~ ~-~ would set an undesirable precedent for requests to sell foods and other ` ~ r~ + ~ , ~ ~, commodities. ~ ~' ;1~ ~ "i~ Mr. Myles H. Bader, re9ional leasing manager of "Tho'tful Stop" Flowers, Inc., i ~'~r: ,~^;?, appeared before the Commission and noted that there were already forty;in California tr~ , l `4~'~y= ' in thirty-three different cities; that of these forty, twenty-seven were in pa~King ; r, ~ lot locations, and they were welcomed in every city and center in which they opera~e; ~,~~ that the City was aware of the type of facility'tgey proposed for the Ball/Brookhurst sr center since they had already approved the Disneyland "kiosks", and the landlord had ~. r spent $500 already for an electrical connection; that their facility had a low over- i ~ '' e,+ry» head - therefore the could sell first g Y grade flowers at 30-50~ below re ular flower ' 't,:, ' z shops; and that they did not enter a center where a florist shop was already in ~ ~ . Y t existence. i ~~~ 't~ The Development Services Department staff noted that a"Tho'tful Stop" flower kiosk ~ ~ ~ ~' had been approved at the Brookhurst~Bail location, but that the plans submitted by the ~ , ~ ' petitioner did not indicate outdoor aisplay. { ' " ~~~ . . . . . , ,. . ' ' " . . . . . ,., ;;~' . . . . .. . . Further discussion was held by the Jommission regarding statements made by Mr. Bader j " s~} and the Commission's field inspection of the Ba11~Brookhurst center facility. Upon ~ ? _~% conclusion of the discussion, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the } f'. ~ : CityCouncil that: ~ r `j~;~; ~t' '' 1. Where "kiosks" of this nature are proposed to be located in a shopping mall ~ ~'~. ~ or as an integral part of a commercial complex, where they are not readily ' ,! ~~~,' visible from the street end would not,pose fraffic problems, they be granted ~ l ~~ administrative approval for minor outdoor.display and sales, subject to 1 i S ,~ approval of plans by the Development Services Department, and ,;; I ''~s 2. .Where "kiosks" of th3s nature are proposed to be located in parking lots or '` , ~ ' other external locations, where visible from the street, such outdoor seles ~ ~ should only be permitted subject to the granting of a variance for such use. ' ` ~;~~ Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ;cr;~ . ~ ~+ ~, , L~'~~ ~ - 1, ~ , ~~~~ '" `S ~ ` i~ ~ ,,~ r ' Ar~~,~ t~e ._ ,.r . - .~ _ . . ~ ~,.ww~_~ ..I f .. . _ . ... \tf~ '• , u~~ ~~ ~ ~ . .. ..t1:r~'~i~ + '~ r~7 1' 1 ~ ~ . t ~ f : : ~ ~"2J . ~~ ~ ~?~k~ ~ ~ .. ~~C R 4S n{M ~ ~'v' r ~ `~~y 1 ~j. ~y~r~ ~ 1 5~ I \/7 ~ Q ,~: \ T., ~ ~, MINUfES,.; CITY tPLANNING COMMISSION ~~} ~ ~ Y ~. ~ : ~~~ ~~ . . ~ '~ July 1,': ~1968 ' i ~ 5 ~ ~~~~ ''~ ~i , ; . 4004 ' ~-i ~ -„ - ~ ~' ~ ' - ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ' ~ ~t '#~ r " ~ hF< ,' i ADJOURNMENT There being no 'further business to.discuss, Commissioner Mungall ' Y ?'' ~`~ `' offered a motion to ad~ourn the meetin ~ g. ~• Commissioner'.Rowland ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- * ~ seconded;,+he motion MOTION CARRIED _ . y~ ~;' ,~~r~ _ ' ` ,~ ''~'~~ - The meeting adjourned at 5 17 P ~ , ~ i~ ~ t ~7 r ~ . . : Respectfu]ly submitted, . '.~ r,~ ~.~, ; ~"~ ry t ~ `; ,v~ ~x" ~~~ . s . .~. ~ ~~~3 C t k ~, ~~Z ~ j + ~ y~ l~~ _.1 4i ~~ / ~?J. ~ ~' ANN KREBS,'Secr,etary ' A'naheim City Planning Commission r ~~ a~f",~.,, ` f "'a. ~ '~~`.~~"~` ~~ ~' ~ ' _ , • _ ~~ r: ; ;:. .;' ~ ~:. ~ ~ ~ r':~~ . ~ . . ,. ~ ' . . . - . . .. . ~ . , . - ~ .. ~ ~ ' ' . . . . . . ~ . . . , . .. ~ ~. . ~ ~ ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .. ' . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . ~. . ' . ~ ' . ~ . . . . . . ~. . ~ . . .. . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . , ~ . . ~ ~ ( l I. . f ~ ~~ ~^K~~I J'i .''f I.''I . ~ .,-.. . ..,..-~' . ~ . ' . .. . . ' ~ .. . . ~ - . ~ ~ . ' . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . . ~ '. ~ . . ,.. ~ . . . ~ , . . , , ~ ... ... . . . , . , . , . . . . ~. . , . . , .. . ~ . ~ . ~ . .. . ~ . , ~ .. ~ . ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . . , . . ~ . . . . . . , ~.~:.~ ... :'. ' . . .. . '.~.~' ~ ~ . . ~ . . . ~ .~ . . . . . .' . ~ ~ . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . ~ . . ' '~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ' . ~.:. :~~~~:: . I 1 ~- i ; F. I - t ~ ~,~; . ~ ~ ~ L i.~::~ I~ , '~ .'.;, , i . ' . . . ' .. . .. . . ~ . ~ , . . . ~~ . .. .. . . ..~ . . . ~ . .~ ~~ _ . ..~' ' '~ l-,} . , ~'T'.4 , .~