Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/07/154 ya^w PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Zoning Supervisor: . Ronald I'hompson Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Stanley Herber, Pastor of the Free Methodist Church, gave the invocation. PLEIXiE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of July 1, 1968, were approved as submitted THE MINUTES on motion by Commissioner Rowland, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MCTION CARRIED. CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC'HEARINC,.. BROOKHURST SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 West Ba11 Road, PERMIT N0:.1041 Anaheim,,California, Owner,• requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT-on property`described as: An irregularly shaped parcel°of approximately 12 acres of land located north'and west of the;northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Ba11 Road, having frontages of approxi- mately 600 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and approximately 780 feet on the north side of Ba11 P,.oad, and further described as the Brookhurst Shopping Center. Property pre~ently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the requested use, the zoning established in close proximity, and the fact that there would be no service windows; however, the plans did not indicate tables or seating indoors - therefore it was assumed the only seating would be at outdoor tables or in automobiles. Furthermore, the overall plot plan for the shopping center indicated 750 parking spaces, while 660 spaces were required - there.FOre the parking appeared to be adequate, and that the petitioner was planning to provide landscaping in accordance with the G1 landscaping requirements adjacent to the proposed walk-up restaurant. Mr. Carl Lans, architect, appeared befure the Commission and stated there were proposed to be 14 seats inside the air-conditioned room of the proposed development. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARIIS: WAS CIASED. Commissioner :NungalY offered.Resolution No. PC68-206 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1041, subject to conditions. (See ResolutionlBook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cemp, Farano, Gauer, MungalT, Rowland, Allred. NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: N~ne. ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. 4005 ~~ ~ ~` ~ l"_ ~ ; ~; `': r: ~; '-.°,~",~r5. ::,~ , ~ ;.,tis :~~;. _ _ ..,. _ •;:. ~, _•: ' r`~.. ,y ~;. - ~;'~7 C~-*~..=4 ~ ~ ~ ~/ s ~ ~ ~ N n . -~ y'~~ ~A~k~ `' rt N~-~F ° - J ti 2~ a~'~.n . .. .....~_.~,...~, ii,.d~., ..:,1ti4. a. .,., .~ ~.,..~.,i .~_.e..«~,r';tnri.:~. .~'e.1~;~~.~~~,:AV~. .~"~.._. ~~~~..G~. ~.s_. : #1L~1`~a~dAF?~C~N~,....s..~4 ~"y~ w~r~"` _ .. ~ .. . .. . ~ - . ~~~~ ; ,~, . ~ .. . ~ . . ~T ~ ~~. ~: ~ ~ ~ . . - ~ . . ~ . ~ . . . . ~ +~ .. .. .. . ..~ . ~ .'.~_ . ~t~";. r MINUTES, CITY P,LAyNTNG COMMISSION, July 15, 1?68 4006 t'"~° ~ GONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINu. B 8 H PAVING 8 GRADING COMPpNY, 803 North Zeyn % PERMIT N0. 1045 Street, Anaheim,-Californie, Owner; CAROL MANNING AND GLADYS ~;,~ GLEASON, 9301.Hillview Road, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting h~";},: • permission to EXPAND AN EXISTINa SPEECH THERAPY FACILITY on property ~%~ deacribed as: A rectangularly shaped:parcel of land having a frontage of. approximately '~'. : 71,feet on the west side of Loara Stieet and a maximum depth of approximetely 131 feet, I,~:; ..' the southerly boundary of'said parcel"being approximately 395 feet north of the center- z;` ;: line of Broadway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~`-: '~~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor-Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property, the existing zoning, and the proposed request, noting that it was an expansion o£ the speech therapy facility to provide for a play area and parking facility, and that ,w.:,~ the:staff had been contacted by the Elementary School District relative to the existing grapestake fence along the boundary line and had agreed that the grapestake fence should ~~;, remain; however, if in the future difficulties arose between the two groups of students, _~ ~ a chainlink fence or masonry wall should be constructed. _~; The Commission Secretary read a letter which the agents for the petitioner had addressed .;,~ to the property owner to the north, agreeing to a masonry wall. 7<~ < < . ~~ ~ ~ , ;~; Mrs. Gladys Gleason, agent for the petitioner, indicated her presence to answer questions. .; :. ~ r ~ ~ ~ '?~' ~Fr . ; No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. r N ~ . , ~ ~" { ~ s ' ,E, ~~ THE HEARII~ WAS CIASED. Y ~ . ` ~` ' ,~~~ ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-207 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, ~ ~" c= ~. .~' ' seconded b Commissioner Rowland to Y , grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1045 ~ ^' ~' ~ ~ , subject to conditions and the requirement of a six-foot masonry wall along the north ~~ . ~J property line as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) ti E t sr'~;t~ ~~ ,Y~~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 4 tk r A ~ yk~~ ' ~'~~.~~+l~v~c. ~~ ~j ' . ~ . . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp; Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. t y ~r~ r NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ` '`~ ` ABSeNT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. x ~ R ; ~'+ 5 ~ £r~ ~~~ . . . . . ~ . . . . ~ ~ I 4{ ` ~ ~ , f4-'i ~ ~ u . ~~~,`,'';,~ . . . . . . , . . VARIANCE N0. 1998 - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM F. AND NINA SIMMONS, 639 Webster Avenue H ~ ~~Y ~;j , Anaheim, California, Owners; R. D. MILES, Box 2125, Anaheim, , ' {4' °., Californie, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING ~ ,"`;~> ' HEIGHT AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE'IWEEN BUILDINGS, TO PERMIT A 47-UNIT APARTMENT , ~r r;~., COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately ''~: ~ 2.0•acres of land consisting of two recorded lots and a poition of a third lo~c having o bi f , ~. a c m ned rontage of approximately 298 feet on the west side of Webster Avenue and a f ~„~ ~ ' maximum depth of approximately 296 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being 1 n ~ :~. approximately 500 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described ~°`, ~~~y~.; as 639-659 Webster Avenue. Pro ert p y presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. at r ~ ~:'. ; ` Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown raviewed the location of subject property, the ` `~` ' ~~ ~~ existing zoning, and the fact that a resolution of intent to establish R-3 zoning on ~~ ~; ~ " subject property already wae in existence, end~that the petitioner was requesting _ , ~ ~y waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of,R-1 property located on ~^~ the east side.~:f.Webster Avenue within 75 feet; furthermore, that revised plans had ~ ~'~ ,~~ k been submitted subsequent to the legal notice, which indicated the proposed establish- " ~,~I l vra ~~+E, S"'r '~ M ment of a 47-unit, two-story apartment development. `; ~'r ' ~ ~ ; ~ l°' ~~~~ M D , a ~ r~~ r. R. . Miles a ent for the etitioner a ~ 9 p , ppeared before the Commission and stated ~ w ' ,. ~' that unlike Variance.No. 1987 requested at the previous Planning Commission meeting ' ~ ~s~ ~,` , wherein the petitioner wanted equivalent land credit for underground parking, subjrct u~j~ , w~ ' petition requested no more than what was permitted under the most recent interpretation ' ~i ~~ ,,,. '~ - . of Resolution 64R-200; that Mn Roberts, formerly of the Zoning staff, advised that in ~~w . ,~~~ ~ accordance with the July, 1967 City Council interpretation, the density of Webster ~, } ~~A ~ Avenue would be established as 18 units per lot; that in paragraph 6 of the Report to the C mi + on t z K ,~,,yp~? om ss , , he statement made that 18 units per each existing parcel was allowed, ,`~ ~~` i ~~£ t~~~,;: a~~as~s'r and in paragraph 4 of the Report to the Commission, it stated that the etition involved. P ~ - I~µ ~ I ' ' ~ l ~ }~tl~ lots 2 however, when Mr. Roberts was contacted lest May, he indicated 45 units would ft ~ ~r , ,IF, be allowed on subject property. ~ ~14 ~~ ~ ~ YT'.+ . ~ ' . '. . . . . . t~~ ~~ ~~R Mr. f~liles noted that although the plans submitted indicated 47 units, this did not ~~ ~ ~.~e~.~,'.~ ` materially affect the present density level since it was less than one apartment unit ' * sa , { {~ Y~ ~ per lot more•, that the problem involved was in the ability to achieve a density of 45 „ ~ f ~ ,, ~Vi . . .:v~,~;.a, ! i ; ~ ! I ~ ~': ~ i ~. , '~ /^' :~;~ ~ "' ~f~~w i.~.u. *4~~ . , R,,. ~~F^~~~Y'Cl T ~ ~Y ~yT",~/~v ~~ i? 2f` L : ,k ~.~ 'x ,' 1<~{ Yj ~F`.Tl L t }f~ ~'~4 eb J, Y+ 5 ~? 1 ( , 1'1 ~ -~ {~ ~' t t S { F 41S ~' . ~~. '~ ~ ~~L'' Y ', .•~ I ( .., y.:.. . .. . -~~' v, 1 ~ ~ ~ "t ~r ; . . . t,~ ~.. ~~~..:~ { ~ ' f r ~ ~ r - ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ' . ,~ !~~' 4"; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968 4007 ~. . . . F1kt . ,~{~ , 4 i'~ ~ VARIANCE N0. 1998 -.and have an economically sound development; that it was important ~ .~ ~ (Continued) to have an attractive development; that the development must have a °s' ~`~,~ '~ .functional design; that the plans submitted indicate 75 cars could S`~~""~~ A ` . be accommodated by the proposed development, which was approximately 25% th h µ ~ i y; ' more an t at required by the Code; that the plans indicate tasteful landscaping ., ry areas - however, the concept could not be.complete without the variance described in I k~~~z,5,, ;~ ~ ~ paragraph 2 of the Report to the Commission; furthermore, he wished to indicate that y, ... ' ~de~~ rte i ~ . the actual distance between the proposed development and the existing, single-family ' ,~~~.~y,: ~ homes was 102 feet between buildings and measured between the setback line, and that ,~t ~ ~ ,~ subject property would be developed as single-story construction adjacent to the westerly ` +>:- •~ , ~~,:,:. c' ~ portion of. subject. property; that he placed a great deal of value on the esthetics of ~ "'? ~~~ 7 their develo ments and believeci in o en s aces in apartment complexes; that the were ~ p P p Y p~~ ,~, not asking for any special treatment - only asking for the Commission's help in making .~,, ~.~ `r m ~E ., ~ Webster Avenue the prettiest street in West Anaheim; and that in a milar instance, where an apartment site was affectEd on both sides b sin le-f il~ i ~~ ~! M1 ~`~ y g am • .es dences, the Cit C il h d , ~ `'~Y y ounc a approved a variance to the maximum building height requirement on one ~ { :~ ~'` ` ', side.where the actual distance between structures was approximately 100 feet - this was ~ . *~ ~ at the time Variance No. 154.3 was granted, and this property was located two blocks west of Webster Avenue on Velare Street (waiver of the one-story height limitation was granted ~ ~~ ~ ~ adjacent to R-A.property, but was not waivred adjacent to R-1 property). The Commission.inquired as to the petitioner's reasonin9 for requesting waiver of the E one-story height limitation from the R-1 property to the east, since redesign of the s ~ project could place the two-story structures 150 feet from either the west or the east ! ~' `~' R-1 properties. ~ 1 -;#;' Mr. Miles, in response to Commissian questioning, stated that this was true - that two- :~~v~ story could be.developed in this way - however, it was their desire to have a develop- `. r :..~, ment that would be esthetically more attractive than where it would be "chopped up"; that th h d `* ey a conducted a study of design for this area, and all plans indicated that I Y the proposed development was the only one which could achieve the esthetics desired a `;^~ and still be economically feasible; that they were attempting to develop the property ~ ~,;a in a similar manner as their original development on the east side of Webster Avenue ~ ~ j , with lar e o en,courts to Pther with man ~ 9 P , 9• y private patios, and if the Commission req~:ired ~k~ ~ ~1^i the petitioner to develop with two-story in the center of the development, this would not ~~~ 4 ~~~ ~ ~ i~4 t i be functional in design - or attractive. j . . ~. . . ~ . ~ ~ .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~P ~ r , r ~ t ~',{ ~l ~ i}tiJ hj`'_~ ~ . .. ~ . . . . . ~. . The Commi~ssion then~.inquired.as~.to the number.of units.that would~be lost if~subjec~t ~ y ; : '~~ property were.develo~ed under the R-3 site ~3evelopment standards; whereupon Mr. Miles ~ A, r ~; stated that this might be ~ccomplished if all one-bedroom units were proposed - however ~ t ~:k~ ,, ; . ~ ~ , it was their i.ntent tu have only one-bedroom, but larger, apartments which would be ~ lu , ~, ~ , j~ xury-type d~ielling units a^u would attract a better clientele. i •. r ` • i ~;;~' The Commission thpn advised the agent that the Commission had never granted a waiver of ~ ; r'` the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 property, and to approve subject ;:! petition would be granting a privilege not granted other pr,operties in this area, and x although the plan of development was acceptable and the existing development had greatly , ;,~. improved ti~e street, the increase in traffic was a major consideration. I'he Commission further inquired whether or not the agent.in previous statements had indicated he would not be able to design architecturally a complex using all site devel- opment standards,such as one-story within 150 feet of R-l,because it interfered with the design. The agent stated that they had exp.lored different design approaches, and it was deter- mined that in order to achieve an esthetic, functional design within the complex - not just architecturally, but economically end functionally - the waiver of.the one-story height limitation was necessar; to allow ior adequate parking; that the Commission was aware this design had a good parking design and traffic flow, and part of this was deducted from the gross acreage; furthermore, the request at the last public hearing • was for equivalent land for undargro : parking - which was not being requested at this time. Zoning Supervtsar Ronald Thompson advised Mr. Miles that all R-3 developments had the , accessways dreciucted from the total acreage; therefore, subject petltion was not being ~ penalized bFCause of this requirement, since this was a standard site development requiiement. Mr. Richard Hart, 640 South Webster Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and presented a pstition signed by ten~of the seventeen R-1 property owners in the tract affected by the waiver of the one-story height limitation, all in opposition, and noted '. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 4~. !- :.: ~~ ~ ~,,~~, ---~ - ~-~~,~,~'j~ ~, ~ ~_ : ~ ..~~{ 9 ~1 ~,:i 1 ~ . , .. . . .;S ~2 o w ~ !5. ~ - f, _t~y `~, r, ! . . ~ . . ~ ' . ~ ~ Yti~.i ~d r l~ ~'~~'~ ~'~ „~, MINUfES; CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION, July.'15, 1968 4008 ,.~ `~~r r~~ ` ~ , i~ ~.~4ke;,, ~~; VARIANCE N0. 1998 -,thet the,other property owners were on vacation; that at the time • '~'usa~'~ ~~', (Continued) the City Couricil 'had approved 'R-3 for the Webster Avenue x'~ ~ ;, ~ ~ s~-:~ ; properties ,~ ~N.;;" t,-~ 1• it was determined that' a maximum of 1;100 persons i.n. 450 dwelling -- ::~~ sk,;,.."+*}~°*c. ' units would be allowed, and by approving subject petition, this ;-'S ~d;,~,~,~~-~~ . would set a precedent which could increase the density to 2,200 persons in 850 units; A~ t~~,~,~s` ~~.`~ .; that the width of the street could not handle all this traffic since presently the only ~?:~ F'~-sr,!Y~'>~'s~[ I 32=foot helf=width was adjacent to the R-l tract, and the-balance of the street still '''~'~ ~'~' > was a blackto ~"~ ~t~.''~~t ,~, pped, 24~-foot, half-width street; i:hat if automobile trips calculated ~ zr',~~~~~; .' by the Traffic Department were used, this would mean 5,634 trips for the apartments ~~'~ ,r~ ,ir ,a~,~ and only 87 for'the R-l homes; that the increase in density would affect the schools ;;;~ ' f-~'r :i'~ ~~~ and.parks in the..area; and that although no factual study had been made, the decrease ;,~ -~•~ in value of the, present R-l homes would be approximately $3,000`each, which none of ~°a~ y: ;~.; the property owners could afford - therefore, he requested the Commission to deny t~~~ ~~• ,~,r.`,' subject petition fos increase in density and the height waiver. :;~ I y ~'~' ~~ '~ Mr. Clifford Swallow 644 South Webster Avenue a -'~4' .~~t~ : ~a ~ , ppeared before the Commission and noted ~` ° that he had.resided on this street since 1950 and inquired that if subject petition were ~ ~.;;;~ approved, could a condition be made that all parking be off-street only since most of °~' ~,~ the apartment residents were parking along the curb. ~ ,~^'~ Mr. Thompson noted this was the case through~ut the city where apartment dwellers lived - ~'' °~ ;' many felt that on-street parking was more convenient. ~Y J `'? Mr. Swallow then inquired whether the curb could be painted so that no parking would be a '~~ permitted; whereupon Mr. Thompson replied in the negative. ~? .~ ~_ t~ Mr. Manuel Mendez, architect, 2556 Rowland Avenue, appeared before the Commission and " y { '~s~ stated he was speaking in defense of the City ordinance relative to R-3 requirements; • xt ;~ that he was familiar with all of these requirements, having designed apartments in the ~~~ ~" ~.~ ~, city; that the petitioner had not presented substantial evidence to indicate a hardship - tr~ ;~~ existed - other than economics - tha± he was desirous of constructing as many units as n ~4 possible; that,the requested waiver of minimum distance between buildings would discourage ~ ~` <'~ privacy which apartments needed and which~was afforded the single-family homeowner, and ~s ~~t'?~~~ even if this could be justified, the density factor of 28 uni,ts per net acre could not be ~ ~~' y~.~'~ justified; that whenever he designed apartment developments, he would always maintain ' i 5yi ~`~'~- ~`~~ ' Code requirements since it was his fezling the esthetics of design were important in ,~ ~"xe? Pr`,vacy and open air facilities; and that to grant subject petition would be granting ~'~~' ~?; ~'~~~~:r„ a~privilege not afforded other developments in the city. Therefore, he urged the Y M ~~ r~ ; ;K~ ~,~j Commission to.deny subject petitiqn. ~dG ~"~~ ~ K ~,,~1 y' ~y, ~ Mr. Wendell'Moen, 2451 Clearbrook Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition, ~ ~~ ~~,p~ noting that he lived on the cul-de-sac street off Webster Avenue; that he was concerned ~ '~;~ with the lack of sidewalks-with the increase in traffic, the children would be placed +"~';~ in jeopardy because they would. have to walk in the street. ' ~ t~ 4 t ', r~~~ Mr. Miles, in rebuttal, stated that these same comments had been presented at the last i ~ ~'~~ public hearing for the Dean property, but he could understand Mr. Mendez's interest in i this particular petition since he was not a resident of the street, and that he wanted ~ '~,~ to assure the single-family homeowners that sub3ect property would be developed with ~~~ t;;'~ sidewalks, and the sooner the entire street was developed, the safer Webster Avenue r: would be for all children. ~r ~'~~ ~°g THE HEARING WAS CIASED. }~tr °~;?:%~ ~. , _ ~ Y~; The Commission noted that opposition presented by Mr. Mendez was permissible since any , ~~ ~;;~ individual in the City of Anaheim had a right to present opposition to any development, f, t'~„I and the architect who dealt with the City's ordinance had a right to present his opposi- ~+~,*~`'~I tion since he was also involved in designing for Anaheim. r -i~~I ~'~,J~'~~ The Commission further noted that under Council policy for the Webster Avenue properties, ~ ~~'t{,~,r„'~ subject property could cnly be developed with 36 dwelling units. ~ i ` ` ~ ^ r~~ : z x~ Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the density proposed, , ti` }~ ~°'~M~~,?i the building setbacke, and the one-story height limitation waiver, it being the opinion ' t,, s~~,,~ of the Commission that no evidence had been submitted that subject property had unusual ` i~~', ~~ ~~^f3~~ circumstances which prohibited developing in accordance with the requirements of the ' ,< < ~, resolution of, ir~tent, and since there were no adequate showings, the petition should be ~'`~ ; ~,~~,,~, denied; that accoxding to the comments made by the petitioner, it was his understanding r'~, ",~.~ that a~i waivers requns,ted must be granted or denied, rati :han granting the petition ',•' ~~`""~.i "in part"; and that a third wzi:rar xelative to density h~ ~, ~ been advertised, and no ~ '' ~~*~: evidence was submitted this wa~ necessary. ~ F r''~':,;y~ .. , ; , ~ ~ ~~; t ~~ F ~ ~ ~~~ i , ;t;y r~~~ ~', , ~;,~y~ t ~, '~ ~ '~~ l ~I~~p . t n, /~'~ :_.~ ~k ML Y fi q ~"~u - ~ ~i ~ 3yN~,'~:.t.s.:,. 3 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ n r ~y ry'+ ~~ y ~ kz/r r t I . y ry tr 't* _ ' } ` ~ . ' ~ , .~.Jt r ~ . ~5~y 1 1 . ^^~ i ~~~i~„`TF..~'~~~.` ~ ~ ~~ ~~r k rs v r ' .a§ ~ ;~{~ .. ,~~ms4:~~ ~i.. _ '~_ r. e~3~:t, . . ~, ~ , ..... , C u.i~: . , .,. , . . . , . . . . , . ? r . . ,. .. x ~ ...~~.k~ 5. . . .. . _ .. . r~' _ ;.,-----=--~-~ ; ~ .~:~ '~ ~s ~ ~ '' MINUTE8,:CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968. 4009 ? . • VARIANCE'N0. 1998.- Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that a condition of approval of (Continued) the Webster Avenue.properties in Resolution No.'64R-200 specified ` the density, and if the Commiasion denied the maximum building height, the density would lose about 9 units, and would fall more in line with tha density approved for net acreage, per parcel, or.site. The Cortuniesi'on then noted that ~the slides presented by the petitioner-had indicated one of the parcels deveToped on Webster Avenue had developed in accord~nce with the 18 units per net scre, which was in line with the original ordinance, and if the waiver of the one-story height limitation were denied, this would mean only the waiver of the distance between~buildinqs and 'inquired what the change in percenta9e would be, since their calcu- lation.indicated +.he density would be 25% more than that permitted. Mr. Thompson then noted that five pro~ects on Webster Avenue had been considered by the Planning Commission and City Council: the first two were approved for less than 18 dwelling units per net acre, and the others were approved under a more liberal interpre- tation - that being 18 dwelling units per site or 26 per net ecre, and if these were to be built eliminating the height waiver request, this would permit 38 dwelling units on the site, or approximately 23 units pex net acre, which would be more in line with the other three which had been approved under the more liberal interpretation of this resolution. Mr. Thompson further noted that a specific condition of approval of the reclassification ' by the City Councii specified the number of units, and this ca~uld not be interpreted as I a standard R-3 requirement sfnc~ this was a unique R-3 resolution, and that under this I specific variance,approval of these plans would constitute a recommendation of approval on this Narticular basis, even though the request for waiver of the density was not asked for. Commissioner.Farano offered a motion to deny subjeci, petition on the basis that insuffi- ! cient evidence had been presented to warrant consideration of waiver of the one-story height limitation. Further discussion was held by the Commission, in which Mr. Camp was of the opinion that waiver of the building separation was in_order; however, one-story height limitation should be'denied. Whereupon, Commissioner Farano stated it was his understanding from the.petitioner's request that the variance request was indivisible as far as he could see, and sequssted,clarification from Mr. Miles. ' Mr. Miles then advised the Commission that it was his desire to have the variance approved in total, without being considered in part. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-208 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1998 on the basis that the petitioner requested consideration of the variance petition in its entirety rather than the Commission considering only a portion of the waivers, since the development plans were predicated on development with the requested waivers, and that the petitioner could obtain a reasonable density on subject property under the existing R-3 site development standards, and granting a waiver for two-story apartments within 75 feet.of R-1 zoned property would be granting the petitioner a.privilege rather than alleviating a hardship. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Fara^o: Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTe COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. CONDITIONAL USE .- PUBLIC HEARIN;,. MOSABURA NAKAMURA, 2576 West Rowland Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 1047 California, Owner; ROBERT F. REID, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to REPLACE AN ' EXISTII~ SILLBOARD, WII'H WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISPLAY AREA ~ on property described ase A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 163 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi- mately,122 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 165 feet north ' of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified G2, GENERAL CONLMER- CIAL, ZONE. , Assistant Zoning ~ppe.rvisor Pat Brown reviewed the lucation of subjec< property and the proposed request, noting that subje~t and the three subsequent conditional use permit petition requests vaere the same in that waiver of the maximum billboard display area - -- was being requested, and that the Report to the Commission encompassed the same findings ' ~ ', ;. ~' ~~: ~an:~ _.cY~~-~ ~.~ . ~.,...P... ~i .... ,~~i.. ..1 . _.. . ... .r . ,. .:.rR~r...,...~i!EG.. ..._._., i..i.~'~i:~~l'~"~..~?,S~AY~`~f...~.,_w,.. r~.G.:~..:~Li~ PT 7"A '~~ c r. ~ r9 .~i Y'~ h, ~. 4. 7 ~ afN.~~IF"~J C,£ t". h ,~il, ~} t ~:{ ~ . : Y .J' . . .~~.: . ,:- : ~.. .,a.'.,. J .~^ ~ , i ... s . . .. . 1 ,j'v _ . .. . ~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ . . _ _' . fi .. ~~.: ~ . ~ . ~ . .. . . ~ . y ^ . '. W ;'! MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968 • 4010 ,• CONDITIONAL USE - regarding these requests; therefore, he would comment only on the PERMIT N0. 1047 f3rst petition and review the location of the balance of the (Continued) petitions. z,.,; ; ~: Mr. Brown then reviewed the Report to .the Commission regarding ~,he fact that the City of Anaheim historicall~y had shown interest in the attractiveness of the community by the adoption of a perkway tree ~T~gram; establishmeni: of industrial development standards ~~ for screen-covered storage and liberal landscaped setbacks; masonry walls separating R-1 '` developments from arterial highways; site development standards for service stations, etc.; that the Billboard Ordinance recognized that larger billboards might be considered ~ in locations where it appeared t,hey did not harm the appearance or investment potential of the surrounding area - however, they could not be constructed as a matter of right. A„-~~;~~"~ Therefore, the conditional use permit piacedure was necessary for truly unique situations. ~~:~% Furthermore a ~ , pproval of these four billboard requests would establish a precedent for similar requests of the remaining 49 billboards in the City having a display area two and one-half times the present permitted~display area, and that the petitioner's representa- ,~j tive had erected the majority of these billboards, while removing only 17 along the freeways in the City of Anaheim. ~~ Mr. Robert Reid, representing the Foster 8 Kleiser Cor oration a '~~ Commission and noted that the Report to the Commissionpdid cover theabasiceissueshof subject and subsequent petitions for billboard waivers - however, the reason for request- ' ing the waiver of the billboard size was because all hand-painted signs originally .si? located along the £reeway within the City of Anaheim were removed, leaving the City ? without this type of billboard, and these billboards were panels hand-painted in a shop, ~:z; said panels being rotated from area to area; that although most billboards were 672 °~~ square feet, because of projections above the border, the size then became larger; and ,~o,~ then Mr. Reid submitted samples of the proposed billboard copy to the Commission for >'>~r:~ review. The Commission noted that existing 300-square foot billboards along arterial streets in Anaheim were quite visible to the tourist visiting the City where the speed of the auto- mobile was reduced to 35 miles per hour or less; that the ordinance also required that the petitioner present showings as evidence to justify this waiver of the ordinance; tt,at if subject petition were granted, this would set a pattern or precedent for requests for the balance of the billboards throughout the City, requesting an increase in size; thet no evidence was submitted to grant favorable considerati.on of billboards more than twice,the size permitted under the ordinance; and that the property owners and commer- cial facil:ties adjacent to these billboards should be afforded protection of their imiestments irom the encroachment of excessively large billboards. Furthermore, when the sign and biilboar~ ordinances were written, all representatives of the various companies were present at.the work sessions to offer their recommendations; therefore, there was no reason to con~ider these petitions favorably. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Gauer.offered Resolution No. PC68-209 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1047 on the basis that approval of the proposed size of the billboard would establish an undesir- able precedent for similar requests for the remaining 49 billboards throughout the City; that this si;e sign was not an asset to the City where attractiveness had been practiced for some time, and that the petitioner had not submitted-evidence to substantiate a hard- ship existed if subject waiver of the display area size were not permitted; and that the petitioner was proposing an increase of more than 2~ times the existing size permitted by right. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ,.~ n. ^ '~ 'E: ,. . +.. . , , r• +;; .. _ - - ; ~ ~ ~ MINUTES;CITY PLANNIN3 COMMISSIC~N, July 15, 1968 4011 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. I~WARD p, (i~USE, 2122 West 3rd Street, Los Angeles, PERMIT N0. 1049. -California, Owner; ROBERT F. REID, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, - Los Angeles;~California; Agent; requesting permission to REPLACE AN EXISTING BILLBOARD,:WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISPLAY , AREA AND (2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT on property described as: An °L" shaped parcel of approximatel.y 2.56,ecres of l~nd'having frontages'of approximately 153 feet on the . east side.of Magnolia.Avenue and approximately 316 feet.on the north side of Broadway, said parcel being located north and east of a parcel located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and:Broadway. Property presently classified C-1, GENERP,L COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ Assistant Zoning.Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the request for waiversof ineximum permitted display area and ma;{imum height~ noting that the petitioner was proposing a 34-foot high structure within 75 feet of a residential struc- ture, while only 27 feet was permitted within 300 feet of a residential structure, and further noting that the comments made on the previous petition were also applicable to sub3ect petition. _ :";~: Mr. Robert Reid indicated his presence, noting that his previous comments would suffice ,. ~ for subject petition. ` 2 ~ ti~:-n ~F.~, i r_ ?Y . No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. . J~ ~ 'i'.~ I'HE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ i~" ,~~ ~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-210 and moved for its passage and r;;. ;i adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit rx : No. 1049 on the basis that approval of the proposed size of the billboard would establish ~.: s~ ; " an undesirable precedent for similar requests for the remaining 49 billboards throughout ~~ ,i; T s the City; that this size sign was not an asset to the City where attractiveness had been ~r ~2~ practic2d for,.some time, and that the petitioner had not submitted evidence to substantiate ~~ ~.. ~n '~ a hardship existed if subject waiver of the display area size were not permitted; that the petitioner was proposing an increase of more than 2~ times the existing size permitted `5~t~y ' ~ by right; and.that the height of the sign would be detrimental to the residential integrity ., ~ .~r which it would affect. (See Resolution Book) 1 ~ ..ti• C. ,k } ~, ~ .i{~; On roll call the foregoing resolution was.passed by the following vote: d R ' ' A ~ :;, ~~ _ '~"~ ~~` r~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. ' ~ ~t " t NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. rt a ~ 4 : ",IYn..1J~.`~.tb. A~g~: pp-~ISSIONERS: Herbst. . . . . . . ' ~,~r'`~~'` OONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HENRY WAGNER, 975 South State College Boulevard, `'' ~, ;;~ ' PERMIT NO. 10~16 Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERI' P. REID, 1550 West Washington ~ ~:'%~ ~ Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to ~~~~'~ REPLACE AN EXISTING BILLBOARD, WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED a~; Y'` ~ DISPLAY AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 13.43 ~;~, "" "`' acres of land located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and State College ~ i'~,;. Boulevard and havin fronta es of a y 9 9 pproximatel 948 feet on the south side of Ball Road „ h,^ , ;~ and approximately 630 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard. Property ,;;;y presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. f '~a ~€ +' ;~s Assistent Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub ect ro ert and J P P Y a ,~ the proposed request, noting that the adjoining land uses were industrial with the `4~ ,~.~ exception of the northeast corner, where a shopping center was developed, and.that the ~, ~ ,~x staff s comment were similar to the two previous billboard petitions. L ~~ ,' ~l~ ti~~ . ~ . . ~ . ~ . . . . ~, ~; ;~ ` Mr. Robert Reid., agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence, noting that comments rk ~ %?~1? ~ made~at~the.~first~billboard~~consideration were applicable to subject petition. , `. ~ . ~ ~'~tir ;~r+.~~" ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ k ` ~ ~t7.`y ~ ~ . . . . . ~ . . ~ ,~, ( y~~ ! ;;;~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-211 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner htungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1046 on the basis that approval of the proposed size of the billboard would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests for the remaining 49 billboards throughout the City; that this size sign was not an asset to the City where attractiveness had been practiced for some time, and that the petitioner had ~iot submitted evidence to substantiate a hardship existed if subject waiver of the display area size were not permitted; and that the petitioner was proposing an increase of more than 2~ times the existing size permit~ed by right. (See Resolution Book) :~ 1: ~ '~ "~: , ;' ~ ~} :~ .:r:+ n .:ct, ~l o,~.l~':~: < i; r_ ~' ~ ~ ~' <.MINUTES, CIFY~~PLANIyIN; CpMMISSION, July 15, 1968 q012 ~CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the'foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following PERMIT N0. 1046. vote: _ ,; I (Continued). 'AYES: CO;~ivfISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES:~ GOMMISSIONERS: 'None. . ~ ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: Herbst. OONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING: ANAHEIM UNION WATER OOMPANY, 303 East Lincoln PERMIT`N0. 1048. Avenue,.Anaheim, Californie, Owner; ROBERT F. REID, 1550 West VJashington Boulevard, Los Angeles,'California, Agent; requesting - permission to REPLACE AN EXISTING BILLBOARD, WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISpLAY. AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a-frontage of approximately 168 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard end a maximum depth of approximately 154 feet, t~ne northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 208 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, Z~NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property,. the existing zoning, and the proposad request, noting that subject property was bounded on the west by industrial uses in the City of Fullerton and the Oiange County Flood Control District to the east and south, and that comments made in previous petitions relative to the requested billboard size were also reflected in the Report to the Commission. Mr. Robert Reid, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence, noting he had nu additional comments to make. No one appeared in opposition to snbject p~tition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission noted that the location of the proposed sign came nearer meeting the criteria of justification for a larger sign because of its location to the Flood Control`channel ar.~ surrounding industrial`properties; however, granting this request would then establish a'precedent fer modification of tne ~ther-bi2,Iboards throughout the City:of P.naheim. Commissioner Camp offered Resolut•ion No. PC68-212 and,moved for ii:s ~assage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Uee Permit No. 1048 on the basis that approval of the proposed size of the billboard would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests for the rema~ning 49 billboards throughout the City; that this size sign was not an asset to the Ctty where attrectiveness had been practiced for some time, and that the petitioner had not submitted evidence to substan- tiate.a hardship existed if subject wai;rer of the display area size were not pprmitted; and that the petitioner was proposing an increase of more than 2~ times the existing size permitted by right. (See Resolution Book) On ro1T ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the followir.g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allrrd. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSI01ilERSs Herbst. CONDITIOIdaL''`175f :="PUBL•IG"HEARING. M. S. BERNARD~, b?5 Wrst 8th Street, Santa Ana, PERMIT' NO: T038 Cal'ifornia, Owner; requesting oermission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE 'EDUCATIOR'AL GIIIDANCE FRCILTIY IN AbI EXISTING RESIAENTIAL STRUCTURE, -. "W=1Ti~'~PRTVEA"QF THE'~FtEQUIREII"MASONRY' WA•LL on property d~scribed as: A rectangularly`shaped'parrc~l""of approxima~ely :T"acr2's'~'of'"land traving a:rontage of ..._ _. . ._.._ . approximat~Ty-85"f~~t~'on thC°riorth'sid~'of'Ball'Road'and a maximum d~pth of epp'rozimately 343 feet, the ~vesterly bounclary,of said parcel being approximat~ly 265 fC~t rast of the centerline of'Knott Street, and further described as 3435 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GEMERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sunject property, tht us~s ~stablish~d in c1osC proximity, and the proposed request, noting that separation of residential uses from commercial uses required a six-foot masonry wall, wher.eas the petitioner was proposing to utilize the existina wood fence;that screen landscaping was required abutting automobile parking areas where adjacent to residential zones - however, ~ -t~ s t f c r . 'r' ,~Y~. ~y,". c ~. n r ~r'Z` d t ~~ r t '" C ~~ fl' ~~y j ~- i ti~ t l ~S ~+„y i , e -~r :: "''t5 r~. ~~ ~ ~l~ i t`~' /' Y C ~ ~ { ~. Gd ~ ' ~ r - ~.L? ' 1 E' s fl ^ ~5'~,w '~', '~"' '. A r y ~ , ~ ~ ~. 5 x y,k ~ y; ~. 1> fr .. „~~.. ~d'y k"uPr~ {, ,~[ . ~ :,~~~ ,. ~ r ~. - ~ ~ ~ ~ . wr? - . , . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . .. .. . .. ~ ~ .. \ ~ ~, ~ . . . ' M3NUTES, CITY PLANNING'COMMISSION, July 15,.1968 ~ 4013 ~ _~'~ , f : . , CONDITIONAL'USE' -'the petitionei was not proposing any lan3scaping; and *,hat the ,,; ? PERMIT,NO'. 103£~: parking area was not surfaced sin~e.there was existing gravel and ~ '`i (Continued) dirt. Furthermore, the City Council had approved r~classification of subject , ,,;j property .from the R-A to the C-1 Zone in August, 1967, j •'~' ancl at that time the petitioner had indicated the property would be " ~`-'~ used to provide for f~ture exp~~sion of the existir,g medical r,enter to t1::~ west; that I subject property was presentla deve~opzd with a sir.gle-family residsryial structvre and ~ A F being utilized as .an educational,guidanaa service facility for the educationally handi- °~ capped; and that the use was terminated at the request of the Development Services 'a;: Depart:~~2nt code enforcEment section.since such a use required approval of a conditional 5`"~~. use permit. ,~s +"~~ ~ ~ Mr: Brown th~n noted that the petitioner proposed to utilize the ;r.isting home a;s~T ~ti~ ' ~ gai•aga as classroom facilitics to cor.~uct educational therapy ana te~"tiny a~x~ educatio l na "'':''`~ ~.;; =4 gu:idance and psychologic2l te~,ting fo:r a maximum of 25 educationally iisnd:tcapped children '~; ~.. . ~ between the ages of S and 15 years, and a maximum of 7 teachers wrou7~: be ~tilized to - "~ provide the trainang. Furtherr~ore, the owner c,f the property had i:~~icat~a~1 to the staff that the proposed use wauld be on an i,~teris:i ;,~,sis for a period of si~ to tw~~lve months F since he planned to car,ry througk; his oriyinal proposal of ~.~.ing subje~t property for ~~ the expansion of the exiating medical c,nter to the wesw, and thai sinc~ '>his was to be an interim use of the property, neit::e.r, lie nor the opera.tor of the school was desirous ' of expending a great deal of funds for improvement of the e:risting facility - for that ;;:; reason the requested waivers were required to be .a;~proved. , U~ Mr. R. D. Miles, 80~, South Webster Avenue, appeared before 'the Commission, noting 'that ' he had been requested by the petitioner to rep:esent him since ie was in court, and ' ;< then read a letter from Dr: Sidney J. Adler, M.D., emphasizing the need for the proposed ~ ~ educational guidence facility since the majority of the children had haen referred to ~ ~i ''? the school by him for specific reasons, because of public school aeademic ~anderachieve- °}~.=;` .:~" ment or disordered behavior, and that thr proposed facility, if requir:ed tu cease, would ~ }` ~ jeopard-ize the future of these~ children, and in some instances, the resul~s could be j '!j;: catastrophic. A ~rochure of the purpose and intent of the schocZ was suk.~itted to the f rt.~~ Commission f~r ttieir perusal. a, ;'~~ y;,~. ~~~ ~a Mrs. Barbara Sterling, Executive Director of Educational Guidance Services, appeared ~ ;°,~t ~ ;, before the Commission and stated the guidarce facility was begun because many of the ~~` = ~~r~Rre children'were unable to`leara in public schools; that they were one step beyond even r~_. ~ ~ the lowest test provided for excepiianal children in school, ar~d the pr~posed use of ~ , ~ ~ ~` subjtct pzoperty would be an interim facility because additional spaca wac needed, and ~ ~ F ,~ ny;r~ until the r p~oper plac e was roiand, it ,was their desire to wse sub~ect prapErty for the r ?,. ' proposed facility. j ; ;~ j ,,~~? Mrs. AvQry Reeve, San Clemente, appeared before the C~m~ission in favor of sub3ect ( ~?;,~ petition, noting i:nat she had a son in ine school, and the ,rpgrara provided by this ! ~°~ ~: `:;~ facility had done a great deal for him. !'.;ti f.e{ Mrs, Reeve then noted that subject p:-~,~er;,y had an apartment develop~i~eni: to the east r;~ ` and a medical office to the west, and that the office of the school was approximately , :;n~ 40 to 50 feet from the street, with a larye, outdoor area for recreational purposes, ;~ and it was her opinion the proposed use would not be detrimental to the adjoir.ing properties. , "';~ ~ Mrs. Claude Yates, Long Beach, appeared before the Cc~mmiss3on ~n favor of sub~ect ;;~ petition, noting that she made two trips a day to bring her child to this facilit ,~~ '~'; y, and the program had encouraged her child to develop her talents to her ability. ,;, Furthermore, Mrs. Sterling had done an outstanding ~oi~, and schools of this type should ~~~ be considered favorably by any city because of the nature <>; their educational programs :~~ since this would remove children from being a burden to thE~ state and the County. q.p, ~"~~ i~ ~~' Mr. Fred Smith, Long Beach, appeared before the Comm:,~iion in favor of ~subject petition a d t d h n sta e t at if more schools of this type were provided for the exceptional children, +;~R ~ there would be less problems with children these days; tha~ this E~h~ol provided the r;= `% .:nildren with an opportunity to become average children aga?n, rather.than being shuntedy ~~ and that to his knowledge, there was no other place in the area where this opportunity .,~; was granted.to children with these problemsa ~ i ~(~i:l,,] ~i . . ;~,,, Mrsa Sterling again appeared before the Commission and noted that Mr. Smith also had ~~N a son fifteen years of age, in the school for the past year, and they had been able to ;:~ provide some training for him through the staff, and it was her.hope they would be ab:[e ;,t,;« to utilize sub~ect property until a larger facility was foundo ~c.% ~ ~ ti No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione ~ - `.:,' I'HE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~:~;~ ~ ~~E ~ 1 ~ t ~ ~ j~ I' ~-+~+ ' A .,. ~ -: t ~g~! t ~ ~ r~l .~' 1 Fy _ ...~ t~ r1' +':~c.n.F~i~ . H'4'~t "~ -'- ' s. ' ~. • ~~ ~ ~ a~n ~~ ~,,~i , ',+ ~s~-_ir , 5 ~ .y t ~ ~~ ~ ~;l p ~~~ i+ Y~.w.n . i. ~v,l~.i~,~ 1_. Ji. { . ~.. ...{. T:,....~ ut.'~I. .. . ~~ .. . . . . l,~ .. ,.. . , . . .. ~ , . yt 4 4.~~ %'~ .. ~ .. ... . -_~ . ;.~ . ... .. .~.~ ~ . ~ - . .. .. ..._:~;:;. ~\ ` t y . `~ ' . . . . . ' ~,.: ~ . ~~ . .. . . . . . ~=+~ . . . ' . . . ~ . ~ . . ~ ':: ~ ~IINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMNIISSION ~ ,~~1~,:15,.7968 .. 4014 ,~ ,~ " . " ' ' ~ CONDITIOK4~ USE -",ommissione•r Gauer.offered Re.so;ution Noe PCoB-213 and moved for r PERMIT N0:.~1938 7ts'paesage."and adoption, secQnde3 by Commissioner Cam to p, grant ~ (Continued) Petition for Conditional llse Fermii ,Vo. 1038 for a period of one ,~*'T~, `~ year, waiving.the ivall requirement along the north property line, ~,,,~~ . ' `~ and if an additi'onal ~ne-year extension of time:were requested, ~ ~ ~ St~Jb . Y1J the wall'would h . ~. ave to be constructedo (5ee. Resolutf.on 13ook) . . ~ . . . y ) 1 1 7 ~ . . .. . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~.. ~ .~ . '. ~ . . . ,J`~c _ .. On ro11 ca1Z. .the foregoinq resolut:ion was roassed -~~v tha f~t i ~W; ,,~ ..,,+e. ~+~~:;: A'~fES: C(~!!MISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allrei ~.,- 'NOES: Ci}:;~:IISSIONEFS: None. x AHSENT: ~OMAdISSIONERS: Iie•2bs;.. ~ ' ;~,.,:~~ ~ . h~: ~~ ~ . ' ~ . . .~ .~ . .~. .. ~ ,: ~- '!/ARIANCE N0. 2000 - Pl,cLIL i-IEA&Idv^a. EL VEE, INCORPO:~,^.TE~, 120 Wesfi Midway Drive, ;_ ;~ Anaheim, Ca::.i`ornia, Owner; C. L. i3ANI~0I.r1i,. 120 West Midway Drive, , Anaheim, Califa^nia, Agent; requesting WtizVE1 Of PERMII'TED R-1, - ONC-FAMILY R~SIDENTIAL, ZO ~E USES, I'(S` PERMIT THE EXPANSION f)F A?': L~CTSTING TRAILER PARK t" on proFerty described asc fhree rectanaular.ly shaped parcels ~;f 2and having frontages ,~.; pf app,roximately 50 feet each on the east side f Lemon Streer. ~nd maximum dep•ths of 1:.° 'reei, a13 being south af Nidway Drive a: follows: Parcel ivo~ 1- the northerly boundary bein3 appreximately 78 feet south of the centerline pf Midway Drive; Parcel No. 2- The northerly boundary being aoproximate3y 128 feet south of the centerline of ~,- :~ ,Midway Drive; ar.d Parcel Noe 3- The nor:herly boundary being approximatel~~ 278 fe?t j;;~~ south of the centerline of Midway Drive, and furthex describe~ a~ 1442, 1446 and 1454 ~' :iouth Lemon Stree~te Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20fJE. ,assistant Zoning SuFesvisor Pat Brawn reviewed the locatran of subject property, the uses established in~close ~rouimity, the requestad vaxlanc•e., and previous zoning actions, r.oting that the 10-acre paxca,~ south of subj• .t area had been used as a trailer park sir.ce 1954 grio~r to annexatio^ i:.to the City; that since tha. time there have been several ~.ining,conditi•ona3 use permit, ar.d variance petitions foT this area - most of the requests fur the expansion of the mohile h.ome park; that the total overall area of the mobile home ~~ak would ultimately c~smprise some 21 acres, 90,`K of which was presently developed for ~nc brailer,park.usea; and that the agent for the petitioner had:met.with members of the v~ritt:~s C~ity ~epartments for the purpose,of developing an overall mastc;* plan for this . existing mobile home park. Mr. C. L. Randtilph, agent for the petit'saner, appea~ed before the Commission and noted that the Repv::t t;~ the Ca,~nmission coverad the petiti.on adequately - however, he would like to adc~ t~hat ar.ea,south of sup~ect property had been developed as a trailer park sinre Y9~4, a,nd af the 54 i.ots in'the existing traat; al_ but $ had been ;~eveloped for traiier park pcrposes, and the petitioner was acquir.ing these lots as they became availablee Fur'.;h=rmore, of the properties under ccnsi~eration, the existin~ dwellings had been removeri from two, and a third one would be removed at ~i~~+ ±i.;,a tihe health of ~he man who was removing them weuld permit. - ~; x' No one appeared tn oppasition to subject peiition. ~' ' r ~ ~ ` r, ~ ,'s THE HERRING Wk.~ CLOSED. . ~j ,,;'~,:~ , ;~ ' ' ~ ^ t: +~ Con~i~,ionEr Ca:np offered Resolution No. 'C66-214 and moved fos its passage and adoption, ,s;~ seconded by Commissioner Farano~ to 9rant Petition for Variance No. 2000, sub~ect to ,~ conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~~ ~ `~` ~~ On r~ll call the for~„oin resolution was 9 passed by the folYowing vote: ~ ..i ~ I ~ ... 4y. . `~~'"'~ <.,~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauerv Mungall, Rowland, Allred. r~ = NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: Nonee ~ ~~ ~' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Herbote ~' ~ ~ ~~ ; . ~ ~'Y ~S' 'd' t: fY: CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GORDON L. AND FRANCES E. HODGE, 2748 West Lincoln ~ ~ t~ ~~ PERMIT N0. 1043 Avenue, Anaheim, Ca~ifcrnia, Owners; DALE L. INGRAM, 10316 East 'c ,;;x ~ Asher Street, E1 Monte, California, Agent; requesting permission to ' j ~ ' ESTABLISH A 129-UNIT, THREE-STORY MOTEL on property described as: f~. ~ A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 1.72 acres of lanu having.a #rontage of " ~ t: ' ~ a~praximately 125 feet on the sou±h side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of ~ ~~ ~ approximately 600 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately fi75 ;;a ; feet east of the centerline o£ Dale Avenue. Property presently classified R-A ; ,~i ; , AGRICULI'URAL, ZONE. f ~ ~ i i ! + `R , '~'' ;f,.. 1~ i~ ~ ' i € . . . . . . i+.~ ~ ~ ., . \ 7 ~ y ~f•+~Yn~t1'r f~.4 ,L l t w~.. / I , ~`~i~i~~ ~~r~~ '~L 'i ~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ", ws~ ~'`L .~ ~ S ` r r ~r - " ~ , i,, , i r n , ,, y ~ .aa ° . . ~ ~ ~ ~ -r'~ ' /~ t~ r ~i7,!. .1. '~ G~,+! . .... ~~',ak'._.. 4 . . . ,,. 5~ ~` ,. rn . .~ , .. .. ct~ . ~ .~C'S' s _. i~ .,,;. • , ` I ,;: ~`% }~" ~F4` r ~.~ ~ ,y~, r ~ ` ~ ~ ~E.s~A~' ~` f '~ ~..~ y~ ~~,./ ~r ~}`u- ~ ,,s,,., e _ ~„~~ }~ ; r'=~ N ~ "` . ~„ x < jti1 j ?'~ ' . ~'M47 1 F h~ '~ i:' M ~.. r},~;.~~ .. . ' ' . . . ~ ~~ ... ~ ... - .. .. Ys.-'-~aM+. :~~ . ~ . . ~ . . ' ~ ., ~ ~ •`~ MINUTES~ CITY-PLANNING COMMISSiON, July 1S. 1968 4015 ~'~ CONDITZONAL USE •- Assi;tant Zoning Supervisor Pat 5rown reviewed the location of ~r' PERMIT'N0. 1043 :""subject property,and the proposed sequest and waivers, noting that (Continued) sub3ect petition and the two subsequent petitions encompassed the '`4~ same request for the development of a three-story motel; that the +=' proposed development would be a 129-unit, three-story motel, and plans indicated all t!nits would have kitchen facilities, but the s.irculation pattern ~•. as indicated by the plans would appear to be inadequate since ingress and egress for ~;;;;.: fire and trash equipment• was extremely limited and parking spaces were not conveniently ~, located te individual uni~s as required in the definition of a"motel" in the Anaheim ;~_:: Municipal Code; that the waiver of the maximum height limitation was basically technical eince the property affected by the height of the structure was located to tlie west, and although ~oned R-A~ the northexly portion has3 been developed with a motel a,7d restaurant, ~-; jF;~~~` ,,;,.,~,ti and the so~therly half still was vacant. R-A, but could be developed for either the ~-:-:':;".'~ expansion of_the mo±el or a lary~e trailer park lccated westerly of this R-A parcel; and `:~; that while the proposal would cE+.rtainly appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses, since th~ere.were existing motels located on either.side, there was serious doubt as to whether this pro3ect was truly intended to be a bona-fide motel since all units were proposed to have kitchen facilities, and the use of these units would be on a mare `:;s permanent basis.than a normal motel unit - therefore, it would appear that the project ,„ had been desigrred and intended to be used as a substandard multiple-family development, and if so, the;density of the project would result in 90 3welling units per net acre " for sub3ect property. Furthermose, the Planning Commission~might wish to give careful evaluatian-to the~exact use designation of this proposal since typical motel developments :i in the City of Anaheim had no kitchens or were limited in the number of units equipped F,,~ with kitchen facilities, and the parking facilities would be more conveniently located '.,.,:t.~ to the individual units than sub~ect petition was proposingo ~, }~ M:. Dale Ingram,,agent for the petitioner, the developer, and the construction company ;~: for the devel~opment appeared before the Commission and noted he would devote all his i" ~» comments to the first petition since tY~e request was basically the same for the other `~ two petitions; that the Mayer Construction Campany werethe builder s and.operators of ~R} ;k many motels, hotels, and apartment units in Los Angeles County and now were considering i ,, ~Orange County; that some of the units they constructed were also sold - however, the '~z, `~ majority were owned and operated by them; and then Mra Ingram reviewed the various • ~,;,j developments throughout Los Angeles County and Orange County that had been constructed ~'' ~ ~` ~,w by the developer. '~'~`:~ Mr. Ingram further noted that with the great expansion and industriel growth of 0.*ange ,, County, the need for transient housing was necessary - just as was provided in Los Angeles for those.people who moved to this area and needed sor~ething other than a motel until a more permanent home was found; that Lincoln Avenue was a major arterial ;~~ and was adequate to take care of the traffic; that there was a need for this type of „y,• facility in the area, and this was one of the reasons they were proposing an all-kitchen motel development; that he was aware that because of the depth of the parcel, some concern was expressed by the Interdepartmental Committee regarding ingress and egress - '~. however, with the Flood Control channel at the rear of the p;operty and potential ~u development of those properties to ~the west, circulation would be necessary for subject ;';~ property only; that a three-story structure was no problem since they provided an ~:~ elevator, which seemed to be highly desirable, and they were able to make better use 'w' of the land b y providing 46 covered and 83 uncovered parking spaces; that a semi- " circular drive•was proposed along the front for persons coming in to register, and .~.:~ adequate ingress and•egress, together with a turning -radius of 25 feet for the full depth ,: of the property, would serve f.or parking along both sides, both under cover and open spaces; `!'.i.;;'.x that the proposed developmen~ would be simil%r in architecture to that.of the Granada -~~^"~ Inn located~at Gilbert and Lincoln; that considerable laadscaping, including ponds, ~ waterfal•ls, and a swimminy oool, would be provided, as well as landscaping in the ;,,.;~ parking area; that the plans before the Commission were those approved by the staff a after three or four attempts at designing had been presented to them; that the General ;;;y;;? Plan indicated this area for commercial-recreation usss, and motels were a use ~ermitted ~ in that zone; that one-story motals were desirable where alony highways outside of a ~:• city, but where the: motels were located in urban~areas, multi-story structures were 'k~'~af found to be more d~asirable; th~t he disagreed with the statement made by the staff that ;,;;~`i;~a these were apartments - the~f were not designed or equipped as apartments and c~uld not `-' compete with apartments; that the 5% bed tax would have to be paid or, every dollar of a:<;•~r;~r~ rent paid, and thes~ units woL_u be rented on a day or week basis; that although most s`;~ ~motels proviued restaurant facilities, the developer was not desirous of enterina this ~..,.:;,~, field - therefore, light cooking facilities were proposed for these units. ;-~a ;~~~ Copies of the brochure covering •the proposed Cervitor kitchen uvere presented to '.he `~~';~*K3 Commission, noting that the entire unit would be encompassed in a 30-inch space, ~`,;,. providing a refrigerator at the bottom, a sink, and two burners. r, ,,,~: ~~~t ~ ~ ~ ~.~'~~a..~3~ ~.pr ~ k~i. ,w ~` x ~,. r. ~~ ..t ~= y R , f ~~ ~~ ,_. ~ ~~ ~i ~l n .. ~,si( . P1 ~ r ~ ~ ' r >*: T( ~" $' ~: T', S~ T ;,, ~ (i v~^+' . ... i r_-., ai~f ^ - . . . ---~ ~'_'_. . -------- --- - ~.~ . ~ ... ~ . . :~ .' . . . . . . - ~ ~ . ~ ~ _ ~r! ~ MINUTES, CITY.Fi.ni.NING COMMISSION~ July 15~ 1968 4016 ~ }.: -: CONDITIONAL USE' - Mr. Ingram then submitted revised plans which he intended to have _ PERMIT~N0.~1043 considered at the hearing, which would indicate the attributes of ~., . (Continued) kitchens versus non-kitchens< ,' ~'+ The Commission noted that several years ago the Cortunission had thoroughly studied the k~ request for kitchen facilities by the motel development,,,and at that time the Commission ~• concluded that only 1d,~K of the units would be permitted to have kitchen facilities - `'``~ furthermore, evidence submitted by many motels indicated that rarely were these kitchen ~ facilities used.. r` :~~ »~ . . .. . . . . .. . . The Commission further discussed with the petitioner the fact that the Inter~epartmental •,,;;~~~.°~~ Committee deemed it necessary to hava an adequate turn-around radius at the south end :<-`:.~~A of sub~ect property, and that plans.should be submitted which would be acceptable to ~' t.he Chief of the Fire Department relative to this circulation - this might mean a loss of two to five units, and possibly some parking spaces. ;;~ ``-, Mr. Ingram~.then noted that he only agreed partly with the Report to the Commission, relative ~o the fire department's requiizments, and this probably could be provided at the rear of the property since most of those spaces would not be filled - however, ;~~" he was willing to work with the staff and the Commission to provide an acceptable solution•to circulation. Furthermore, he was sorry he had misunderstood the Commission's formula for the number of units that could have kitchen facilities, and he was desirous of having this ir.:luded for all peoplea :r; '.';'s; The Commission then noted that now that the petitioner was aware of the Commission's formula, they assumed revised plans would eliminate all but 10% of these units. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-215 and moved for its passage and `;s~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner 'carano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use .Permit ..r~ Noo 1043, sub3ect to a reduction of the number of units to 10~ with kitchen facilities, <.,, and to provide for adequate turn-around radius for trash and fire equipment, due to the ~'~j fact that the propert was 600 feet in len th and conditions. i:+~~:: ,:;;~i1 Y g, (See Resolution Book) ~a ,;`.~1 an roll call tlie foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '' :i~ a t; t`n~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. ~ N(~S: COMMISSI~IERS: None. ?;?' .,;;,^;r{ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ;?~I RECESS - Commiasioner Camp offered a motion to recess the meeting for '-:'~;}~ ten minutQS. Commissione.r Gauer seconded the motion. ";~; MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:20 P.M. ;?~ a,_~ RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:30 P,M., all i Gommissioners except Camp and Herbst were present. ~:' ;'.r^~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT AND AMANDA SEHR, 3406 West Lincoln Avenue, N0. 68-69-10 Anaheim, California, Owners; DALE L. INGRAM, 10316 Asher Street, E1 Monts, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly CONDITIONAL USE shaped parcel of approximately 1.8 acres of land having a frontage PERMIT N0. 1044 of approximately 132 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 59A feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel bein9 approximately 66~J feet east of the centerline of Knott Street~ and further described ar. 3406 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-p, AGRICULI'URAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: G1, GENERAL COAUNERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDIIIONAL USE: TO PERMIT A 129-UNIT~ THREE-STORY MOTEL, WIIH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and the proposed reclassification, together with the requested use of the pr~pertiy, noting that the waiver of the maximum building height was a technicality on the basis that the parcel to the east was zoned R-A, as well as to the south; however, the property i;o the south had a pending reclassifica- tion to R-3 and a tentative tract filed on it, and that commercial uses were es~.3blished to the west. I ` °i' - _ ~,.'~'' ~ ,,CK'~.. `"~~4 r tw n'~ r.~~ ~ 4`"~d. ~ a~ 1~~w ~ c t't n.~,,...Y ~ x~ z ,N~.i T f'r >n+ ,C« ~1` y}'1' sx.~''~`h~~fi ,4.w : ~~~ JF }61 +~~1' vT.,,, ~,4'~.y`~'"i5~~tk h•'ityi,"~ '~ ~-,.~+~ ~ 4 `"~, r 5 ~ .~~ ~r r.. '~` ~.r _ ~ 1 ;,.. . S> ~,~t., ..s"~~ ~ 7-~', - 'r . S . .. ~ _ . .. O ~ , _ . ~ . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 15~ 1968 ~ 4017 REGLASSIFICAI'ION. ="Mr. Brown further noted that subject petition was also requesti ng N0. 68-69-10 permission to establish.all 129 units with kitchen fac3lities, and CONDIiIONAL USE that the circulation pattern as indicated on the p].ans did not PERMIT N0.'1044 appear to be adequate since i:,gress and egress for trash and fire (Continued) equipment was extremely limited, and the parking spaces were not conveniently located to the 3ndividual units as required in the definition of a"motel" established in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Mr. Brown`further noted that the property to the east also had a petition on the agenda ta permit the manufacturE of fe.mented water; therefore, the request was a technicality since in all likelihood it would convert to some other use than residential.. ~~,", Mre Dale Ingram, the agent, nc,ed that the General Plan indicateu sub3ect property for commercial use~ and that the width of the property was 7 feet more than that previously considered, which would increase the recreational area. ,~ i ; A letter from the property ownersto the north of sub3ect property, ~iwnersof a motel, ;. indic.-,ted their approval of the proposed conditional use permit to establish the motel, ,..~ since they felt this would stimulate business trade in the area. f:t: - -:-:ir No one appeared in opposition to subjec+. petitions. '~°`; THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :;;i :~. s~ Commissioner Camp returned L•o the Council Chamber at 4:38 P.M. '"" Commissioner Rowl•and offered Resolution No. PC66-216 and moved for its passage and ;,:;;: adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-10 be aoproved, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution `r Book? ,V.`~ <'`=~"' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~-;~=-' ~`~1~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano Gauer Mun all Rowland Allred. * > > 9 > > ~' ~?`~`~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.' xh~?s~' - ~ . . ~ {i.~, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. 4 s~~~ ABSTAII~: COMMISSIONERS: Camp. Discussion was then held by the Comm~ssion relative to limiting the number of kitchen units to 10% of the total number of units. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-217 and moved for _ts passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1044, subject to limiting the number of kitchen units to 10% of the total units, provision of circulation and turn-around area, and conditions. (See Resolutiori Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution v~as passed by the following vote: AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. 9BSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Camp. ~ VARIANCE N0. 1997 - PIJBLIC HEARING. LABELLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 264, Lakewood, California, Owner; JAMES A. ERICKSON, 3360 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMI?TED USES TO PERMIT THE PROCESSING AND FERMENTATION OF WATER FOR AGRICULTURAL USES on property ~~scsibed as:. A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 1.80 acres of land having a frontage of.approximately 132 feet on the sonth side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 594 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately ~10 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3360 West Lincoln Avenue.' Property presently classified R-1'••~ AGRICULTURAL, ZO1JE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject.property, noting that numerous complaints had been received fiom ad3acent neighbors as to the noise and odors created by the operation of the processing and sale of fermented water for sgri- cultural purposes conducted on'subject property by the agent for the petitioner fox a number of years; that the property had been investigated a number of times by mertiuers of the License, Zoning, and Building Divisions due to these complaints; that the peti-. tioner.had indicated no sale af the goods occurred on subject property - initially this was an experimental operation and appeared to be incidental to the uses of the R-A Zone. ~ l' ^~ ';j; Y. '~ :; ;~ ~ ~4' fi ;`'~ ; ~,~ "~~ a ~~ ~ ~ ';!~, t ~'`t' ' ~ '~'-'. ~'y.~~ .l ~ a r x.;.yij t'~~' ~ 7 i 4 ~ f ~ d H4 !~~*k "Y?' ~'F+ 1~ i Y~1° :~ E~\ r,r ~ -' ~ i:: ~ n;i f~ n 4 JY' a~ h 7 P L t ~ .~i" 1 ~...~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . , ~ . . . -- . . ,~ :. . . ., . ~ . . . . ~. ' ~ . . ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968 4010 i, VARIANCE.NO. 1997"- Furthermore, the petitioner indica~ed that the processed water (Continued) was transported to San Diego County for use on crops grown in '"'~:-~ that area, and he would, as much as possible~ eliminate the noise caused by the movement of large barrels which contained the processed water and eliminate any odors - however, an inspection in March of this year by the F~, ; Inspectoi of the License Department indicated the operation was now a fairly large one, ar~ ~`ter five years would no longer appear to be in the experimental stage. Consequently, tht, Zoning Enforcement Officer advised the petitioner that in order to continue the '' operation, a variance must be approved to permit this usP in the R-A Zone. x,,, : : ~, Mra James Erickson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated ."r;.,~;r} they had 'contacted a number of real estate agents zelative to locating property with a ; y., ~ structure to relocate this operation - however, they were unable to close their existing operation until a new place was found; that he had been in this type of operation for ~ the past 18 years, and farmers have relied completely on this type of water to help them - ~ produce better and larger crops; that he felt this was a straight barreling of water `~'j operation and was not a fermentation type operation as indicated in the Report to the Commission. ~`~ The Commission,noted that they had just approved a motel adjacent to sub~ect property, and if complaints had been received from the mobile hame park residents, then more complaints would be received from the operators of thQ motel since their clients also ~' us~uuld complain to them; f,urthermore, this was an industrial operation rather than an *; agricultural use, and then inquired the length of time needed for relocation of this facility. . ~' Mr. Erickson stated they would like to relocate as soon as possible but it was difficult ~,~~ to locate an acre of property with bui].dings in the proper location where a pump could ~ be drilled. Zoning 5upervisor Ronala Thompson advised the Commission that both the M-1 and M-2 Zones also had the stipulation that no ob3ectiona:.ie noises or odors would be permitted; that if complaints were receive~d, this use would also have to be terminated in those zones~i and thet a conditional usa! permit was the best method to establish the use even in an industrial area.' Mr. Dale Ingram, representing the property owners to the west~ advised the Commission that it would take approximately six mor.ths to build a motel before occupancy - there- fore, a minimum of six months would be suitable £or them. ;~~~ Mrs. Erickson, wife of the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ~`~ and stated that she had been contacting several real estate men and had been working ` on relocation for the past two months, after meeting with Mr. West and Mr. Roberts, at ``~~ which time it was agreed they would file a variance - however, they could not move ,~ overnight, and.although she had spent most of her spare time looking for a new location in Orange County, there were very few possibilities, and even if one we:e found, thare ~' were several problems with water and need for drilling a well; furthermore, if buildings ,;._; were needed, additional time would also be needed to construct these buildinqs, but if the buildings already were constructed, then it would be a matter of weeks to relocate - therefore, it depended upon what type of facilities theX could negotiate for; and that one fairly large building was sufficient for their needs. :;i ~~ A letter of opposition and a p tition signed by 31 of the mobile home park residents •`~ to the north and east were rea~ ':~ the Commission, opposing approval ef sub~ect petition ~,-~ due to the fact that the odiferous f~:mes from ihe water being pzocessed were most ,,'~I objectionable and quite nauseating at times. Commissioner Gauer offered Reso3ution No. PC68-218 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1997 for a period of six months, waiving the Interdepartmental Committee recommendatior~sfor the six months - however, if ari.:additional six months were needed, these conditions would have to be e~e'te (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, garano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herpst. -S~ r~5' 'a`u` ~ ' ~'s A +f`+~'~c~E { '.~ y, s7"F ,k- '~'r r a+7b J+.~ .~ F r .,- ro r..., f'•i~, s i~.., r. il :.:C~r W, .: :w t(~'~ t ~• ~r ~~ti~ ~: sf .(~ Fa ~'4 4 ~.i , r 4 A y '~ ~ ` '1ii ~ r~ . ~ ~ r . F ~H1XF }, ,.tit ~ e j - ! f . ;~~ _,~.~ . _ ~ . ~ lM ~ 1 ~ .~ i ~ y M1~ V. . t, .bJ , f !. K ' `' . . O . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - . . . . . ~': Tl. t ~' ~ :~ e Lh ~~+ ~ r ' ~ I MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1965 ;;1 t ; ~ ~, 4019 ~ <~ ~^'' ~ f; ~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. FRED C. BR~tdDTs 2638 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim ~ N0 68-69-9' ~ r s ~ . California, Owner; DALE L. INGRAN.~, 10316 Asher Street~ E1 Monte i L,; ~~ ~, , Califor~ia, Ac~nt; property described as: A rectangularly shaped CONDITIONAL USE, parcel of approximatel 2 0 ac f ' ~` ' ~x ~_~ ~ y e res o land having a frontage of " PERMIT N0. 1042 approximately 150 feet on the south id iJ' ~° * ' s e of Lincoln Avenue and a m a x i m u m d e p t h o f a pprox ima te ly 5 9 8 feet, the easterly.boundar e ~~Y~- , , ^ t y of said parcel being approximately 450 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenuea Property rese tl ~ f„ ~, ~t p n y classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. " ' t~ , , ~;~t REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: G1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE ~u ~ t~ , . ° Ai ` ' ~ , ~ '~_ ~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL U5E: TO PERMIT A 155-UNII', THREErSTORY MOTEL, WITH ~ `= tr! ~ ? ~ ~~ ~'~~~ ~ WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHI'. _ _ ,` ~ • ~ ~ •:` ~;, E ? ~ ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub3ect property the u -~ ; 1 s , , ses eetablished in close proximity, and the proposed request, as well as the Report I to the Commission e h i i ~~ , mp as z ng the fact that the circulation pattern as indicated by the submitted plans would not a ' ~ ~. 5 ppear adequate since ingress and egress for trash and ~ fire equipment was extremely limited and parkin s ac ~ '~ g p es were not conveniently located ~ to individual uni.ts as required in the definition of a" t l" ~ `~ rf ' 1: mo e in the Anaheim Municipal Code, and that the requested waiver of the maximum height was a technical one since the R-A ~ ; ~ zoned parcel to the east undoubtedly would undergo some form of use conversion - eith t p er o commercial or multiple-family residential at some time in the future ~ ~~ i . ~ :~ ~. ~ Mr. Brown then reviewed the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Commit•tee relative to providing some form of mutual circulati d + j .. on ue to the fact that the depths and areas +,•. of several of the lar e R-A a l i , ~ ` ~a ,.~ i g p rce s n this area would need adequate traffic circulation, and in this particular instance, the ICPSBGW recommended that a 54-foot t t b ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ',~ s ree e installed along the easterly property line for the northerly 450 feet, terminating in a standard, 50-foot „adius cul~de- ~} 4~ sac, and that a standard, 20-foot alley be installed along the easte l ~°;~~; , ,. ~ r y and southerly property lines; that an alley provision at the southerly boundary location had alread been id ~ ' ~ y prov ed for as a condition of Conditional Use Permit ~ No. 936,.to establish a convalescent home on th R-A '+, t ~' ' 4~, ,,'. +5 "~ e parcel to the west located south E of the Flood Control channel and facing Stinson Street and that the large R-A arc l ~ l ; $ ~ ~~ ~' „ `~ p e ocated between this latter parcel and sub~ect parcel, when more fully developed, would I also be re uired t i ~~~ ~ ~~ , ~ + ; J q o prov da an access alley so that there covld be vehicular linkage between Stinson St t i, ~~ r ~ ~ ree and Lincoln Avenue. ~ ~ ~ ~` ~' y~ q ' . a~ 1~; ,~ ~.~~ ~ 1 Mro Brown further not ed that the proposal projected all units to have kitchen facilities, i which would indicate a more erma t b rf j ~u ,, '~~~, p nen asis than a normal motel development and could ~ appear to be designed and intended t b r,J ~~r ,,~^ o e used as a substandardr multiple-family devel- ~ opment - if so, the density of this projeat would result in 88 d lli i :~~,~ we ng units per net acre. , y '~49~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~~ `~; #~ ``~ Mr. Dale In ram a ent for the etitioner a 9 ~ 9 P , ppeared before the Commission and reviewed th ,~ ~ ~ e rE~commendations of the Interdepartmental Committee relative to providing access to th , , •' ~: property through a dedicated, 54-foot street for a depth of 450 feet, together with a 20-foot alle al th ;~ y ong e south and east propexty lines, noting that sub3ect property was only 18 feet wider thaa th ,:•~~ e ~ther lots which the Commission had a pproved for motel use, and the depth would ioe the same d t , t;;~ ' , an o require a 50-foot street which would serve no one, even themselves, wou?.d require a drastic change to the plans ' ~, ~ , ~ - , reducin g considerab l e p ar king area as weYl as the width of the lot; that the 25-foot drivewa acce th ,,~ a!;~~ ss e Y y proposedwould better serve their needs, and the request of the Interdepartmental Committ a ~,'"~ ee w s completely unrealistic as to serve subject property, and the only lot it would help would be the abuttin lot - th ~r 4 k~ ;yµ! g erefore he considered this too much of a hardship to require 54 feet from subject property without consulting with th d ~ 7 ,~a e eveloper, since it was his opinion it would make the development of the 4, + ~?~YI property almost impossible, but the reccmmendation of a 20-foot alley might be accom- ~~ l, ~y . ~. ;r plished - however, it would reduce the number of units proposed for the propertyo Furthermore th ~ ~~ ~ . ;+~ i`~ , e property to the west had a very small frontage on Lincoln Avenue and tr~ alley would hel them mo th ~ ,u~ '~ ~r £F; ~, ~ ~~, r ~ p re an it would subject property, and he doubted very much if the property owners would a pprove the zone change with the request for full street dedication r . ~ r~ r ~~t,~~ ~~~~~rW^w ~r r1`"~ . No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. <<. '~ ; r~-``~ ~ " TIi°. HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~,'',~ ~ t N 2 ~ ~';:' ` . . Zonir,g Supervisor 8onald Thor~pson noted for the Commission the reaso th t 1 ~if'' a „~- n e s reet was requested in the area was because of the fact a number of long narrow l ~ ~' ~;;~ S j , parce s were in th~s area, and this street might serve thes.e parcels with added circulation ~ f ~ ' ;~ ~ •~~ ' ~t ; urthermore, the Interdepartmental Committee 'ielt some t ; ype of street circulation should b i r ' ~ ~ ~• ~..~~ e requ red in this area, having a holdiny strip, and if the other properties - develop require th f t ,; ~n ` ~.:.: t o pay 5m or 9 pOSt~On Of $hlb street. Where the Commission and ,_ ~~; f ~`1 ~~ F~=~ .~~1 . , . `; .. ~~'i ` ~ 4iti~y~ t ,~ . ..,-. . . . . _..._.... . ._ _. t u ~y ..~ ~I ~ .;. t ,,+.',S ,~'r.,~'~~i:~.t„+ , .:_ . __.. . ...__..... .., ' . . , .~ .~. .. . . _ . __ .. .~~.sif„~3 «; r~ .rt , ~ ~ ~w:~{. ; ~ ' __ ~___ y~ Q ~ ~ MINUTES,,CITY .PLI~NNING COMMISSION,,July 15; 19E°' ,4020 ~ . ' . . .. _ . . . . . . . r~~ ,~- '..yi-:+ RECLASSIFICAI'ION - City Council reviewed_revised R-3 standards~ an alley parking Lt~; . N0: 68-69-9 problem always existed, and this same situation would occur if E ~ . CONDI?IONAL,US ; only the,alley.were permitted to provide.for circulation of this ~_ PERMIT`N0. 1042~ property. `'~ ,(Continued): . : ~ The Commission noted that although they were aware of what the ,;r~ staff was'attempting to a~complish, it would be a trsmendous . - burden for,one propertv owner to bear~ and before further consideration s,hould be ;z;;'s. iven b:the Commission relative to these g y petitions, they should be continued,for h;A"` ,r~ two weeks in-order to allow time for additional information to be submitted and for ~.~' the develo,per_.to work with the staff relative to~providing additional circulation. ~ s~;5 ~ Commissioner Mungal2 offered a motion to continue Petitiorsfor Reclassification No. ';s~a r~ 68-69-9 and Conditional Use Permit Noe 1042 to the meeting af July 29~ 1968, in order !?; • to allow time for the staff and the developer to resolve possible alternative meth6ds ~'r'` ,;,.. of circulation~ Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. 1~10TIQN•CARRIEDe '"tx ;,~ ~;s RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HARRIET GRAY ROBERTSON, 641 South Velare Street~ •`~ N0. 68-69-7 Anaheim, California,.Owner; property described as: A rectangularly ~ shaoed paxcel of land having a frontage of approximately 96 feet on + VARIANCE N0. 1999 the west side of Velare Street and a maximum depth of approximately 269 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 560 feet south of t'he centerline of Orange Avenue, and ~urther ~ + described as 641 South Velare Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, .~ ZONE . . . . ': REQUESTED CLASSIFICAIT ON: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.. ~ ~ s ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED HUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK, (3) MAXIMUM PERMI?TED ' h DZSTANCE OF A IIVING UNIT FAOM A STANDARD STREET, 'j AND (4) REQUIRED WALLS~ TO P.ERMIT A 14-UNIT, IWO-STORY APARTMEIrT COMPLEX. ;;: Ni ' ~" Zonin Su ervisor Ronald I hom son revi.ewed the location of sub ect 9 P p 3 property and the '~ proposed request,`noting the waivers asked for and the fact that ~he two-story hei.ght ~;fr limitation waiver was for the ad~oinirig R-A parcels both to the west and to the south - "~''4 however, one-atory was being constructed within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east; and i t~ thet upon contacting the petitioner, the petitioner had stipulated to construction of a six-foot masonry wall along the south property line. Furthermore, six of the units located at the rear of the property would be more`than 200 feet from a standard street, , e and the density proposed would be 30 units per net residential acre, while the R-3 ,~' approved to the north and south projected 26 and i9 units per net residential acre, `i'~ which would be more within the low-medium density designation on the General Plan. ; Mrs. Harriet Robertson, the petitioner, indicated her presence in the Council Chamber , i ,, ! '' u to answer questions. No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~; ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-219 and moved for its passage and ; adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that•Petition `'~' for Reclassification No. 68-69-7 be approved, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution ' Book) i On ro1T call'the foregoing resolution was passed by the following bote: ~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowlend, Allred. "~'' ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ;,a ABSENTo COMMISSIONERS: Herbsta ~ ~ ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC58-220 and moved for its passage and .:' ~V adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1999, ~ sub3ect to conditions, and the added condition that a six-foot masonry wall be con- structed along the south property line as stipulated to by the petitionere (See Resolution Book)_ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed uy the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allrede sx- NOES: COMMISSIONERSe None. "":~.~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSe Herbsto ~~;t ~ ,;'',j , : ,..,_. __...__...... q ~ ~~,~' ~ at~c ~[k r ^c ~ ~Sa il~+7sF Y'r. ~s ~a~ ~ i~~ ~wF~U Sr~~p~"s~trd r ~~ ; e` za.;;r .,.,~ `.f~+.~ ~' h:.;t .,;' f. ~r i.: ~ ary; tt ~ , ri4 ,x.t . i r -u ~~ V'J Cy~ ., {r% MINUTES, CII'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968 4021 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting for dinnere ~omru:ssioner Rowland seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adj~urned at 5:30 PeM. RECONVEtdE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P,M., all Commissioners being presento x,;. GENERAL PLAN . - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East _ AMENDMENI' N0. 97 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;.to consider an amendment to the ~;`'~.. General Plan from low density to 3ow-medium and medium density, and ~ AREA DEVELOPMENf an aPea development plan which would determine the proper circulation ~~s~r~'''~ PLAN N0. 37 of the area bounded on the west by the proposed Orange Freeway, on t~, the north by the Riverside Freeway, on the east by the Santa Ana ~ ~~ River and Glassell Street, and on the south by Lincoln Avenue. ~~`; Assistant Planner David Williamson presented General Plan Amendment No. 97 and Area Development Plan No. 37 to the Commission, requesting permission to review the area development plan on the basis that regardless of the density of the area, circulation problems would have to be resolved pxior to any consideration for density changes. '~; (Copies of the report on Area Development Plan No. 37.and General Plan Amendment Noo 97 - on file in the Development Services Department.) :~ Mr. Williamson concluded his presentation of Area Development Plan Noa 37, stating that the Traffic Engineer was of the opinion that both east-west str~ets and north-south ,;i?: streets would be necessary to provide both interndl circulation and access to the y; arterials - namely, Frontera Street, Rio yista Street, and Lincoln Avenue, as well as `;,i.F:; Glassell Street, and that the difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 was the locatior. ,n~ of the north-south street in relai:ion to the park-school site, while Alternative 4 would ,~~ require acquisition of a lot in the existing R-1 tract to link the undeveloped property ;,~~ between the Riverside Freeway and the R-1 tract immediately to the west of the ganta ,;~;1. Ana Freeway north of Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Williamson concluded his remarks after revietiving General Plan Amendment No. 97, indicating that approximately 43% of the vacant land would be designated for medium density devel'opment, 44~ for low-medium density (or R-2-5000 lots), and that 13% would be considered for low density R-1, 7200-square foot lots - therefore, it would be the Commission~`s task to either reaffirm the .existing land use policy or adopt the policy revision which clearly represented their thinking and forward said recommendation to the City Council. The Commission inquired as to the line of delineation of the R-A, Oil District, on thF area development plan and w~hether eny low density developments had ever gone in an R-:+, Oil District,in the City of Anaheim. Mr. Williamson, in reply, stated that the area, in a line immediately to the north of the school property extending easterly ta the Orange County Flood ~ontrol channel, as well as that property immediately to the north of the R-1 tract west of the Santa Ana River, was within this district, and that to his knowledge, the City of Anaheim did not hzve an area wherein both K-A(0) and R-]. were developed; however, that step could be taken by providing a vacant lot for the actual drilling sitee Mra Ray Abney, 2730 Carnival Street, appeared bofora the Commission in opposition and expressed concern that an increase in density would affect the circulation of this area since thexe were only three exits from th3s 173-acre triangular piece of property; furthermore, the existing scfiool was considered'a double school and served only the residents of the area east of Rio Vista Street and was part of the Placentia School District, while,those west of Rio Vista Street were part of the Anaheim Elementary School District. Mro Abney, in response to Commission questioning regarding the circulation problem, stated that Glassell Street could be entered only from Frontera Street and Lincoln Avenue =+herefore any increase in density would still place the load of traffic onto Rio Vista Street, and the three ingress and egress points for this area were insufficient if ~n increase in density were approved. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that in discussions with the Traffic Engineer regarding Frontera Street, the frontage road for the Riverside Freewey, he was advised that the action by the State Highway Department while th3s property was still under the jurisdiction of the County was to construct and designate this street as a local collector street, with one travel lane each wayj but if the area were to increase in density to that presently reflected on the ~eneral Plan, then Frontera Street would have to be increased to a secondary highway, with a 90-foot right-of-way ,,:; ~ , I i • ,, .,' 1 _ ..... _. ~ ;_ ~ I ~ ' 1! ~ . . . - .. . , ;rr„ ~ ,a> . ~.:.:_~;T~: ~..' r, ; ~'~. i~ r3&'/~4-+w,~b~'~ .. r s, ; } . x r .r~~r~ ,t"~t .,~r.i!s. i i ltw;;,k'~„o ~h ~ a:r~^^y -ti ~ t1 ~y ~ ~. '6 ';'-z i : , . ~ Y.~~ ' .. . / 1 C, _ '.1Y . ~A ~ti . ,- ~ ..: ~ , . ' ' -- ~ ~ ~• ~ _ . ( ~,' ~'\ _ . . ~f'` . Y t'I . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ; ~ ~ ;, MINIlI'ES, ~CIlY' PLATINING COMMISSION, July, 15, 1968 ~ ~. 4022 ~, `~ GENERAL PLAN - and four travel lanes. .It was aTso the Traffic Engineer's opinion rr; _ AME,NDMENT.NO: 97 that,more internal circuletion should be provided~since from past • AR£A DEVELOPMENT experience of many of the tracts throughout the City~ many people ~,'~%' = PLAN'AIO,. 37 had to exit to arterial straets in order to go two blocks in a ~~- 4 ~(G~nfltinue~d) :direct line to visit someone; therefore, internal circulation was ' „ of prime importancea ~y; ~ Mr« Don Greek, 206 CaTOUSe1 Place a ,a, , ppeared before the Commission in opposition and . stated that fr.om the;standpoint of a property owner in this area, he was opposed to - any increase in density, as well as the exhibits indicating an increase in circulation; '',,,Y~ however, from the standpoint of an engineer, circulation was very important to an area,but if the area were developed as R-l, this circulation need not be of the magnitude proposed, ~~-a~~- and if any good, high-density development were proposed which did ~ot seriously affect the R-1 homes, he would'not be so opposed to these plans. Furthermore, he was the engineer '`, of the R-l tract to the south of the park and school property which presented drainage ;~ problems, and that drainage easements were next to the southerly lot, draining to the ;$~~ west, and these would have to be taken into consideration if streets were proposed in '' that area. ''::~ Mr. Greek also noted that ~o evidence had been submitted which would warrant considera- ~:~; tion of an increase in density for the use of the p.roperty. ~ 2oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted thai: Conditional Use Permit No. 1029, proposing to permit the establishment of a trailer park north of the existing R-1 tract between Rio Vista Street and the Santa Ana River,had been withdrawn, and the ~~~;?i~~ were planning to submit a new petition to permit multiple-family develoomeatY owners , ~:'r'~.~ ~~ The Commission noted that regardless of the density requested, the ma~or consideration ^p~ before their body was to approve a circulation pattern so that development could occur '~ without any fur.ther burden on the existing street, Mr. Greek then noted that because the owners of these large paxcels of land were request- ~>'. ing certain zoning of their property did not mean that the development was good for the ~r area, and that in.his opinion, the existing General Plan was adequate and indicated low r' density residential deJelopment for that area - however, if someone presented a good ~L~` plan for higher density along the frontage road, it would be acceptable, but this plan ~~~~, proposed the majority of the area for low-medium and:medium density, and in his estimation~ h~ this was oor lanning. ~~r,,~,,.= P A ~ ~;, f~, , ~•..~ The Commission noted that in their studies of the requirements for the ~ity, the proposal ,' ~4 was not arbitrary, but a varying density was necessary, and the fact that several peti- ~"! tions had been received in the ;,,,~;~~ , past few months for these properties indicated that the ~, City would have to consider other than low density, although it would not necessarily ^~;f inean adoption of a density or development as depicted. , ra;~i 'i Mr. Greek ~hen stated that land uses in the area had not changed to warrant consideration ~ of such an increase in higher density; furthermore, he was quite shocked to note that the Commission had approved smaller R-l lots adjacent'to the 7200-square foot lots o~ the west side of Rio Vista Street, and there was no reason to assume that regulatiorz size lots would be developed on the east side of Rio Vista Street, across from the existing, R-1, 7200-square foot lots - therefore, more consideration should be given to developing t is area fo r low density rather than high density as the General Plan amendment depicted. Mr. B. F. Barnett, 313 Plantation Place~ a~peared before the Commission and noted that he had seen this area grow over a number of years, and he could only agree with the comments made by Mr, Greek in that He would like to see this area developed for R-1, low density since existing R-3 was.already to the west at Sunkist and.La Palma and ad3acent to the mobile home park on La Palma Avenue, and, therefore, he would dislike being completely surrounded by multiple-family residential development.. The Commission noted,that the property to the east of Rio Vista Street, north of the school property, was presently being used for oil production and extraction and was not expected to be;phasQd out in the near future. Furthermore, very few people were desirous of having.their.home adjacent to a freeway - that was the reason the Commission was con- sidering a buffer of R-1 adj~.cent to R-1 and then R-2-5000, and lastly, R-3. Mr. Barnett then noted for the Commission that there seemed to be no control possible over developers who wanted to develop ad~acent•to R-1 property since the developer at the last public hearing requested 6000-square•foot lots, end these were approved. Furthermore, the tract he lived in was adjacent to the Orange FreeNay which would be developed in the near future. ~ ,~ ~{~ :_~~ _ ~~ ~ :~ ~~ ~ ' '.~ ai ' ~'~ ~ -': ,~;~ 'V~ ~~, ~ ~:, ? ,~, ~~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~~ ' '~ ~ r~Y.~ .. . . . . . ... . ~ ~._ ._~ .. ' ~ . . ` .1/ • . _ ' MINUTES, CIlY PLANNING CQMMISSION, July 15, 1968 ~ 4023 Y '3 ~ t=t'a'1 ~ -- ~ ' w c GENERAL PLAN - Mr. M. S. Locketz, 528 Plentation.Place, appeared before the AMENDMENT N0. 97 Commissio d n an noted that the traffic problem already existed AREA DEVELOPMENT at Rio Vista and La•Palms because of the irregular intersection, PLAN N0. 37 and during the rush hours, many cars were waiting in line because (Continued) of this blind spot, and tha.t any incr,a5e in density for this area would only aggravate a very serious problem now exis±:ing. Further- mora, he was opposed to development of multi-story apartments since his privacy would be invaded. The Commission noted th3t the Anaheim Municipal Code required one-story construction within 150 feet of R-1 property, end ti'iis distance was a line-of-sight distance which indicated no privacy would be invadede Mr. Earl Paulus, 2420 East La Palma Avenue,.appeared-before the Commission and stated that he did not agree with statements made that the streets were not adequate to handle any increase in.traffic; that because of the prohibitive taxes being assessed by the County Assessor, it would not be long before all this area would be developed; that even if ranchers-~wanted to raise oranges, the taxes assessed them were more than they were receiving for their crflps; that the corner of La Palma Avenue and Rio Vista Street formerly was an orange grove, and the owners of these large agricultural parcels had allowed the residents to come into the area - however, now these residents were opposed to development of the large acreage because of the fact that it might generate too much traffic, and the study which the staff had prepared for proper street provision was necessary; that he felt it was unfair to have these properties frozen to R-1 development because land was becoming scarcer every day, and apartments would be developed in this azea~ or at the .least, R-2-5000; and that it was necessary to develop a plan for proper circulation for p_ople who would live in this area, and to freeze the area for R-1 would not be economical. Mr. Clarence Cross~ 159 South Kingsley Street~ appeared before the Commission and stated he wished to rebut the statement made by Mr. Paulus; that.he appreciated the fact that his taxes had gone up on the grove property - however, they were also property owners living on considerably smaller portions of property, and the taxes had also gone up - being assessed $800 per 7200-square foo.t lot; therefore, he felt the single-family homeowners had a great deaL to.say^about development'of thts area and what would be ad~acent to:their'homes which were•-developed on 70 to 80=foot wide lots, these lots representing considerably'more then the acreage of,.undeveloped land as far as taxes were concerned; that proper circulation was needed badly now since the tract he lived in had only one entrance and exit, and if there were any type of emergency, no one would be able to get out of this tract. Furthermore, it was his opinion the property should be developsd for R-1, although he realized it was difficult because of the landowners and developers wanting to sell their land and get as much for their land as possible, b~t all the single-family homeowners had as much an investment in this area as the gro~reowners, regardless of the size of the parcels, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission, summarized as follows: 1. That two-.thirds of the property in the study area west of Rio Vista Street already was developed for R-1. 2. That a minimum of one tier of R-1 lots should ahut the R-1 area already developed in this area. 3. That if R-2-5000 were ac._oss the street from R-1,.7200-square foot lots, the purchaser of the R-1 property would be aware that he would be facing a higher density lot. , 4. That too large an amount of inedium dEnsity could create a greater traffic problem. 5. That all large landowners should be aware of the fact that their biggest problem in ultimate development would be adequate circulation - otherwise development would not occur because of the limitations of the access points in this .area. 6. That an increase in traffic flow was demonstrated when La Palma Avenue and Glassell Street were extended across the freeway - therefore, serious consideration should be given to proper circulation and a lesser, medium density. . _ . . _.-- ~..~~~ ~.~_'_'_ .. . /~'... ~~ ' . . .. . . . . ~ ~ . . . ~ ,. ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ . ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . _ . MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968 ~ ~ '~ ~~Y~. ~ ~,~ ~ '~ ~ '~ +'f~tf \ ~ 4024 GENERAL PLAN - 7. That at the time the R-l tract north of Lincoln Avenue, west `' AMENDMENT N0: 97 of tha Santa Ana River, was developed while under the juris- y+ AREA DEVELOPMENT diction of the County, it was determined at that time that ~~~ PLAN N0. 37 the properties to the north would~be reserved for industrial ~ (Continued) purposes - therefore no stub streets were considered in order ` discourage industrial-traffic utilizing the residential area streets; however, this has now changed and the City of'Anaheim has placed the boundaries of the industrial area north of the Riverside Freeway - there- ~ fore this circulation problem existeda ~ s; ~~'r ~., '~:t':; ;' . 't. S.e That when frontera Street and Rio Vista Street were widened to secondary highways, the "bottleneck" at that intersection would be eliminated. 9. That because of the frePway and river, only three entries and exits to the property were available, and this could not.be changed because of the foregoing facte 10. That the Traffic Engineer was more concerned with interior circulation because the existing arterials would be adequate to handle any increase in traffic; however, if deve~opment would occur, Frontera Street must be widened. 11. That previous consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 97 indicated a tier of medi~m density ad3acent to the commercial shopping center, with the balance in single•-family residsntial homes; therefore, any consideration of a change to the Co~rnis,sion`s original recommendation should include protection for the existing R-i homes in the ar~a. 12. That in consfdering multiple-family development for this area, this was necessary to,provide living space for the present and future workers of the industrial area to the ~orth of the freeway, and by moving the living area closer, this would remove automob'fles from the traffic load throughout the City. Discussion was then held by the Commission with the staff regarding Alternative Noe 4, which would mean the acquisition through condemnation proceedings of a lot in the R-1 tSact tp provide for continuing circulation from the north, and inquired of the staff whethe,r the Ciiy had ever condemned property for street purposes. Assistant Development gervices Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission this had been done in the past and cited the Convention Center roads and the stadium access roads, but it would be quite unique for the City to purchase a residential lot to extend a residential street. The Commission then inquired of the representative of the Parks and Recreatian Department their recommendations as to the first alternative presented since Alternatives 1 and 2 :~ould acquire some of the park and school land. Mr. Richard Kamphefner, Park Superintendent of the Parks and Recreation Department, appeared before the Commission and advised them if General Plan pmendment Noe 97 were approved as per Exhibit "A", it would throw a load of additional residents on the park requirements in.this area; that the staff had never considered this park should handle such an increase in density since they felt that the park should be.a 12-acre site; that the City already had 4.3 acres, and it was hoped .to pers~~ade the Placentia School District to lease the rear portion of the sci~ool property; that if the size of the park were to be i~ncreased, it should be to the east since this would give a better park development;.that 3f the park were to be increased, consideration of the property to tne west could not lend itself to a good park development. • The ~ommission then noted that if the park expansion were to go in a westerly direction, the present City pro~erty would be used - however, if Alternatives 3 or 4 were used, this would necessitate purchasing a home in the tract,.and that the two extra acres would probably be less expensive than to purchase this home through condemnation proceedings. Furthermore, some of the homes would be affected by the north-south street because of haying a double frontage lote Mr. Kamphefner noted that if acrea9e of the existing park wnre utilized for road purposes, this would have to be replaced.by the'purchase of property westerly, and sometimes homes with swimming pools backing on a street were sub3ected to bottles and 'other debris bQing thrown from passing cars. Furthermore, Alternative No. 3 w,~uld give a better park layout to the north, south, and east development. Mr. Thompson noted that if some alternative were not adopted at this time, the school and park might go ahead and develop their property, and then the cost of the street alignment would be considerably more. A , i ~>`q' ` ~': ;~:~ '.Y ~~i ~.`F~ .'Y . - ___.__,_.___.._.~. , . . . . . .. ' . " "" ' '"_'.._.., "' . ~ t.r ~ . . ~ ~ . . . . . ~ ~ . ~ -T . i4 MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING CONfMISSION, July 15, ,1968 4025 "`~''• ?'~ '' GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Kamphefner then noted that the Rio Vista park was planned to ' ~~~ AMENDMENT N0. 97 be developed on next year`s fiscal budget; that he would urge a `~+ '' " AREA DEVELQF141ENf . definite plan be adopted since the department was desirous of having ' " u~ i ~ '` PLAN NO . 37 all problems settled before starting the park, since.this would mean (C ti d) , `' on nue a savings to the City and the taxpayers. ~~ ~ t; , Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC68-221 and moved for its passage and ~ '`~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that ~~~z•~ General P1an.Amendment No. 97, Exhibit "A", be approved, providing for a:minimum of - ;;~` ~~' ,: one tier of R 1 lots ad3acent to existing R-1 development and ste pped up in density ~'' ;~ ~ from R-2-5000 ad3acent to the tier of R-1 lots, with R-3 backing the R-2-5000 - this ~ F.~ ~'~ being the most appropriate method of providing development of the area under considera- } ` ` ;; a; ~ ` tion with housing in close proximity to the Northeast Industrial Area. Furthermore .., ~r,: t= } ~ ; " , all previous exhibits considert~ by the Planning Commission and City Council should ~~:~•~ ~,: become null and void. (See Resolution Book) - _+ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: " AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allreda `k ~ .~. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' - ABSE~T: COMIyISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-222 and moved for its passage and ~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 37, Exhibit "A", plteznative No. 1, be adopted, based on ~^ ~ the fact that it was the most logiaal method of providin~ the necessary right-of-way N `: for a new street which could be acquired from the schooi and ark p property rather " , , than attempting condemnation proceedings to remove an existing R-1 hQme in the tract immediately to the west of the Santa Ana River and north of Lincoln Avenue for north- ~ south linkage of residential traffic at the time t;~e property to the north was to be ~~ developed. (See Resolution gook) "? ~ 1 v On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~r ~ "% :; ` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Allred. ~ ~~t~~ r ~ ~i l ,+, '+~ ' ° NOES: COMMISSIONH2S: Rowland. r~~' „~ ~14~ ' 1' ' ` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ~~~"°' ~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~~; ` ~~, Commissioner Rowland, in offering his "no" vote stated that a pproval of Alternative~ ~~~~h r ~~-~~' ~ n ~ ,i~ No. 1 would remove lsnd for street purpos~s which had been purchased and allocated ,t ;:;~ ~ for park and school purposes; therefore, everyone would be affected by this type of i' ~~~'^ circulation. A ~ !~ ~ ~ C~,. GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUPLIC HEARII~G. INITIATED BY 7HE CITY FLANNING COMMISSIQN 'r ~~' f , AMENDMENT N0. 101 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anahzim, California; to consider a proposal ;~- to increase the residential density designation for properties ,,;I~ generally south of the Riverside Freew4y between Rio Vista Street ' ~ ' on the w.est and Glassell Street on the east. " ;~ f; ~ Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Commission that since the City '' <.~Y S Council had referred General Plan Amendment Noe 97 to the Commissien for consideration `~' ~ ,'., of all the vacant or agricultural land north of Lincoln Avenue, east of the p pro osed 'r ! ~ ~ c. ' Orange Freeway, south of the Rivezside Freeway, and west of Glassell Street and the , ; : ` Santa Ana River, thaz the area encompassed by General Plan Amendment No. 101 was no ~+;` ~; longer needed, and should be terminated. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~;: r .. . ; . ~ . . . ~..~, ~;~! Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommena to the City Council that all actions ~!i4 ',:' n~~ ` on General Plan Amendment No. 101 be terminated on the basis that the area was now a ; '!i?i , ,,+ portion of General P1an Amendment No. 97. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. ~;-~ MOTION CARRIED< ;~; ~` ` , ~ ~ ~ ~ M~ ( : ~~ ~ . . ~ . . f ~. ~ ~ ~ :;,~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ y: ti !?,,2 ' i!i ~ ~ `~t ; ~,., ~: ' , ,~ ~ ;; ; *; :~ 'i ? , , ::. . . . ~ ~ . ~~ . . ~ , . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,i" 'i;:i 4k P~ ; ~ , . ~ ^, . . . . . . . . . . . t~ ~i:,i ~ ~ 1 ;,,4 ~;; a .•:. . . _ . . . . .. ' - ~ I' ., ~ ':n' I V~~ ~ ,.,~.z~ T' ~ ':'.: i . . ..... . . . . . ., ., , . : ~. .., :'; ,,.. -;:. .:.. ,.:...~: ..- ~ . ~ ... .' .~~% n_ ..~'a.f ~- ~. ....... . . . .-. u~.:.. :.: . :.. .:~ . ^'.1 .. .. . ~ . . . . ~.,_ n . _ . , . ~ . .,,.~-~..r..~....Y..._' ~-_. _ ' - ~,,,_,,,,,,.__..,., , .,, ., _,. 1`-_~ ,:. ' ::~;_.. ~`'~ f ~1 ~..,! :MINUit .; r;YTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 15~ 1968 ~i ~~$`h;~ t'X, t ` ~+ F'>"~ `~~s"'~ki~~ ~~ ~~ ~ x - +~' `! . ~ ~ j : 4026 CONDITIONAL USE, -, CON1'INUED PUBLIC HEHRING. ARTHUR AND HULDA HENIMERI,ING~ 114 North PERMIT N0. 1029 Coffman Avenue, Anaheim, California~ and ROGER PANNIER AND LORHAINE PRATER~ 2056 South Loara Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; ARMOUR BUILDING COMPANY, P. 0.'Eox 3236, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESI'ABLISH A MOBILE HOME PARK on property described as: An irregularly 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 Glassell Street, said fronta9e being on the south side of Frontera Street south of the Riverside Freeway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,.ZONE. ~ Subject petitibn was continued from the meetings of May 20 and June 17, 1968, to zllow time for'the petitioner to submit revised planse Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the agent for the petitioners requesting withdrawal of Conditional U~se Permit No. 1029j however, since sub~ect petition had been advertised and presented at two public hearings, the staff recommended that the petition.be terminated. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Peti.tion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1029, on the basis that the petitioners no longer desired to proceed with the petition. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. AtOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. V.F.W. P05T 3173, 805 East Sycamore Street, PERMIT N0. 1040 Anaheim, California, pwner; requesting permission to EXPAND THE EXISTING Y.F.W. FACILITIES, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately .4 acres of land located st the norttieast corner of Sycamore Street and the A.T. 8 S.F. Railroad right-of-way, having a frontage of approxi- mately 100 feet on the north side of Sycamore Street and a maximum depth of approxi- mately 397 feet, and further described as 805 East Sycamore Streeto Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the proposed request and previous zoning action on the.property, noting that the;pet'itioner proposed to enlarge the;existing assembly hell and'lounge facility from its present 3400 square feet of floor are to approximately 10,500 square feet; that'89 parking spaces had been indicated to the rear of the property adjacent to the 25-foot wide, dedicated alley, whereas Code would require 147 parking spaces; and that the petitioner had'indicated to the staSf that ,while the number of parking spaces'shown on the proposed plan was somewhat less than that required.by Code, it was their feeling it would be more than ample for the vast ma~ority of ineetings or functions held at this site. ?herefore, the Commission might wish to more closely evaluate the proposed expansion and the shortage of parking as it relates to the low-density, residential areas located to the north and east of subject property and recommend the applicant~ make arrangements with the beer distri- butor facility lor,ated to the west of sub~ect property for off-site parking whenever an overflow occasion did occur. Mr~ Harold Session~ 167 North Topeka Street, Post Chairman of the V.F.W,,appeared before the Commission and noted the present facility was built and moved into in 1961, with a membezship of between 165 and 170; that at the present time the member- ~ ship had risen to over 400 persons, which in many cases meant the existing facilities ' were not adequete for the membership; that these facilities were rented to outside I, functions and several times the size of the facility was found to-be inadequate, and '~, it was their desire to have two separate meeting rooms'which could be opened up into a large assembly hall so that two groups could m?et at one time; that.in addition to the existing 25-foot alley, they also had a':•foot drive; that when large assemblies were gathered at this facility, they provided attendant parking - thereby being able to park considerably more cars, and as proof, at one time they had a"Parents Without Partners" meeting at their facility and 105 cars were parked since each person came individually;;that they have been successful with this attendent parking, and by doing this would be able to protect the properties to the east so that the R-1 property owners could have'their'garages for parking purposes rather than having cars parked in the alley; that they had telked with the beer distributor company some time ago relative to anticipation of an overflow crowd, and they had been very favorable at that time in ellowing use of their facility for parking purposes - however, this was unnecessary because of the attendant parking they had providede Mr. Session, in response to Commission questioning, stated that to his knowledge there has never been any complaint from the adjoining property owners as to their operatione No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. i ~ ~ __-- .~ ~ ~;:r; _ 1; ~_~ ,r~ .. .,..J :~.~ r, `;'~ ;a 6i. . .~' s: ,'::~ '~> a~'T ~:...a~x t M:i'. ~..: . .r, ,.i ... <~.i:~r~.4 s .: I . ~ _ y4.. - _ - . . , . .. . . .. .. y . . .. . . ~~ ... . ~~~~.~ r^___ - o- ' :. ' ' . . . . ~ . ~ ..~. O ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~.~ . MINUTES;:CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968 4027 CONDITIONAL USE •- TFiE HEAR?NG WAS CLOS'cD. PERMIT N0. 1040. (Continued). Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa PC68-223 and moved 'for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, ` to:grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 1040,.waiving • the minimum required number of parking.speces,to permit 89 parking spaces as proposed, on the.basis that the petitioner had indicated 'that for large gatherings they provided attendant parki'ng whi:ch permiited maximum use of the parkin9 provided, and that arrange- ments had been made ~i+,h the M-l property to the.west #or permission to utilize their parking facilities when an overflow crowd was expected, and subject to conditions. ~' (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoirig resolutivn was passed by the following voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Camp, garano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, pllred. NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ~ ~; ~4• i L,~i'~ ~~ ~' ?'.`,_ ,1,~.s ;'.::;{Y i `~ a~ ~z~ ;!' `ra: V.;~ :~ .:~ ~;; ` a; ` t ~ y~ RECLASSIFICATION .- PUBLIC HEARING. HOWARD L. BUDLONG, 20046 Santa Ana Canyon Road, N0. 68-69-8 Anaheim, California, Owner; LEWIS R. SCHMID, 2949 Randolph Street, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting that property described TENTATIVE MAP OF as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 25.3 acres of TRACT NOS. 6686 land having a frontage of approximately 641 feet on the west side AND 6688 of Orchard Drive and a maximum depth of apprcximately 1,800 feet, the soutHerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 1,100 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, be reclassi- fied from the County A1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (prezoned prior to annexation) to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE, to establish 143 single-family lotse Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub3ect property, noting that subject property still was within the 3urisdiction of the County, but the petitioner was requesting prezoning of the property prior to annexation into the Citye Land uses ad~acent to subject property were also reviewed noting that vacant R-2-5000 existed ;~ ~. `~.5 -~ . ~. to'the north, the future Esperanza High gchool eite to the east, A1~and Rl developed ''s~~ property to the'south, 'and a.single-family R-2-5000 tract to the west; that the proposed '"~"';i ~ tracts indicated?the subdivision would rear onto Orchard Drive and continue the circula- i'. ,; tion pattern established by the R-2-5000 trects located to the west in the City of ;`,~ Aneheim;:that although not 3ndicated on the tentative map, the Interdepartmental Committee ""~ ~ recommended that a street be extended southerly ,to the south tract boundary to provide ' adequate circulation when the 14 acres under the County jurisdiction develop; and that the proposed subdivision appeared to be an excellent use of subject property since it ~ was located in an'aree that had been approved for low-density residential use and was ~ in tne process of being developed with 5000-square foot, single-family subdivisiono ~ Furthermore, the petitioners have indicated they would either deed or arrange for a ' mutual easement for~a 20-foot accessway to a small parcel of lar,d located at the south- west corner of subject property which is presently being used as a water pumping site by the Standard 0i1 Company in order to preclude this small parcel becoming landlocked. Mr. prmand•Arnett, 18581 Woodwind Street, appeared before the Commission and noted he ': ~'; was in hopes of,seeing the developer since all he'and his neighbors were interested in ';';i; was what was being proposed; that it was epparent'that the country appearance of ,the `~; area was 9radually being engulfed with people; and then inquired whether or not sub~ect : ';.F property was:within the City of Anaheim. ~ ;:i Zoning Supervisor.Ronald Thompson advised Mr: Arnett that subject property was in the process of being annexed into the City, and that the petitioner was requestin9 prezoning ,.1~ in order that'the annexation and zoning action might be completed at the°same time. Mr. Arnett then inquired what the square footage of the.homes would be and what the ,price range would be since it was their desire not to have homes which would be.a '{ detriment to the established residential 'integrity of the area; that although the '~'` piice of`the homes was;approximately $25,000, the price of construction had gone up - , ~h" therefore`the quality of home~. ever if within the'$25,000 range, would be substandard ~~ !,,;; to-those developed southerly,of subject property; and, furthermore, he was interested ~' ^ '~ ^ II in knowing whether a six-foot masonry wall would be constructed along the south property '` line. ~ ?~ ,., : ;~a. ~~ ~~' Mr. Thom son noted that where y ~ q p propert abutted arteiial streets homes were re uired C ?~4~ to rear-on or side-on'these arterials, and the trees and plantings would be required ~'~ in the parkways similar to that required ad~acent to the property to the west and north. :::~; However, a masonry wall was not required to separate two single-family homes - therefore _ ._ _., it would be up to the developer to determine whether a wall would be constructed alon9 ; ;, ~ the south property line. ~ ,,,, . .. . . . . ~ ~ . - . . ~ ~ ~ fii ~ . . . . .. ` ~ ._. ' . ~ . ~ ~'.i`,~4" . t lto`c. ~ - ------ ,; ,-, ,. ~ . ~:J . ~ ~~' MINUTES, CITY_°PI:Ap1NING COMMISSION, July 15,, 1968 4p2g ; ~;~; • _ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Arnett noted that the existing fence was a metal fence, tNo ,;; N0:-68-69-8. tiers high, and"would.not hide any unsightliness-if the properties ~'' TENTATIVE MAP did not develop with presentable yards. ~~~'' OF TRACT'NOS. 4 ( ''.' . . . ' . ~ . ' . ~ ~;; _ 6686 AND 6688 Mr. Lewis R. Schmid, agent for the petitioner a , ppeared before the w;' (Continued) Commission and noted that one of the main concerns of the opposition k~ ;, : x„ , was the fact.that the masonry wall might not be built. However, he ~";,' wished to assure'the ~,nterested persons in the R-1 tract to the south ~"- that if the FHA required a masonry wall adjacent to the property, the price range of the homes would be between $24,000 and $26,500; that they would have shake or shingle roofs ~ and would be,single-story homes; that he:had discussed with the representatives of the City the`development and design of R-2-5000 homes, and they were aware of the many N~~;;~ problems created in the past r.elative to this type of home - however, the.City required a minimum of 1,225-square foot floor area and a maximum coverage of 40p~, but he could not ~~::~ assure the property owners that the price range would be at the top price of $26,500 for `": all homes, since in the past year and a half the cost for construction of a home had risen by $2,000; and that homes they had developed in the past had been assessed at the , rate of $26,000, '' .~f THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~.:.i . ,:~; Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-224 and move~ for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition '.a~,~ for Reclassification Noa 68-69-8 be approved, subject to providing a stub street along ,~ the south boundary ad~acent to the 14-acre, undeveloped parcel presently existing in ' the County, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) '~a. ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ' ~.3~ i ,;~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. , _^,1~ "':~`~' pBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. r, ~ ~i ''+ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered.a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6686, seconded ''~a by Commissioner`Farano,'and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the followin9 conditions: ~„~ ~a~~ 1'. That the approval'of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6686 is granted subject to the ~'"~" approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-8> ,, ;ir ; y f~~, 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each ;.'~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ,~,:,`u., r,"~;; 3„ That the.vehicular access rights except at street and~or alley openings to ~ e. ~ Orchard.Drive shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. * ~ „ , ''~ ,~ ~+~ ~- 4o That in•accordance with City Council policy, a six-foot masonry wall shall be u~a s~ ~ constructed on the easterly property line separating Lot Nos. 1 and 65 and ` ~F ~y' ~ ' .~rchard Drive, except that corner lot Nos. 1 and 65 shall be stepped down to 1'~ ~~'~ k : a ~ a height of thirty inches in the front y ard setback, and except that pedestrian . ~.~,~f;,~; ~ openings shall be provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned ~~~'. ~.~ highwa.y.s right-of-way line of an arterial highway. Reasonable landscaping, ,~~~, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion ~s~ `~r~4 of the.arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said '~ r~~ ~ ` landsca in to be submitted to and sub ect to the a P 9 ,~ pproval of the Superintendent fi, ~, of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of ~~~"~' ~ Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. ~. ~~.; . .~: ""~M ~C 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~ ~F 6. That'Street "B" shall be recorded as Garland Street; Street "C" shall be recorded as Viola Street; that Street "E° shall be recorded as Cymbal Way, ~~~ ' ._y~ 4 and that Street "H° shall be recorded as Tympani Street. . , n ~ ~~ ~.~~! 7. That "C" Street shall be 60 feet in width. ~n k ~~ ~ I ,, ~ ~ ~ . . , . ~ . . . . .. . . ~ ~ ~ 6~, ~ t~ ' ]~~ .~' 4Ty.~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . , .. ~ . ~ . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ *"~~~ -W~ i ' ~s ~ ~'Ci~ ' `'''f. i }F ;,, _~ '.'-~; I~Y ;: +$ :~ _ , :~ +~ ; ~;~ ';;,~ ha~ `:~:~5 ~ •~~_, i ~~ r I ,,, , ~' i ~ ,:r ' `;;; ra f,~ ~ e I . .,1' ~~,:: ~._ 4. I . " .~~. , .~i1~1`F'1 ~ ~' r : : ,., , . ~'J _ l.~ ~ MINllT£S, CIIY,PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15,"1968 4029 RECLASSIFICATION -.Commissioner gowland offered a motion to~approve Tentative Map of • N0.-68=69-8 Trect Noa 6688, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED, TENTATIVE MAP subject to the following conditions: _ OF TRACT N06:. 6686 AND 6688 la That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract ~ioo 6688 is granted (Continued) sub3ect to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-8e • 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each . subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for.approvale ~ 3. That vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to Orchard ~ ~ Drive, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheime ~~ ~ ~ '~ 4. That in accordance with City Council policy, a six-foat masonry wall shall be ~~~ Fa ' ~ constructed on the easterly property line separating lot Nos. 34 and 38 and ~~ ~",: :~ Orchard Drive, and except that pedestrian openings shall be pxovided in said walls <' J ~; where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highway rights-of-way line of an arterial high- ` way. . Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed `' 4-,~ in the uncemented ortion of the arterial hi hwa full distance of P g y parkway the . said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the ~ f; approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation ' N and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for mainien- ~;~ , E, ance of said landscaping. ~ . a`; ~ 'L ''~ ~ 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~~ ~ s' 6. That Street "B" shall be recorded as Garland Street; that Street "C" shall be ~;~ ~ ~ recorded as Viola Street; that Street "D" shall be recorded as Cornet Circle; k ,. ? that Street "E" shall be recorded as Cymbal Way; that Street "F" shall be ~; i'L" ~ recorded as Tympani Circle; and that Street "G" shall be recorded as Trumpet , , ~, ~ i,; Circle. , ~~~ , • ~' ~ ~ .;_ ~; 7. That Streets "A" and "C" shall be 60 feet in width. A ; , Y.., { r';' ~.~r ~` 8. That Straet "F" shall be'extended southerly to the south tract boundary. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ hi6'f. , . . : .. .~ .. . ~~ . . ~ . ~. . ~ . ~ .. . . ~ . . ... . . . . E f~ " CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT HANELINE, 2856 Petaluma Avenue, Long Beach, ~~~~ PERMIT N0. 1039 CaJ.ifornia, and GERALD MC GINNIS, 3568 Brenton Street,. Lynwood, ~' ,"°l~g California, Owners; MARVIN GUNNUFSON, 12022 Martha Ann Drive, ~a~,~;~~~ Los Alamitos, C«3ifornia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH 4 70.' A 150-BflD CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, WIli: WAIVHRS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SEI'BACK ~ U ;~ AND (2) LOCATION -0F REQUIRED PARKING on property described as: A rectangularly shaped ~~'' ' r? parcel of approximately 1.8 acres of land having a frontage of approximately 210 feet ~ ',=~u~~ on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 343 feet, the _~''~ westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 460 feet east of the centerline ~ ~ 1~' i~.~ ,{ t,~, of Knott Street. property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. , ~`~4+`~x V~t Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 9:30 P.M. ~jr'1 ~~?d . ~ . ' ~ . pf„~r''~~. ~3 i~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the , d~.,~,;,~~ proposed use of the property, and the requested waivers, reviewing the'land uses ad3acent _ ~"~•". ~~,~K, ; - ta subject propert and notin that a y g pending R-2-5000, single-family subdivision would bs~, . be developed to the north, and that an existing multiple-family development existed to `~,i~-?~' the west. ~i~ ~, ; .~~r~; rw ~~~ Mr. Brown then reviewed the proposal to construct a 150-bed, one-storyr 23,700-square '3=~j' foot convalescent hospital on subject property; that the applicants` plans indicated parking would be provided at the front of the property; that the hospital wings would extend to within six feei: of the property line on the west, north, and east, and Code would require a minimum of a 15-foot separation from the adjacent property lines; that r all vehicular ci~rculation would be restricted to a rather small area in the front where x"'' the parking area had been indicated on the plans, with absolutely no circulation provided ~ ' ~ti. for the periphery or the rear of the property; and that lack of accessways for fire and '' ~~~~ trash vehicles was an extremely undesirable,situation and could prove to be a very danger- ,'y ' ~,~+,~,. ous one, particularly,in view-of the nature and magnitude of the proposed operation. ~`„~~~~. Therefore, since the Chief of the'Fire Department was insistent upon having adequate ~ s~"~,r~~„ circulation, the staff recommended consideration of a four weeks' continuance to permit ' ~~r<~!~~ ' the applicants time to submit revised plans for the purpose of providing acceptable ~~~. .~r~ ;~;s~ circulation for fire and other emergency services. ~~'. ~'a,r~~'~~'. Mr. Marvin Gunnufson, agent for ~the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted "' ":*~+~~ Ik the would be a reeable to y g providing a portion of Condition No. 7, which requires a 15-foot ~. Y !~+„;~.~c~~. r . ~~,~ Hi~ ~. ^~' y~~'~ .~*r~ s t~"'~,~ hs: j~ t'i+1a"77u' ,S~ s~ '~7`"d'}~u7•'S~~ ,,s ~M~~r '„~5°} Pt~v ~{ nt~, Si `~' .a K" 7~'o Ti~II"y..-' ,• r~'t„xr'n ; :~ 9t lr.~'~ ` ~ { s *~ '7 ~~"~ ~f r ~ .; t :~ 7'sr ~,., ax t ), i t ~ ~ ~ . t: -~K , '~ _ ~~i' ._f.. „ r,~t . . .Q . .. . . ' _ . . ~ . ' . ~~ , . .. . V . - . ~ • - .MINUTES, CIlY.PLANNING COMMISSION, July 15, 1968 4030 '} ~ CONDITIONAL USE• - wide, peripheral drive along the' north, east, and west property PERMIT-NO. 1039 lines b~ providing only a 15-foot drive to the north property ~ (Continued.) _ line alon~ the east property line, this,,then,.would permit a roadway ~, ..~! to the rear of the property. ry.; . . . . , . . The Commission.inquired whether or not the petitioners were agreeable to continuing '_ sub3ect petition for four weeks in order to provide for adequate circulation since ~"' ` the Commission.was not desirous of approving plans which did not provide adequate circulation as requested by the Fire Department: - Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that at the time the plans were ^i* ,,• reviewed at the Interdepartmental Committee, the Assistant Fire Chief requested that ,,:;,j. the 15-foot peripheral drive be required in order to provide adequate protection and to have one drive along the east property line withoat any turning radius would be no bei:ter than no drive ~at all. ~ ' :~ r The Commission then noted that the safety of the patients in the proposed facility was of utmost concern to the Commission. 'sz .~; Mr. Daw further noted that a turn-around area of a 27-foot radius, making a 54-foot ~ - ; diameter area from the kitchen to the property line, was necessary, while only 38 feet t j was available, and that he suggested that prior to redrawing the plans, the petitioners ' J. > contact the Assistant Fire Chief to discuss this problem with him in order to resolve it. "' µ•.,'~ Mr. Gunnufson stated that there would be ade uate g protection for the patients since ~ '~` r; the were rovidin Y p g glass doors, and the entire facility would be provided with sprinklers. L, ~ ~; Mr. Thompson advised the agent for the petitioners that he contact him prior to the M,, , '~ ` a' meeting - that he would arrange for a meeting with the Assisiant Fire Chief re ardin 9 9 ~ 1;•~ the revised plar,s. t~ ~ s ~y ~ ,u ~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue subject petition to the meeting of + ~~ ; July 29, 1968, in order for the petitioners to submit revised plans incorporating n~ ' ' y„ suggestions made by the Chief of the Fire Department for adequate circulation. o ~ ~; ~~ ~~~ ~rr C mmissioner_Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo ' , ~ I ~ ,x ~~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~k1 ~ , _ f'o ~,~„~ REPORTS AND - II'EM N0. 1 4 I~ r ~ p,~ ';^~;,~ ''~ " RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Zone Change ZC68-21 and ZC68-21 Alternate "A" 4 ~ ~ 1 '~'~?~ ; ~~~ ~ Property located at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street d St b k " ,~ ~ ; ~ an ony roo Drive, with Alternate A" including the northwest co f th ~{ ;,P rner o e same intersection - proposing a change in zone ~ su ; ;; from the R-1 to the G1 Zone. ~ ,~ ~ F :, ,. E z;:~ ' ' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented Orange County Zone Change ZC68-21 to ,~ ,~, ' the Planning Comm3ssion, reviewin9 the location of the property under consideration ~ ~~i,~ ~ , requested zoning, current land uses in close proximity, the fact that the existing rr;~ ~, ~ structures on sub~ect property have variances approved permi+.ting commercial use of t~"';j ~tM1"~` ~ the structures and the fact that the ma orit of the ad oinin p ~ y ~ 9 pro erties are within ; ~'~ ~ ~ the City of Anaheim. ~ + , ~ ~ ~~j! z`~ ~ The recommendations of the staff, if subject zone change were considered #avorably ~t,~~s?F and the fact that dedication for street widening purposes had been acquired, were ~,.~~;~ also reviewed by Mr. Brown. ' ~~,~ ~ ~~1,G~'~ Commissioner qowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange a ,~~rxy ~ County Planning Commission be urged to give consideration to the following recommenda- ~r ;~ tions, if Orange County Zone Change ZC68-21 is approved: `, {t`~ ~ ~~~ ~~2;~~.. 1. If subject properties are considered favorably for the C-1 Local Business ~' ~ ~ ~~~~' , District, with the existing residential structures retained`and used for i~ ~~~R,~ commercial purposes, all parking should be provided to the rear of subject ~.c~ ;' k;~, property, and existing front setbacks be retained and fully landscaped. ~ '~~~' yr ~~'~, ~~~~~~r~ ~ ~ 2. If the existing structures are removed, the following site development ~~, ~,, ;~~;r - ; standards be provided: ``±`~ , a. , ~~ ' ~',:+u ; i~~,?~ "~Y~~1~~ ~$'~-~~~i~ ~ t~~yqf~ ~~~5'~ 7~~.~~H{~,~'w~c~F, `y s y;., ~.-y `{~'iYdrr~~ ~.• .f" 7~ .t `1~ ~m c~ 1 b~ lA 7' ] ~`3 N:`J'.f:Y iT I 1 '¢' i,,~ ~v Y 5'" 1~'kt` t G" 2 4 S f 7 ~ A ~C f ~'~ J ' ~ ~~ f ~ ~ ..: .1.. Y ..i . . S - r Yi1 ~ ~!'y `sr `wI' i i r ~ _ ` .. y~.1 MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; July 15,'1968 4031 ~~ ~ _. ; . , . REPORTS~ AND ; ; , s, RECOMMEAIDATIONS: - ITEM N0. 1, (Continued).'- ;;;~ ,~. ~ a. ;That~a minimum"10-foot structural,setback on Brookhurst Street and .~a Stonybrook Drive be provided: ~^~ 5 ~ b. 'Ihat said sethacks be fully landscaped, except.'such landscaping_may b u ~ e red ced to a 3-foot width ad3ecent to street rights-of-way; if ''~ front.paiking area is proposed: _ S';~ ; - c. Tha~t.6-foot masonry walls and,tree, screen landscaping be provided . ' • ~~ where:subject property.abuts residentially zoned properties. ' ;"~ ~~ d: That•a~6-foot masoniy wall be provided to the rear of the 3-foot '~~~' landscaped area on Stonybrook Drive, if front parking on the «"' street side is developed. ;f ,~~ e. Tha.t a1L structures be separated a minimum distance of twiqe their wall height from adjacent residential properties. f. That parking spaces be provided at a rate of 5 spaces per 1000 s uare q feet.of gross building floor area. g. That refuse areas be provided. -'~~ 3. If these properties cannot be developed as above, that the request for rezonfrrg be disapproved, and the existing use variances remain in effect '' '-~ . Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ti~~ . . . ;,~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss Commissioner Herbst ~ ~ ~~':4:y ~:~:~ ;7 , offered a motion to ad~ourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. , , ,. The me"eting ad~ourned at 9:45 P.M. ~ ~~° 4 "'f ; Respectfully submitted, , ."'{ ~ ,,. ,^{ ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary f r,;: Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ i , i , , ~ `;: ; '; ~ +;~: ' ~;' f w~~ ~'; h, i ; ;~~ ; ; -;,,t ; , r; ~ ~~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~. ~ . .. . . . . . . - . . ~ . . ' .. ~ . . . , . . . . ' ~ .:`e`; i "r' ' . . . _ . ~ . . ' . . . . . ... . . . ~ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .. , t` j ' . . . . . , ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ . ' , . , . .. . ' . ~ . . . ~ . . . ., . . . . ' . . . . . . .~ ~ 'tl f . .i4„51 . ~ ~ ~ ' . . . ' . . .. ~ . . ~ ~ ' ~ ' .. . . ~ ~ . ., .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . - . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . . ' . ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ l ~~ ,w . . . ~ ~~r~i ~:~:~1 . ~ .. .. .. . . . ~ . ~__-~~I'7 . . ' •N~~' } ~tl~'~L'~ . . • l..