The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/08/124 ..+e v ti"-'.rny ,~.. t.5„~S'~ "~` "~~ a''T" r ~ '~ N i ir 2 -~~4~~ 't,. ~ .n ~r i ~'C .c ~ kZ ~~ C x y~e~- ~ ~ r.fc2_S°'9yJsviO, -~ r ac .:r,~a rfti ri` .f' .~c ,~yi~~ ~ z ~ '"xss~~..;~ ,yt` ~, : 5 .,. 4: ; ~ - . ~ . ~" . f ~ ~ ~l City Hall Anafieim, California August 12, 1968 ~ ~~; _ , K;; A REGULAR' MEETING OF THE ANAF~IM CITY PLANNING COI~A42SSION ~;{~ ';: REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion was called J' to order by Chairman Allred at 2:00 o~clock P.M, a ~'~ preaent. , quorum being r. ~ ';~1 PRFSENT - CHAIRMAN: Allred. z~S ~ ' ~~:,~,i ; 's - CONIMISSIONE~.Ss Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbet, Mungall. ~ -':~ aBSErrT - cor~usszorr~xs: xAWi~a. PRESENT - Assistaat Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson = ' Aeaistant City Attorney: Johtt Dawsott ~;; " Deputy City Attorney: Frank I,oyny ~ Office Ehgineer Represetttative: Robert Jonea ~ Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompaott ` Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown , ;~ Planning Commisaion Secretary: Ann Krebs ;~ PLEDGE OF ;~ ALLEGIANCE - Commisaioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. r ;~ `" APPROVAL OF - Mittutea of the meeting of July 29, 1968 were approved as submitted ,:., TFIE MINUTES , on motion by Co~i.ssioner Farano, aeconded by Co~ieaioner Mungall ~•;,~ , and MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 1972 - CONTINUID PUBLIC HEARING. II~IRE SAVITTGS & IAAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, Ca]3fornia, Owner; property TENTATIVE MAp OF deacribed as: A rectangul,arly ahaped,parcel of approximately 9.7 TRACT.NO. 6509 acres of land having a Prontage,,of approx3.mately 65T feet on the east eide of Aladdin Street and a maximum depth of approximately ' 6/{2 feet, the northerly boundary of ssid parcel lieing approximately 615 feet south of.the centerline o£ Crescent Avenue, and the weaterly boundary being approximately 1,350 feet esat of the cettterline of Brookhurst Street. Property presently'classified R-3, MIILTIPLE-FAMILi RFS2DENTIAL, ZONE. R.N7QUFSTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM IAT WIDTH TO pERIffT A SUBDIVISION COMPRiSED ~ OF 36 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED IATS. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: PERhIIT THE SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 36 R-3 ZONED IATS. ,~ F' ~~' Subject petition and tract were continued from the meetittgs of April 22, May 6, and y Y. June 17, 1968, to allow the petitioner time to submit a revised tract map. ~~x~ i' Aeaistant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown adviaed the Commieaion that the petitioners had +{ '~;`,: requeated a aix-month continuance of subject va~iance and tract map, pendi.ng £inal ~,' ~.~ deciaiona on the future development of this property. ~.. '~"~ Commisaioner Gauer'offered a motion to contiaue Petition for Variance No. 1972 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6509 to the meeting of February 10, 1969, as requested by the petitioner. Commisaioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: PERALTA HILI,S GppUp, DAN N2NBURG, ET AL, 1781 Weat TRACT N0. 6066, Romneya 1lrive, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Etiginaering REVISION N0. 8 Compriny, 222 Fs.st Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on the south aide of the Riveraide Freeway at the interaection of Cerro Vista Way and Peralta Hi11s I?rive, contain- ing approx3mately 13 acres, is propoaed £or subdivision into 13 R-E, RESIDENTIAL FSTATE, ZONED lots. Subjoct tract was continued from the meeting of Ju1y 29, 1968 i.n order to reaolve accesa problems. 4052 ~ :._~ ~ . ~~ _ ~~ I t i 1 ~ ~±: 't'' ; iY ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ . _ ._ . ~ ~= ~4 ~ '~ ~+. ~::.:f~~'~ x ~~~~"5Ca-t~~ ~ ~t~'~'~~ f~" ~~f~'~ ~~+'~~~ r~~ a i-~ ~-~~,"~~ J~'~"~~'~ S~ 4 '^ ~ ~ ~ ) `'~~ ~ , ~;.r ; . :. } 1.. f y1" i r 't '~ ~ ~ /~ ' . . , . . . . . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ _ , ' ~ MI~T~; '~ PLANNING CO1rR~IC5S20N, Auguat l;e; 1968 ~ 4~53 TENTATNE'MAP"OF - Mr, Norman Goodwin,,realtor and representative of the developers TRACT'N0:'6066, and engineer, appeared befo're the Commiasion and reviewed dis- REVISION'N0:'S cuaeiona he held with the developera regarding the reco~endation Continued of the Oity ata£f that a 26-foot easement be required through the tract to the propoaed etreet, in order that the parcel to the west may develop at a future date; the reault of thoae diacusaiona was a unanimoua vote that no acceea ahould be dedicated, eince the ownera of thia property, ,`. who.were,:also the developera, were desirous of maintaining a rural atmoaphere having traffic only from this tract and the landlocked parcel to the aouth utilizing the etreet; that acceea for the property to the west could be obtained fra~ the exiating road off ; Peralta $i11s:Drive, eaid road could theri be widened by the acquiaition of a small por- ~:~~ tion of the land preaently developed (while under the juraidetion of the County), which has a wall around it; and that thie meana of providing accesa to the.Cremer property ~ ~. ~ ~ would reault in far leae land being acquired for atreet purpoeee than that propoaed by ?~; the City. ~ c' ; Considerable diacueaion was then held by 'the Commiasion, representatives of the developer, ? the various ataf£ membera, and tne Aeaiatant City Attorney relative to the reco~endatiott -a of providing acceea through aubject tract for the property to the weat (Cremer property), `; and at its conclueion the Commieaiott wae of the opinion that the basic iaeue was whether %~,~ the City o£ Anaheim was desirous of conaidering the Peralta Hi1],s area so different in ~", character that the City should deviate £rom the normal requirementa of a11 tracta devel- oped and being developed in the City, by not requirittg accesa to ad3oining propertiea, ~, auch as atub atreeta, or in thie instance, an easemettt for a 20-foot roadway; however, ,,i it was important that the City assure a11 property ownera that adequate fire protection ;,~ would be given, and thie could only be accompliahed when proper vehicu].ar circulation ;:`~ wae provided. :~ Commisaioner Herbat of£ered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6066, Reviaion '~' No. 8, aeconded by Coa~isaioner Mungall, and MOTION CARRIED b3• a vote of 4 to 2 Commis- ~J~`v sioner Rowland being abaent, aubject to the following conditiotta: ' ~ 1. That ahould this eubdiviaion be developed as more than otte aubdivision, each aubdivleion thereof ahall be aubmitted itt tentative form for approval. z• That m3nimum 26-foot easementa ehall be provided for accesa to properties located west attd south of Tract No. 6066. Easement locatione eha11 be approved'by the City'Ehgineer prior to appropal of a final tract'map. Improvemente.to said easements ahall be accompliahed by adjoining property owners to the weat and south, prior to uae of said easemente £or vehicular accesa. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EPHRAIM BEARD, ET AL, 10181 Beach N0. 68-69-ll Boulevard, Stantott, California Owners• A rectangulariy shaped parcel oP appro~dmatelrty deacribed as: VARIANCE N0. 2001 having a~rontage of approximate Y 4.? acres of land Beach boulevard and a mA,~.sm„m ~' 330 feet on the west eide of the northerly bounda depth of approximately 620 feet, eouth of the centerline of Ball Road. Pr pertyepreaent1y1c1asa~fiedrR-A~,aAGRICULTfIfRAI,t , ZONE. ~ ; ~ 4' < ti ° ~~ :5 i u' M ~. +; t; ;' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-3, HEAVY C02ASERCIAL, ZONE. ' VARIANCE REIQUFST: For the southweet portion (approximately 2.0 acres) of the afore- metttionad parcel, said portiott being a rectangular~y shaped parcel having dimensiona o£ g00 feet by 173 feet, attd whoae easterly boundary ia located approxi.mately 160 £eet weat of the centerline of Beach Boulevard - WAIVER OF PF~RMITTED IISFS, TO PERMIT THE , CONTIN[TED OPERATION OF AN EXISTING AUT.fi SALVAGE YARD, ' ~~ Sub3ect petitiona were continued fr.om the meeting of Ju~.y 29, 1968, itt order.to re- t advertiae the property for C-1, Gener.al Commercial~ Zone a~d to permit the two separate ~ uaea under the~varianoe. ~ :t Aaeiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the original requeat for C-3 zoning and ~ the Co~i.ssion~s action at the July 29 meeting, wherein it was their feeling the C-3 zoning would permit more intenae land uae if the propoaed uaea were not eatabliahed in this area, which could be detrimental to the adjoitting land uaes, and directed the etaff to readvertiae aubject petitiona in order that the requeated uaea could be permitted by variance within r; the C-1 Zone, and that the automobile salvage yard ha.d been in existence for some time. ~'' - ii3 ~ .__ _ .... _..:._~.:,d y • :; ~ ~ --- ~- -:-a- ~ ` , ~ ~ ~.-~~--~:, ` :.4 ~'. 0 ~ ;','r f~, ;', "~': ~ ~'. ~~ .~ ..~~.~.~.h; ~r~~~ r~-.^c_x~,~t~ny"~r ~~~i"~ ~ z ~ _ ~,~~1~' ~ ~nr F~ ~ u ~~~,~~ ~~ ~:~ 1 ; ~ y . N ~ ~. ~ ;~„ x _ ~;~ ff. + , _ i /'~ \ \ J ~~ l~ ~ ~1 ,;~, MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auguat 12, 1968 4054 ~ RECLASSIFICATION' - Mr. Ephraim Beard, the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion N0. 68=69=17: and noted that it was his intent to rone the VARIANCE N0. 2001 he concurred with the recommendationa of the ataff asrto~c nditions. (Continued) Mr. George Naganishj,, 30g0 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commisaion in oppoaition, preaenting a petition aigned by 201 residenta of the mobile home•park which he owned, oppoaing the salvage yard operation, noting that approximately 55~ feet of the mobile home park was adjacent to eubject property, both yd,thin the City of Anaheim and the City of Stenton; th~t a problem had been created with young people driving th:ough the mobile home park to gain acceae to the salvage yard to burglarize the wrecked automobilea; that the automobilea were old and atacked several care high, which pro3ected over the 8-foot high fence; and that the reaidente near the fenced area were alarmed that burglara could attack them if they were out late at night. :~.~sa Myrna Fryback, a reaideat of Space 96 of the mobile home park, appeared before the Comrtu.saion in oppoaition, noting that ahe was a echool teacher who aelected thia park becauee of ita attractinenesa; that ehe drove a coneiderable distance to and from work to a res~idence where ahe rras deairous of relaxing and enjoying her home becauae it rras a ehowpla^.e of mobile home parica; that the reaidenta of the park took great pride in their aurroi:ndinge, apettding conaiderable money in plants and shrube, and becauae her lot was ad~acettt to the salvage yard, the intrudera climbed over her ahrubbexy and plants and it coet her ~57,00 to replace them; that mice had been coming from sub~ect property wetch soathattthey would noteinvademherlhome8thathrodentaWwere knowndto~beecarriera of diaease - therefore thie wae harmPul to the health of the mobile home park residents; that the yard provided ample opportunity-for young people to fittd parte for their cara, but they were uaittg the park property to gain acceas to it, thereby damaging her landecaping ae well as encouraging theft which wae considered one of the problema of the nation today; that she had diacueaed thia problem with the petitioner and owner of the yard, who was very courteous to her and explaitted the atepa that had been taken to guard the property - however, he had sdmitted one of hia doga which he had guard the property had been killed, and iP any~intruder were in there with the idea of tha£t and the use of a gun to gain acceas, then the residettta of the mobile home park would aleo be sub~ected to being ehot if they ventured out of their homea after darg and noted the intruder in the act of ~umping the fence; and that aince they were proud of their park, they apent many time- conauming houra to mainta~n the park, even though they were aware a salvage yard did exiPt in the area - therefore, ahe urged the Commission to deny the salvage yard requeat for any expansion. The Commisaiott advised Miae Fryback and other oppositdon that the salvage yard buainesa had been in exiatence prior to the eatablishmettt of the mobile home park, and the requeat wae for ita continued operation within the zone in which it was permitted, toge~ther with the establiahment of an automobile salea and aervice agency on the balance o£ the property; however, there was no intent of expanding the exiating operation within the City of Anaheim boundariea. ~Mra. Jennie Reynolds, a reaident oP Space ]./+3, apperired before the Commission in oppoai- tion and noted that ehe could aee the salnage yard from her porch; that ahe was aware of the yard when ahe moved in - however, at that time nothing was visible fxum the porch, but the atorage of vehiclea was now viaible, and if expanaion were permitted, thia would increase the unaightlinesa of the automobilea adjacent to the mobile home park, and even though the fence was built to a height of 8 feet, they were now piling the automobiles higher and many were old, ruaty sutomobiles which were very unaightly. Mr• Tom Miller, 10151 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, appeared before the Commisaion and atated that he now rented the property on which he aold Volksrragens; that he would like to speak on beha].f of the petitioner aince he had knowa him for a ttumber of yeara in connection with the beautification of salvage yarda; that the mice which one of the oppoaition apoke of could in all likelihood come from the open field on which he proposed to conatruct a building to houee the salea and servicing of Volkswagena; that he Irnew the wrecked auto- mobilee were not atacked more than two high because of ineurance ratee - that they were etored without wheels on 1~-foot high standa, and the large percentage of them was not even atacked two high; that moat of the sutomobilea were foreign made, which were con- aiderably amaller than the domeatic type; that he had operated in the same area for the past four years and had never aeen the automobilea extettded over the 8-foot fence - howeder, vieyring theae automobiles £rom the porch or atepa of a mobile home might bring them wi,thin their aite; and that the salvage businesa had been in optrration for twenty yeara, and everyone who had moved into the mobile home park were aware the salvage yard extated in ita preaent location. ' ~; ;c ,•, ,~: a~ ' r I { .. ,~'` ...._ ._t.~ . ,... ., . . . . ,... n~~~~ ~ y~ ~~ , , i r_ ~ r ~,~~r ~~ ~ ,~.,c' .y c ~ ~ ~t nc ~~y u t "^~ ~.„k` v~ v. ~ ~f .~1: ! x,,, ~ 'Mt~'!tn t ,y,r e s,,~ ^~ r ''' t n'S +h~'"'~ ~ ~~ '~ °" > ~ 1 ~'` v' 7 $r• 8 i Y~ ,. ~~~.'v~+rc M, .,~ .r ~ . ~~~, ~ y ~. _i ,; ~. e ~ ,~ i~ .~ - _ - ~. l .'b~ ik ~ ~ ~ J . , . . _ . . _ , ~ : ~ ~ ~ ; . .. . , ~ ~ . ~. . . . . C~ (~ ~ . . ~:4 ~ ~ ~: MINUTES~ CITY PI,ANNING Cot~ffssloN, Auguat 1z, 1968 4055 ~ ~ ,: i REC7~AS3IFICATI~rT '- Mr. Miller, in responae to Commiaeion auestioning relative to the •' ~~ " ~' ~ ;~ . NO 68=69=11 fact that the salvage operation wsa not on the property within the '~ + ;~ ' VARiANCE'N0: 2001 City of Aneheim in 1962, atated that he was a native of the City C ntin ed - A o u and went to the saldage yard many timee as a youngster with hia * '~,: i , :, ' father - therefore~ it must have been in operation earlier than ,;x _ 1960, , ,~ A~ ~: Mr..geard again appearad be£ore the Commisaion and adviaed them that when they took the ;, /'~ ~~ ' ealvage yard twelve yeaxs ago, it was under the jurisdiction o£ the Couttty, and two years "~~ . later it was anaexed into the City of Anaheim, and thie could be proven by picturee; that ~,'.~ ~ later the yard was enlarged into the City of Stanton on a five-acre parcel - however if -`r ~~1~r~ , problema were being created, the yard would remain in the City of Stanton. Furthermore ' ~ ;rx r ~; ~ in 1966, when he became involved in the Federal Highway Beautification Program, he relocated ~•; ~t t the atructure along Beach Boulevard to the rear of the property and erected an 8-£oot fence; ~ iI; ~. that he was very disappointed hia neighbors objected to the operation, and he could not aee ~ "` ` how ateel bodiea could encourage the bresding of mice, aince it was very difficult to climb "~ ;, steel, and the only parts on the ground were tires, which he was sure could not be a breed- ~{ ing place; that all trash and debria were hauled ak-ay daily; that the mice could be breed- i > 1~ ing in the large open field which they hoped to convert to a salee and aervice agency for '~ the Volkawagett dealerahip; and that they were now in the procese of spending ~2,000 to -i refenee the area in the City of Stanton, which might be the portiott the mobile home tenanta ~ `' were triewing. Furthermore, he took ~uat ae great a pride in his ealvage yard as the mobile h ~ ~ '~ ome people took in theirs aince it had been given conaiderable publicity in the Highway ~~i ; Besutification Program. ;S! ~ , TAE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~i . ~;, ~ , ,•ai ' ' Diacuaeion was held by the Commiasion regarding the recommendations and inquired how the ~ ~i~ ~ 6-foot wall wou]d affect the mobile home park; whereupon Mr. Beard atated thia would ~ '' , ~~ ; ;. affect only the property to the north and not ctny of the property to the weat. ~ ~_,, The Commission then noted that one of the conditiona of approval ahould be the atacking f t bil '~ +! au o omo es no higher than the existing £ence - this mi ht hel clear some o g P ppoaition ~• , ~ ;: , and that when the Volkawagen agency yras developed, this could also solve aome o£ the "; ~i~,;~ + ^ burglary problem`aince this area would be lighted coneidarably more than it ia presently ~.~ ~y, :..~~, lighteda t%!n ":F':., . , . . . . . . . , ~ ~ .. . ~ . . ... . . 1 ~ . ~ ,.. ri~ .;~L~~ ' Co~iaeioner Gauer of£ered Reaolution No. PC68-239 and moved £or ita passage and adoption ~i ~:~ ~ ~i , aeconded by Commiaeioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for R "~ w, ~ eclaeaification No. 68-69-11 be approved, granting C-1 zoning £or both Parcele "An and ~'~ ~;,~ ~~8~~, eub~ect to conditions. (See Reaolution Book) ~ '~j;~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: ?' , ~~ ~"t~ ~~ AYFS: COhII~1ISSI0NERS: Ca~p, Farano, Gauer, Herbr~t, Mungall, A11red. -,~,, NOES: CONINIISSIONERS: None. ,~;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ;iY '~ '~ Commiasioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-240 and moved for ita paesage.and adoption, ;,r ~ ;{ aeconded Co~i.esioner C to ~ bY amp, grant Petition £or Variance No. 2001 sub~ect to condi- ~ 4;~ tiona and the additional requirement that automobilea ahall not be stacked higher than th h ~ ,;;, `~ e eight of the exiating waill, in order to reduce objectiona from the mobile home park reaidenta. (See Resolution Book) - ;~ ~ x i ;~? ' Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the £ollowing vote: ' ~; ~~-{`~~ ~` `i '`~ AYFSe C02~ffSSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Mungall, A11red. ~~ . ~ ~ NOFS: CO2~IIIISSIONERS s None. - ~ ' ' -~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~ ~ ~' ~ 4~ y A,~~ ,a.s,~~ ~ ~ CONDITIONAL"IISE - PIIBI,TC ~IEARING: CLTFFORD WOLFSWINKEL, lN219 East Indian School Road, PERMIT NO I051 o x ~ ~ ~t,, ~ . , Ph eni , Arizona, Owner; JOHN J. KtTHIdE, 11Gp North Kraemer Boulevard, ~ ~, ~,~~ Anahb~, California, Agent; requesting permiaeion to FL'~VE ON-SALE '~ ^ ~ 1{:~ BEER IN AN E7QSTING STIwCT[JRE on property described se: A rectangu- ' ~~ larly ahaped parcel of appro~d.mately 2.8 acres o£ land located at the aoutheast corner of q '+~ " Ball Road and Brookhurst Street and ha.ving Yrontages of approximately 284 Peet on the ~ ~a ~ ; ~ south eide o£ Ba11 Road and approximatel,~ 430 feet on the east eide of Brookhurst Street a 'I~~ ~ R~~ . Property preaently classi£ied G1, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, 20NE. ? ~it~ ` ~~~ Aeaistaat Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location oF aub~ect property, the uaes , ~' ~ ~ ~ eatabliahed in cloee proximity, the exiat ing:zoning and previoua zoning granted, as we]1 ~ r~ ~ as.the previous cottditional uae permit £or on-sale liquor in a propoaed restaurant located 5 , M1~~ ~'~i in the same ahopping center, and the Report to the Co~i.saion relative to the proposed 4 ~, ~ ~ ' I r~ ,~~~ d':.. . . ,.__ .~ _...,,..,..... -~q, t .r^. ~.; 1 :, , ~ ~" ~ ~~F ~ r, y~`l^.i ~l ~'!~ ya."~n +^ R ~ '~i 9f ~t2 } ,~ ~C ~n.1 sw~ ' ~ '~ ~ h~ 6~? ;' ! Y~ o- 32v'T~ch~~, ~^'.,_ l C F .' ¢~n y ~~' y + ~qi° w'1 1 i ` 7 . t ~~ ~ ~ ~y r ^ _ ~-- " .__ . . ' ~'~Fy~ t ~i ' ~, } ~ . . . . ~. ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ . . . " / ' ~ ... ~ ' ~ ~ ~ f~1 . . . . ;;'% ~ ~' . - zx,, ; _ , ~; v . . . ~ ~; ~ ~ :~ MINUTES, CITY PI;AftN2NG COMMISSION, Auguat 12 ~ b 1968 4 5 ~ "., CONDITIONAL IISE - plane of dedelopment. PERMIT N0: 1051 ;` 'sa ti; x,.,,,,~ , (Continued) Mr. John Kuhne, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the ; ~, a - Conrmi.eaion, noting that he propoeed to have a beer bar, and the >;:;: food'would be prepared on the premiaee; however, he felt 25~ of '. the asea~was too much for a hofbrau - that he preaently operated one in the County and : \ ,., , the kitchen area was 8~ to 10~ of the floor area, and food salea were 30~ of the busineea. ` ; ' ; ' Discusaior was then held by the Co~i.aeion relative to the type of facil^ty the petitioner a ~ ' 3 , `~~ w e propoaing - namely, calling it a"hofbrau°, whereas adequate area wae neceasary for <' ~ the preparation of G erman_type food, and the propoaed development rras a beer bar in ~ ' ,.,l~, esaence, and then inquired of the petitioner whether or not the type of cuetomere he had ~ ~ '~ brought their children into the facility. ~ - r'' ~~ ~ ,~ .?l ~° ' =~ Mr.~Kuhne then atated that many brought their children in for pizza, and many of the ~ ~ ` people came in from work - howener, the decor of the propoaed facility would be changed; j ' i that the owner of aub~ect property waa in favor of the proposal; and that the exiating ~ ~ ' canter had been completely remodeled, making it a very attractive neighborhood ahopping I ,, ~: center, and he felt the propoaed uae of the property would not be detrimental to the area. ~ , ~ Mr. Kiihne~then invited the Commieaion to vieit his eatabliehment in the County noting ,q ~` , that £acility had a kitchen with a range, work table, and steam table and would be a full I kitchen; however, they compacted the facility. ' `~ ~ ~ ;~Y; A letter of o oaition ai - pP gned by four tenanta of tha ahopping center wae read to the ,:.,.; Co~isaion by the Commisaion Secretary, ;'~, ;~; Mr. Ruea Kiely, 304 South La Brea Boulevard, Los Angelea, appeared be£ore the Co~isaion ,~ ~ ;-~ ' representing the owner who lived in Arizona, noting that the petitioner had a considerable ' j~'.~!a ~ ~ inveatment in the exiating ehopping center; that he k~ad investigated the other operation ;; . o£ the propoaed leaeee, since he was not deeirous of having an eetabliahment that would :',,;~ S be detrimental to the e~d:sting~storea; and that.it was hia opinion the propoeal would be $ ,~ aa asaet to the area rather than a detriment. Furthermore, the ateak attd lobater reatau- ra t '~~ ~ n now in the ahopping center indicated their approval of the proposal since this would add an eating-facilit not il b ~~ ~'z ~~ ~ y now ava a le to the em lo eesrof t P. y he varioua tenanta,`and he : wae aurprised the tenants had eent a;lett of o i s ~,~u~w ,,j ~` ' er ppoa tion aince aome of them had also eigned the petition approving the praposed develo eat. it wae n ce a f ~ ~B ~ ~`t~~ ~'- °q ` ~ e se ry or the O~ Commisaion to view the preaent o eration of P the propoaed tenant to understand the differ- ~ ;~ ~ ence between a bar and the proposaL t ' ,~~ ;r~ ^A The Co~iesiott adviaed Mr. Kiely that if he had eeen the number of applicatione the "` +~; i ^ Co~ieeion has had before them with aimilar requests over the paet ~ew yeaxa he could '~ n ~ ";F;i , u deretand .why the Commiesion was concerned relative to the type of facility propoaed - '' ,w '~ which in their eatimatiott was a beer bar, and one of the criterise to bring this from ~ Yti a claseificatiott of a beer bar to a reataurant wae to provide a mini.mum cf 25~ for the ~ y preparation and aerving of food, and thia policy had beett arrived at only after a con- ~ eiderable time and discueaiott and review of exieting bara, hofbra~;~, reataurants etc " =r , . throughout Southern California prior to determining the criteria PO$ tY1B minimnm epace t ~ f, o qualif~• as a reataurant, as well as the aerving of beer. , ~ ~; ~ Mr. Kiely sgreed that the plans as preaented did not appear to be deeirable, but aince the h d i it , ,, ~tc y a v s ed the propoaed operator~a exiating operation, thia convinced th•-,~ the development o ld b w u e appropriate for the shopping center ~~, . ~'"~t '~; The Co~ission then noted that every beer bar plan they had seen had pool tablae; that ~ t : ~;_~ pool tablea attracted a certain type of clientele which could have a detrimental effect on the other stores i the c t ;~ " n en er, both as to environment and reducing the parking facilities; and that pool playera apent houra le in pool a d d i ~ ~„ y;', ' p y g n r nking beer, thua occupying parging spaces all that tima.' Furthermore, beer bara were also ]mown to i ~Fk ~~ }1 ~ . attract pereona who would ~uat drink beer, and after a number of houra doing this . ;~ ~ ''~ , after leaving the bar, could be a menace to the ahoppera in the center becauae of r tic .• ~ ' e ra dri.vi.ng~ And that a segular reataurant sarving beer would have pereona coming ;~ ;~: t in for a meal and leaving in an houx•., ~~~ti ~ r ~~ s~, ~~~ 1`~'. Kuhne then reviewed the location of the varioua facilitiea in the propoaed operation, emphaeizing the fact th t th t bl S ~ i~ -~c~ ~ ~. a e a ea where food would be served would be separated fivm ,~ 'f'i1119 8~18~ ST88 .~ . . .. . . ~ ~ 1~ g . . . ~ . .. . . . . . . . `~ ' . ~ ~: ~ ~ The Commiaeion further adsiaed the agent for the petitioner tl~at a more preciae plan ~, ~ would be helpful, but'from the Coffiniaeion's previoua experienes, where a tenant devoted f th 25~ f r ,~is: ~ o e loo apace to the preparatioa and aerving of food, a different clientele = patronized the facilit and f d ld _.;..~ ' i iy. y, oo wou be the prime commodity rather than an incidental '' ~ ~ ~ ~ '"'"' ~ ~ otte. ~ ~ ~ . '- i t~ , ~ ~ ~'1: ~ ~+~" j . ~ . . .. . . . . . . . , . ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ v ;L . '. rf ~~ a u~l, F ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 n ~ a~~h,~ {1 .~'~. ~ . f Y ~~„~c~ "~ ~~~ ~ ~', }y r 3 0 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ . 4~ 1 ~( ij ~ ~ ~~k ~ z ~ ,~~`~,t 2uayd't~ ~ l IL'~v ~ ~~~ t y ~ ~ }"1 y ~ 7~ 7~,' r y, .~¢ _ ; . t A ~ ~ "~ ' R F T'•'v" ~ ~ ! 4( l.~ S,~y~. I} Y 1 ~l l 1.~ ~~~ ~~U~'. ~1 „?;V:l:+r' 1 S f JA t,,~ ., ~ ,~'~:.,..,.r r,`_k, . .~,~._... . t~:., ~'k,;.,,... „G? t. ... .~ .. . .. .. . . ,. ., . ` ,-,~~ ,... ~ ... . ,`-~,n4~.~,~. e ,... _ , _ .~.,;C~.i r '. ,: „ ~`' ~ . S a; `~~ r-Y~ i e~ , F't s„!'F^i kq3~ . F p ` jr~v~y~,Y ~ vw~ N' ~~, L ~..-~ ~ +x^ u a Y~L, ~F ~' ~, r~ t 4 d V F G`k41'. W .1(l4 7 f ~ ~ C~ tJ M:CNfJTES, CITY PLANNING COI~IISSION, Auguat 12, 1968 4p5q CANDITIONAL ~SE - Nir. Kiely-thea noted that near many college campuaea throughout PERMIT N0.`10 I the•state rrhere food was aerved in conjunetion with the sale of Continued) beer, the~operatora often made the difference between a good eatabliahment and one which would be datrimentsl. Furthermore, in determining the overall area, iY the gaming area equare footage were deleted from the calculation, there would be conaiderably more than the 10~ for aerving of £ood: Mr. Gerald Thomas, 1681 Tedmar Avertue, appeared before the Commiseion in opposit3on and stated that when the other tenanta of the shopping center had signed the petition in favor of the proposed operation, they were given to i~nderatand:that thia would be a .hofbrau type of reataurant, serving buaineaemen~a luttches; however~ since that time, they had learned otherwiee - therefore, the petition signed by four of the tenants of the ahopping center waA aubmitted in oppoaition, and noted that five of the tenants were preaent,in the Council Chamber to indicate their oppoaition. Also, that there was an adequate number of bars in the area which served beer, and to permit the propoeed beer bar in the shopping center would degrade the center aittce they had been attempting to upgrade the atandarda of the ahopping center; that they preaently had a parking problem in the center, and if the patrona of the propoaed operation planned to spend three to four hours, this woul.d increase the par:;ing problem; that he owned and operated the beauty salon'immediately adjacent to the propoaed beer bar, and the tettant~a entrance door would be only six feet from tha door o£ the proposed operation; that there were aix tenants in the ahopping center at the preaent time, ttot countittg the reataurant and the liquor atore, the latter:owned and operated by the owner of the center; that nine other atores were now empty, and although the owner had the ahopping cettter for three yeara, there were only six merchante in the center, and theae aix would be aeriously affected.by the prcpoeed use - therefore he recommended that the Commisaiott deny eubject petition. Mr. Kiely noted that the center was 75~ filled, that the ateak houae in the center wae near the propoaed facility, and 3t was that lesaee~s feeling that the propoaed uae would eupplement hia operation since it was open at 5:00 P.M. Furthermare, they were now negotiating for a lease with GAC-AAA,who had decided thia would be their Orange County headquartera, and two othar leasea were aow being Formalized, and this would make the center 90$ filled., Also, the reason they were alow in having £ull tenancy wae becauae the owner was requesting higher rates Yn order to diacourage run-of=the-mill tenanta. Mr. Kuhne,in reaponae to Commieaion queationing, atated that houra of operation would be from 11:00'A.M: to T:00 or 2:00 A.M, in the mortting; that one peraon would be employed in the kitchen; and that the type of entertainment they propoaed would be similar to an English-style pub. Commiaeioner Camp again inquired as to whether or not the beauty saloa was immediately ad~acent to the propoaed beer bar and received an affirmative reply. Ti~ HEARING WAS CIASED. Commiesioner Gauer o£fered Reaolution No. PC68-2l,]. and moved for ita paseage and adoptiott, aeconded by Commisaioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1091, on the baais that the proposed beer bar would be incompatible with the ad~oining land ueea; that the type of patronage frequenting this establiahment would create a parging problem; and that the a33oining tenanta of the shopping center were oppoaed to this type of uea on the basis that it had baen misrepresented in the original preaentation to them. (See Rsaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution wsa passed by the following vote: AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Gamp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, i•.~:,agall, Allred. NOFS: COI~~IISSIONERSi N"oiie. .: •ABSEDIT: CObII~lI55I0IJERS: Rowland. Co~isaioner Camp stated he wiahed to include a finding that due to the fact a beauty salon was immediately adjacent to the propoaed beer bar, the two uaea were incompatible, and speaking £rom experience, aeveral beauty salons had moped from their original loca- tion becauae of the approval of a beer bas 3n $ ema11 ehoppittg center, and the patrona of the beauty salona had expreseed their dislike of this type of operation becauee of the uncomplimentary remarks made by patrona of the beer bar, as well ae the problem of parking. 3 d ~ . . .. . _'_ 5 3~~1 r ~ . . - . . ~ . . . .. ~ ~ . . . . ~ r'~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . ~ .ti 4 . ~".: . . . . . ~ t~ ~ R~~,_ ~. -. MIN[TTFS, CITY PLANDTING COMHIISSION, 9ugust.l2, 1968 Q098 r, -,..:. , _ CONDITIONAL IISE - PIIBLIC`HElIRING. MILTON ~. JOHNSON, 1011 Louiae Street, Santa Ana, ;,'Y PERMIT•r0. 1052 'California,:Owner; requesting permisaion to APERATE A TRUCKING'YARD '.' AND'TERMINAL WITH,RII~!-TED'AIITO AND TRIICK OVERHAIILING AND REPAIR - ~ u' " FACILITI•ES~ WITFi WAIPER OF (1) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL AND (2) ~:.' - ENCIASURE OE'OIITDOOR''STORAGE'AREAS on'property deacribed aa: A triangularly;ehaped parcel of approidmately°2.2'acres"of land having.;fros~tagea of approximately 83 feet ~~~' ~ on the eouth side of "Santa Ana Street, approximately L~10 feet on the:east aide'of Walnut Street, and appro~dmately'430 feet`on the.west aide of Mancheater Avenue. Property prea~tly clasaiYiad M-1~ LIGHT INDIISTRIAL~ ZONE. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor`Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the ~"n'~ proposed request~ and the exl.sting uees in close proximity, noting that the petitioner - ~r ?.~ ,,~y rras also propoaing to expand the truck yard and terminal operation by the addition of ~'~ ~:~ an 1800-aquare foot metal building which would be utilized Por`truck atorage and main- ~ ~~ tenance, and that the Ebaluation aection of the.Report to the Commiaeion indicated problems now exiated, with complainte having been received because of the noiae, duat, odors, and hours of operation when the property wae uaed for school bus eto^age, and. the problem had materially increased becauae the leasee now was utilizing the facility ; 1: for the storage of up to 18 diesel tractors and large sami-trailere approximately 40. feet in length to hauJ, g,ypsum from Long Beach. .. . ..~J . ~ . ~. Aesiatant Development Servicea J2rector Robert Mickelaon adviaed the Commisaion that he and the City Ehgineer had met with the petitioner be£ore he filed the petition, at which ,~', time it was brought to the staff~a attention that the City Council had waived atreet y, improvements slong Manchester Avenue, the reseon being that the R-1 tract to the south, •~; abutting Mancheater, was not required to improve with curb, gutter, and eiderralka - there- ,,.,~s fore, there would be no reason to require the same of aub3ect praperty; and that the City ~~; was not presently requiring atreet treee in industrial areas - therefore, Condition Noe. ';t~ 2, 3, and Q ahould be dAleted, and Condition Nos. 9 and 10 amended accordingly. ~;~ ,-~- ~~ Mr. Grant Johnaoa, one of the petitionera, appeared before the Commisaion and took exception to the atatementa made in the Report to the Commisaion regarding the £act that there had been no previoua zoning action on sub3ect property, etating that the industrial uaea had been in o eration for a number:of p yeara -;therefore, becauee of :' - ;;: previoue use of,the property, although a nonconforming.usa, it''ehould be pex~itted to ,;A -c ti Ftizrth t , . , " on nue. ermore, he uae had been eatabliahed prior to the den,elopment of the single-family homes 3~ediately adjacent to°3t; that the Zoning'Divlsion had been r.;a „w,„, ~~`~ conaulted rior to leasin of-the ro ert for the extatin use and at that time,there P ~ P P Y 8 , ~,~. ui`~F ;~; _ was no indication tHe.propa~ty could not be'uaed in the manner proposed'; that the`exiat- , ?'u,gti , ing operation could nat be compared with the bus operation; that the use would be a;good , " asset to the City, and no opposition was expresaed until a building permit was requeated, '? which would provide a meana of assuring aome protection for the lesaee's expensive equip- -'; ment; that the statement made that the uae was not permitted in the M-1 Zone seemed in=' congruous becauae the same use had been made of the property for the past twenty years; that Condition No. 5, wherein the curb cut ori Walnut Street was required to be removed, would create a hardship for the lesaee and would slso create a personal financial hard- ahip by reducing the value of the property aince the aize of the tractora and semi- trailera would make it dif£icult to have both ingress and egresa to Manchester Avenue, and the achool children would be in leae danger from traffic from thia accesa than the homes where drivea e~dated within a few feet of the achool crosai.ng; and that Condition No. 8 ehould be modified elightly to permit the existing lighting now on the property, and any future lighting ahould be required to be down-lighted since the lesaee needed adequate lighting whea the trucka came in at night, and, furthermore, no oomplainta had " been received regarding the lighting preaent~y e~d.ating on aub~ect property. ~~; A petitioa of oppoaition signed by elenen peraona was read to the Commission by the ~'~; Commisaion Secretary. "~"~ r; Mr. Rod Wallace, 1165 Iiazelwood Avenue, appeared before the Commisaion in opposition, atating that the M-1 property wae developed with a pipeline company; however,'the usea have changed a number of times aince the original company moved out. Furtharmore, the ;';!~ pipeline company had houre of,operation wh~e they left at 7600 A.M. and returned about ,';~: 4~30 P.M., and had no weekend hours,,which'hours did not interPere with the rest and quiet needed for chilclren. However, this operation now had 10-foot high trucks which } .' pulled in and out of the yard evexy morning between 2:00 to 4s00 A.M:, and many iimea ` ,' did not`return until 10:00 to ll:00 P.M., and that six children lived within five feet of eubject property and had been diaturbed duri.ng their reet houra. Mr. Wallace then noted that Title 18, Ghapter 18.52, of the Anaheim Municipal Code required that the exLsting use was ouly permitted by conditional use permit, and that where outdoor atorage was proposed, it ahould be complately encloaed with a minimum :-r+~ 6-foot m~isonry wall, and the parking should be screened from view with landscaping. ; `° e~4v!rqi:~ ~ ,, . I~~. ,. T .i;; ~~~ : ;~; ' :.r~ =,i Y ~ ~ ~ ~~jr - ~~ f `~ iF ~~~~ ~,,: ~~ti ~ i~ ~. ~ ~, ~' ~ ',it,., i u~.r a ~ Wv' .:~.ys 7`. :: > ~ `F~r,rf" } M n``~,.. ~ ~ ~- ~1W, d', 3 -:_...,...._. ~ :. = , . .. . . ........ :' os~.~~~r~m ~ _ ._._...w_::..;_ ~.., ~ ~ .,-:r :h '` " - !,°5+:;~° . . .. . .. .,~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 12, 1y68 4~59 ~, CONDITIONAI,-~USE - Therefore, even if aub3ect petition were approved, they would atill PERMIT N0. 10-2 have to meet Code requirementa, and the reaidenta of the area felt (Continued)~.- no waiver of theae requirementa ahould be allowed. Also, any operation which wa.s objectionable by virtue of noise, odor, s~d lighte would not be permitted - therefore the existing uae wae in violation because of the noises from the diesels and the odors from the fuel theae dieaels use~, as well as the lighte which the trucks and the atorage yard maintain - which created a disturbance at :;ight. Mr. Wallace also noted that aoot from the dieaels apread over the neighbora~ laimdry, and the patioa had to be cleaned conatantly becauae of this soot, and, finally, hr3 urged that the ingreas '_':om Walnut be disallowed becauae of the problem of noiae the trucks created and the hazarda to achool children. Mr. Max Morgan, the owner of th~~ triicking firm and lesaee of subject property, appeared before the Commission and noted they had moved their operation From Ontaxio; that he was deairous of trying to answer aome of the oppoaition's complaints regarding the uae of subject property; that they had 18 "riga" - however, theae were never on the property at otte time, an~ they were the common carriere faa.~KaiaenGypsum in Lottg IIeach; that the exhaust from dieael enginea was controlled by the Smog Cotttrol Department of the Stete and each engine was checked every thirty ~ys to determine the amount of emog coming out of each engine - therefore, he did not feel odors and aoot would be coming from the dieeel enginea; that cloaing of the entrance on Walnut Street would create quite a problem becauae of the length of the aemi-trailera, as we11 as the dieaels - aince they were unable to turn around in the yard, they had to have entrance from one street and exit on another street; that he was £ully aware o£ the hazarda of large diesel trucka for achool children, and he conatantly ceutioned the truckers to be extremely careful during the hours when children were crosaing the street to go to achool; that if he could find a aolution to the t^uckers coming in late at night, he would be glad to do this since sll the men wera on union ~^ale and this-coat hi.m overtime money when they came in late - however, due to the fact tnat they delivered over a Q00-mile area in Southern California, ~thdae late hours could not always Ue controlled; that they had apent consider+~ble money cleaning up the premiaes after the previous tenant, and he had been tole :.r ;ould operate as he preeently did if he withdrew his building permit for the buildie>; '.;~which he propoaed to store the t.ractora; that it wae urgent conaideration ba giyva not to deny the uae of Walnut Street becauae he would not be able to operate in thia vicinitr i~' this were required; th:.t he was deairous of cooperating withthe neighbors as beat he could, and he realized there wae a problem as to the late houra, which he wiehed he could rea~~n~3yr - however, he atill felt that if he were able to meet with the ad3oining reaidents~ ~hey might reaol?e all of the di£ficu].tiea. The Commisaion noted that the first trucking company to utilize aubject property had entrance £rom Santa Ana Strset. Commiaeioner Farano noted that because of the aize cf the diesels and the semi-trailere, the entrance from Santa Ana Street was inadequate. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon advised the Commiesion that one of the problema facing the Commission was the fact that the Code did not permit the expaneion of a legal, non- conforming uae in the induetrial area without additional zoning action. The Commiasion then inquired whether or not the asaertion made by the lesaee-operator of sub~eet'propertg that he could continue the operation if the petition were denied were true; whereupon ~Ir. Mickelson noted that at the time the property owner had brought the proposal into the Development Servicea Department, the ataff had concluded that thia was one parcel - however, later Lhia determined not to be a fact, and if the ate£f were to treat the aoutherly portion etttirely ae one, then further problems might reault, aince both the Santa Ana frontage and subject property had been owned by the petitioner for twelve years, and some of the uaea permitted on •the property during those twelve yeara were not now pes~itted in the M-1 Zotte, auch ae the diamantling o£ automobiles and auto- mobile boc~y parta, mechanical repair, and automotive related uaea were not allowed in the M-1 Zone, but eince this property had been used in the past £or such operations, it was determined the;,• could continue the use or a similar, nonconforming use and eventually this would amortize itaelf - then only thoae permitted uaes in the ~!-1 Zone would be allowed, which might take a number of yeara. • Commisaioner Herbat expresaed concern that the preeent uae of the property was conaiderably heavier than when the prnperty rras used for school Lus atorage, because of the large trucka and semi-trailera utiliaing a street used for 3nduetrial; commercial, and residential uaea; that if thie was becoming a nuisance to the R-1 homea, then perhaps the petitioner ehould be thinking about leas ob~ectionable uaea when he rented the property, since it wae obvious that 18 trucks coming in late at z~.ight and the threat of the lesaee to continue operation even if aub~ect petition were ~erminated, the uae could be terminated becauee of the nuisance value, and the noiaea from 18 large disael motora, as wall as the odore £rom these motora were quits a nuisance to the residente+ of this area. r ,.,~~r,,.~, .s~, • ., - ~ -- - - ,-....m::. "~'--' 1 ~'" , _.,. I( _0 i~ A~'S. `4~ • ~ ~._.f ~' ~t 'a" „1~, s,~'" ~ O t~ ~ ~.., m MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COI~fISSION, August 12~ 1968 Q060 CONDITIONAI; IISE - Nh~; Morgan then advised the Coffinisaion that he had received only PERMIT•N0.•1052~ one complaint, and that was Prom a reaident who reaided adjacent (Continued) to the school, complaining that one of the truckera had parked his automobile in front of'his yard. At that time he inqu3,red of thie man whether he had problems with the previous bua atorage £acility, and he had indicated theae`buaes were rettted•for•fouiball and baseball games, coming in late at night and the buaes had to be cleaned immediately after arrival - therefore, the noises Prom the cleanere were always'-noticeable, although he had never receined a complaint relative to hie~present operation.• F'urthermore, they parked nine of the trailera at the Kaiaer-Gypsum plant and`never brought them to the yard; that they never had all of the tractora in the yard at one t3me since only aix would be there at one time; and that aince they did a1T o£ their own dieael repair, these trucks.would be brought in for repair work, and the reason for the early hours wae becauae delivery fiad to be made by 7:00 in San Diego. Co~isaioner Farano noted that he had been aseociated in the trucking buainesa for over 22,yeare, and he wae quite familiar with d3eael txtiteke and trailera - therefore, when a dieael is atarted in the morning, even though it has a smog control, there ia always ~oke and noiae and odor £rom the atarting o£ the tractor. Mr. Morgan noted that all of their trailer-tractors were 1965 White Line with the latest mechanical devicea. Commisaioner Herbat noted that if aubject petition were approved, permitting the exiating uae and creating a nuieAnce, the Coffinisaion would not be doing juat3ce to the City of Anaheim; therefore the Commiesion must have further evidence regarding complainte and what effect the noisea had on theae homes, by a field inspection. Mr. Grant Johnaott, in rebuttal, stated that he wae unaware there were any complaints and , was very aurprieed when Mr. Wallace preaenteci h3s complaint, and, furthermore, in regard to prevailing winds, the eouthweat-northeast direction would never bring aoot or odors to thia row of properties located to the aouth, and if this had happened, they should have made complainta to; the ownera of the property prior to this time. Chairman A11red advised the petitioner that the px~operty ownera may not have complained and this was based on.the fact that they felt this would not be a permanent operation - however, when they rFCeived the notice that the operation planned to expand, thie, then, wae the time when thay ahould preaent all complainte and gripea that theq had regarding the operation. Mr. Morgan, in responae to Commiasion questioning, noted that legally they were allowed to carry 73,2gp p~unda; however, they never grosaod more than 60,000 paunda. The Commisaion then noted that thia was a'ratner heavy weight for this reaidential atreet; whereupon Mr. Mickelson adviaed tho Commiseion that Walnut Street was conaidered a aecondary highuray, Mr: Milton Johnaon, the owner, appeared before the Commiaeion and reviewed in detail all previoua operationa on subject property, together with the coat of raiaea in taxea for the property and the need to make uee of the property in order to pay theae taxea. Upon completion of the preaentation by Mr, Johttaon, Chairman Allred noted that the Commisaion was coneidering the petitiott to permit the truck company and repaira, as well as the requeat to conatruct a metal building for atorage and repair purpi~aea; however, he was of the opinion that inaufficiant evidenes had been submitted for him to determine whether or not aubject petition ehould be approved, and the Commiasion tteeded additional information relative to noiae, eoot, odora, etc., in order to determine whether the general welfare of the neighbore wae being conaidered. Aesietant City Attorney 7ohn Dawaon au",ed that the pr•eeent uae wae more intenae than that permitted in the M-1 Zone aince it +.r~s a nonconformittg uae for the land, and i£ the use of the land together with fuat an office building were requested, then the expansion of the uae of the lattd wae now beyond that permitted as a nonconforming uae - thie, thett, would require that the petitioner conform with the ordinance which had been in exiatence , for seveTal yease, and if the lesaee of the property ware unab~e to utilize the property becauae of the requirements attached to permitting thia to be a conforming uae, sinee the uae wae not permitted in the M-1 Zone, then the lease could no longer be in force or effect. ~The`Co~misaion inquired whether or aot an interpretation had been made ae to the max~y uaea that had been on the prope:ty. r1r. Dawson noted that there had beett a eubatantial chnnge from the original M-1 uae, in that a pipeline company had £ormerly uaed it and then a bua etorage operation, attd since both of the previoue usee wern amaller trucke and busea, the preaent uee with dieaels ~ I t ~'' ~at },,~~ n ~~ - 5..' .,~3 a r" ~~ }'t~.rR~~ ~.-:~ a+ S. + '-,~ L~ .yFf-1,4i.fr .ii.~. Sa ~~, ~' ^:~ ,.~~; ~ ~~~F~ ~ , . : . .: .: , .- .. , ., : . , ~eti j { + t . . . . . ~ ~ , , . ; ~ , . , . . .. ~:.':... . .. .:~..:~. .:_....-. ..~. .. ~ :., ~ .~.' . . . ' ~ . . ~.~~.. . •.. ..._..~~ .. ..~. ~.: t.. . . . .~.., . . ' .." ~~~ . aC,. ~t r.t: ~~ir~1 7: c^' e~ s~ . ~ ~ ., 1 r 7> .Y .~'Yi . q~ ~~. z .tr.~p+c q432~ H 1.:~ Y r .-r i~ t , ry z 3s~~ ~`~ ~.~3 "u~~~~ i5Y~3° v7~~}~^~'~.) ~5 ~ ~i: ~ ~,~ ,~-a'~1r~ p ~ } ~ ~n ~ --'t~F r.~ i;r s S }!~. t-z ~~y~+ r` v eyY 'G.'~r r. , i' c~ c r ~, ~',~ ~-r~ t 1 k~ ~: x~ ~~'ts c i, , l~ ~ ' L~` ~ ~~~~~ c~ ~, Ytr.; :i r ~ ~~ "~ .t - y t M'~ `~ ~. L f \. .~~.`~ `~'>Y t f ~~ . . . . . -~„'~- ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~.11~ ~' N~ Le~ ~ ~ ~~ , . ~ . V . ~ ~ , ! ~:;y ` ~ H ~ : . . . " . .y~~ lYSi1 /{ f r , . '.. ' . ~ ' _ . ~ ~ : . ~ 'r+f ~~v`` i {, ~ , MIN[JTES, CITY PLANNING-COMMISSION, Auguat 12, 1968 4061 'F3~ ' k; `'%~ a ` ' • } CONDITIONAL'IISE' - riould be canaidered a change $~om the original use; therefore, it '~' ~~, s ~5 ,'~ PEHIYffT N0:' 10 2` would''be up to the Commiaeioa!to deterniine whether or not the uae ,-,~ ~;,, r~~~~-w*;~:;' Continued should~be continued an or e d/ xpanded eince aome eolid evidence would '~ ~~'~ ~`~ ~Y f have` to be aut~itted tfiat the uaea that had been eatablished on the °'' L/i+.t d ~ ' ~ ;~.Tr~j ~~' ~ ~.w ~'~ property had been continuous ueea. ~~"~ ~' ~ x ~ , • ;~a~ , - %: ~Y ~ Mr.:Morgaa then adviaed the Commiseion that if aub ect ~~,'~z, i ~ ",~ ~, , , •. ~ petition were approved, they would ~ 1 .adfiere:to epecified houra oE operation which would have to be worked out. ,,.~~ ~a~~ ~~ ~: , ~~^°3.~~~K" a`, _ Co~i.esioner Gauer was"of the o inion that if an 8-foot wall were required attd houra of ~'~~``~'6 operation were reduced man ofpthe ~~ ,~~, ~' y probleme might be reeolved. ,~y~ nR ~ 4~~,~ Commiaeioner Herbet wae of the opinion that diesel enginea cause coneiderable noiae, and f:°,~ ~n~`~ ~.,~ he was not deairous of voting on aub~ect petition until a more thorough decibel noiae ~ ~"=y q s C, ~ 3~ etuc~y wae made of aubject property and ite opexstion. ~ +` ~~ , :: n ~~+ ~ ~ .;! k ;.~ Coaunisaioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional IIee Permit ~r r ;~t No: 1052 to the meeting of 6uguat 26, 1966, in order to allow time for the Commiesi.~n ~ h ;"' and staff to visit aubject property during the evening hours to determine the noiae y '` volume`emitted from the enginea driving in and out o£ aubject property, as well aa f ' ~ ; regular atreet noises ad~acent to the residential homes. Commiasioner Farano aeconded j x ~• ~' the motion. MOTION CARFiIID. ~ ~ ~ ~ : ; "~. ` ;~- RECESS - Co~isaioner Herbst offered R motion to recesa the meeting for , _. ''~ ten minutea. Commiesioner Camp eeconded the motion. MOTION ~ ,''~'` CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4~45 P.M. ~ , ''~ ~ ~ ' ;~ ~~N~ - Chairman A11red reconvened the meetittg at 5:00 P.M., Commiaeioner ~~ ~ Aty~ Rowland being abeent. a ~~~ '' 9 ~ ~ :4 t +i a~~ F, CONDITIONAL IISE - PIIHLIC AEARING. 11AN r~, AND BARBARA M. VAIL, 70-171 Aighway 111, ~` ~~~ PERMIT N0. 105 Catkiedral City, California, Ownera; CARL G. LANS, 1801 Avenue of p r fr ~~,,~ the Stara,:Los Attgeles, California, ~gent; requesting permieaion' ~ W ,~„ '"•". ~~ ,~ to„ FSTABLISH A DRIVE-THROIIGH>AND WALA-UP RESTAIIRANT GjITFi OIITDOOR Yti W~,r ,;,,~ EATING AREA on propertg;cleacribed as: A rectangularly ehaped parcel of land having a ~ *r ~~~, frontage of appro~d.mately 66 feet on the weat aide of L~c1id Street and s maximum depth ~ i~ of approximately 277`feet, the northerl bounda ~ ~ y ry of said parcel being approximately ~ ;;;~~ 169 fset eouth of the centerline of Glenoake Avenue. Property preseatl,y claseified , ,~ f ~~ `~ C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAI,, ZONE. ; ,~ _ ~ ;~ ~ Asei~st,an~ -i ~~-. ~~n8:~iervi:eor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aub~ect property, the i „ ,+"E, uaea eatabliahed in cloae proximity, and the propoaed :requeat,.noting that the Inter- ' departmental Coffi¢ittee had recommended that due to the aize and shape of subject property, ; ,;',~n the proposed acceeaway on the north aide of the property be a one-way drive only in order •~' to avoid traffic conflicts on Eliclid Street, with two egresa pointa within 30 feet of each `;~ other. ~,,.~ " Mr. Dan Bohler, repreeenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion '~ and noted that he concurred with all of the recommendations of the atafP except the one- ~~ way drive along the north aide of the property, aince it was felt additional egreea might ; '` be neceseary at timea. ~ r~`;, '~; No one appeared in oppoaition to aubje~t petition. ~ ;~ :~ i~:~: 4 ,, u T.f~ HEAR2NG WAS CLOSED. F~A A ~~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . , `~~ ~-~", Zoning Supervisor`Ronald Thompson•adviaed the Commission that the recommendation under , ~'" `~ '" Finding No. 6, relative to the one-way drive on the north property line, vnly pointed , ~~;~,? out this problem to the petitioner - however, the Commiseion could require thia if they au ' '~~,~ approned subject petition. ~ r'~ ~~~;ti;"~ Commi.saioner'Mungall offered Reaolution No. PC68-2!}2 and moved for ite paesage and adop- ~ ~~', ~ tion, seconded by Commiaeioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ' ,ti ~` ~~ No. 1053, sub~ect to conditiona. (See Resolutiott Book) `' '`" On roll call the fore oin reeolution wae y g Sc~ ~ B pasaed b the Followin vote: r; ~~ t,+~' AYFS: COI~II~IISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, ,Allred. ~' ~, ,,,~ ,1(; NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: Notte. ' ` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. - I ~ ~ ~? ; rA: 1~ • :sr~, .~~+' ~ ~~' ~'.~„w " ~ '". •'' , ~n1.?,,,,_, ~. ~ .. , r,..,_. . . .... 5~" ` . . ,.. . .~. . .. . ,_ ; _..,-. . ! •:~~r~.,,...:._ _ fu,t~'s~~.,!~~~~tn,a~i~s.s;~r,A.^hrm~, _....v^r ~ ~~ r ..,.-r ~.;;~ ~. . r; . ~ ~ ~y, ~? ~ . ----- ---__ C~ Cj MINfJTFS, CITY PLANNING COI~II~IISSION, Auguet 12, 1968 CONDITIONAL`IISE - PDBLIC HEARSNG. E. F. DARGATZ AND WOODY JOHNSON, 22l,.West 5th Street, PERNLiT N0.~1054 "Santa Ana, California, Ownera; requesting permiseion to FSTABLISH ON=SALE LIQIIOR IN A PRApOSEA RFSTAIIRANT on property deacribed se: An'irregularly ahaped parcel of approximately 1.5 acres of land located•eouth and east of a aervice atation site (130 feet by 120 feet) locatad at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue sud Westcheater Drive, and having approximate frontagea of 136 feet on .the aouth side of Lincoln Avenue and 187 feet on the east aide o£ West- chester Drive, and further described as 3244-32/.6 Weat Lincoln 9venue. Property preaently claseified C-1, GENERI~L COMMERCIAL, ZONE. A~aistant Zoning Supervisor Pat~Brown reviewed the location of aubiect property, the extating zoning,.and the proposed uae, ttoting that previoua zoning action was for a drive- in, walk-up reataurant and a hoPbrau denied 'oy the Planning Commiseion in 1963, and approved in part for the walk-np restaurant only by ths City Council in May of 1963, a which time both the Planning Co~i.eaion and the City Council ittdicated that the proposed hofbrau was undeairab.le at thia location because of ita close proximity to Centralia Elementa.ry School. Furthermore, the petitioner was propo~sing a combination cocktail lounge and restaurant in a portion of an existiug co~ercial structure, with approxLmately 40~ of the total ~rosa floor area devoted to a cocktail loun~;e and pooZ room, approximately 31~ of the floor area devoted to a dining-dancing area, and approximately 15~ o£ the area devoted to food preparation; however, the dining-dancing area had been separated from the cocktail lounge by a wall. Furthermore, the Commiseion was faced with basical~y the same eituation that exiated five yeara ago; namely, that Centralia Elementary School wae within 300 feet of aub3ec{; property across Lincoln Avenue, and that in a telephone convereation with repreaentativea of the Centralia School Dietrict, they expreased their continued oppoaition to this tqpe of uae so close to the echool,. and tL•e dignificant change between the propoaed request and the previous ott-sale liquor establiahment was that formerly a hofbrau with beer was propoaed and now a cocktail lounge and incidental reataurant facility with on-eale liquor was propoaed. Mr. Woody Johnaon, one of the petitionera, appeared before the Commisaion and reviewed the previous requeat for establishment of a amall eating place which would serve the needs of the employeea in the ahopping center; that tha aeveral eating eatabliehments which had later established in the shopping center wexe not aucceasful and were forced to cloae becauae of the numeroua requeata they receinad £or servittg of beer or wine with the meal; that since the original ahopping center had been establ~.shed, many apartment units had been~ developed, and a recent count indicated approximately 800 to 1,000 were under conatruction or developed southerl,r o£ sub3ect property. Mr. Johnaon thett noted thai prior to 0ucr~isaion of aub~ect petition, he had counseled with the propoeed leaeora of the property, indi~ating past failure to obtain consent for the sale of liquor in a restaurant facility because of the close proximity of the achool; huwever, they had received numerous requesta from residents of the apartmeat developmenta for conaideration of a combination cocktail lounga, eating eatabliahment, and dance facilities; that aince they were presently planuing to remodel the s~iopping center - plantting to conatruct a Tastee Freez on the Lincoln Avenue Prontage - it was decided thst perhapa thie pet~tion ehould be aubmitted in order to get the reaction of the City relative to the new petition and complete all remodeling and inatallation of the new facility at one time; that he was aure none of the neighbors would be oppoaed -to this, and a petition aigned by 37 peraons, all reaidenta of the epartment development, indicated a need for the propoaed type of facility. Thia petition was then aubmitted to the Commiasion for their perusal aad for filing with eub3ect petition. Mr. Johnson further noted that when previoua requests for on-sale beer were made, concern was expreased by the Commission relative to aome of the operations within the center which were'pstronized by children; however, the alot car operation was no longer there £or the paet three years, and the chaxige in the center. was more._towe;~d adult patronage rather than teenagera, or for a"hang-out~' type place; that the propoaed facility wouid be mo~e than l00 feet from the Taetee Freez'operation and, therefore, could have no detrimental influence on childrett becauae of the orientation of the '"~stee Freez to Lincoln Avenue. ~.ix~thermors-, in order for children to gain acceas to ~'. shopping center, it would be neceaeary £or them to walk either to the west tc :.rott t:.~eet, a distance of 1,800 feet +~ or to Westera Avenue, then crosaing the street w:~d returning back to aubject property since•no croeswalk was provided bstween these two crosa streets; that he was aure the proposed operatora would be conatantly alert to xny teenager venturing into their facility, other than the reataurant port3on, without coneiderable caution becauae the liquor licenae was rather•sn expensive document, and recipients of it would guard it with their lives and not have anything detrimen'tal affect the operation of their facility or create undeairable effecta on the ad~oining proparties. ~'x ~' Mra. Philip Klucas, 2833 North Briatol Street Santa Ana a , , ppeared before the Commiasion and preaentrtd colored renderanga of the proposed cocktail lounge-restaurant and i.ndicated ^`~ that it was her underatar~ding the Centralia School Ilistrict riould be discontinued - there- ~ £ore no probleme ehould bs resulting from that area, aud that ahe and her huaband would i .~ :'_,J1~~1 . ~1'~i~{:i~'F•~~ • . ' , ~l:'~. h%.a 4 i ii:~~+ E . ~ir"..,. . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . -. . . .. ~ ._ . . /~~ ~ '~ •::2`s ~,~: =:c: 7~ ~~ '~ b~ '- w ', ~~. . .' ~ ! ;: t 't ', • ~ ~ ~~ i ~ u -f.:~ '%~. ~j~f,. ~x; ~ i ,~ ~ ~ i v ~r f . ~ ' - ` ~ ~ ~ag re: v ~~v` ~ a~ ;wn 6Y "~t' ~~ W a ~ +t~ t i i ~r'"4v[ ~c~ R; ~~k ivv r ~.n .et' i ,+ r i ..~ 5 3' r:,. 4/~' Y~ ' ~4~`F~"{ti . t ~~~'^^:s~.f~ '~Ya"2'~-''~+ y.1~, 1"4.,~y`S 1``y ~r^ ~ k ~j ~~ i >t ~' r~ ' +L + +;'~,~~ ~~ o_ i~~~ ~ j 4 ` ...+n.. .... Y !h .::. 7S ~1~~A_ . 1:. ~~,' 1 . F ~ y.; G ~ ~ ~~ , ~ S ~ ~ ~~~( ~ ~ ~ . . .. . ~ r . 4s. : . ~ '.~ ~ ~ .. ' . . ~ . . . . O ; 'L r ~ . . . . . - ~~ . . ~ ~ . - . . ;ti , . :`~ '' MINUTES, CITY`PLANNING CONA4ISSION, August l2, 1968 i:s ~~:,. _ 4063 , ~~~ ~ ~ CONDITIONAI, USE - be operating the propoaed facility. ~ . ;; ~; - PERMIT NO..lOSL• , .._..- , : ' ~., '(Continued) Mra. K7.ucas~ in reeponse to Coa~i esion queationi t . : ' a' . ng, no ed that entertainment would.not be the ~'to leea" t p ~: ' ,': p y e, and a ainger and piano would be the form of entertainment b t ~ " -~ l • e ween the hours of 9s00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. F~rthermore, thie would be primarily the aer i f '` ~ v ng o eeafood. ,~;": Mrs:'Rlncas thea•noted~that~she'did not realize that th ki ~~' e tchen and food preparation area s;~oLtl.d be 25~ of :the total amount of square footage of the facilit howe th ' ; • " _ +`' y; ver, ey rrould• agree -Fo providing tliis percentage for kitchen £acilitiea; and that if 25~ e d v ;: r ~ wer e eloped, this would mean the elimination of the pool table. '~ ~` " . . ,'~ ~ `~ The Co~isaioa adviaed the propoeed operator that th ~ ~" ey would need a larger food prepara_ tion area if they were planning to serve eeafood i il z~~ F ~ pr mar y. ~,~ Mr. Brown adviaed the Commieaion that he had di ;,~ ecuased the posaibility of the Centralia School being diacontinued; however h h d b p, , e a een ittformed that although the building did look rundown, it rras the plan of the Dietrict t ~= : o renovate the achool end continue ueing it e r; •' : 1: ' ~ No one appeared in oppoaitiott to aubject n titi pe on. ',; ~ THE HEARiNG WAS CIASED. Co~ieaioner Farano~offered Reaolution No. PC68-?./~3 and moved £or ita paseage and adoption, aeconded by Commisaioner Herbst, to grant Petition £or Conditional Uee Permit No. 1054, aubject to conditiona, and the requiremettt that a minimum of 25~ of the groae floor area be devoted to the preparation of food, ae stipulated to by the petitioner, and that the proposed pool table would be eliminated. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: ~ ~ ° "'er ~,< `1.^~ '' ~ `~ ~cFS: corn~sszorr~s: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Allred. NO "S ~ ~ r . : CONASISSIONERS: None. ABSENT ~}~ , ' ~.y a~ ~ ~,.R y : COI~9I~ISSIONERS: Rowlarid. ; ~~' ~ ~ ;. ~ ~w ~ ; C i i ~'V Y, ~ ~ \t ~ o~ .sa oner Camp left the Council Chamber at 5:25 P ~ . . M ~ ~t' ~ 4 jyi Z~ ~ . . . . . . ~~ . . ~ . .. . . . . ' . . ' ~ .. . .. ~ ~ . ~-' . . . ~ ~t A~ !.' k{ slr,~~': . VARIgtdCE N0. 2003 - PIIBI;IC HEAI;ING, CAI,IFpRNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & IAAN ASSOCIATION ` , : 5670 Wilahire Boulenard, Loa Angelea, California, Owner; COVINGTON ~,~ :;~; `,, ~ BADS. CONSTRtJCTION COMPANY, 2451 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requeating ~IAIVER3 OF (1) R~QUTA~D ;'y,• WALL ADJACENT TO R-A ZONID PROPERTY, (2) MrNIMDM NUMBER'OF~~COVERED PARKING SPACES (3) MINIMUM UDTIT FIAO ; ~; ~ , R ARF,A, (4) ~ WALL fIEIGHT WITFffN FI3~N'I'-SETBACK.AREA, AND (g) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK ;~ ~ , TO ESTABLISH A 48-IINIT APAR~IENT"COMPLEX on property described ae: A rectangularly ahaped arcel f l d , , ~. p o an located on the north aide of Lincoln Avenue and having a frontage of approximately 475 feet on the north eide of I,incoln Avenue and a ma i d 4,,. x mum epth of approximately 163 feet, the easterly boundary oP aubject property bein a i ~ ~ g pprox mately 870 feet weat of the cettterline of Magnolia l:venue. Property preaent~y ~lasaifi d C 1 G ~' :~ - e , ENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ f ' ` Aasiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the locstion of aubj ct ~ `rt e property, the requested waivera, and previoua zoning action, noting that aub3ect propert was tl ; ' y preaen y zoned C-1; however in June, 1968, the Coaffiisaion and City Council had n I „+F ~ pproved R-3 zoning for both the property abuttittg to the north and aubject property - but ttone of th di ti ' ~ ~ ~ e con - ona of appro val had been complied with. ~ ~ ~ 5 .. . . . . . ~ + ~rt ~4 ~ ~,3~°'~; . . . . . The Report to the'Co~iisaiott relative to the proposal and evaluatiott of the proposed development was aleo reviewed for the C m ~ ir ;yrN o miasion by Mr, Brown, who further pointed out that a.n apartment development on the north aide of I a palma Av~ e ' ~.~, ,,~ , ~~a , easterly of Sunkiet Street, ha3 a fu71y landscaped, 40-foot front aetback - there~ore the re ui d b il y f~fi q re u ding aetback £or aub~ect property could be similarl~ landacaped if the CommiQeion ao desired . ~ . . . .. ' ~. . i ,E ~]d 7..rp ,~~, `;;, . . .. . . . ' . . . Mr. Gared Smith, architect'for the petitioner {z 1 ~~ )~~ , appeared before the Co~iaeion and noted that.aub~ect property had'been bef re the C ~i ~a, ' ~` ~ ;;~ o oa esion previously whea four aeparate parcels were proposed, with the rear two parcels for one and two-bedroom a a tm t + ~ ~;~? r'~ p r en a, and ~he front two parcela with bachelor un~*,,,a~ however, n~,*.~. the frant two parcels were bein ~ f d ~~ ~~ ,.~, ' ~` = g uee or develo ment with P 24 unit;e ~sch, thus mak3ng a denaity ~t 30.9 unita pex acr '~ ~r ~ w -+~'`' t, would be difPerent from that originally aub~itted. .r`:tarthermore, comparison ef az plan'with'the Fredricks Developmeat plan could not b tif e ~ e jua i d aince the develo~ wae three-atory conatruction with one parking epace covered and one uncovered th th r d ~i * „ 2''' ; ,.. p e opoae development was to provide 1-1~3 parking epacea per unit, with hal£ of the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ "'v3l < < r „ „ ,. ~_.. ,.._.. ~ ~ .~. . . . ., ~ ,` ::': ti;. _ <i. ~;; a ; ~ c~ o c~ MINUTFS; CITY PLANNING CONIMISSION, August 12~ 1968 4p64 VARiANCE NQ. 2003 - parking apacea conered and the balanae uncovered, thua providing (Continued)~' covered parldng apaces for the two-bedroom units and open parking epacee for the bachelor unite; that eub3ect property preaetttly wae zoaed C-1,~.which permitted parking 3.n.the front aetback, and it was the intent-of the developer to acreen the parking with a L,2-inch maeonxy wall, and the open carporte to be with axched openinga - howener, the basic philosophy relative to tbe ~ type of developmant was:.that there appeared to be a definite need for mnaller retttal units. Furthermore, he had othar psojecta throughout the County approved, which had received favorable reeponae to this type of facility; that the garden walla adjacent to the abutting apa-rtmenta~ which wers also owned by the petitioner, would provide private patios - t'herefore the requeat ~or the waiver of the 6-foot higlr wall adjacent to a atreet was ne~ceseary to provide privacy £or theee patioa; and that at the prev3.oua consideration by thu Commiesion and City Council~ the main objections to the propoeal were that the pla.ns c~id`not indicate a 35-foot aetbaok along Lincoln Avenue, and the denaity was too great. Therefore~ with the exception of the architectural projection along the parking area, the aetback would be 35 Yeet along Lincoln Avenue. No one appeared in oppoeition to aub~ect petition. ~ Tf~ HEARING WdS CLOSED. { w~.~. ;~ ~~ ~ .,~~ ~ ! ',~~ ~~~ .~ I ~ '!;~ : ~:~ <;,+~. Diecueaion was held by the Co~i.asion as to the propoaed waivera; whereupon one of the Commiseionere inquired as to the comparable aetback on the Grattada. Inn.at Lincoln Avanue ~nd Gilbert Street. Aasiatant Development Services Director Robert Micke.lson advised the Co~iesion that the Granada Inn Reetaurant aet back 35 feet from the property line~ and parking was provided along ti~e aide of the atructure. Zoning Supervieor Ronald Thompaon adviaed the Co~i.eaion that reference made in the Report to the Commisaion regarding the Fredricka Development apartment complex yras tkast loc:ted at La Palma Avenue and Sunkiat Street, where the eite:aetback rrae'40 Peet, and the entire aetback was landacaped - not the motel-hotel ca~plex_ at Lincoln and Gilber't. Mr. Mickeleon noted for the CC~aeion that the propoaed developmettt would be aimilar to that approved on Pampue Lane; however, he was not positive as'to the percentage of bachelor units which had been approned, but the denaity was within the R-3 Code. Mr. Thompson further noted the reaolution of intent to R-3 zoning rrae atill pending, and the developera would have to prove up on conditione of approval and have the ordinance read prior {.o development of this apartment complex. The Co~iseion expreased concera regarding the !,2-ineh wall in the fxont aetback, wherein a portion o£ the parking would be aeparated from the atreet, a~ inquired whether this was permiseible. ~. '^`~ ;z; Mr. Miok'eTson stated tliat parking in the front aetback was permitted in the commercial zone rrAth a hedge`or~a•:fence.being permitted ad~acent to the aidawalk - that thia had been the policy of tlie City Council for commercial uaea, but no policy had been eetab- liahed where reaidentiel uaes were propoeed; that the petitioner was not requeating waiver of the height of s irall on the Lincoln Avenue £rontage - only along the propoaed street, whioh would bieect aub3ect property; said walla to provide for privacy of the patios adjacent to this atreet; and that only a/+2-inch :;tsl~ wae propoaed along Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Thompaon then noted for the Commiaeion that the fifth caaivtir being requeated was to permit both the casporte and the regular parking f'acilitiea to be ad~acent to the atreet; whereas the R-3 Code required thia parking ahould be screened from the atreet, and only a/i2-inch wall was propoeed, with no landacaping. y` ~,~ £~ Mr. Brown then noted for the -0ommiseion that if R-3 development occurred on subject ` ~ 3 +.- 'property, the'Pront se-tiback would have to be fully landscaped due to the fact that the ~ "~ %`~ R-3 Zone required a 20-foot landacaped setback, and thia would then reduce the apace in ~ ' ' ~ the front settiaok to 15 Seet, which w~uld be inadequate for an accesa drive and parking Z ' ~r adjacent to the buildi.ng - there£ore the wa~aer of this-3andacaped aetback wae requested. ~ ; ~ , , ; `~? The Commi:saion noted that the waiver waas requeated because if the aetback were required, ~ ~, ~ the development would be ahort of parking facilities, and the waivera requeeted were ~:,~, conaiderably more than could be considered reasonable eince both the property and the property to the north owned by the same peraon could be developed as one apartment complex, '' ~ thereby utilizing this entire parcel witbc:it requeat. cf' the waivers, aince the s3ze of the ~ . ;; ~ parcel wae adequate to pro~ride development within the requirements of the R-3 Zone. j ,~' t , +;~.~ ~~ ~ . ,:`•~ r,' <. ~~ 1 M,~, ! r~ -.r.- r,~ -.+, , t i~ ~~ ~~ . ~,p ~ !a'1~7 a '~y.y~r 4 r-. ~'.i"7 - r 'V,:~y.,, w,+~a -'~~~ x: ~ 4 l - .. ~ , . ~. ~ F : V. ~...... ... . .,_,u.,....., . ~..•. . .~". . . ... . ...... . . . ... . ... . . . ~ ~. . . ..._ ... . .. _. ... _ . . . .,. Y ~\-n a r M~ K ~~'~~;~~~t .~.~ h,' ~ r > ~ . /,~,- ~~,,~ ~ s~ ~, ~ _.'" ,~_. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~1~ ~ ± ~ / ~;;"~ , ~ . . . . . .. . . . ~+ -: . ~ . - _ . . . 1 ~=1.. . . / V ~ ~i ; MIN[JTFS~ CITY PLANNING CO1~II~IISSIQN, Auguat 12~ 1968 4065 a `;"?: VARIANCE N0.~2003' -'Mr. Mickelaon then noted that the ataf£ had been somewhat confueed ; - ` se to which regulation'for parking and acreening £rom the atreet ' '~"'" ahould be used aince all development along Lincoln Avenue had been t ' commercial~ and the reguirement was for.a 35-foot building setback - therefore they were ~ ~ unable to determine whether waiver of the acraening of the parking or waiver oY the ~ location o£ the wall ~.n tfie front:yard eetbaclc:~should b~'~ddertiaed; and that the R-3 Zone ' y, required a 20-foot landacsped aetback along an arterial etreet - however, the commercial T~ aetback along Lincoln Avenue.was a 35-foot building aetback, and the front aetback area " ~; could be used for pai~king with some le~dacaping. ~ , '~ ' : , The Commiasion noted that the-plane of development were very attractive; however, the ~ ~:~ ~! `'~` carports as proposed~ facing a main arterial, was not acceptable, aad although the plane i di t d tt ot ~~ ~ '~ 4' ~ f~ " n ca a e re ive pilaetera, after a few sutomobiles had missed the turn and damaged ~ ~ w ~ ` ' them,'they would become very ~mattractine, and 'i;his damage would be reflected to the t r pasaera-by along Lincoln Anenue. Flu~thermore, no development they had aeett-~d carporta ' ~ .. , . in the front yard setbacka . t ~; Co~iasioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the $earing and continue Petition £or ~ I ' Variance No. 2003 to the meeting o£ Auguat 26, in order to allow time for the t ~ ~ to aubmit revised plana, e]~mina.ting a number of the waivera requested aince the variance ~ ahould be granted where a hardship had been demonstrated, and with thia large parcel, the ~ only hardahip presented was the fact that the coat of the proper~y was conaiderably ~ ~; higher than the average R-3 property. Commisaioner Herbat seconded the motion. MOTION ~ ; CARRIED. i a ~ .• °; ' Mr. Mickelson then auggested that the Commisaion give apecific changes they would like to see in the reviaed plana in order that the architect might hane proper direction in ~ ~ .:? ~ the suhmisaion of reviaed plana: `~ ~ ~ 1. Did the Commiasion wiah to wa'ive the 35-foot setback aince tlLie was required ~ ~~'~' ,~ on Lincoln Avenue £or commercial uaes, or ahould the setback be 20 feet as ~ required in the R=3 Zone? ~ 2. Should the ae~back be f~l.ly landacaped, or could aome open parking be permitted i th £ t i n e ron aetback? ~ IM1 '~1l`'i ~ ~ The Commisaic,n:thett adviaed the stafF and the architect that no waiver of the 35-foot ; .. ~ I eetback would be"granted; that no carporta should be facing Lincoln Avenue; that the ~.~.•_ ` ' front setback ~ould be partially landscaped and partially provide for open parking; and ~ ! ~~ ,s~ ' ' that the many rraivers being requeated were not necessary if the plana were properly . ~ redrawn to elimittate some of theae requesta since a hardship did not exist, and granting ~ ' .„ of a variance had as a prerequisite the au~isaion of documented proof that a hardship~ exiated; therefore, the architect ahould attempt to design £or both the front an3 rear as one complex instead of four, indivtdual developments. - VARIANCE N0. 2004 - PUBLIC'HEARING. BRUCE BURT, ET AL, 70$ South Pytk~.ias Avenue , Anaheim, California, Ownera; EDWARD F. FOLEY, 4921 Riverview Drive ` , Ftubidoux, California, Agent; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM IAT AREA AND (2) MINIMUM IAT WIDTH, TO ESTABLISH TGTO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IATS on `~ property described as: A rectangularly ahaped parcel of land on the east aide of Pythias 4 Avenue having a frontaga o£ approximately 108 feet on Pythias Avenue and a maxi.mum depth ~ ~ ` of approxtmately 116 feet, the aoutherly boundary of aub~ect property being approximately ;~; " ' . 182 feet north o£ the centerline of Crone Avenue. Property preaently clasaified R-1 • ~: , ONE-FAMILY RESIDINTIAL, ZONE. , `, Commisaioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 5:50 P.M. % Aseistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Browa reviewed the location o£ sub~ect property, the uses ~;;_:i~ eatabliahed in close proximity, the propoaed requeet, and noted that in October, 1962 the petitioner had divided an existing, large R-1 zoned lot into two equal R-1 zoned lots, having individusl lot areas of 6250 square fest, and since maz-y o£ the aurroundittg R-1 zoned lots in the general area had frontagea and areas lesa than thoae required by the ' preaent R-1 Zone aite development standards, the requested variances would appear to be `r' in line with the aubatantial property righta posaeased by other propertiea in this area. ~~~'- The petitionere' agent indicated his preaence to answer any questior.s. ';~F No one appeared in opposition to aubject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~, , ~ ~;;. -~ •;. >` "'r M~ ~" ~r ../~1: ~~ k~'`. PIYr~~"s~° „~q,,,,orJ "h n e?ay a~'lr`l+~"n~ t44 sn`K .~: x'~`t~ +r~F ~'SL~R s ~y` ay i Es~-~, ~i z rt a .~ ~ t ~ kl '~ ~~~ d J ^ _ '"' -__ . . '"' -_' . ' . __"' , j . . ~ ! ` . . .. . . . . ' . . . \'J.~ f . . ~: . . . .. ~ ~ MIN[TTES, CITY PLANNING C02~IISSION, August 12, 1968 4066 VARiANCE N0. 20~ - Co~issioner $erbat offered Reaolution No. PC68-2/~1~ and moved Continued) for ita passage and adoption, aeconded by Commisaioner Camp, to grant Petitiott for Variance No. 200Q, sub3ect to conditions. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the followittg vote: AYES: C02~AffSS20NERS: Camp, Farana, Gauer, Herbat, Mungal]., 1~11x.ed. NOFS: COI~IIffSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~ ~..'1^ RECLASSIFICATION~ ~ p[JgLIC HEARING. FRANCIS L. AND WREp,THA g, ~~~ z459 Fast N0. 68=69-15 Lincoin gvenue, Anaheim, California, Ownere; requeating that ~Z ;~ property deacribed ae: An irregularly shaped parcel of land ,, coneisting o£ txo lota at the northweat•cortter of Lincoltt Avenue ,~ and Sunkiat Street, having frontagea o£ approxi.mately 130 £eet on Sunkiat Street and , approximately 155 feet on Lincoln Avettue, and further deacribed as 2453 and 2459 Eeat ~; Lincoln Avenue, be reclaseified from the R-1, ON~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the I ~' C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ' i ` Aeaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location o£ eub ect i ~ ~ property, the f usea eatablished in cloae proxtmity, and noted the previous zotting actiott in which the Gr petitioner had requeated C-1 zoning and a conditional use permit ±o eatablish an auto- mobile aervice atation within 75 feet of R-1 zoned property had been denied by the ~ xj Planning Commisaian in Auguat of 1966 and by the City Council in September of 1966, on k~' the basie that subject property and other lota in the same tract were essentially ,` ~ reaidential in character and should remain ao; that the rezoning.of the property for 4 co~ercial usee would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area and would precipitate further requeate Yor strip cov~ercial along Lincoln Avenue or Sunkiat Street; ~ ~~ that the co~~rcial zoning approved for the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and ;4~ 3unkist Street wae based on the fact that a service atation would be auitable at thia ` < :~ ~ location because 6' ita cloae proximity to the propoaed Orange Freewa of.f-r t :~ the same reasoning could not be applicable to sub ect y ~P - however, ~ on two~sidas with high quality reaidential homea;~attd thatethe petitioner was r questing ~'iy~ reclasaification of the easterly two lota now whereas ~ r`~_Z and no specific plana of development were aubmitted, butrtheously it was for three lota, that in all probability the property would be developed £or apserviceeatationn~cated i .;~ ~i 1 Mi'• ~'ancia Ricker, 2l~59 Fast Lincoln 9venue, the petitioner, appeared before the Commis_ ~ ~ aion and atated tha.t he had resided in thia home for ten years, and the ad~oining homee `,'n! were approximately twe.lve yeara old; that while he had been out o£ town on vacation, the f ~~. City had reatriped Lincoln ~venue to provide for a left-turn pocket and had placed a ';~ no parking zone itt front of hie ro ert property away from h3m; that he hadPcomplat ednbe orertohthe~Citykregarding thehnolume ~~ of traffic for the atreet, attd in order to escape from the noiae of the traffic, they a, kept a trailer in the deaert; that the propertiea were no longer reaidential in character ~w because of the noise and the fact that parlc3,ng privilegea had been taken and land previ- `~ ously had been taken to widen the etreet, axid tfiat he had•apoken with several membera of j~ the Citq Council regarding thia property, and they had indicated they felt there was a ~~ change in the aituation now and suggested that he file a ttew petition; that the previoua y:~ petition had been hanciled by the oil company, and at that time they did not care becauae _~? they would have misaed one of the closing dates for £ilin the ~ contacted the neighbora relative to an o ~ petition if they had ~~~:~, were then presented by Mr. Ricker. ~' PPosition. Pictures of the limited parking u` ..:~frt^y~"'y~ ~l ~ i~ ! yx 7i +~ n tt9 l_~e '~ _ ,,; ;~ • ~ , ~i ~;; < ~ a ~ '~ ~~ ' Mr. Ricker then noted that a service station existed across the street from subject ~ property, and apartmettta were alreac~y conatructed; that he had no prospective buyer ' ~ for his x; Property - however, he was unable to sell the property unlesa commercial zoning ' were`approved, and the propertq could not be uaed for any other uae; that he had intended '~< to reclasaify the firat two lots and reside on the third lot;that the exiating aervice ,;.~ station acroee the atreet had been in operation for three years and he had never heard ~';yY any ob3ectionable noiaea £rom the aervice atation, and more noisea were heard from the street with the intenae concentration of traffic with tru.:ka, motorcyclea, and automobilea; ~~; that the parking area along Lincoln Avenue had been deaigned for the homea adjacent to it, ;~ and the City had not informed him they were going to remove the parking privilegea in ,:j,;?;~:M front of his home. ', "`` ~"n ~' MOZTlg P~PP9~ z455 Paradise Road, appeared before the Commisaion, noting that his property was on the northwe~t `t' ~: F corner of Sunkist Street and Paradise Road; that this area aince 1958 had been a reaidential ~~ ' area, and to insure that it would remain reaidential in character, deed restrictiona had been im osed ll ~ p on a lots in this tract, prohibiting commercial use of the property, and it was tkie feeling of the reaidenta of ~he ~rea that ' ;i ~; ~,,i : ~ v ~ ~ ~ ' r F '.:. "t t -^ ;... ~ F G~'~e'~'~~' ,. ~ ~vA'~Rr, ,~. ; •~t.~~Er~...~ ~s r P ew. _ . ~ ;~i F ~ ~... .. '.,. ~ ,. _ . .,. ' ~ ~ ~ a,~- '< i~> ~ 'ii REC~A'SSIFICATTON` '- 'th'e"area should be remain reaidential eince no subatatttial changea NOr 68-6 -9 15 , had'~takea pla.ce•other than removal of the parkingrformerly permi:tted Continued) along Lincoln'Avenue ia front of eubject property; that the City had not completed a].], the atreet work along thie atreet, and ia a11 like- 1lhood improveffiente would be r...oted - therefore theae deed reatric- tiona ahould be adhered to. ~ ahowing of hattda indicated aeven persona preaent in opposition to subject petition. Mr. R3cker fl.irther atated to the Commiaeion that he represented a number of the large property ownera in the area, who all indicated the proposed reclaeaification would be deairable since t}i.s would also give th~ a chance to request commercial zoning. Mr. Ricker flxrther noted that the Report to the Coffinisaion recommendetione indicated that he ~ow had dedicated 90 feet from the centerline of Lincoln Avenue for atreet purpoaee, and there wae adequate space on the oppoaite aide of the atseet to provide for additional widening of the atreet, rather tlia.n taking additiottal property from hie ahort lot. Furtfiermore, the radiue return requeeted at 25 £eet at the intereection ~as a condition that he rrould like deferred until auch time ae the bueineae atructuTe'£or the property had approva.l of building plans, and not at the time the commarcial zoning was placed on the property. OPfice Engineer Repreaentative Robert Jonea indicatad that the corner return would not ba developed until auch time as redevelopment of the property occurred, aince curbe attd guttere already exiated~on the property, and in thie particu lar instance it would be the City~a reaponeibility to remone and relocate and pave - however, the dedication of the property would have to be made. Chai3~a~ gllred noted for interested peraona and the petitioraer that the Plattning Commission and the ataff had made a number of atudiea of many areae throughout the City where homea fr,onted on arterial atreeta, and subject property wae also ooneidered - however, the Commiseion had recommended to the City Council in their Fron~-On Study that-subject pr,opertiee and those properties along the north aide of Lincoln Avenue ahouTd:,be retained for reaidential purpoaea, and at public hea2ing by the City .Council, thsy co~curred with the Commisaion~s recommendation. H1r. Ricker noted that, aince pa.rking wae eliminated from th3.a etree~, and he had difficulty gai~ing acceae to his garage becauee it wae too cloee to Sunkiat Street and traf£ic a],ong Sun],ciat Street had incresaed conaiderably, the use of the property was no longer residential. <,;~ i:'~! Mre. Sem Caldaronello, ?_l,.4.9 East Paradiae Road, appeared before the Cammi~e~:on and xioted that ahe repreaented her parents who were i~ediately to the nort~ of the ~etitionor, having a garage similar to the Ricker~a, and to date they had no probleTn as to backing out onto Sunkiet Street; flxrthermore, they recommended to the Coa~ieaion that coffinercial zoning be denied For aub~ect property. Mra. ~elyn Bottman, 1029 South Kaywood Street, a realtor, appeared before the Commiaeiott and atated that ahe felt~aub~ect property was tto longer eui.table for residential purpoaea; that ahe owned a home at 2427 Eaet Lincoln Avenue and repreaented the owuera of the property at 21,.37 East Lincoln Avenue. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Diacuseion wae held by the Commisaion regarding the timing of the Orange Freeway conatruc- tion, and whether traffic from the off-ramp would a£Yect the propertiea alottg Lincoln Avenue; furthermore, no aubetantial land uae change had takett place in the area to warrant consideration of commercial zoning £or aub~ect property, and to approve it would be eatab- lishing a precedent for the remaining lots along Lincoln Avenue. ' , ' ' .•'~ • r ' <; : a Co~isaioner Camp offered Reaolution No. PC68-21~g and moved for ita paseage and adoption, aeconded by Commiseioner Gauer, to reco~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclasai- £icati~n No. 68-69-15 be disapproved oa the basis that no land use change had taken place to warrant conaideration of comr~erciel uaea for subject property; that tha findinga of the Planning Commiaeion in their recoa~endation oF denial of reclaseification for sub~c~t property and the ad~oining property to the west were aubatantiall~ in effect at the preaent time; and that the Plann~ Commiesion and City Council had adopted the Front-On Stuc~y which projected the homes fronting on arterial streata auitable for conneraion to commercial~~zses, and subject property was ttot one of thoee. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COI~IISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Mungall, A]1red. NOFS: COhQiISSIONERS: None. • ABSENT: COI~LCSSIONERS: Rowland. ~ ; .. ~.w~. 'y~„~'"+ : . ~...,-- - - ~s --•:+ ~ ". ~ ~, r. , ~ . a, r. ~ °~ _~~.!. N,:; ,`z . ..'_:,~/ ! ..._'.. ~i kly s '~~ ~dl.~ n J ,' r'~y ~Y.H~+~'~ +'~ ~ ` ~; ~.p{7,~`c~^F'P ,T"x „ ./y r ; 7'" z i~ i ,t" ~ ,S~e'dr ~ I ~ ~ ; ', .~ - ' ~~~ t . • . ~~~. : ~:- . ' e ~ , + _.~. _ '~ . ~ . . ; ~ ~ ~ f: KS ' ---_A,._ _ . _. _ 1 _ ..__.-- --- _. . _.._. ._ __._.__. _-~-__... :..:}4 t;:: ~ ~ ~ . 1 ~.\ v ~ . 4:1 , ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO1~IIdISSION, Auguat 12, 1968 4068 HEA RECLASSIFICATION '~= pIIBLIC HEAFLING. CARL H. LINDGREN, ET 9I,, 12/~7. So,z+.,h Nutwood Street, N0. 68-69-16 ~lnaheim, California,.Owners; WILLIAN; 3, pI~I,pg, q~~, East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property deacribed as: An VARIANCE N0. 2002 irregularly ahaped parceJ, of appt~oxtmately Q.6 acres of Land having , a Frontage of app: oxtmate7,;; 330 feet on the ~e2t side o£ Nu.twood Street and a maxi.mum dept;~ of a:pproximately /{15 feet, the northari~ boundary of said parcel beittg approxLmately 395 £eet sout~a of the centerline of Ball Roa.d. Property presently claesified R.A, dGRICIILTURAL, Zp~;r^,, R~QIIESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MIILTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, Z^NE, ~tEQU~'STED'VARI'ANCE: WAI~VERS OF (1~ MA7rIM[JM BUILDING HEIGHT~ (2) pQ~ ~~;~;2'AiV'vE `BE4i~T~T ~BIIIi~DING3, {3) IAGATION GF ACCESSORY Bj1II,D~NGB, 11D1T+ ~~4)~~XXIl~I[1M AzSTANCE OF LIVING ITNITS FRObi A STANDARD STI~'P, TO ESTABLISii A 101-UNIT, 1W0r6TORY APARTMENT COMPLEIC. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location af eubject property, exi.ei3.ng uaes eatabliahed in•cloae proximity, and ~revioua 2ening actiott on a portion ~f eubjecf, ~ Property~ The £our waivera requestsd werP ~nen rev:it~w~c} by Mr. Brown, empk~sizi.ng the fact that the petitioner wae propoaing +tro-atory cona~n;.~`tion within 19Q feet of R-1 zonec~ property located on the east side of Nutwood Street, and by reducing theae s';ructures to aingle-etory, thia would decrease the overall number of unita 3n tHs complex fr.om 1.0~ to 95 attd the unit denaity per net acre from 32 to 30. _ Mr. Brown further noted that the G9neral Plan indicated low-ders'ty reaidential uae £or this area; however, during a recent multiple-fam3.ly atudy made by the staff attd the Commisaion, the general area in which aub~ect property was located wae determined to be ~ potential for mu].tiple-family land use, and that the ama11 parcels to the north we-re t.he ,», only undeneloped'parcels located along thie aection of Nutwood Street - however, the ij Co~niasion might wiah to give Serioua coneidere.tion to the effect the 101 multiple-famil~• reaidential unita would have on tYis integrity and environment of this area which had been t, .;i developed with low-denaity reaidential land usea; that a'lthough on-aite R-3 parkin~ - ~ requirementa had been complied with, the propoaed development might be more properly ~5 ;:~~ conaidered a•~,lanned reaidestia? development aince no atandard atreet or alley had been , ~;~.` incorporated iato the deaign, and 60~ more on-aite parkino ~pacea would be required in 7~,; a planned reaidential develogment - thia diff9rence in total require3 parking apaceo '";~ might prove detrimetttal to the area due to the tcndency of apartment dwellera ~a uc~e ~:~ public etreets for parking.~reas, auch as ,Ko3eaka Park located to the south. ~1 ~' '~ Mr:= Richard Brown re reeentin the ~ ` ~ P B p':anosea 3aveloper oY aub~ect property, appeared before the Commiesion and noted, ~hat u£ter having conc;ulted r.~ith the ataff regcadi~g• °the pex~iasible uaes"£or subject ,oroperty and ha;iag determined that R,3 was potentie~l, it was decided to auomit the propoisd develapment; that the propoeed develog ent wr.uld be self-contained and would not increaea traffic on the interio.r reeidentie:l atr~eete, `' nor would there be a burden oa the local achool ayatem W furthermore, t:~e rE~ques~ waiver.e,. although aeemingly numerous, were necessary to perinit ';.he ~~,eoign sa pseaented; and ii;ae ~`. more parking waa being provided than the ft ~ Code rsauired. F~Zrthermore, because of the ~; quslity of the propoaed development, the unita would fall i~ the high rent category, with ;:~ a minimum of $130 for the one-bedroom to ~165 for two bedrooma, which would have s~me ~, beering on the integrity of the neighborhood becauae of tha quality-type reaidents who ~,,;~' would be reeidittg itt thie development. ~ The Co~ieaion advieed the~repreaentative of the developer that the Commia5ion had never deviated fTOm the one-story require~ent within 150 £eet`o£ single-famiJ.y homes and ittquired why plana were aubmitted incorporating thia deviation from the requiren;ent. Mr: Brown ind~cated he was not aware the Commiaeiott had never deviated,, and :ti' mor~ tihan one unit would be affected"by thia requested waiverl, then plana would hsve bi3en r~ubmitted incorporating thia - however, the proposed development was a very a~ti•~,:tive development and meaeurement was only from the Rr-1 not the R-A lota acroas the atreeto Asaietant Developmqnt Servicea Direetor Robert Mickelson noted that the vsria•;,ion in th~ diatance between the Rtl and that pro3ected on the plana wrie based on the Yact that aI- thongh`the RrA parcel to the east was not zoned £or aingle-family uee, it had two eingle- Yamily homea on it attd could easily be eubdivided for that purposeL Mr. Wylliam Phelps, deaigner of the proposed developmettt, appeared before the Commiesion and atated he wiahed to clarify a few of the waivera requested and then proceeded to explain the varioua differencee and their reason for requesting them~ based on the fact that the deaign of a bi:ilding could not always fit the Code requiremeata, and the fact that°the pxoposed development Would be ael£-contained, with a recreation and garden area, the requi~~ent of the diatance from a atandard etreet was necessary, and it would be extremely dif£icu].t to redeaign, providing all the amettitiea propoaed for thia denelopmettt without approval of minor deviatione from the Anaheim Munic3pal Code. _..x~~•.~. "'~'-+~~ i -1 - - ~x ~ .. ~.:i.: . , ... . . ., . , , . . . ~. .. _ . ~ ; ~ •~ \4 . a `:: >: ~ ~'a<<>„ ~ ,.;1 ~,, ~ n. ,,,r~"~, ~4, r Y - ~~ . . . ---~ -a•r~~•••-~ ~~~~y~ ~uo ~vu1W1DO1VU •''.! in opposition, repreaenting ~the homeownera i~f the gen~iral area i.n ' ~~~ which sub3eci property wa~ located and {iiecuasc3 in detail their ~' r opposition•~tb'the densit ro oaed• ,` ~ y"p p ~ probla,~na•of parking.pr~sent:ly experien~ed becauee of ~ the park to the south of subject property; and the £~ict that t~~e propoeed d~~sl~~ent did i not provid~ Por gueat parking; the two-ato~q heigh+, waiver reqLieated; the uees .r3aently - eate.blisked on sub~e+,<t property being three aingle-fami.ly homes; the type a~d qu,:~ty of ~ v~ homea surrounding ,ub~ect prc,erty, .xhi~la aan~ed betweea ~30 ono and $,50 OUO• that the ~~;{N' property at the northeaei corrier of ~sat1 ivenne .~;~~ _~,:tvood Sireet aithou~h zoned R-A ~'a!~~' ha~i two aingle~-family homes on it st~9 ar.r1s potienti~!1 .'.-~} thr.~~ tho increas~9 in denaity in~ ~' an area ~reaantly developed for xav-duz~c~3ty use would become :~azaruous to 'Ghe children of ~' : th9 are~; that Nutwaod Street was the .nl, antran~c~3 into the singl.e-f3.,~i.ly tractR now _~. exietin~s in thia general area; that although the representative of tl~e d+~ve..<>per had ,i~ indiaated 59 one-bedroom apartmentF,, this cou:.d draw two aingle perao~s ah,~ing an apart- mant, w.hich woul.ti mer~ two cara -'~.,~reby havinq a potential minimuz; o.f. <<~;~ care, and ~ parkin~ ws's provided fer onlq 132 c~s and on],y e3rcula`+,on drives wers ~+.opossd rather ''r than stsn~ard etreets within thia development - thus an~ :,verflow parkiL:~ needa would be ut3.lizi.~' tihe parking provided for park vieitora or wi±hin the single=Pamily subdiviaiona ad~acent to it; that :tinv rentais, re,gardlese of the type of developme:nt ~roposed, should be in lir.e with the axisting va].uea in the area, and the p~onoeed plaina of one-bedroom ~ indicatecl alightly larger than the eize of a double garage; that launcixy facilitiea for £, 101 unita were grosaly insdequate bocauae only two laundry ro:;ma were provided; that ' carporte were propoaed, re~ther than garages,which would encour~ge, theft; that the in- ,,= crease iri population accor~:ing to the calcu}Lationa used by the sLaff would mean 265 : ~, ~' s additinn,al for a 3.6-acre aite iather than the L~.6-acre site ae izadicated in the legal ' I> t~~ notice; that the man;- waivera requestea inciicatad the ~evelopera ±~r6re propoaing to have ~ ~ max3mum ~~:,verage :.3ihout considerat` oa of t~he living c~ivironmental atirenities, and the `~,~~ detteity v.:~ auch a small acreage would ~ie d.etrimental to the entire :esidential area. ii `;~ 33r. Eckes, in aw~.ing up hj.s preaer.ta-tlon of opposition, atated that because o£ the height `t~~ waiver req_,:oat, the inadequate parking iacilitiea, the a•naiderable increase ~n detteity, ti'y~ and the~`aizo ~and quai~ty of the imita would be detriment~~. to the living envi~:iPattent and ~~i+~ the value$ of, ihe; homea alseac~y exiating, he recommended the Co~isaion deny sut~3ect~ s~;;y~; petitiori in the best intbreate of the ro drt ownera ad ~iias.u sub ect ro ert, and P P" ~ ~• g 3 P P Y, ;~;, further recoa~euded that, aingle-fe^ily reaidential tiae be cone:Ldered for subject property, ;r ?,j? or that`tha developera meet with the prope.rtq owners to submit a more acceptabl~, low= "~'' medium denaity develop,oaer.t fcr the p y~ r ~;~~~,~~ pro ert ,,~ ;, i Mr. Brown, in rebu.ttal, stated that he wished to clarify tha~t the;~ were not planning .`'.~' emall apartment unite wl~~h would be beneath the qua.lity ~f tbe developments in the area; ~ that thase units would bs greater than the minimum required= i::..^t no baohe:lor-tvge apart- ~±~ ments nf lese t~x 700-aquare fee{i ;rere proposed; that r9nta.1 would be ~;;J, plue all ,'n utility coate, and thia would not encourage a:.aea deairable resid.ent in the area for ` the one-bedraom apartmenta; that the architeetars would be complimentary to tha area; `z and that it was the int?a:.fi of ~he develo~,9r to retain the property f.or income gurpoe.s ;,',;;; and not to aell•it - therefore, ha was dssirous o£ asauring the Commisaion that an un- `¢ desirable development was not intended for the property. ~ ,:;~ `;f T.~e`Commie'siJu inqiiirad of the ataff what typa of L~srking tacilitias wac~ preaently '" exiating fo~c Mod~eekaPark; whereupon Kr. Thompeon repl_.ed that the public parking lot '.F~ was at the northeast cornar of tha park, with two entraxicea off of Nutwoud Stre~t. ' ;~ '~' Coa~ic?~iotter sauer then noted that he was a reaident within a block of Pearson Park { ~.;: aud many activitiea were always in progress in a park,, both in the evening hours and v daytim9 houra; that inadequate parking was provided for Pearaon Park - however, many ' ' o'P the veople did park in the residential atreets, and aince theae~were on~y on a °,», '-~ temporazy bssie of one or two hours, thia was no problem, but the ;p~oblem most people in thia area had encountered was that the ~;elephone company peraonnel parked in the s~ '~ atreets fox the full day; that all of the aingle-f'amily homea in thie area did have ~. J '~~ their own garagea; and that aome type of parking problem would always exiat, regardleas ~T of the typ~ of devel.opment-whather apartmenta or aingle-family homea whare these , ,;~~ propertiea were ad,jacent to pasks, becauae of the influx and the number o£ participanta i ~~ in the various a~tivitiea in the psrka. t ,Ii:Y !~ ;,' ~ ,;.~ ,;;a ~ '; ~ ',F ~r ~ i '~. i' ~.w:+~; . ,':~' R' ~^, : . w' '~~~'~~'~~~~4,i~gy ~^+J~.,~ ;~~~~~;+{ ri.~~-~~.-a~',.78^~+~n,'~+ y7~3i"~'t ro~r~w~. ,x ''Rt ;:"'c'k°jy~r .:_ i,'~+`"Ei 't a awP'~` 5.i.fi'~ 4! ~"'Y'Y ~ ~r,~f i A .'rx ~ ti ~ ~ . ~. - ~ ~ : , .: i ,;. . ~ ~ .. .: =' ~:.~ ~ ~ (~ `i MiN[TTES, CITY'PLANNIPTG CONII~IISSION, Auguat 12, 1968 407Q P~ECLASSIFICATION -~Mrs. Carl I,indgren, one of the ownera residing at 1861 Castle N0. 68-69=T6~ Avenue, appeaxed before the Coa~iasion and atated that ahe was VARTANCE NO.'2002' eomewhat on•boih eidse of the fence; that the ownera of aubject (Continued) property had problem~ and many of the oppoeition were fri,ettda of theira; that a3acteen years a.go they had added to their home on Nutwood Street when no fin.ancing wae available for a country area. - which hor property was at that time; that one. of the propertiea was landlocked and had to havE~ an~easement through the front property, cind although the homes were good homes, they we.re`not of the same quality ea the homea in tne area and the property could not be sold for uny other use - therefore the only loeical use for acreage wae apartments; that the property ownere to the north of aub~ect property were not in oppoaition; that the prop~3rty to the north, at the aouthweat corner of Ball Road and 1Jutwood Street, was potential co~ercial; that the ownera of the property on the east side of Nutwood Street, preaently zoned R=A, had purchased the property for investment purpoaee with the intent of conatruc'Ling aeveral unite rather than utilizing the property for aingle-famil~ uae; that it had been difficult to have qualified gardeners maitttain the homea, an3, there- fore, they decided to hane the property developed with apartmenta ae being a better land uae and leas hazardoua tha.n the preaent RrA parcela; furthermore, the developera had asaurad`them that there would be,,adequate parking and never two care to each apartment; that if there ware serioua oppoaition to this, ahe wovld like further clarification and ahe would like more of the oppoeition to spell out their oppoaition rather than what had been epoken previous],y in order that they could make better use of their property eince the property was no longer profi;.able to farm, and the propoaed development was the only logical uae for the land. 'Mrs. E. P. Brown, 1878 Castle Avettue, appeased before the Commisaion in oppoaitiott and atated that she waa-the immediate past preaident o£ the P.T.A. of the grade school in this area and took isaue with the atatement that fewer children would be coming Prom the apartment ecemplex since an elemantaiy school located in an area where apartmenta had been developed had just apent ~52/~,000 to bring portab~e tele*riaion uni.ts and facilttiea into the area to provide adequate facilitiea for the influx of children from theae apartmettta, and, therefore, ehe requeatad denial of subject petition, end she wished the Commisaion to give consideration to chiZdren already utilizing the achool facilities and thoae who would be coming from the propoaed development which would increase the poeaibility of half-day aesaions in the grade echool. Chaix•ma.n A11red inquired if any new additional evi.dence was to Ue preaented, and receiv3ng no reaponae, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Coa~iaeioner Camp nuted that the apokesman for the opposition had made a worthwhile comment relatine to meeting with the property owners and the de~veloper in order to reaolve probl~ma which they had preaented ae oppoaition, which he felt was en excellent auggestion. How~ ever, as £ar as ths increase in the'~number of achool children, the Commission had been concerned with thia ~roblem for a number of yeara, and they, as well as the school diatrict, had made studiea which indicated when the eame acreage wae developed into apartmente or homes, the homes produced three timea the number of achool children as the apartmenta, and these figurea were later subatantiated by .£i:sther etudy. Although the hearing was cloaed, Mra, Hrown requeated to be heard again; whereupon the chair recognized her, and she adviaed the Commieaion that aub~ect property was surrounded by the elementary achool to the weat and Trident Junior High School to the east, and a church to the north; that on~e of the owners, Mrs. Lindgren, was also paet preaident of the P.T.A. end_was fu].ly aware of the £act that many of ths c,hildren in i;he area were being sant to overflow achools, and if the project3_on of an additional 70 children into these achools were permitted, then they:would be faced with spending money Por a portable clasaroom or construction of additional schools or claesrooma, which, of courae, would mean the taxea would increase. The Commisaion then adviaed the opposition that even thoagh subject property could be developed for aingle-family homes, on tho basia of the number of children coming from aing3e-famil~ homea, there would be a min3.mum of 45 chi3.dren into thia area. Mre. Brown then indicated that the exiating homsa in the area were as nice as could be expected, and it was the deaire of a]1 tiha residents in the area to have subject property develop with homea aimilar to those in the area, which were in the $30,000 to ~50,000 price range. Dis~usaion was held by the Commisaion relative to requiring the reduction in the height ' of the propoaed development to one story within 150 feet of the R=1 and'R-A to the east; that if anything could be gainad by a conference between the proposed developers and the eingle-famiJ.y homeown.ers, the petitions could be continued - however, thia would depend upon tha desiree of the landownera, but as far as the o~position to the number of children _ ._ `?.~ .'~. ,, ~ ~; ~_ >,~ , f-. , ~<,'i `'+.~~.Y.:iy~'.. , _, r ~=~~ir ~ .~ ? _.., .,., w,r . ~ ~., .., ~ ... -i . . . ~~ . _ ~; ~,~t °'+'~ =rf~ ~ ',~°, ~ ; g ~s' .:: ,. ~,~ t ~~ Cv .,~~ iw:. 3~ ~w ; ~ ~ r z tt ;.. . F~. + ., . ~ SI*+'~ '~ a ~ ; ! . - , . -, j ~, , `, ` --- -- - _ . ___._ _._ ________ .____.. ~! ~ ~ ~ ( ~ t u' .~ + ,I MINfTTFS, CITY PLANNING G6MMISSION, Auguat 12, T968 4071 RE~LASSIFTCATI~N~ = pro~ected Por the achoole wae concertted, it was up to the achool N0. 68-69=16 'district to provide for schoole i n accordance with the denaity VARTANCE _NO.~Z002"- approved by the City of Anaheim; that the proposed developmettt (Coritinued '" s` - ' wa above average, and it was nnlikely tha.t aingle-family homee would be developed on aubject r e t p op r y because of the coet o£ the land. ` Furthermore, aubject property abutted both a park and;a achool, and° there wotild~'b l e i f`r e e a: n 3;ngement of the ad~oining property, and the buffer of the park snd._echools:.would make aubject property a r i ~ pp opr ate for a more intenee land uee tha.n low denaity. .;.:; -:~ r`b ,`; ~ Tha Co~iaeion then a3vised~the developer..that ths plane would have to be revised to 'provid'e'•for aingTe-story within 150 feet of both the R 1 t , ~ - o the eaet and the RrA lot. at the northeast corner"of Nutwood Street and Csatle Aren i ., t' ue; even though the property wae zoned R-A, it was developed with aingle-Family homea - tni.s would denaity by at leaet six unita, then reduce the i c The agent for the petitioner then advised the Commisaion that although the reduction of the number of unite would be les d ~ s eairable from an economic ateudpoin~, i£ thie were required by the Commisaion, they would abide with that which th C e ommieaion required. Mr. Mickeleon noted for the developer and tha •~ppositiott that the Anaheim Municipal Code required aittgle-atory within 150 £ t f' ee o R=A or R-1, and only waivere had beett granted itt the paet where the primary uee wae other than eingle-famil f y - however, where single- emily uaea had been eatabliahed, the one-story hei ht li i g m al•,,,rays adhered to. tation within 150 feet was ~ j~'..' _ ~ ': ,. ~ : .'~~ . ~`:: ~'.'. ~, i "si Commisaioner Fara;na o££ered Reaolution No. PC68-246 anii aoved £or ita paeeage and adoption, secoxided lry Co~isaioner Mungall, to recommend to the Ci•ty Council that Petition £or Reclasaification No. 68_6g_16 be, approved, on the baeie that the proper;,y was abutted by a church, school, comme'rcial uaea, and a park, with aittgle-family uaes to the east, and the propoaed development would not be detrimental but would be an aeaet to the area, attd aub~ect to ,conditions. (See Reaolutiott Book) On roll call the f'oregoing reaolution was paesed by the followittg vote: AYFSo OONlhII.5SI0NEA;;; Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Mungall, 1~1.71.ed. NOFS: COMMISSIONERS; None. ABSENT: COI~AQSSIONERS: Rowland. Commieaioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC68-2l,.7 and moved Por ite psesage attd adoption, eecottded by Commiseioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No, 2002, denying a requeat For waiver of the one-atory height limitatiott within 150 feet of the Rr-A and R-1 to the east, requiring that reviaed development plana be aubmitted incorporating this, and eubject to other conditiona. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was paesed by the £ollowing vote: A~: COMMISSIpNERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbet, Mungal],, Alls.ed. .NOES: COIII~IISSIONERS: None. ABSIIQT: COhIDiISSIONERS: Rowland. The Commieaion adviaed the 8esigner and developer that aince the Commiasion had requeated reduction of the mamber of unita, the redeaign of the development ahould not include the reduction of parking apaces aince they were not providing any public atreeta within the pro~ect - if inadequate parking was developed, then reaidenta of the development would park t'.?eir cara on the atreeta. Mr•'Brown•then noted that it would be difficult to park outa3.Qe of the development becauee of the diatance to walk aince the development was completely ,;ncloeed with walla, and anly one meane of accesa wae provided other than roada within the accesa~vays. "lrh':`Mtckelaon•advised'the residenta in the area that the reason for no parking on Nutwood Street~at the present•-time was because it wae not dedicated to ultimate width, and after aub~eet pr.operty developed and decii.cation occurred with ~1]. improvementa, in a11 likeli_ hood there'would be on-street par]cing, Commisaioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 7:07 P.M. f +~f . . --. . - - ,. ts... „_ ..,, _ ,. ._ _ . ,... .... . .. . ~: ~ !'. ~ ,.: ;' ~^ . : ~: :,:: ~ ~ `' ` , 1 _ ~ C.) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONINIISSION, Auguat 12, 1968 RECLASSIFI'CATION" - PIIBLIC HEARING. CITY UF :1JAFiEIl~2, 204 Eaet Lincoln dvenue, Anaheim, N0:' 68=69=1'T California, Owner; 'aFSTERN SHOPPING CENTERS, INCORpORATED, $11 West 7th Street, 7Joe Angelae, California, Purchaser; propoaing that property deacribed as: d rectangularly ahaped parcel of land south of'the aouthwest-ooraer•of•Magnolia Avenue aad Ball Road, hav3.ng a frontage of approxi- ~145~f'ae't-oa-the~west-si:de of Magaolia Avenue and a maYimnm, depth af approxtmately 78"feet~, the norther~q bouuiary of aubject parcel being approximately 180 feet south of the centerline of,Ball Road, be reclaeaified £rom the R-A, AGRICULT[TR.4L, ZONE to the ~-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAI,, ZONE. "'Aesi:stant Zox~g-SnpHrvtaor Pat Brown•reviewed the location of sub3ect property, the uees-•eetabliahed ~in cloae pro~dmi-Y-y, a,nd noted that the City Council on July 9, 196g, 'ha'd approved'C_l zoning~for the propertiea to the aouth aad weat of eub~ect property, and'that the propoaed-pnrehaaer-of~the~property planned to incorporate it into the sh~pping-centar-wi¢as~e3irs~'large•°supermarket r~nd druga•iore, together with emaller ahopa ~a~tr~bRtsd~tlu~csnghout the center wsre propoaed, and that the Aneheim General Plan depicted a neighbcThood ahopping cen'cer for thia general area. No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petitiott. THE AEARING WAS CIASED. Com~eaioner Herbat offered Reaolution No. PC68-21,$ and moved :'~r ite paeeage attd adoption, aeconded by Commi`aeioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Couttcil that Petition £or Reclas- aificat3.on No. 68-69-17 be approved, sub3ect to cottditiotte which the propoaed purchaser would'comply withe (See Reeolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: Ay~: C~AffSSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbet, Mungall, Allred. NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: C02~lISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland. GENERAI;'PI~iN - PIIBLIC HEARIRG. IIJITIATED BY Tf~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, 20Q ~ AMENA°lII~1T'NO'. 106 East Lincoln .~venue, Anaheim, Califoraie; to conaider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Anahe3.pi General Plan deeignating Orange Avenue ae a aecondary arterial as an exception between 335 feet east of Weatern 4venue to Weatern Avenue. Asaociate Planner Msrvia iu.i6ger reviewed the exhibit of Orange Avenue located on the walY•o£:the-Couucil~Clrember-which indicated the normal centerline of Orange Avenue and the proposed eicception in whi.oh an area approximately 335 £eet east of Western Avenue to Weatern Avenue would hsve variationa on the north Fra~ 45 to 33 £eet and on the eouth from 45 to 57 feet; that the TrafPic Eagineer and City Engineer had indicated because of the fact that Orange Avenue eaet of Weetern Avenue Was preaently designated as a 8tandard 90=£oot arterial atreet and development at.that width was almoet imposaible due to the £act that Weetern Aigh School would be aP£ected by the dedication, and the e~dating ti~idths on the General Plan would create a hazaxdoua of£aet at the ittteraeetion ~ of ilestern and Orattge Avenuea, it had been auggeated that a reverae curve eaet of "''Wae~eaa`~4veaue'~wou9.d`~elleviate the hazard - therefore the proposa~.for a change to the Circulation ETemen~b Highway Righta-o£-Way Map of the Anaheim General Plan. Commisaioner Farano returned to the Countil Chambea~ at 7:09 P.M. No one appeared in oppoaition to aub3ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED Mr. Krieger, in reaponae to Commisaion queationing relative to the pro~ected traffic count for Orange Avemze, indicated the preaent count was 8,700 vehiclea per day, and a projection'of 11,OOO~vehiclea per day witllin ten years was indicated by the R4~afFic Eagineer. Commies3r~ner Camp•ofPered Reaolution No. PC68_;c/,9 and moved for ita paseage and adoption, eeconded by Commiseioner Murigall, to recommend to the City Council amenc~ent to the Circulatiion ETemeat Highway Ri.ghta=of Way Map of the Anaheim General Plan depicted in Geiieral`Plan'~erf~~nt''No. 106; eatabliahing a variat:zon of widtha for Orange Avenue 335 Peet east of Fleetern Avenue to Weatern Avenue of k5 to 33 feet on the north and on the eouth aide ~om 45 feet to 57 feet, in order to provide a reverae curve to alleviate any hazards at the interaecticn of Western and Orange Avenuea. (See Reaolution Book) On roll cal];;the Foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: _. .Y-SES:~ •~Ot~lI'SSiONIIRS: Camp, Farstto, Gauor, Herbat, Mungall, Allred. NOFS: CONAiISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. , -c.~~.~..~ ~ ~ rJ ` ", i ,; 4~72 ~ _ , ~ ~ .~ i .~ ,?,J 3;~ ,, ` r , j- :. , j' ~.~ c~ ~, : ~~ : 4 .. ^s - ~ .~ ~~ ~~ -~ `' ,~~r ~ ~- --------!_________._ :,~ 1 ~. ~~ '+ ~ MINUTFS, OITY"PLANNING CONIl~ITSSION, Auguat 12, 1968 4073 STREE'P NA'ME `Ct~ANGE"= PUBLTC' HE9RING. IN?.TIATED BY THE CITY PI,ANNING CONIMISSION, 204-Esat Lincoln Av~nue, Anaheim, California; propoaing a street name change for a portion of Eaet Street north of the Riveraide ~ Fre~.y to Orangethorpe Avernxe from ita exieting deaignation of East Street to Raymond Avenue. '~- : Asaiatant Zoning'S~,ipervisor~Pat Brown preaented a requeat from the Orange County Street Naming Co~nittee'relative to eliminating the existing ambiguity of street namea for f~:;•, Faat Street between the ~.veraide Freeway on the aouth and Orangethorpe Avenue on the - north since the"etreet k~as named Eaet Street iwitbin the boundariea of the City o£ ~~~hf~a , Anaheim'aad Raytnond Avenue`~ri.thin• the bouttdariea of the City of F~illerton; that the ¢,c~.:. r~ same atreet right-of-way norther~y of Orangethorpe Avenue was named Reymond Avenue, and + ,:~ the conti.nuity wi'thin thia boundaiy would reault in leea confusion in the location of ~; industrial facilitiea north of the Riveraide Freeway, both within the City of Anaheim and the City of F~7.lerton - however, the deaignated atreet name of Fast Street eouth of the Riveraide Freeway would atill r~ain. ~ . '~ Mr.'Brown Purther noted that he had contacted the two e~deting Anaheim industrial devel- ,~ opmenta along the weat aide of Eset Streat, namely a food and cold atorage plant and -.. Iaura Scudder~e, and both concerna had indicated they had no~obfection to the propoaed name change. ' No one appeared in opposit3on to subject atreet name change. ~: ,; THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSED. :~, Co~3.asioner Mungall offered Reeolution No. PC68-250 and moved for ita paseage and ;,~ adoption,"aeconded by Co~i.esioner Camp, to reco~end to the City Council that East i Street north of the Riveraide Freeway to Orangethorpe l~enue within the boundariea of >=~ the City of AnaheiL. be renamed Raymond Avenue iri order to eliminate the extating '- ~`~ ambiguity of street namea and confusiott in location of induatrial facilities alottg r,-;.-~ said street north o£ the Riveraide Freewa ; :~ y. (See Reaolution Book) . ~f J*~i On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the followi~q vote: ~ s~~ ,y ~ AYES: COMhffSSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, MLmga11, Allred. NOES: COMMI3SIONERS: None. ~ .:5,~ ABSENT: COMMISSTONERS: Rowland, t;=; ' i,`.' ~ ~0'RT5'lQPD - ITF3~i N0. 1 ~i ~ .,• RECA1rAiENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 1798 - Retail nuraery in conjunction witli wholeeale ~,`';~ salea in the M-1 Zone (Hertzler) - Property located a~c the south- ~ 'I ~' east corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritc;~ Avenue - Request for an extenaion of time. ;~, ~ Asaiatant Zoning Supervieor pat Browa noted £or the Oo~isaion that a ra~~xest had been } received from the new operators of i,ne wholesale nursery located at the s~t.t'~~saat corner " of Cerritoa Avenue and State College Boulavard, located under the Californi ?~JcLa~son ` 9 easement, and then reviewed the hiatory oP previoua zoning actions on the pr ;;9rty attd the fact that an original approval of six months had been graated for the disl~~sa1 oP nura~ry products by the original petitit~s~er; that an additional six montha e~r~enaion o£ time ,~~ granted in Decamber of 1966, at which time the etaff had indicated •~,}.tat the i,! etock of ~i~:rsery itema on thia aite, rather than he3.ng depleted, had 8ppear.~Ed tp expand, at which time the Commisaion advieed the operatora that the exiat3ng atoo,ic aiv~u7.d bs ~ sold within the a3ac month period o£ the time extenaion; that in Februazyof 1.967, a ~'~ ftiirther exteneion was graated becsuae ths new proprietor of t~ie retail ;nuraery atatect yJfl he felt he wae f1i17.y capable ef liquidating the stock exiating at that time, the new ~' proprietor being Mr, dames Wilmothj and that the moet recent requeat yras £or arl indefinite ~,',_;,;' period of time for'operation of these retail salea in the induatrial area. ~,:.,:,.-_ti ~~ Mr. Brown further noted that field inepection had indicated that ~ather than this being }_,~~ a temporaxy use, as orig~.nally requested, it appeared to be a more permanent one for the retail sale of nursery itema, and was ai.milar to any other retail plant nursery ?; r permitted by conditional us.e permit ia the C-1 Zone; therefore, it would aeem that the ;_~~ requeat originally approved was no longer being uaed for ita original intent - that being :•r the wholesale liquidation of atock from bankrnpt nuraeriee, and eince no conditiona of `t ; development ha'd been aseigned becauae of the fact that it was a temporary uae, and it ;*.~ would be inequitable to require theae improvementa, after the Commiseion reviewed the ~~: propoaed requeat, there were three alternative aolutiona: (1) termination of the opera- tion and no further extensions of time granted, (2) approval of an extenaion of time ~ ~ . ; i ~--~-a , . t ~ ; t ~~r ~ . .:. ~ t t ~.. , . ; ~ ~~ :.d t ~~ C ~» ~t r ,, ~s': ~ k ....,aa., (7F,F...w.k~l~J 14:.'~.'~a5 v wn.r:~'.. ~ i . ~ ..~ ... .. .. . . . _ . • . ~•..'i:: ~-r. -r~-:~ ~~. ~. ;`.,; _. , _~ ~~ ,. . "', ~ _ ., ~,',; ' f `i`;;. . ;:;:;!,, . ~r ~ ~ , ~ ~s f *~ x :: {~.r,.~-y~ u , x'. ~ , ' V ~ ~ t. _ t ~ T S , ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ .r--.__ ~ _c:~ ~ . __" _ '._____ __". _ .'. , ..:,.: ;~f t..% ~ . MiN[TTFS, CITY~ PLANNING C02~IlLCSSION, August ].2, 1968 :iEPORTS AND REC~R+IENDATIONS - ITIId N0. 1 (Continued) 4074 for a period o£ time specified by the Rlanning Co~nioaion, with the definite posaibility that flirther extenaiona oY t3me wou'ld-be requeatod in the future, and (3) amendment af Resolutiox~ No. 2068, Seriea 1965=66 granting Varieace No. 1798, to eetabliah the exiating uss-~ a permsaeirt basis. However, at this time it would seem to be appropriate to re- quire that two curb cuta be provided, oae on State College Boulevard and one on Cerritoa Avenue in accorda.nce with City atandsrda at the locationa now being uaed for vehiculaxP accesa for ingreae and egreea to the nursery, and that the petitioner be required to pave the eouthern ha1P of Cerritos Avenue in accordance with City atandarda from State College Boulevard to a point ll3 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. 2+~s. Jamea Wilmoth, operator of the exieting wholesale nuraery, appeared before the Co~iaeion and requeated an indefinite period of time £or the continued opexatioa; that he did not have a leaee and rented oniy on a month-to-month baeis; that the propertg owners~ namely the California Fdison Company, would not improve their property themaelvee, and the ingress and egresa to State College Boulevard were not deeirable as far as he wa~ cottcerned - that he wae mainly intereated in retail buaineae during the summer vacation ` montha becaase he had young men from achool who operated the facility, and during the balance of the time it wsa on a wholesale basie. The Co~iagion noted t;nat the area in which the nuraery was located had been coneiderably improved, with the removal of weeds and other general debris. Mr. Wilmoth noted that he entered thia operation approximately eighteen monthe ago; that there were conaiderable problema with the Edison Company, the railroad, and the City; that he £inally had agreed to keep the weeda free £rom the railroad and eubject property aince it was the City~s opinion that the owners were responaible for waed abatement ~ howevar, the railroad had furniahed the trucks and he had fuxviahed the labor to clean up thia general area; that the entire nuraery ~as under the Edison easement; that they were preaent],y building new towers and it was necessary that he remove aome of the planta to pror•ide epace for these towers, and since he had no lease on the property except on a monthly bsaie, the Edison Company could ask for use of their property on a 30-day notice. Commiaeioner $erbst expresaed concern that to give an inclefinite ertenaion of time or to amend the~resolution to allow permanent retail salea in the M-1 Zone would eetablish an undeeirable precedent, even though ita location was under the Edison easement - how- ever, he felt this wae a good interim use for the property and was better in appearance than when nothing was developed under the easement. ~i:N .. ;;; ~; .[7; ,, :.r; i ~':a 3 .~ Coneiderable diacusaion was then held as to the amount of time which the Commiesion could ' grant; whereupon Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that since the original approval of the variance wae for a period of aix montha, the Commiasion could only grant an additional aix montha, and the leaeee of the property would have to au~it hie requeat every aix months if he was desirous of having an indefinite period of time for use of the property. Commiaeioner Camp offered a metion to grant an extexiaion of aix montha~ time for the uae of the property deacribed under Variance No. 1798 for the sales of nuraery items, esid time extension to expire February l, 1969. Commisaioner Gauer aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ITN1~S N0. 2 VARIANCE NOS. ~,~7, 478, and li80 - Temporary aigna - Located at the northwest corner of Ek~clid Street and Bal1 Road, southwest corner o.f Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road, and nortYweat corner of Katella Avenue and Weat Street. ''S Aeaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that thesa were temporary R-1 tract aigna "'' approved on Januazy 9, 1956, £or a period of aix montha, and that the aigna were no , ~ longer in exieteace; therefore, the ataff recommended that theae variancea be terminated. 'a ~ :.; ~ Gommissioner Mungall offered Reaolution No. PC68-251 and moved for ita passage and adop- i tion, seconded by Co~iasioner Herbat, to terminate all proceedi.ngs or~ Var=e^c~ ::~d. 477, : 478, and l,80, on the basis that the temporary period had long expired, and the aigns were ~;: no longer in existence. (See Reaolution Book) '~`' On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: ---- .;,`i 6YFS: CONIFffSSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Mungall, Allred. . ' NpFS.t OOPA~f2SSI0NER~,-..Noue.- ~ . ABSENT: CONIMISSIONERS: Rowland. vr ~J `~ ~ ti`. " y i _ . ~.a : . ~ if ' . ' ^t ~ r ~ t~ ~'~ ~ayi ~+}k~ ~,j~ h .~ i~t~,s~b.' h3 ;~ l ' ." F - :. i ~ ~ 1 M~~ ~kyyy~~ht :~ na ^~r v~ t ~~1 i ~~~.~\ ~ ~.<aA'i~'~~` !`.~ ~~ '~".~,~ , , ~i+R . .«n'; ~,.'~.~~ : ~ ,4 W,~ , .k~..~ ~., .. t ..' ..-.. ~' .,, ,1 .. , ._ ., rP , _ . .. .. . , l r .. ~ Y . _ . . ~ i ~ .. u . !'. . . w . ...:~'~'i r ~~~ t o 3~ c F~ -~ ~~~J - M! ti, u. y~ t3 , r ~~ j ~" '~*'J.4~- -i' -G.. P 3 T a y . ~ y'~,.5 :: ~'~'- F~,SS ~ {c,,.; s ry-`y,~a i "Hy y kF~ '`~2 ~ ti a°~~55 { ~~q~wi ~,. ~` -~ r- Tr H i ` s w i.~.~ ,y~~ ~'t~~'~'3'^?Y~r~~s h ~.a uY'~ "~~t < r , ~sr ~q~r+ ~a,~xt .~c„ W t?~',W ~~* x ,, E y 2 W;.., ~t~'. r. Y ~N .l .P k.~....._ 7 1~ ir q '~ 1 _ '" ~ ..~ ~ ' W ... ~ ~ . . ., ~ ~ ~ ~ MIN[TTES, CITY PLBNNING COMM:CSS~ON, August T2~ 1'968 p ~ `; . 4 75 ~ _ REPORTS°AND' - ITF?~"1~U:.~3. . ° RECOI~IENDATIONS~ 'COADITtUFf1~'IISE PERMIT N0. 569 - Long Beach Banana Diptributar~s - ~ ~ Continued)' Establish=a'~family liilliard and recreation center. in the ehopping center located at.the northweat corner of Etiialid 5treet and ~ Ball Road - Te~mination. ~ Aaeiatant ~ or~i.ng"8agerviaor Pat••Bsowa,revie~red the locavion of ~ub~ect ,property and aoted tha~-a recent field 3asps~~t'ron indicated tho billiard center no :longer was ia operation~.and°th~t-whea•-sa~~e~t-petitipn 12ad been appr,oved a bilJ.iard cen~er wag no~t ~, a permitted use in the.C-~, Zoae, and aince t3~e use no longer was bein~ eaer~ieed, the ~ ata£f mad rec~ends~d ~e~mi.natibn of eame. ~"';` ~` Cotawi~e3on~r Herbat affered Reaolut3on No. :FC68-25~ and moved for ita peasage aad ac~~ptioa, ~ ,' eecoaded by Cpmmissioner 'Muirgall, to tei~,nate aLi proceed3nge on Conditi~nal IIee Pes~¢i.t ~:~ ~0.'S~9 on the 'basis ~l~at the use was no longer beiag exerci8ad. (.See Resolution Aook) ~n•soll call the fdp~going re~olution was pasaed by the ~ollowing vote: ~~ ;~i{ A3CF5: COhIlKISS~ONERS: C~amp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Mungall, A31red~ '~s NO.FS: COMb1iISSIONERS: None. i; A9BSENT: COA4ffSSI0NERS: Rcwland. -. t~ :.r%. I'd'II4' N0. 4 '' ~PlAP OF TR6CT N0. 6659, REVISION N0. 1 ,~'„ D~VEZQPEH: 'J~' W. KLUG DEYIIAP1rfENT C02~'ANY , 4540 Campue Drive, ;~~ Newport Beach, Ca3iforn3,e. ENGINEER: Mi11et, King & Aesocistee~ ~.';:•',~ Ir.corporatedy 911 South Brookhurat R.oad, E~llerton, California. :_~~ Si~bject tract, located on the weet eide of Rio Yiata Street ::.;?~ approximately 1,050 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln `~ Avenue and containing approximately 23.3 acres~ is propoaed ;;',~:~~,,~ for. subdiviaion into 13.2 R-1 Zoned lota. Aeaistant Zoning Sup~rvisor Pat Brown presented Reviaion No. 1 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6659~ noting that aubject property had been reco~ended for approval by the Commiaeion for R-1 Zoning under Reclaseification No. 66-69-4; that the difPerence in the'reviaiatt and the original map was~the incluaion of the ~~not-a-part" parcel; and that the norther]y lot widtha had been increaeed to 66'Yeet ~n accordance with the Co~iasion'e requirement when Yariance Iuo.`1995 was approned. Furthermore, changes in the recommended conditiona were ea etated in the Report to the Planning Conrmi.aeion. Co~i.eaioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6659, Reviaion No. l, eecondad by Cammiaeioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIID, eubfect to the following conditions: 1. That the appraval of fientative Map of Tract No. 6659s Neviaion No. 1 ia grrinted sub~ect to the approval oP Reclasaificatiott No. 68-69-4 and Variance No. 1995. 2. That ahould thie subdiviaion be developed as more than one subdiviaion, each aubdiviaion thereof ahall be submitted in tentative foxm for approval. 3. That all lota within this tract ehall be aerved by underground utilitiee. 4. That the vehicular accesa righte to R3u Viata Street aha11 be dedicsted to the City of Anaheim, except at atree~ ~ud/or a11ey openinga. 5. In accordance with City Council policy~ a 6-£oot masonry wall ahall be conetructed on the east property line aeparating Lot Noe. 1 and 106 through 112 and ltio Viata Street, e~cept that corner Lot Nos. l and 112 ahall be etepped down to a height of 30 inchea in the front yard aetback, and excapt that pedeatrian openinga ahall be provided in said walls where cul-de-saca abut the planned highway right-of-way line of an arterial highway. Reseonable landacaping, including irrigatioa facili- tiea, ahall be inetalled in the uncemented portion of the erts rial highway parkway the f1~11 distance of said wall; plana for said landscaping to be sut~itted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Folloxing ineta]lation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim ahall eaeume the responsibility for maintenance of said landacaping. 6. That ia accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot maeonry wall aha1T be conatructed on the weaterly property line separating I,ot Nos. 16, 17, 30, 31, 44 through 49 and 62 through 65 and the propoaed Orange Freeway. 7. That Carouael Street (Street "Fn) aha11 be 61,. £eet in width. 8. That Carouael Street (Street "E~~) shall be improved with a 40-foot roadway within the 60-foot right-of-way. . . ., ., 12".•, ~ . ~ .. . . ~ . .. . ,:. ~ f~ ~~L#~~ ~ ~.' ~~~~.,~~~~.~~~>'„^~~ R'"'4•w ~ 1 ~ -c ~ Jr ~ ~ ~~+. r.• ~,1 ~ ~ th~ f. ';~' .:~.... a ~ ~ _ -~ ~ ~ . . , ~ . . . -' MIN[TTES~ CITY'PI~ANNING'COI~lISSION; Auguat 12~ 1968 4076 • REPORTS AND?:• - RECOhIl~iDATIONS -:ITFM N0:'4~ (Continued) ., 9>That draiaage,ahall`.be''diecharged,:in a manner uhich is satisfactory to the City Eligineer: ' _ 10. That.Street "A~~`•aha71 be:riemed Dutch.Avernie; ~hat Street "B~~ ahall be named ~Hempstead~Ci'rcle, tiiat"Street,"C~~ ehall,b'e nemed-Ward Terrace; that Street "D~~ . ahall-b'e named''Chantil7:q Street; ;that Stieete "E~~ arid "F" eha11 be nemed Caroueel Street;~that'Street °Gn ehsll be'named Roya1 Place; and that Street °H" ~ ehall:.lie named Plantation Place. TF2~ORAES AATOIIRNA'~TT' . -~ Co~i:saioner Camp of£ered a motion to adourn the meeting to " 7'e00-P:M.,.guguat.l9, 1968, for a work eeseion regarding the Hill and Canyon General Plan. Commiaeioner Herbet aeconded the motioa.: MOTION CAR,RIED. ~ The meetiag ac~journed at 7:29 P.M. WORA'SFSSION - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting for a work aeaeion at " 7:00 P.M., all Coa~isaionere being preaent, to conaider implicationa reaulting From petitiona for propoeale oP denaitiea other thaa that depicted on the Iiill and Canyon General Plan. A'aT0IIRNI+IENT - There being no t'urther bueinese to diacuea, Chairman Allred adjourned the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Respectf1~11y autmii.tted, /~~r~!°_~/`E'/ ANN KREBS, Secretarjr~- Anahe3m-City Planning Co~ieeion