The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/09/12. , +~P>h~~`5~FJ7a`.`:?',t'~`.+~.?o'~v'.~'~V~l~}~.L`f.'~~:~~,~~' `•. .r^.Fi~ `~'`a+7P'rT YN 'C~ #'~.~'rt.,~,sP, -a.,~,R,~,-;M~'`.,~~Y~i~~~~77 ~' ~ ~'~c. Ys"' , _... _. ~~.rr `t..,•f~-... .~~ h~ a~r,c~ . ;R:~ ~. . . _ . . . _ . . ~ , _ . .. . ~ . ,... . ~ 'i .. _... ..... .. _ a ..r'-~ ~u~,J .. . ~ .. . . ~ ~ ~ . ~.~Y City Hall . Anaheim, Californi'e September 12, 1968 :A REGULAR ME.F'TING OF Tf~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COL~ISSION REGULAR MEL+'TING - A regular meeting oY the Anaheim.City Planning Commission was called to order,by_Chairman pro tem Rowland at 2c00 o'cloak P.M., e quorum being present: PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TE~: Rowland. - CO~uIISSIONERS: Camp, Farano(who camain at 2:08 p.m.) Gauer • + Herbst, Mungall. , :-~ ~+t~:~ ~5~~ - COluID~ISSIONERS: Allred. ;~"~ ~,'•, P~S~~ - Assistant Cit Attorne y x~ John Dawson 't' =, Offiae Engineer: Arthur Daw , Zoning 5upervisor: Ronald Tt,ompson Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commission Seoretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Fred D. Dommer, Pastor of the Lamb of God Lutheran Church , geve the invooation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Camp led in the Pledge of Allegianae to the Flag. t~ ~ APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of August 26, 1968 were approved with the THE MINUTES 'v; following corrections, on motion by Commissioner Mungall seconded , , by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED: `' Page 4058, paragraph 4, line 7 should read: "and a 100-foot wide R-A parcel whioh abutted the flood nt ol ,,, ~;; a+ oo r channel .:. ' . . . ~ . . . . .. . . . .. • . . . ~ ~ .., ~"iµ?, Page 4085, paragraph 4, line 3 last three words ".9-acre paroel:" , . . ,,. ; ~1' k..~~. Pa e 4102 last _ ' ~~ B > paragraph; line 2 should read: Tract No. 6717 `~ ~\ ~i ,~;;; :...rdeveloped for R-1 or R-2, 5000, and it". -"' CONDITIONAL,USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ~ILTON E. JOHNSON, 1011 Louise Street, PERMIT N0 1052 . Santa Ana, CaliPornia, Owner; requesting permission to OPERATE A TRUCKING YARD AND TEAb(INAI, UyITI3 REI,ATED AUTO AND TRUCK OVERHAULING AND REPAIR FACILTTIES, WITH INAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL , AND (2) ENCL05URE OF OUTDOOF. STORAGE AREAS on property described as: A triangularly shaped parcel of ap roxi t l 2 2 ~~ p ma e q . acres of land havin fronta es of approximately 83 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Stre t g g e , a y on the east side of Walnut Street and a Pproximatel 410 feet ~ pproximately 430 feet on the west side of ( Manahester Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. I Subject petition was aorltinued from the meeting of August 12 ~r,d 26, 1968, to ellow the sta,ff time to make sound level test f ~ , s o the trucking operation relative to its effeat on the single-fauily residential°eree looated south of and ad~ecent to subje t p i I ' ~ c roperty, and for the petitioner and lessee.to be present. ~ ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property. the pro- ` f ~ ; - ~~.,~ posed request, the staff findings when making the sound tests as they pertained to the ""' , R-1 homes to:the south and the noises levels from the adjoining streets. It was also ` ~ ~~~ noted that the City Council had recently adopted an ordinance relative to exoessive ~jl: sounds radiating.for extended periods of time in exaess of 60 deoibals; therefore in l ' ~f~ , app ying this ordiriance.to the sound tests made, the,extended;period of time the'sounde ' '>~ emanated Prom the trucks' would 'not be applicable. ( ~`'%~• 1 Mr. Stephan.Gellagher; attorney representing the petitioner and lessee, appeared before } ; °" the Commission and-stated that he was quite familiar with subjeat property since he had '~~~ represented'the former owner when identioal use of the property was made; that as long as he oould remembe this ;s; r, property had been utilized for similar uses; and that the ' '~`~; proposed use, therefore, could not be aonsidered e more intense use of the Property. ~ '`~ , - 4106 _ . , I _ ;"; ~;~' ~ . ' ~ . . .. , . ~ - " '._ __ .. . . ~ ~~ l . ,,.7 ~_~"~'R ~:. 7'!FM 1; 'p~~ ~. ~ ~ ,.~- ~ y ~- . "_ 'T'r~k4 ~. ~ ;.,..~~ - _ . , , __' ~ } k ` l~ ~ i'~ y fA~~ ~u ~ ,. . . . (~ ~ ` ~~ ~ ~ . ~' ' . , . - . - ~~~tj ] . , . . ' ~ ~ ~z 3 ~ -• ~ ,, k`' 1~`' ~~~ `'~ . - MINUTES CITY PLANNING COA~IDd2SSI0N, September 11, 1968 4107 . r . . . . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . k,- r • u ~, ~N`~; F , '~ ~r'r . . , . . . . . . . ~ . . . CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Gallagher then read a letter from Walt Taylor Lumher Compan s 5 <~.~..w~a. .. S ~`' y, ~ PERMIT N0. 1052 loaated northwest.and saross the street from subjeot property regerding ~ A *~ ;' : ~ the uses of subject property since the early 1930's, wnan it was also used for storage of h f ~~ { r,. ~ eavy oonstruotion equipment and truaks, and the w?"~ Y ~k~~ ~ .~ ! . use had aontinued with some similarity to the present time, and that . . if, e ~ the faot that the uses had not inoreased or deoreased the flow of ~~,~~~ , y ,~~ `'~ '`r traffic: sinoe 1956. ~~ ~~~; `;' ~ tdr. Gallagher also noted that the petitioner would stipulate to construction of a 7-foot k~ ~~ masonry wall along.the south property line, to the construction of sidewalks along YPalnut k;~w ja ^ r i Street, however, along.the north property line a number of large palm trees existed which mi ht oreat n ; ,,_,, ~ ~,'"r' ~; g e a unevenness of the sidewalks as they continued to t grow; and that similar type uses had been on s b , , r;. u ea j property at the time the subdivision was constructed, thus it was obvio t , a~° ' ~.r •'; us o the subdivider that these noises would persist and did not give the home owners the proteation theg should have h d F4 r ~„~' ` a . ~ thermore, most of the R-1 homeowners had placed bamboo screens or had planted vine i ~ ~~ ;: "~ s aga nst the existing ahain link fenae, there- fore the proposed wall would be a b tt ~ ~~ e er shield again3t noise and light than that presently existing and would not cut off the light or i Al ~` ti 't ~ a r. so, while discussing the sound report with the petitioner, he had noted that the freeway noises and increased traffia along W A ~ :'~' alnut Street was aonsiderable, therefore this would be difficult to control because the + , . ~ ~ traffia would aon'tinue to inorease on Walnut Street when residents of the City learned f th , k ~ o e shortaut to Disneyland and the Convention Center; and that he, therefore, recom- mended the Commi i ss on consider approving subject petition. ~ '~•~ ; i ",' The Commission inquired whether any consideration had been given by the petitioner and l s ~- es ee to hours of operation. Nfhereupon Ddr. Ge,llagher stated this could not be controlled beca f th ,. ~ ~ „,;,~ use o e type of service the lessee had, nor oould the noises of the street be oon- trolled or enforaed. ,~` `4 ti,;,. Mr. Rod Wallaae, 1165 Hazelwood Rvenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that vt ~,, r~' he was one of the property owners immediatel ad'acent to sub'ect s. ~~, Y J ~ ~roperty; that since ~~ ~,~ the last meeting, the petitioner and lessee had met with the neighbors at which time the ~~ ~~ ~a` owr.er stated he would erect the mesonry wall; that the residents o£ the area were aware ~_~~y^~, k~, ~' that nothing could be done to.curb the traffic noises along Manahester Avenue and the' ~';'4 1w,~~ freeway; however,,the;opposition was oonoerned with the length of time the trucks idled ~y` after arriving at the yard, beoause it took anywhere from 15-20 minutes before the en ines tiy~"` ~: ~- were shut down, which usuel~y occurred around midnite when most of the daytime noisesghad ~~' ,' ~,r~}";~ diminished considerably, thereby carrying the sound greater distances, and some provision ~i~' ~~"'~,~~~~ could ba made to reduce.the time it took for the truoks to be turned off; that the peti- +yf ~Gti~~;%~~ tioner had advised the opposition that the late hours would be reduced to a minimum, " ,~?; a„~ however, on Tuesday September 10, a truok came in around Midnight again; therefore, he r ` ~"~~ ~ urged the Commi.ssion to require some limite,tion as to hours of operation, in order that ;. K' r,~~ the idling of the truaks' motors could not be heard between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. , j ~f ~•,.^ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ;;i ~, ~ ~ Commissioner Farano noted that the idling of truck motors was neoessary before a truok , nT ~`:~' left the yard in order to determine that it was o eratin ;'~ the streets. P B Properly before moving it into ~ °, ~r ~`','~'~ Mr. Wallaae then stated that ahildren seemed to be affeoted by these noises, and he was ~ speaking in behalf of them. Then he noted that if the homeowners and the petitioner and r'~^~~ or lessee met after the wall was erected to determine whether the noise factor had been ~r ;~ eliminated, then perhaps hours of operation aould be agreed to at that time. i+ iis+~ l f~` Mr. Gallagher; in rebuttal, stated that he had lrnown Mr. Wallace and his father for a , ~`,';~`i number of years and wished to assure the opposition and the Commission that the 7-foot ,~,~ ~ a~ ~~~,R. wall would reduae noises considerably, and that the lessee , Mr. Morgan~ would try every- ,+ ~~rt think reasonably possible to minimize i;he noises. t ~~i~~~`'~~, Mr• Max Morgan, lessee and operator of the truoking firm on subject ro ert a ea~ P P Y pp isd ~ i ~~S~~,A before the Commission.and adqised them that the.idling of trucks after returning to the }' ,;j: yard,at night was necessary to cool down the units, and this cooling down operation was 't~~f,~ done while the diesel was being refueled, however, it was his opinion that the idling ~ ~'X w~" ~~'~` time was,not more than ten minutes. ~ ~ ~. y~ , ~~ '~~~ Mr. Morgan, in response to Commission questioning noted that the cooling down operation N,~u, w~~~~c~ could only be acaomplished immediately after the diesel truak had been brought to the yard. , Z ~ tLr {h4,~ . : . . . . 4 ~ ,h ~ q , e~l ~ . ~ . ~` ' y~ +~. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~k.,:":~_.~ i~..~~', ~f..:~:.~.:,~_-il'~'w' ~ ~ . - . . . ~ . . . ~ };~1 , s 1~ 4. ~ ~%~ +i ~4 a ~ s. ~ ~; / -`.i} ~5 •~~ rf i:: ~ u=~ ; ~~?x ? .~;'~ ~ '~ ~~'~~~ ~ 5_,,.SF7 ~~r~,.^'~'~~ t :`.,~' ~ r}~~"~r ~ ~+i ~ ~ i -: ~ t~^ '!4 `"t :,:~ ~ t ..~ ! ,-. . < . . . ~~___._ .... . .......... . ~ L~ {~ MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION September 11, 1968 4108 CONDITIONAL USE - Disoussion was held by the Commission as to the noise factcr it being PER~LIT N0..1052 determined that the proposed wall would reduae the amount of noise aonsiderably; however the proposed use was a M-2 use in the M-1 Zone adjacent to residential uses; that noises were more acute after normal hours of day and evening traffio had subsided and thus travelled farther; that the existing and previous uses had been similar in that trucks and buses were stored on the property, but diesel truoks seemed to emanate a moro penetrating noise and if subject petition were granted and aontinuous complaints were reaeived by the City as to aonstitute a nuisance faotor, the City might be forced to curtail the operation or limit the hours. Therefore, the lessee of sub3eat property should make every effort possible to reduce the noise factor to e minimum even to possible reduction of hours of operation to offset being a nuisanoe operation, sinae the City had previously had industrial uses whiah were not as close as the proposed use and after numerous complaints and public hearings the industry had to reloae,te in an area where the noises were not objectionable. Mr. Gallagher noted that the vines planted by the residents to the south would be damaged or destroyed if the masonry wall was constructed; whereupon Mr. Wallace stated that these were on the petitioner's property, therefore, he oould remove them. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-269, and moved for its passage and adoption seoonded by Commissioner Gauer to grant Condi•tional Use Permit No. 1052, with the findings that the petitioner withdrew the request for waiver of the required masonry wall; that said wall along the south property line would eat as an effective screen from visual and audio intrusions of equipment and materials in the yard, therefore could be waived; that the petitioneror lessee be urged to make every effort possible to reduce to a minimum exaess- ive noise from truoks entering and leaving the premises during the late night and early morning hours to avoid having aomplaints made that the operation was a nuisanoe and health hazard, and subject to conditions including a 7-foot masonry wall along the south property line.(See Resolution Book) On roll oall the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO~dISS20NERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: C01+~GISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~AISSIONERS: Allred. ABSTAIN: COArIDE.iSSIONERS: Farano. ,~ENTATNE bIAP OF - DEVELOPER: HIRSCO CORPORATION, 2021 East 4th Street, Suite 108, TRACT N0. 6717 Santa Ana, Californie. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californie; subject tract located on the north side of old Santa Ana Canyon Road between Maude I,a.ne end Imperiel Highway and containing approximately 9.8 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 53 R-2 5000 Zoned lots. Subject tract was oontinued from the meeting of August 26, 1968 in order to allow time £or the submission of a revised map which would provide adequate ciroulation and eocess from the proposed development. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub3eat property, noting that the Planning Commission had reaommended clenial of the R-2 5000 7one and approval of R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE at the August 26, 1968 meeting, and since ~oning action by the City Counail would not be taken until their public hearing on October 2, 1968, the engineer was not desirous of submitting a revised tract map until the approved zoning was determined. Therefore, the staff reaommended that subject trsat be continued to the meeting of October 7, 1968; in order that the proper zoning £or the property and specific requirements of the zone could be applied to a revised tract map, whiah would also inalude e re~olution of the oircu'_lation problem. Commi.:;sioner Herbst offered a motion to oontinue consideration of Tentative bdap of Tract No. 6717 to the meeting of Ootober 7, 1968 in order to allow time for City Council aation on the most appropriate zoning for the property, end for the engineer to submit a revised tract map to include both circulation and the size lots approved by the City Council. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Camp abstained from voting. ~ \~ MINUTES, CITY pLANNING COMIdISSION September 11, 1968 ; dr-ta ' t~' 4 T i ,.~ , n,e. 4 '. r ¢'w . n, - _. _'_ ~~ ~ F\' .. ..~':'4 4109 VARI~~1!iCE N0. 2011 - pUgLlp HEARING, WII,I,IAM p d PHYLLIS A. BURCH, 2107 West Judith Lane, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting a WANER OF PERMITTED USES TO PER~IT THE KEEpINC, OF NON-POISONOUS REpTILES on property described as: An irregularly shaped lot having a frontage oP approximately 41 feet on the north side of Judith Lane and a maximum depth of apgrosimately 124 feet, the westerly boundary o~ said lot being approximately 345 feet east of the oenterline of Garden Drive, and further desaribed as 2107 West Judith Lane. Property presently classified R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub,jeat property, existing zoning and uses established in close proximity,and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the fs,ct that the petitioners now had three reptiles in looked cages on subject property, evidence submitted by the petitioners from the Animal Control Division of the City of Garden Grove, where the petitioners formerly resided; four letters from authorities on reptiles; 22 letters attesting to the character of the petitioners; and a petition signed by 109 persons residing in close proximity to subject property, sll in favor of subject petition. Mr. William Burch, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had maintained reptiles for the past eight years; that they had maintained a good relationship with herpetologists and learned many things from them; that they conducted speciel lectures with young people's groups teaching them that these reptiles were harmless; that if he personally thought there was any danger or any datrimental effect would result to the neighborhood and the City in the maintenance of these reptiles, he would have disposed of them a long time ago; that shortly after moving to subject property he had construoted a room within the garage for these reptiles which were maintained in locked oages - then he exhibited an empty cage and demonstrated the precautions taken in keeping these reptiles in the Zocked cages - in the room which was locked and within a locked garage; that it was his supposition that the original complaint was made because of a personal aonflict with a neighbor end not because they were maintaining these reptiles, sinae they had not offended the neighbors by virtue of odors; that they had Ueen trying to enaourage the young people to learn more about the field of herpetology; and that he and his wife had appeared many times before sahool assemblies and Boy Scout troops to further this lmowledge. Mr. Hurah, in response to Commission questioning, stated that his interest in herpetology was a hobby; that many safeguards were taken with the,reptiles because they were always mantained in locked oages within the heated locked room in the locked garage and were never removed by anyone but he or his wife; that live animals were never kept on the property to feed the reptiles, since it was not necessary to feed them on a daily basis, except for several times a year, and then he obtained rats or baby chicks from ranches which were fed to tha reptiles immediately; that the only time excretions came from the reptiles was shortly after they were fed; and that the reptiles were from differ- ent countries, one boa constriater was from Brazil and another from Columbia and these two never grew larger than 5-6 feet, a retiaulatus python, and a fourth which they hoped to obtain was a boa from India. A~r. Revon Underwood, 2115 West Midwood Lane, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition, nating that the petitioners were performing a public service for which they have taken little credit; that he was a Scout leader of Troop No. 255, which had received first place for iheir reptile display at the Saoutarama, and he had to give credit to the petitioners for their interest in the troop by spending considerable time explaining and imparting their lmowledge o£ reptiles to the boys; that more than 6,000 persons went thru their display and 95$ had asked if they could hold or touch one of the reptiles on display; that his smaller son present in the Council Chamber had asked to hold and touch one of the larger reptiles which the Burch family brought when they lectures to the Saout troop and no harm came to his son; that Mr. Burch planned to lecture before the Scout troop again, this time to demonstrate what to do about harmful and poisonous reptiles; tha~ he lmew of at least 30 Boy Scouts who had reptiles, and one who lived not too far from sub,jeot property who had at least 40 reptiles which were main- tained in the home; and that this was a method by which young people could learn more about biology and its relationship with man and animals. Therefore, he would recommend favorable consideration of the petitioners retaining their reptiles on subject property. Mrs. Marie Wright, 2114 West Judith Lane, appeared before the Commission and requested f that her name be removed from the petition in favor of subject petition, since she was now opposed to people maintaining snakes in this neighborhood. e~.` ~ t"Yf'°ft fY' ^L 'c#~j,~ jF k'~aq a1 ri' FM ~~c. i,~ ar+~.~ ri n ~.~? ~ ~ M1 ': ~ ~~ IT'ilrT )z".~Y~ .'E~ Rti' Ef ~'k" ~`Y ,.~ ~'~S*'4 ~ ~~ t , ..a '.'ti'(Y~ ~ ;,':I 7 Y ~ ~' l . 1 ~t. ~ t} ~ ~ .~4w xtf °~ .rvk~.G 1 ry r . v r n-• ~ P"' . ~ '} 4 ~;1~1 'Y ( 1 ~ 4 $`+'G. }'~ ; ~ . ~ . . ~ . . Y + O ~ ~' , ~'j ~, ~ <, ~ `,ssi ~ ~~' ' MINUTES, CITY pI,ANN2NG COMDGISSION September 11, 1968 4110 ~ ~ ,F. ~ VARIANCE N0. 2011 - Mrs. Winifred Deams 2110 West Judith Lane a + ppeared before the ' '~ Commission and noted that although she had not submitted a letter , ,~ in opposition or signed the petition in favor of the maintenance ~ ~y ~r~ of snakes on subject property, she was not in favor a£ subject petition, but would not be opposed to a youngster havin f ',.~,;' ~' . g a ew snakes. Mr. Don Foster, 2119 Judith Lene, appesred before the Commission in o pposition, and stated that he had two small child e ~? / J~, r n, and snakes of the size maintained by the petitioners were dangerous; that he had had experienae with pythons wh h r ~ ~^' en e was in the Phillipines, and this size snake in the evem of a£ire, national emergency could escape; that southern California was lmown as earthquake cou t ' ` i n ry, and any serious one might open the cages and the room for the python to esaape; that he aould not vouoh for how dan erous a th :;~ ~~7 ~ ~ ' g py on was since he was not an expert, however, the one he had seen in the Philli i ~ '- i, '~ p nes was known to eat small pigs and small dogs; and that the one he had seen was approximately 20 feet long. ~ s ~ , Odr. Burch in res onse to a P question by the opposition noted that the boas they had did attain a size longer than 5~ to 6 f t h , ,~, t ee ; owever a python could reach the size of 28 feet if it was 70 years old; but from herpetologist~ imou~ledge when a pyth ~ ' ~4 on reached the size of 12-14 feet they could be dangerous and could cause harm anyone:, although the bite would not be as dangerous a th ~ ~ k s at of a small dog. Flirthermore, it was not their intent to keep a reptile when it reached 12-14 feet, and it was not their int t t I en o replace the existing ones. ( ~ f I ~` ; °r.~, Mrs. Barbara Knight, 2123 West Judith Lane appeared before the Commission in favor of subject petition since th ~ `~ '" e petitioners maintained every precaution and safeguard; further- more, the last emergency in the neighborhood was a fire set by Mr Fost ' ~ ~. ' ~s.. . er s children. In addition, a number of neighbors had been curious enough to ask to see the snakes at close range. petitioners' x~~~~' r ?' A showing of hands indiceted 13 persons in favor and 7 persons in opposition to subject p6tlt1o21. ~, 'f~ f-~~~ ~.., >~~~-; ~4.,;~ ~'~ j Mr. Douglas Wright, 2114 West Judith Lane a , ppeared before the Commission and requested that his name be removed from the etiti i f ~ ' ~ ~+~°~,` p on n avor of subjeat petition because he had signed the petition on the statment made thet they were used for medical t d " ~'~ ~ s u y, but sinae the petitioner indicated he maintained them for a hobby his signature was obtained in a fradulant maruier ~ ~ ~-,r "~ ~ . . ~ . . . . . ' .. 3, i~~1~";7 ' }',~ . . . . . . .. . . ~ . ' , i F ; Q . ~~~~ ~ t~a~ Mr. George Neuman, 2523 Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Commission in favor and stated that Mr. Buroh at one time was a medical stud t ` ?' ~~ N~~~ en ; and that the neighbors did not have to oe awakened at night by a barking snake or clean up their mess on the f t ~ ' Y~~ ron lawn in the morning. 0.~. ~ ,~,,,~ 4 ~) ~Gz~s. Paule Clark, 2106 West Forest Lane, appeared before the Commission in favor of subjeat p t ition, and noted that she was rimaril ff ~, "~ ~ ~ p y a ected since her property backed up to subjeat p, perty; that she had been asked to sign the etiti i f t ~ p on n avor, which she did beoause she felt it was their right to keep the reptiles; that she and her family had been invited t , '~ o see the reptiles, and when she, her husband,and her 2 listened to the Burchs' leoture on the reptiles the timeesheo tu e n d ,~ :~ ! spen and informatio she received was so informative that in the six years she had spent at college majoring in saie h , °~ ~ `~ nce s e could not reaall having reneived anything as informative; and that from this incident alone she was convinar~d that subject petition should b - 1 ' ";~ e approved bece~use of the extreme care and understanding the petitioners had on the subject of herpetolo s,~,y,t"~ '~, gy. Mrs. Betty Gerald, 2111 West Judith Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that she had made the ori i l c l 9N9`~' g ae omp aint; that she had observed the garage door being open and partitions were up which indiaeted more of the reptiles we l ~~ka ~t ~~ re p anned to be housed in the garage; that she did not understand how anyone could study the reptiles unless theq were allowed to ha ~ a~,, ~„~ '~h` 1~ ve access around the house; that her concern was the fact the subjeat property was on a cul-de-sac street, and these reptiles i ht ~Kw~~~: m g esaape sometime; that her son also attending college felt the sam w +~ ~~~ e ay that ~Grs. Clark felt; and that be- aause of her ooncern for the children in the neighborhood she was af id ~~,~, r~~ ra teenage boys for a lark would break into t,s garage and release the reptiles. ~;,~ n~ f~~ ~ ~ G r. J o h n. E r i a k s o n, 1 2 4 1 N o r t h E a s t Street, appeared be£ore the Commission in favor of subjeat petitio n n o t i n g t h a t h e w z~ ,~'~s ~ ~° as a goo d frien d of the petitioners; that he had never seen other persons bring their reptiles•to the home, and he had been a visitor the r ~ .~e .. , re eve y week; and that he felt the Burch family was attempting to alear up the ignorance of some of the neighbors who if the took the ti ;~~j;•' y me to inquire of the Burch family some answers to their fears the complaints would,be nil. ~; rx r,r1 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ - . ~ ~ p r{ ,t . ~ f~'~{~1 . , . . , . . . .. . I 1 ~ . . . . . 1 ~~~,lu{~i . i~ L 4~~'eL"I . . .. ~ ' . ~ . ' . . . . . . ,1 1 .. . ~ ~ ry£~~ ~5 X t3`~jh~ n < r~,~r' tiyTi ~f ~i~ ~~"~'K'~" ~~~Y 7~r ~~.Y~v ' 1 :niv k~ ~u } ~~- ` i '~ ~~ k~1. '~+' (+' ~ ~~t~ : ~ ~ F~~r ~ ~ (~ f~ ~ ,~ ' ~ 4..1 ;; , t; ~ 1. ,r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION September 11, 1968 4111 ;y a, J ~ ~ ~ ,, ~L VARIANCE N0. 2011 - Mrs. William Burch, one of the petitioners, appeared in rebuttal and '~~ x~'~' stated that approximetely 95$ of the neighbors had signed the petition -'a~ `~ in favor of subjeot petition; that a neighbor, Mrs. Dorothy Hrennan ~ ~ had sent her a letter• - which she '~ ~,~ : proceeded to read to the Commission - 4 FY also approving maintenance of the reptiles; that they had no intention of retaining the -;; ~'~^'~ python when it reached a length of 12 feet; that if the ' garage was noticed to be open, she ~ or her husband were in attendanae inside of the garage; that on ocaasion, a friend might ~~ ,~~, bring their snake to their ~iome, but they never held meetings at their home with other ~ ~a~ herpetologists; that it was not neoessary to have reptiles have free access to the home, '_' since they could be studied in their cages, however the best way to learn about them was to hold them and note their body movements; that she would never have anything that would ~~', r~~f~„ be harmful to her 8-year old daughter; that if teenagers planned to break iato the garage ~i .p there was little they could do, but perents should train their children to respect the ~~ ~ private property of their neighbors, since they had taken as many preaautions as possible ~'a to insure the protection of the neighborhood; that the chickens and rats which were fed ~ to the reptiles were only purahased at the time they planned to feed them; and that they ~ had moved from Garden Grove to Anaheim beoause they liked the City and the neighborhood and it was not their intent to change the neighborhood. ~"s. ~ " The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioners had experienced an increase in ~ '~' their insurance aosts because of the keeping of reptiles, whereupon birs. Burch replied ~ ~ that she was an insuranae agent and there was no change in rates because of maintaining ~ 5, ,, the reptiles; and that the reptiles did not show much intelligence, however, they did recognize the sense of touch of some persons and needed a feeling of security from this 1,,, ;~ sense of touah. ::~ ~ ' THE HEARIP(G WAS CLOSED. ~ ' k *~ ~' ~ Discussion was then held by the Commission as to the possible nuisance the reptiles created i ~j ;. in the neighborhood that compared to that created by neighbors dogs and cats; that ~4~,~~ the petitioners were perYorming a great service to the various youth groups in the ~ ~„_,+~~ City by their willingness to appear before them to leature and demonstrate the reptiles; ~,~,,~ and that evidenoe from the City of Garden Grove indicated that no problem existed while ~+,;s' the petitioners were residents there and also maintained the reptiles: `~ '' Co~issioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-270, and moved for its passage and adoption ;, ~c'" - seconded by Commissioner Herbst to grant Petition for Variance No. 2011. ! ~r~n, ,~~,~„~ Commissioner Farano noted that the staff had made no reaommendations as to conditions, y~~,r and inquired of -0o~i.ssioners Gauer and Herbst whether he could include aonditions which ~r`~~~ would insure that granting the variance would not be setting a precedent, by limiting ri ~~~~.,~! the number to four non-poisonous reptiles not over 10 feet in length, that in order to { r~j maintain a health factor, no related feeding process animals or any meens by whioh the r' ~;.;, reptiles would be fed could be maintained in live state on the property; that the safety i ~~~~.: preoautions such as locked cages, locked rooms, and looked garage should be adhered to ~' at ell time for the protection of the children in the neighborhood; and that no colieotion i Xr; krrJ. of reptiles for educational or show purposes could be maintained on the property other ;~~~~,,~ than the aforementioned four reptiles. ~ W,,~ ~`r,~l Commissioner Gauer then accepted an emendment to his 6f~er of Resolution No. PC-68-270 r;: as follows: that a maximum of four non-poisonous reptiles not over 10 feet in length ~` me.y be retained on subject property; that in order to maintain a health feator, no related ~t~~s feeding prooess animals or any means by which the reptiles were to be fed, shall be ~ r~ maintained in live state on subject proper~y; that all safety precautions such as locked ~~~„~r~~, cages, locked rooms, and locked garage, as stipulated to by the petitioners, shall be ,~~"a;~ adhered to at all times for the protection of the children in the neighborhood; and that p~~u;_ no collection of reptiles for educational or show purposes shall be maintained on the ~,~„r~;, property other than those aforementioned. Commissioner Herbst seconded the amendment to ~;~~;, the resolution.(See Resolution Book) ~`" , fi~'; On roll oall the forogoing resolution was passed by the following vote: S Snh 7.Y tiaJ• ~ ~ . ~`~'~~ AYES: COtdM2SSI0NERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: CO~MISSIONERS: None. ~' ~~jw~ ABSENT: COI~ISSIONERS: Allred. Er~;':~ ~"~~~;w Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commissian that the Zoning Enforcement ~y~~~ Officer in cooperation with the Orange County Animal ControT Officer would coordinate 51~ . r,~ sn~*_; in the inspoction of subject property at periodic intervals to verify that the conditions ~,k~ o£ the resolution just passed were complied with. F ~ r~' ' - LJ14 a S F S f ~~ ~ ~ . ~ . s ~, F jf~4 ~ ~ 1~ 4~6~,~i- . ~ ~ .. . ~ ~'~~';~~ 1 . Yl~ t 4"w~i' ,'~FS : 1 -Y.iF+~ ~ vR ~:.: r ~ y~?±+F, f'F'` fi' ~`sr~"' ~ i ui c'T:~ af i. ,. ~."'~. ~.~. ~ ~ 1t ,~ ' t ~ i.. 4.,'~ ~ yKti;f ~ ~.J x~ p ~.. . - ~ .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~~~ ~i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CObmdISSION September 11, 1968 4112 VARIANCE N0. 2013 - PUBLIC HEARING. ~E. J. GOBERT„ 431 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, ~ California, Owner; COVINGTON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 2451 East Orangethorpe Avenue, F~llerton, California, Agent; requesting the following waivers: (1) ~GAXIMUM gUILDING HEIGHT; (2) MINIMUM FLOOR `' AREA PER DWELLING UNIT; (3) REQUIRED WALLS; (4) ~LAXIpe[TM BUILDING COVERAGE; (5) MINIMUbI BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT; AND (6) MINIMUM REQUIRED YARD SETBACK, TO PER~dIT DEVELOP1dENT OF A 120-UNIT APARTI~NT COMPLE% on property described as: Approximately 4.5 aores of land having a frontege of approximately 320 feet on the`west side of ~'+~ Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 611 feet, the northerly boundary ;'! '' being approximately 347 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue. Property ~;4 : presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown, reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the proposed request, noting that plans as now before the Commission were a revision and the waivers originally requested had been reduced to only two those being the maximum building height adjacent to R-A property to the north and minimum required yard setback, with the number of units reduced to 112 instead of the original 120; and that the Engineering Division had emphasized in a finding of the Report to the Commission the fsat that the plans indicate a landscaped planter in the center of the aul-de-sac, which if installed, would have to be in accord- anoe with City Council Polioy No. 532. ~r. Gared Smith, architect representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that subject property already had a resolution of intent to R-3 approved on it; however, the revised plans indicated a better solution for the development of the propertq, and for financing purposes it was proposed to develop the property as four separate parcels; and that in his opinion the prope:ty to the north would be developed for other than single family use. Furthermore, the variance request for waiver of the minimum required yard setback was necessitated by the fact that patios were proposed along the cul-de-sao within 7 feet of the property line where a 6-foot masonry wall was proposed to be constructed to insure the privacy of the residents when using their patios, but would not cause any visual intrusion for vehicular traffic; and that with the proposed cul-de-sao and alleys better control of traffic would be assured. Idr. Smith also noted that in the original plan submitted with this petition, batchlor-type apartments had been proposed, but because of the study the City was presently oonduating _ these had been eliminated. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion wes held by the Commission, staff and the architect regarding the requirement of a 6-foot masonry wall along the north property line, and upon completion of the dis- cussion the Commzssion determined that a bond could be posted to insure aonstruotion of the masonry wall if the property to the north developed for single family residential purposes. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-271, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall to grant Variance N~. 2013, subject to conditions, and an amendment to Condition No. 4 to inalude that the petitioner may file e bond to insure construotion of the masonry wall if the property to the north developed for single family residential purposes.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vota: A~~: COMbSISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: CO~ffSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~GISSIONERS: Allred. w ;:~~;; ".`~=' 4-~ , ' .~ ~ "~ ° . ~ . ~ ~ 1~ r tb =~'~ ~ . 4 ~r ~. ~ c a,i r ~.~ r 2 ey 7 ~ y[ ~a ~:. ,J t~ .. _ '{~ .t. ... ( _ 4 J_,. .. .... } „ .... .. . .. ~ , _ .. _ , . . . C ..,. ~ .. ,u. ++... _. , . ,,,V.-:.i s~,~, . ,utyr~^~• t . ~ 'I„'"~ {~ ~"' F1M ~E~~ f ~ l ~ ~ f F ~t t~ ~. ~ ~ ~~~ '~ ri-~lr~~ ~ 1f~ta r~''~o- .:- 5~;' rr . r r i • 'i:. ii7 .! ;:! i. :« S ~ '..~ r .'1, ,, _ ~ . , . . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~. ~ . ~ ~. ~ _. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~EISSION September 11, 1968 4113 VARIANCE N0. 2014 - PUBLIC HEARING.• R. P. LEtuID~ON, 211 Topo Street, Anaheim, Californie, Owner; requesting WANER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO PPRMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SWI~NIING POOL AND A PROTECTNE 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL on property desaribed as: A rectangularly shaped lot looated at the northwest ac~rner of Mall Avenue and Topo Street, having dimensions of approximately 100 feet on the north side of Ma11 Avenue and approximately 67 feet on the,west side of Topo Street, and further described as 211 Topo Street. Property presently classiYied R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. `" ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses ;~:,; established in close proximity, the proposal and then noted that other properties in ,~ this general area had similar variances granted and the proposal would not be detrimental r. to the adjoining land uses; and that a 42-inoh wall was proposed to inoreased to 6 feet. °, ;.;~ The petitioner indiceted his presence to answer questions. ':.. ~ f ' No one appeared in opposition. '''.'-~ '~'~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. I Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. pC68-272, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst to grant Petition for Varianae No. 2014, unaonditionally.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: COI~EISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ~~ NOES: COA~QISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~fISS20NERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 2016 - PUBLIC HEARING. BROOKHURST SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; ~GYLES BADER, 1365 East 16th Street, ' Los Angeles,,California, Agent; requesting PERM2SS20N FOR THE ; CONTINUED USE OF A;KtOSK FOR THE OUTDOOR SALE OF FLOWERS on property described as: ~ i The Brookhurst Shopping Center located at th6 northwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst ,- ; Street.and having a frontage of approximately 610 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and a frontage of approximately 770 feet on the north side of Ball Road. Proporty presently ~'! alassified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub3eot property, the proposal and uses established in close proximity, further noting that the kiosk was now in existenoe ; that the City Council on July 9, 1968 established a policy whereby kiosks proposed to be loaeted in parking lots or o:.her external locations of a shopping oenter, where visible from the street, suoh outdoor seles should only be permitted sub- ject to the granting of a variance; and that the petitioner had indiaated to the staff that the outside sale of flowers at this location would continue to no later than January 1, 1969, since plans were in progress for a new type of structure designed ta enclose the entire operation. Mr. Miles Bader, agent for the petitioner, appeared bePore the Commission and presented colored renderings of the plans for the new type of struature, and indicated th=s type structure would be in the same loaation as the present kiosk, however it would oooupy three parking speoes instead of the present two, and the,t operation would still be the same. Mr. Bader, in response to Commission questioning, stated that customers ordered their flowers and the order was filled almost immediately, therefore the time the vehicle was parked at the kiosk would be a matter'of minutes, and that the nevr structure would be similar to the photomat operation. Furthermore, detail plans were not now available regarding the new struoture. Commissioner Camp'inquired as to whether the new plans were to be considered by the Commission under this petition, whereupon, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson stated that the request before the Commission was approval of the existing kiosk in the shopping oenter, and that the Commission might wish to establish a time limit, if subjeat petition were approved. "`~~.'`~`x °~, ':: "SeS~P'~,?,"-~ ~'i,~''~JC' r4',r~'"'.fti..~Rr~^"d~J*~~~`i~3~n~2' ~3rv( ti~' ~rnx~`.~., 'ti`Q;~d'~P~',t`'aa.,~•q'.~ '~a'1 ~ r ~~~ C.. 1.Y ~9 iN ~ , . " '° 7 . . ,k. ~ _, , . .: ~ . . ^ 1, .y ~ ~ ~ ` ~. MINUTES; CITY'1PLANNING COA~ISSION September 11, 1968. 4114 VARIANCE N0. 2016 - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-273, and,moved - ' c , `for its'passage e~nd adoption, seconded.by,Commissioner`Herbst °to grant Petition for Variance No. 2016;.with a time limitata:on to January.:1,:1969, on the~basis.that trie'~agent:;for the petitioner indicated that a fully enolosed structure would be built at that , time:dSee Resolutiom Book7 On roll call the foregoing resolution was.passed by the`following vote: AYES: CO~EMISSIONERSi Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall; Rowland. ~ NOES ' M S : COM I SIONERS: None. ABSENT: "COM~EISSIONERSi Allred. ME RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING.' EUGENIA WESTON DORIAN, ET AL, 415 Flores, Los N0: 68-69 24` d - an Angeles, California, Owners; RICHARD S. LAUB, JR, S FRANK M. ~ HARLEM, JR., 2140 North Main Street, Santa Ana, Californie, Agents; VARIANCE N0 2012 . property described as: Two parcels of land located at the south- west aorner of Winston Road,and Iris Street, with oombined frontages of 240 feet on Winston Road and a frontage of 107 feet on Iris Street. Propertq presently classified C-1, GENERAL COIdtdERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDINTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WANERS OF (1) 2dARIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FA1d2LY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (2) ~INIMUM BUILDING SETBACK FROM A STREET, TO ESTABLISH THAEE FOURPLEX APARTMENT BUILDINGS. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in alose proximity, the requested zone change and the waivers, noting that the petitioner proposed to subdivide Lots 4 d 5 f r . an o T act No. 2637 into three lots with-80-foot frontages on Winston Road and depths o£ approximately 107 feet; that each ~: lot would then be developed with a fourplex apartment kiaving one story on Winston Road ~ and two-story to the rear over the carports which'would'face an'existing elley to;the ~ ~' ( , . rear of the , properties;,that adequate aoaess and circulation was provided for`fire ! ~ +~ , trash, etg.services; that the'2-foot proj9otion into the required building setbeak" ~` , along the,`west'side was primarily a,structural part of the stairway leading'to the ~ ii~ , second floor.unit, since the main wall of the building,was-proposed'to:be 23 feet from -the right-of-way line.of Iris St et th ~j`' re ; at the General Plan indicates.medium-density' residentisl for this area; and that the basic aoncern of the Commission would be the+ ~i,; waiver of the one-story height limitation!within 150 feet of ths R-1 homes to.the west. 1{ Mr. Frank ~~~lem, one of the agents for the petitioners, appeared before the Cammission and requested oorrection of the name of one f th ~ o e petitioners, the name being !'Dorian"; that beaause of the distance of subject property from Anaheim Boulevard commeraia7 ` '"' ~` . development was somewhat remote, since the economic factor as to its location would govern its development for commercial purposes; that 12 units were proposed to be built on subjeot ro ert lth h h i` ~ p p y, a oug t e density permitted by the R-3 Zone would permit 21 units; that waivers requested were necessary to develo the t of " p ype apartment com- plex which had been sucoessful throughout Orange County, since they were sssets to a ;, ;- community and the area in generaT because of the open green;area proposed; that two story construotion had been permitted in the r e '` ' a ea, and in eff ct the apartments over the garage that they proposed would be similar to having one story; and that the . proposed development would aot as a.buffer between the existing,R-3 to the south and ~~ the commeroiel to the east from the R-1 to the west. F'urthermore, sinoe subjeot property had C-1 Zoning, by the Code e three-stor oom isl b il n '' y mera u di g could be ereoted. P; Mrs. Margaret Lenney, 139 West Winston Road, appeared before the`Commission in o pposition, and noted that she and her son owned the tri l "' -p ex directly aaross the street from subject property; that all the neighbors she had talked to were quite concerned that subject j;; ;';: property was not,,to be developed for professional offioe use, sinae the.Zoning on`the o Ir? pr perty had deed restrictions limiting the commercial use tq business and professional ~~'; uses only; that the neighbors had indicated they would be present at the City Counail public hearing howeve w e e ~~,; , r, er unabl benause of prior commitments to appear to.express their opposition at the Commission's hearing; that the neighbors were desiro s of ~ u having subject property developed,'however, the statement made by,the agent that a' three-story building aould be built was r c ' ~ e roneous sin e,the deed restriations also limited construction to one,story; that there were a number of single family'hom w s r eo ner lea~ tham 150 feet from subject property, therefore, the waiver of the one story height limit i:~ ation,should not be granted; that because of the existing two-storq apartments in i', ~ ~, ` ! - --- - -- - ~ - -- ~' ~`,: ,~ _. ~o',~'~~+J~~.'.H$g. S~~"~4~ ~ `.,;~ ~ ~~ ~ ~°t ~'~ ~ ~ ~,~< 7 ~ ~.k~" .~" Jf ~'~;~~.' ~^'. ~ ~'~ ~. 4 t a , . , . ' ~~'; G ~~ ~ ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~QISSION September 11, 1968 4115 RECLASSIF'ICATION - the area there was considerable congestion of traffic and N0. 68-69-24 and inadequate parking area; that these two-story apartment residents presently parked their vehicles on subjent property, and if this VARIANCE N0. 2012 wera developed with 12 units~ further congestion in the parking would ooaur and parking thei~ would be in the single £amily home area. , Zoning'Supervisor Ronald Thompsor_ advised the Commission that deed res±riction~ were on the property limiting the use to business and professional offices and no building used for residential purposes unless reclassified. ~ The Commission Seoretary read a le'ster of opposition from the R-1 homeowner who would be directly affected by two story construction. Mr. Harlem, in rebuttal, stated that although there were deed restrictions limiting the uses the two le•:s to the east were developed for commercial purposes, and they had already advised him and agreed to removal of these deed restriations. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Co~ission noted that the density proposed for subject property would be similar to the two tri-plex developments to the north where six units were on a 134-foot frontage and the petitioner proposed 12 units on a 240-foot frontage; however, although two story constuction was in the area, and the petitioner was proposing two story con- struction within 150 feet of an R-1 home, if this waiver were granted it would be seti~ng a preaedent for all other developments requesting a similar waiver, therefore, in order i~ avoid further requests for waiver of the one-story height limitation, no waiver should be granted, since the City had maintained this zoning requirement ever since it had been adopted subsequent to the t•HO-story apartments constri+ation in 1958. r ~~ Mr. Harlem noted that one story construction cou1N : maintained but he was of the opinion that the development would not be as attraotive witn targe patios ar,d green area, or E conforming with the letter of the ordinance but not in the spirit of the ordinance. i ~ The Commission then inquired whether the four-plex at the int:,z~esection of Winston Road ~~ and Iris Street oouZd be redesigned with one story constructa.on, since this wae the ' building that would be witkin 77 feet of the R-1 to the west. t Mr. Harlem indicated that this might be acaomplished, but ic would be crowding the other two lots, reduce the Ereer. area and patios and might nut be economically feasible. Mrs. Lenney asked ~o speak again since there was one ves•y important fact she had not mentioned. Whereupon the Commission gave her permission to speak. Mrs. Lenney noted that if ar.. adequate setback were not provided this could obstruct the view of motorists when the crosswalk for school children was occupied. I' ~ ~ Mr. Harlem advised the Commissioi~ they were proposing to purchase subject property aontingent upon obtaining the zoning and waivers, and there was a possibility that they would be unable to conetruct this development if the v~ai~rers were not granted. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that subject petitions could be aontinued for the - submission of revised plans, or they oould approve it in part, and sinae this was e ~ recommendation to the City Council, the petitioner could submit revised plans to the Council if he so desired. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-274 and moved for i~s passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano to recommend to the City Ccur.cil that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-24 be approved, subjeat to conditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COdIldISS20NERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlanci. NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSEPIT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~~+ese+~~ ~ fi"~~. ~R:, ~ M~' T~~ ~6 ~+_-rS;.nr1C~ f ., ~ ~ , ~ ) ` 4 uY_ C . . . . . .. .~7 .. . . ,_ ~ 1 'e^~~. - ~~ '~~` !f --^t"'_~ ~~ *~ f~N r 1 ~~Y. " ~ ,f~4 ~,ct3 Jt ~ /~~i ~F~2 ,~ : ~v f f ~`"; Y~ p iE r~ ?T ~-.-.+_ ~.~.'i,~ K,n . „7. ^.ti a.~.~. ~ ~ff~_ ~ ~ . .. . . ~~_ '" .. ~ '"_~~.~~~~~~ ;..~~.. ~~ q,f ~ 11 .. X~.dkC . ~ . C . . ~ ~ . . d / ~} . . . ~ . . ` . . ~ r~X~f ~ . . . ~ . . . t ~ ~~S ~ ~=Ty PLANNIDIG COA~IDGISSIOi: September 11, 1968 4116 ~~ RECLASSIFICATION - Further discussion was held by the Commission as to weiver of the >g F N0. 68-69-24 and one-story height limitation, and it was finally determined since ~""° the single £amily homes had been in existenoe ~~~ VARIANCE N0. 2012 and no aPartments, the one story height limitationrslouldVbe~retained, ~ ,,y ~ precedent should be established. ry„r ~-,. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-275, and moved for its passage and adoption, 4~~ `~ seconded b,~ Commissioner Farano to part, denying ~~'~ waiver of the one-story height limitationPwithinn150r eet1ofcthe~R-1012 in ytry', ~ and approving the waiver of the mir.imum building setback, subject to condition~~(See West, '~"`r` Resolution BookJ .,:;~. ;,:, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~.' ''~ ! ~` AYES: COIdMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, ~6unga1l, Rowland. ~ NOES: COA~dISSIONERS: None. k~ I ;~ ABSENT: 00-~utISSIONERS: Allred. i rp.r _ -. _ ~i, ~ i a "i` ~ GENERAL PL,AN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNIN(", COI~ISSION, 204 East c a' At~N~A~NT N0.108 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California to consider an amendment to the ~ ~°~ f Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way of the General Plan, 7 ; placing Orangethorpe Avenue Lstween Kraemer Boulevard on the west ,~ ~ and a point 185 feet west of Linda Vista Avenue on the east on the ,,~; Table of Exceptions. rs ~ Associ.ate Planner Marvin Krieger, reviewed for the Commission the existing width which `'~ is required for Orangethorpe Avenue by both the Anaheim General Plan and the Orange ~~ ~. '~ ~ County Master P1an of Arteriel Highways; that because of the existing railraod ~ ; gravel pits, and the retarding basin on the south side of the streat the required860sfoot ~ half width for that side would be difficult to acquire; that the "g~`"`"'`"'~ through this area was 6,600 vehicles per day and was Present traffic flow ~ ~ t r„~ and 20,000 by 1988; and that in i;he opinion of the TrafficcEngineere8thelex'oist~ing 1978, ~`~ ;~~ exceptions in widths both east and west of, and within the,area of concern, I N{~~~~. suffioient roadwa to move'the pro provide a I ?,~~.~ Therefore; the staff recommended thattthethalf1widthaof353~feettbeeaonsidered~adequate ~ ,G~ .,~ ~,,,~~ for the transition area from a standard major arterisl to less than a stannard,major ~ ~~ ~ , ,,~ arterial. ,{~4V ..r'1~ "~~' No one appeared in opoosition. ~; ;~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. "~• ~~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-276 and moved for its ;i; secon3ed by Commissioner Herbst to reaommend to the City Council that General~plan~Ption, r; Amendment No. 108 be approved placing Orangethorpe Avenue on the Teble'of Exceptions for the area between Kraemer Boulevard on the west and a point 185 feet west of Linda Vista ~' Avenue on the east, requiring dedication of a 53-foot half width for street widenin ) ~ purposes.(See Resolution Book) 8 ~ On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: a ~ AYES: COA~IDdISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. "~ NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: None. ,~' ~ , ~_ ~` ABSEDIT: CO1dMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ !'._i iN; ~' GENERAL PLP-N - PUBLIC HEARING. IIQITIATED BY THE CITY PLANP,;~VQ COIu~iISSION, 204 East ~ AI~NDMENT i k~ Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Californie to eat.aider an amendment to the vk ---~ t N0. 109 Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Wp,y of the General Plan,placing ' "? Cerritos Avenue between Walnut end West Streets on the Table of Exoeptions. 'I ~ ~ '~ Assooiate Planner QQarvin Krieger, reviewed for the Commission the existing width whioh i ,; is required for ~Cerritos Avenue between Walnut and West Streets, that being a standard ~; secondary with a 45-foot half width(90-foot street) ; that with the aonstruction of an ~ ~ additional 330 rooms and the addition of a convention center, the increase in vehicular r; traf£ia from the present B,OOO per day to 12;500 upon completion of the new oonstruction, ~;', and further projected to 14,000 by 1980, to assist in ahanneling the traffio the Traffic ~}, ~,° Engineer reaommended that a oenter median be installed which would inarease the right-of- ~yl ~; _._..... ~ ::r.~~..,. ~ te-r,. . y Z..!~~ i ~ ~. ~~ r,~ ~ . 3 S ~~. `, }~ Y ; f~ a Y ~ ~ f w ... i~4.~~~~{ ~~.~ 4 ~: ~ ~~~ c / ~ ..i . ~ k 'C 41~ _ ~ 1,;, 7" n '~ 'Y ti Y ;7~ : , ., ,. : , , ~ ~ ~:: . .' i ~'', ~,,i~ . . . . .,. , ~ :L ~ ' •'~- ...:M , .- : . .:'. '~. . ~ ~ . . ~ . . . .. . ~. \) /'~ ~/ ' ~ ~Ny r' . ~ ~../ . . . . . . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ :'~ ~~:~ . . .. . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION September 11, 1968~ 4117 . ~ _ . . . ~ . . ~ . . , ~ ~ -;'%ic~~ GENERAL PLAN - way to 97 feet; that beaeuse of the vehiculer traffio predicated and ~ ~ ANIENDMENT the design capacity of the street, the retention of Cerritos Avenue N0.109 as s secondary arterial with exception having street half-widths of `` 40 feet on the south and 57 feet on the north, was deemed advisable, ;~ and that the staff, therefore, reoommended placing Cerritos Avenue fi between Walnut tsnd West Streets on the Table of Exceptions. •••x No one appeared in opposition. t'~ i :i THE,HEARING WAS CLOSED. (~'i ~ , ~ ".-_ 4:: ' ''` Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-277 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano to reoommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 109 be approved placing Cerritos Avenue between Walnut and West Streets on the Table of Exceptions requiring a 40-foot half width on the south side and a 57-foot half width dedication on the north side for street widening purposes.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COtuAQISSIONERS: Csmp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: CONIDdISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECO~NDATIONS ORANGE COUNTY CONDITIONAL PERMI~ N0. 1354 Property loceted south of Orangethorpe Avenue between the AT3SF RR ' tracks and the Atwood Channel with frontage aocess on the west side of I,ekeview Avenue; requesting permission to establish an outdoor i storage yard for heavy construction equipment, a shop building, and i an office building. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the pro- posal, and the property's location as being within the northeast industrial area, noting that the use, if developed in the City of Anaheim, would require a conditiona]. use permit to ellow a M-2 use in the M-1 Zone; that Lakeview Avenue, a primary arteriel, with an ultimate right-of-way requirement of a 53-foot hal£ width, and now is only a 40-foot half width; that a 50-foot building setback from the property line would be required; however, the petitioner's plot plan indicated a setbaok of only 20 feet from the existing right-o:-way for one of the struotures; thet no landscaping was indicated whereas the M-1 site development standards require a minimum of 50 feet in the front setback, or whera parking is proposed in tne front setback area, a minimum of 10 feet; and that outdoor storage further was required to be fully enclosed with a 6-foot masonry well, while the petitioner did not propose a well along the Atwood Channel from the westerly prop- erty line to a point oppcaite the easterly limit of the equipment storage area, or a distance of approximately 141 feet. Mr. Brown then reviewed the staff's recommendations, if the Commission deemed the pro- posel appropriate and recommended same to the City Council for forwarding to the Orange County Planning Commission. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urg~a3 to approve Orange County Conditional Permi; No. 1354, subject to the following aonditions: 1: That 53 feet be dedicated from the centerline of Lakeview, for street widening ~ purposes, and that all engineering imprevements be in accordance with the City of Anaheim stanCards. 2. That a minimum structural front setback of 50 feet from Lakeview Avenue be required. 3. That a minimum of 10 feet of landsoaping be roquired .~djacent to the u~timate right-of-way along Lakeview Avenue. 4. That a 6-foot masonry wall be required elong all four sides of the area used for equipment parking and storage, except for driveway openings. Commissioner Camp seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. , r - -- y~.~. a~y- - - -- ;~i~i;.-,r~(•;.. J. ~... . .. . .. . . .. ... .. . . -. .. ., .~.:... ... ." ~~ ~_ ~~ /' . . . .. . . ~ ' . . . , . ,. ~. . ' . ' ~ ~. _ . .. ~ . . ~~ ~ . . . . . MINUTES, CITY pL,ANNING COI~GISS20N September 11, 1968 ~ 4118 REPORTS,AND - IiEM N0. 2 RECO~NDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 1968 - Request from the agent for the petitioner for reconsideration of additional information whinh he would pressnt to the Commission regarding dedioation of.property located at the . southwest corner of Walnut Street and Cerritos Avenue - proposing to establish a oar rental and service facil-.t;~ on subject property. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the reason for subject petition being presented again to the Commission, noting that the agent for the petitioner had requested reoonsideration by the Commission in order that he might be present to explain his request. ~ No one appeared to represent the agent or the petitioner. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the agent for the peti- tioner, Mr. R: L. Coons had been working with the City Attorney Joseph Geisler and himself regarding the aforementioned dedication, and the solution was to have been presented to the Commissicn by Mr. YPatts of the City Attorney's office, however, because of a change in vaoation. sahedules, Mr. lNatts was the only attorney in the offioe, and was unable to I present the proposed solution to the Commission at the time this was considered by them. Nevertheless, Mr. Coons offered an irrevocable offer of dedication of the additional five feet for Walnut Street and Cerritos Avenue at suoh time as i;he erea was improved, in no case, however, would this be before a 15-year period had elapsed, because of financing problems relative to the development as originally proposed. Mr. Dawson then noted that upon contact with the City Engineer, it seemed that insofar as this particular property was concerned the proposal was reasonable. The Commission then noted that with the doubling in size of the bisneyland Hotel, widening of Cerritos Avenue between West and Walnut Streets, and the potentiel inorease in traffic because of this, the request for approval of the irrevocable offer of dedication which could not be exercised in less than 15 years, was unreasonable. Office Engineer Arthur Daw, then advised the Commission that when he had discussed the aforementioned offer with Assistant City Engineer Ralph Pease, he had indiaated to the City Attorney's office that as long as whatever was proposed was substantially in oon- formance with the condition of the resolution passed by the Commission, that it would be up to the City Council to take any final action i:~ granting an extension of 15 years for the completion of dediaetion; however, in every other petition where dedioation was required and development was proposed, dedication was obtained prior ~o rezoning the property or prior to issuance of a building permit. F~rt;hermore, if this extension of time is granted, a problem might arise as to the location of any permanent facilities, such as pumrc, underground storage tanks, and structures being within the State require- ment which required these faailities to be loaeted at least 12 feet from the ultimate or future right-of-way of the street. The Commission further noted that subjeot property was the only parcel along Wa?nut Street between Cerritos and Katells Avenue which had not dedicated property for the w~3ening o£ lNalnut Street to its ultimate 45-foot half wid~h; thai if any permanent struatures were plaaed within the ultimate future right-of-way, there could be a legal problem as to whether the City would have to pay for the relooation of these faailities; and that if any change to that action taken by the Commission on August 26, 1968~was to be considered,it would only be to have the irrevocable ofPer of dedication subjeot to suoh a time as the City would require or request that it be made, together with the requirement that all improvements on the property such as structures, etc., be maintained not less than 12 feet from the ultimate 45-foot half width street boundary with an additional 3-foot strip of landsoaping if a service station was considered. Commiusioner Herbst offered a motion to amend the f;ommission's sation of August 26, 1968~ as follows: That the request for approval of an irrevocable offer of dedication for street widening for Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street, including a 25-foot radius corner return which was proposed to be made not less t?~~-, 15 yeers from date, be hereby denied; that the irrevocable offer of dedication be required at such time as the City of Anaheim deems it neaessary to require or request that it be made, for street widening purposes, said irrevocable offer to be made within 30 days;and ~~4 71i'2~-r_..._k 2`: 4 a i..,~ } a aT` ~U.'1 ~` r~ r7~~ xz ~. l~'.~,, . yY 5:i ": 7..: -r F';r `i;1 ~~?s°•+^#g-yy, v5;1' ~'ly:i~' ~ ',~.~ .t~e~ ;F~t'h a ~ a t'. :~ - ~ ~. . ' . . . .. . .. . V ~ MINUTES+ OITY PLANNING CO~ISSION September 11, 1968 . 4119 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2(continued) ~. RECOMI~ENDATIONS that all improvements on the property suah as struatures, eto., be maintained ~: not less than 12 feet from the ultimate 45-foot half width street boundary as t. required by State law, with an additional 3-foot setback for a strip o£ landscap- ing if e serviae station was being considered. Flirthermore, that an extension of time be granted for the completion o£ other conditions, said extension toe expire April 1, 1969. ;~~ Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEDd ' 3 Termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 674, 903, and 1000 and Varianoe No. 1019. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that all but Conditio.;.l Use Permit No. 1000 encompassed property now developed with the Holiday Inn along the east side of Harbor Boulevard south of Katella Avenue which was now reclassi~ied to the C-R, COb1MERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE; and that Conditional Use Permit No. 1000 should be terminated because the petitioner had indicated he would not exeraise the use and that it thorefore be terminated. ' I Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Nos. PC68-278, 279, 2gG, and 281, and moved I their passage and adoption, seconded by Commissior.iar Gauer to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1000, 903, and 674, and Variance No. 1919, based on findings.(See Resolution Book) On roll oall the foregoing resolutions were passed by the following vote: ~I AYES: CObIDG2SSI0NERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. I NOES: COdAGISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COIuIDGISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~ i ITEM N0. 4 Orange County Street Naming Committee proposed name change for t'~e east-west and north-south portion of old Orchard Drive Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a proposal by the Orange County Street Naming Commit'tee~•: to rename the old alignment of Orchard Drive for both the north-south and east-west portions to Kellog Way, sinoe the name Orohard Drive had been retained for the new alignment. However, the staff had analyzed the proposal and as an alterna- tive,suggested tliat the Commission consider another name for the east-west portion of old Orchard Drive~, since the alignment would bs generally in the vicinity of the align- ment of streets i.n tracts to the east and west which have carried the name of VPoodwind Lane; therefore, it seemed logical that instead of having both the east-west and north- south alignment of the street with the same name, the staff recommended that the east- west portion of old Orohard Drive be renamed Woodwind Lane, while concurring with the Committee in renaming the north-south portion as Kellogg Way. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Street Naming Committee be urged to aonsider renaming the east-west portion of old Orchard Drive alignment to Woodwind Lane, and that the north-south portion be renamed Kellog Way. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 68-69-9 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1042 ~ Revised plans regarding ciroulation - and kitchen iacilities Zoning Supervisor Roneld Thompson presented revised plans for Reclassifioation No.68-69-9 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1042 to the Commission, noting that at the City Counail publia hearing on two other petitions requesting 100,$ kitchen units, this had been approved by the Counoil ~ permitting 100~ kitchen facilities for each unit, allowing a refrigerator a maximum of 6 cubic feet, one sink, and two-burner range with no oven or baking facilities; and that they had also indicated that requiring dedication for a street would not be f•easible, however, alley airculation should be considered~and then oontinued both peiitions uritil the meeting of September 17, 1968, in order that plans might be revised to reflect other circulation. ~ ; ,; ~ -_ - - 7y.r`~.-. ! u " "* .~a'{/ ' ` rE~w- tr 1 ' i ~ ~~. 1K i{~,~ I ± I ! ` t" ' p'. ~ . _ l .i ~"I`W4 ~p `?n[~b1111N ~ .`~i / ~ ~ a ¢(. 4 . , i .... . .... ~~ , l'ti . .• f . ~.' . .. . .. . . . . . Y ..r7' . ~ ~ (. ... . ...~ ~-ti, - . _ _. . _... . ..., . ~ ~. _. ~ .U^- . ~ . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~GISSION September 11, 1968 4120 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 5(Continued) RECO~NDATIONS The Commission reviewed the revised plans, and were of the opinion that better ciraula- tion could be provided if a street were required. They were also of the opinion that approval of the units with 100,~ kitchen feailities would open the door for substandard apartments. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that further con- sideration be given to requiring street ciroulation for this area, and limiting the peraentage of units with kitohen faoilities in motel developments. However, if the City Council considered the revised plans favorably, then the ICPSd,GW and Development Services Depertment £indings and recommendations should be amended as follows: Finding: Sinoe sub,jeot property is granting an irrevoaeble offer of dedioation to continue alley oirculation to the east, improvement of said alley ~ should be accomplished by the owners of the abutting properties to the east at the time said properties develop. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COI~d2TTEE AND DEVELOP~NT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECOMdIENDATIOtdS IF RECLASSIFICATION APPROVED: 1. That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 20 feet in width elong the southerly property line and the westerly 20 feet of the easterly 40 feet for elley purposes and including adequate alley cutoffs. ' 2. That street and alley improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering require- ments of the City of Anaheim, along Lincoln Avenue and for the alleys, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street and alley grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work, shall be completed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfaatory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said engineering requirements. 3. That the owners of subject property shall prova,de to the City of Anaheim; and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder, an Irrevoce,ble Offer of Dedication for two elleys, 20 feet in width and including alley cut-offs, extend- ing westerly 20 feet from the easterly property line in locations determined by the~City Engineer; and the dedication be accepted at such time as the City deems it neaessary. 4. Ti•,at the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for street lighting purposes. 5. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum oY 152 per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree planting purposes. 6. That i£ the subjeat property is graded to drain to the southwesterly corner, an easement or letter accepting the drainage shall be obteined from the property owner to the west. 7. Tktat Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, above mentioned, shall be oomplied with within a period of 180 days from date hereof, or suah further time as the City Council mey grant. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COIuIIdITTEE AND DEVELOP(ufENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECOURdENDATIONS IF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED: 1. That this conditionel use permit is granted subjeot to the completion of Reclassi- fioation No. (it3-69-9. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in acaordanoe with appr. •Rr3 plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 3. That £ire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined to be neaessary by the Chief of the Fire Depar'-ant. y ~ ~ 6 c~ ~i2~s~'~~~x~~3~x'n.fn.'`"~ .e'~,+.h~. C,'. "•1°p.lFF>A y~a ~{`f^IiSC.',K fk'~... .:yr > i a.« . E ,~...c.. ';~yL~ r-.~c. ~ aa1" k~~'; ~! F i, x ~i ~ ' ,J;yi,; 'h,. ' 1 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ : ..~ .. MINUTES, CITY,'PLANNING COA~NIISSION`September 11, 1968 4121 `REPORTS AND _ ITEM N0. 5 (Cont'inued) RECO~NDATIONS 4: That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be construoted along the west, east, and south property.lines, and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of.Anaheim me,y be,posted with the.City to guarantee the installation of the masonry wall along the east property line. ~. That any air-aonditioning Yaoilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound shall be buffered from ad~eaent residantial homes. 6; That parking araas shall be lighted with down-lighting a meximum 6 feet in height and shall be direated away from the property lines to proteat the integrity of the area: - 7. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Commissioner Gauer seoonded the ootion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURN'iu~NT - There being no further business to d.isouss, Commissioner Farano offered a motion to ad,journ the tneeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. ~OTIOP~ CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 o'clock p.m. Respectfull~ submitted, ANN KREBS, Sdcret~ry ANAF~IM CITY PLANNING COI~uf2SSI0N