Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/09/23y,. ttt~ut.HR IvI~ETING - A regular.,meeting of the'Anaheim City Planning~ Commission was t called to order by:Chairman:Allred at 2:00 o'clock P:M., a ~ quorum being p.r~sent. 'PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Allred. = GOMMIS»IONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Her~bst, Mungall, Rowland (who entered Council-Chamber at 2:20 ~.M.) ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. ' , ~ PRESENT - Assistant Cit Attorne ~ y Y~ John Dawson and Frank Lowry Offioe Engineer: ~krthur Daw Zoning Supervisors Ronald i'trompson Assistant Zoning Supervisor: -Pat Brown - Planning Commission Secretarys Rrm ~Krebs INVOCATfON - Reverend Everett Felder, First United iN2-t'hodist Chvrch, -gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Mungall led in the Pledge vf Allegiance to the Fiag. APPROVAL OF - Minutes oi the meeting of September 12, 1968 were approved with THE' MINUTES the following correction, on motion hy Eattmri-ssi~oner -Mangall, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MOTIUN CARRIEDs Page 4119, paragraph 5, line 3 should ~be Variance No~ 1019. `' `RECLA8SIFICAT,ION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, A. I-IEMMHRLING, 114 North Coffman-Avenue, NOo 68-69-Z3 ` Anaheim, California, and ROBERT PANNIER, 2056 South Loara Street, Anaheim, California, Owners;,pRMOUR,BUILDING COMPANY, P. 0. Box 3235, Anaheim, California, qgent; requeating th•at property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 29 acres of land generally located north of the Santa Ana River and south of the Riverside Freeway, having a frorrtage of approximately 1,100 feet on the south side of Frontera Street and a maximum depth of approximately 1,200 feet,' the easterly boundary of said parcel being apprmcimately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEe Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 29, 1968 to allow the petitioner developer time to submit more precise zone boundaries and other pertinent data. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the acreage involved, the existing zoning, the requrst proposed, and rrason for continuance because of the fact that the petitioner did not have precise zone boundaries - there- fore a resolution could not be approved until metes and bounds were submitted, and that piecise boundaries were indicated on a parcel map, and a legal description encompassing both zone boundaries had been submitted, which indicated Portion "A", the northern portion of the total parcel,, consisting of approximately 25 acres, was proposed for R-3 zoning, end Portion "B", the southern portion of subject property, consisting of approximately 4 acres, was proposed for R-2 zoning. ~ Mr.• Brown then noted that when the Planning Commission recommended changes in the . % designations throu9h'approval of, General Plan Amendment No~ 97, one requixemrnt was a gradual transition from low density to medium density, with R-2-5000 between the ~ R-1`and the R-3; however, the map presented did not indicate this. Mr, Larry Armour, agent for the petitioner, appCared before the Commission and stated ~ he could not understand what the statement meant in the Report to the Coimnission - that low density or R-1 was required and then R-2-5000, since he had attended both tne Commis-; sion and City Council hearings on the Genrral Plan amendment. ~ 4122 '~; ,; , ~'. f '~, I ~' ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~.----- -- __ ~ :,~ '~ 3' . r:~tn y1'" ~ €t.`~" G,r[. ~Xy{., ~23r ~j ~,r'~Y wsu~e7 .7~t a~M ~-Zi ~V,TY,~+f'4w'1`~v .i'i '~ `r;SC} `~ ~ . '" t 4 5 ~ ~ :.:,Ik ,C . ~ "'A: ] v ^n r ~ ti. ~ Q 't r ~ ~ ~ '~~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING`COMMISSION~ September 23, 1968 4123 RECLASSIFICATION -:Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson read~the minutes of General Plan- N0..68r:69-13 Amendment No. 97 whexein Coinmissioner Herbst offered a motion to (Continued) ' approve the changes and then:steted that the statemerrt in the staff : . report only reflected the Commission's action. Mr.. Armour then stated:it was his feeling this would apply only to the property along the Lincoln'Avenue frontage`since subject property only m~t at-one corner ad3acent to the R-l~to~the:south,•,.that the proposed parcel ;nap was what-they thought reflected the Commission s recommendation,.and many studies had been made projecting street.petterns~ but it:was not their intCnt to develop the precise plans'until zoning had-been approvtd. Furthermore, the.City Council had indicated an R-1 tier for only the-Henning and the Dinkler property where it abutted the R-l properties, and that they were prepar~d to present a pTot plan and a•.'subdivision map as soon as the zoning-was straightert~d out. Mr. Thompson noted-that circulation plans must be provided at the time the tract map ~ was submitted or the property developed as a planned residential dev~lopment under a conditional use permit. ~ Mr. Armour then requested consideration be given to approving the zoning as submitted under the revised parcel map. No~one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission inquired as to the difference in the number of units between the R-2 requested and the R-2-5000 Zone, and whether this could be deveioped for R-2-5000 under i the present petition or require a new reclassification of the propCrty. Mr. Thompson noted this would be difficult to compare; however, the R-2 2one permitted ' 18 dwelling units per net acre, and this parcel would be limited to one story within 150 feet of the R-1 to the south, although the property only touched onto the R-1, and that the R-2-5000 could not be developed under the R-2 Zone - this would require re- classification to ~G"xat zone, but a subdivision map could be filed and the property developed for R-2. .~ ~ . , , . ~ . . ~ . ~J::~.i The Commission further noted that the property immediately to the southwest of subject ~, property would have to develop in accordance with the R-l requirements. Commissioner Mungal,l offered Resolution No. PC68-282 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to rrcommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-13 be approved for R-3 on Portion "A"•and R-2 on Portion "B",'subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~ AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: Camp,~Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Allreda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONEESi Rowland. . RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEpRING. ARTHUR L. OSOYVSKI, 623 North Harbor N0. 68-69-22 _ Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Owner; JAN~S R. HOLLENBECK~ ~ 331 North Hart P1ace, Fullerton, California, pgent; property VARIANCE N0. 2009 described ass A rectangularly shaped paxcel of approximately .9 acres, heving a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of approximatrly 395 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximatrly 460 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NEe REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONEe REQUESI~D 1/ARIANCEi WAIIIERS OF (1) MpXIMUM BUILDING HEIGFII', (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ~(:?.) ~ Ntp)CIMUM' PERMITIED' DISTANCE OF A LIVING UNIT FROM A STANDARD STREET, AND (4)`REQUIRED WALLS~ I'0 ESTABI;ISH°A'TWO-STORY, 24-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Subject petitions were continued from the August 26, 1968 meeting in order to allow ~ time for the City Council to make a decision regarding the traffic circulation pattern ~ involved in the general area in which subject property was located. Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 2:20 P.M. ~ '-.Y ;.•:,,m r.,,i ~ --- __. .. .. _ ..,. ,.. .. --- -- -- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,'CITY PLANNING-COMMISSION, September,23~ 1968 ~ 4124 RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of N0. 68-69-22 subject property, the proposed use, and existing uses in close • proximity, noting that the petitions hed been continued from the VARIANCE N0. 2009 meeting of August 26 in order'to allow time for the City Council (Continued) .-to make e decision ragarding the traffic circulation, and at the . September 17 meeting, the City Council determined that properties ia this general area be developed utilizing a system of 20-foot, dedicated alleys lcading to Lincoln Avenue, Stinson Street, and Magnolia Avenue; that subject property was indicated as being one of those proptrties which would require such an alley to be located along its nortiiern bordez and extend between Magnolia Avenue and,the lerge percel adjacent and to the west; and that although the plans submitted indicated a 20-foot drive loceted along the northern part of the property~ the design of this accessway en: accessways leading to,the caxport areas was considered by the Plenning Commission to be inadequate as it pertained to accessibility for fire and. trash:equipment - however, with the accesswsy required to exit to the alley to the west,'thi:s would-provide adequate accessibility for the fire and trash equipmenta Mr. James R. Holle.nbeck, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the original plans submitted to the staff indicated a 20-foot alley tha~t dead~ended at the westerly end of the propert~; however, he would like to point out that a revision would be necessary to the plan to extCnd this alley to the west and for connection with the alley to the carports at the rear to provide for adequate trafric flow. No one app~ared in opposition to subjcct petitions. F THE E~ARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed at length the fact that alleys were considered adequa~e for circulation by the City Council; that the alleys were never maintained by City sweepers; that better circulation could be developed if a 40-foot street were required, wi,th all property owners in the area dedicating a 20-foot strip on t;heir prnperty. 2oning Supervisor Ronald Thom,pson noted that the Council was of the opinion that the alley would provid'e a link sy.stem of circulation for emergency vehicles and drainage problems which were prevalen~ in this area•- however, it was unfortunate that the area had been developed-without requiring standard streets since because of thesa deep lots, many of the units would be a considerable distance from a standard street and would be oriented only to an alley; that the long, deep parcel approved for a motel to the west of subject property was required to provide a 20-foot alley running northerly; ~outh.; •• and then:north, linking to Lincoln Avenue and east and west, linking to Winston Road; that the alley cutoffs were proposed to be designed so that there would be adequate maneuverability; and that all the property owners in the general arCa of subject property had attended the City Council meeting and expressed their desires for th~ir properties. . Office Engineer Arthur Daw, in response to Commission questioning, stated that alleys had never been posted for ".no parking", although the Anaheim Municipal Code did not permit parking in the alleys. The agent, in response to Commission qurstioning relative to thC possibility of cAmbin- ing subject property and the property to the north, advised the Commission that he'had discussed this with the property owner to the north, urging him to consider adding 20 feet to the alley, and he would then increase the size of nis strip to provide for a fuller dedicated street; h~~wever, the property owner was most uncooperative. Mr. Thompson, in respons~ to Commission questioning, noted that the entire area in which subject property was located was depicted on the General Plan for multiple- family residential use; that the three parcels to the north had three different owners, and evCn though land assembly had been suggestsd, the statement made by the agent that none were cooperative was indicative of whether or not land assembly could be accom- plished. Furthermore, the property to the north was zoned R-A and had a sin9le-family home - however was not zoned R-1;•therefore, the Commission might consider requiring the posting of a bond in lieu of construction of a wall since at the time the property to.the north would develop for a more intense use, access to the alley would be necessary. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-283 and moved for its passage and adop=. . tion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Coun.il that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-22 be approvrd, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) :. ~"`~,.~ .+~T+' _ ~~ t 4- ~~M J ~~ t ~~'. .~'. ~~~ :~ . ~• ~ . .. . ~ .. . . .. - .. . . .. . . ~ ' . . . . ~r , . ~_~~o-- . _ t _., ~G~- ;a~ d P"'e ` a ~ w ~+ > "fi4~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~;~ ~ ~, ~''t~,`t~° ~3 iK;,X~ ~~C°~ ~q.~ ~t ~ a'~~ r ~ r ~ r ~ --- .r.. ~. c ., i,. ;i~ , ! ~ .r'~ . . j i 1` a 'L~q/ r r . y, e .k t` ~a ~ CL,a .a 2` t ~ ,;, '+t t, ~ ~ ~~ MINUI'ES, CIT.Y PLANNING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 4125 RECI:ASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was~passed by the following N0. 68-69-22 vote: - VARIANCE NOe 2009 AYES: • COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Herbst9 Mungall, Rowland. (Continued) • NOESs COMMISSIONERS~ Farano, Gauer,.Allred. • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee Commissioners Allred, Farano, and Gauer, in their vote of "no", sta~ted that eve:~ thouyh the City Council had approved alleys for cireulation for these long, deep lots in thi~ general area,.alleys did not serve the purpose of provid`ng'adequate circulation ar,a afforded a poor substitute for apartment developments which were orieni:ed to an a'l1ey. ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-284 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 20G9, subject to conditions~ on the basis that the property owner had a hardship siace adjoining property owners were undesirous or uncooperative in developing a land assembly of these narrow, deep parcels, and that most of the variances requested were technicalities. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Camp~ Herbst~ Mungall, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Allred. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo _ TENTATIVE Mpp OF - DEVELOPERs WESTPORT DEVELOPMENT, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, TRACI' N0. 5501, California. ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East REVISION NOa 2 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located north- east of the Riverside Freeway and Miraloma Way, compri.sing a portion of an 18-acre site, is proposed for subdivision into 39 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location oi subject property, the previous zoning action which approved a Resolution of Intent to the R-3 Zone on the property, and a conditional use permit to establish a one and a two-story family planned residential development; that the proposed lots met the R-3 site development standards as to lot width and area; and that the developer proposed to develop the lots with two-story, fourplex=type apartments. Furthermore, if subject tract and Tentative Map of Tract No. 5231, Revision No. 6,~covering the balaace ~f the property were approved, then the Commission might wish to consider terr~ination ~f Co;~i:..'_#:iCndl Use Permit No. 643, since it and the associated waivers were no longex• applicable to the present plans for devClopment of the property. The Commission Secretary noted that if subject tract we.re approved, the #ollowing corrections were necessarys Condition No. 3- the addition of "ar.d •that Street "C" shall be recorded as Park Lane". Condition No. 6, referring to Alley "B", ~:~ould be amended to read Alley "A". Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that he had discussed with the Interdepart- mental Committee the circulation proposed for Alley "B", and it was determined that for better circulation and less conflict points, the alley should be returned northerly to Street "C" instead of southerly to Street "D". Mr. Darrell Meyer, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that they concurred with the recommended conditions;.however, they were of the opinion that approval of the tract maps would automatically reclassify the property to the R-3 Zone, and if this were not so, perhaps the Commission could recommend to the City Council that Reclassification No. 64-65-5 be reinstated and an extension of time be granted for the completion of conditions. Mr. Brown noted that the request for an extension of time would be heard by the City Council October 1, 1968 relative to the reclassification petition; and that the State Division of Highways had advised them that they hari an easement alonq the Riverside Freeway which was a part of subject propertye Commissioner Rowland offered a moiion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5501, Revision No. 2, subject to the following conditions, seconded by Con,missioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIEDs ~ ~, X~. ~ . ~ .::3 ~ ~ t'~ . ~~ •4~ ,_ ~;no- ". z~, , `~x5 .a ~ : ~j ~~ ~: ~- :;>. y ..~ ~~.:.;ks"~ ,T`-ra, .":: a~ y ,,~ ~M1 t 7~ ~ ~~y.~,4'n.'t~ ''~"~'`G~ ~'~-'{+N..~~'~'M a~?(~~l `4"ti`'~`~n Ll ~r CT ~iw~ ~Yr ~ ~;.`~~~'ir ~ a ~,. ~hr c".. ~:~.~ ~i ~ ~LK1~Yi`~t ~ "+' ~ ~ ~ r 1 r ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CCMh1ISSI0N~ September 23, 1968 ~ ,, _ _ , 4126 `TEN~pTI4$ MAP pF -(1) That should this subdivision be dOVel.aped as m~re tijan one 'TRACT N0. 5501, .subdivision, each subdivision ~heiec~" shall-be svk~intt,~+d REVISI~N ;~IOo.2 in tentative form for approval,, (Continued)_ : (2) That all 3ots within tzis tz•,ci;, s#~a]). be served-by under- ground util~'ties. (3) That Streets "~" a:~d '!p" shall be recor~isd ~s l,'~~rrace Streets., and that S~treet C shall be reuor~~~ as Park Lane. (4) That 'in accordance with City Council po].icy, ~i e;•-foot masonry w~ll shall bp constructed-on the south property line separa'tiny Lot Nos. 1 and 17 thrw:~h 2Q an~ suliraloma,Way, except that coxner Lot Ni~so l and 20 shall be stepped da;,v~ to a he~ght,of thirty inches iN the fron•. yard setback, and excepi: that pedestrian openings shall be praviuQd in s~~d~walls ~ere:cul-de-sacs abut the plenned highways right-of-w~;y l.~.t~e of an arterial~highway. Reasonable landscaping, ins;luding irrigation facilities, shall be installred in the uncemented port.i.on of the arterial highway n,,~rkway the full distance of said. wall, plans for said landscaping to be s~sbm,itted to and 'subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway M~intr:nancr;. iollowing installation and acceptance, the CY'tY Cf Anaheim shal.~ assum.e the responsibilit?~ ~or nainten- ance of said landscapi;~g,. (5) That Lots 17-p through 19-A, one foot in width, shall be located along the southerly li:ne of Alley "C", for the coristruction of a masonry wall. (6) That Lots 7-A through 10-p, one foot in width, shall be located along the northerly line of Alley "A", for the constructior. of a masonry H~all. (7) That Alley "B" shall be returned northerly to &t.reet "C" instead of souther?y. ,,,"~' :`; ~~ 7~l'~'. ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF. - DEVELOPERs WES'IPORT D~V'~LOPb1~NT, 914 gast Katella Avenue, /maheim TRACT N0. 5231 Califo i ,, , rn a. EI.JGINEER Anacal En lneerin Co REVISION NO„ 5 Linco.ln Avenue, Anaheim Califn ni j nt ~ 2 . , r a. Sub ect rac , located northea~+.: of i;he Riv~~rslde; Frieeway and Miraloma Way,; Comprising ~ ~ ;: ~' + po ~ ton of ,•~n l£3-a%cre s'ite, is proposed #or subd3visi~n into •~`r n-3 taULTIPLE-Fhiu ILY ?~'{ , : , FiESIDENTIAL, ZONED lots. ..,~,. ~~~ Subject tract was considez~d in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tr;act No. 5501 Revision No. 2. : `~ ' 4~ , ' ,~ ~;~, ; Commissioner Her.bst oftered a mo~icm to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5231 Revision No. b subj ct t h fo f , ~ ~~ , , e o t e ll~~wing conditie.ns, seconded by Commissioaer Rowlanii, and MOTZQN G'ARRI~Di ! 1 (1) That shouid th~~ sLhdivision be devtloped as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof ~•,hall b b e su mittecl in tentative form fc,r approvai. (2) That ull lots within this tr?.ct sha,ll be served by underground utilities. ~ ~3) Tyat Streets A", "B", ind "C" shal]. be recorded a= Lawrence Avenue, Terrar2 j Street and Park ~,ane. . ~ ` , ~4) I'hat in aceordance with City Council policy; .a 6-fpot masonry wall shall be c;,nstructed on the south property line separating r,q~r Nose 1 through 14 and the Riverside Freeway and Mireloma Way xc t th , e ep at pedestrian opP~ings s;iall be provided,in said walls !vhere'cul-de-sacs abut tha planns~~ htghwa line pf an s r i ht t i f y . g ar -o -way e.r al highwa,y. Reasonable landscap3n~; including irr~gation facilities, sha11 be installed in the uncemented porcion of tt~a arterial highway { parkway the `~~11 distance of said wall, plans fo s id r a landscaping to be sub- mitted to and subject to the aj,prpval of the Su~;eriniendent`of Parkway Maintenance Followi.r,g insta~lation a ~ d'a . n c;,eptance, the City of Ananeim shall assume the responsibility for mainfi.enance of baid landscaping. 1 ~~) That Lots l-k tnrough 13-A, one foot in~width, shal.l be located along the south- erly and'southwesterl ~ y~ine of Alle C' f ~ ' y ~ or the construction of a masonry wail. (6) T ' ~ : xat L~ts 15-A tnrouc~n 19-Ay one foot in v~•kdth, shall be located along the north- ~ e_ly line of Alley "A" for th n , e co si:ruction of a masonry wall. „y _. , ar~.:,SS~...,-.~xT ~,;''Y~w E:i:~~S#~''~'~ ~r+ nw? ~ ~ '. . . ~ ~. • .. ' ~ ~ MINUTES,,CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 239 1968 4127 ~ Commi ssion . er Mun all offered ' s u' _ 9 Re ol tion No. PC68 285 and moved for its, passage.and % ado tion;> ec n d b ` ~~ ~~ p s o de , y Commiseiorier Camp, to ~,termirate all proceedings on Petition '" , for.Conditional Use, Permit No.'643 on the basis thet the revised tentative.tract maps ' projected subdivision for regular.R-3 zoned lots, and the planned residential:dev~1 ;; ,- opment proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 643 was no longer applicablee (Se R sol i ` ~ ~ !~ e ut e on Book) - ,: . , _ . . r - ' , . : ~.. _ . On'soll call the:foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes ` ; Ay~S: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall,.Rowland Allrede ' . , N0~ . COMMISSIONERS: None.' , ' ' ,: , ~ ABSt...t COMMISSIONERSs None. , TENTATIVE MAP OF. - UEVELOPERs J.lW. KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 4540 Campus Drive, I'RACT N0. 6659r o `~ <` Newp rt Beach, Californiae ENGINEERs Mi11et, King and Associates, f2EVISIOti N0. 2 Incorporated, 511 So th B ~ u rooknurst Street, Fullerton, California. S b t c ~ u jec tract, lo ated north and west of the northwest Corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, consisting of a portion of a ~~ 23-acre site, is proposed ior subdivision into 56 R-1y ONE-FAMILY ~' R,SSIDENTIAL, ZONED lots. :'~~ ~ ~~:~ Assistant Zoning Suporvisor Pat Brown revie~~ed the location of subject property, noting that the Cit Cou il h ;~ y nc ~d a Resolution of Intent through appr.oval of Reclassification No. 68-69-4 and Varianr.e No. 1995 for R-1 One-Famil id• R • ti l ~"' , y es • i a , Zor.e, with waiver of the required minimum a.rea, minimum lot width, minimum floor area per dwelling unit and '~ ~ mznimum required front yard, and ihat Revision No. 2 of subject tract divided the original tract int t ~ o wo tracts proposed to be developed with 56 lois eacho ;tr ., Commissioner Cam~s offered : mot=on to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6659 Revision r~ f:~ , No. 2, subject ';o the folloNing conditions, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and ~ , MOTION CARRIEDs .; (1) That the anprova]. of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6659, Revision No. 2, is granted } ~ subjrct to the a +• pproval of Reclassifica..ion No. 68-69-4 and Variance No. 1995. `<" ':x „ „ - (i~.~ That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision each ~'~" +,u , subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ,`~; (3)` That all lots within this trac~ shall 'be served by undergra'und utilities: ~; ~'' r ,; ~ (4) In accordence with C:ty Council policy, a 6-f`oot masonry wall shall be constructed J11 ~ o~ the westerly prope.z;.; line,separating Lo~ idos. 15 through 13, 31 through 36, u 49 and 5~, and the ~r.uposed Orange Freeway< ~ (5) T!:at Carousel Street (Street "F") shaTl be 64 feet in width. (6) That Carousel Street (Street "E") shal.l be improved with a 40-:~oot raadway within the 60-foot right-of-way. (7) That~ drai~sage shall be discharged in a menner which is satisfactory to the City Engineer_ ~: (8) 'Chat Street "B" shall be namad Hempstead Ci.•cle; tnat Street "C' shaZl ?:e named Ward Terrace; that S.treet "D" shall be named Chantill~ Street; and ~' that Streets "~" and !'F" shall be named Carousel Street. `"` 7ENTATI~JE MAP OF - DEVE;LOPEiRs Je W< KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 4540 Campus Drive, ',; TRACT N0. 6752 - NEti~port Peach, California. ENGINEER: Millet, King and Associates, ~ IncoproratE~d, 51T South Brookhurst Street, Fullerton, California> Subject tract, located north and +rrest of the northwest corner of. ;' Lincolr. Avenue and. Rio Vista $.treet, consisting of a portion of e `t 23-acre site is proposed for subdxvision into 56 R-1,, ONE-FAMILY '~!' RESIDBNTIAL, ZONED lots. ~ !; Subject tract was considered ir..conjunction wi',h T=ntative Map of Tract No. 6659, Revision No. 2, which originally encompassed the entire 23-acre site. ' i; Commissioner Mungall offered a rrotion to a.pprove Tentative Map of Tract No. 6752, subject to the Following conditions. Conmiissioner Farano seconded the motion, and the MOTION CARRIED~ ~h-a~.'~7~a -- - •s7s4:ne~s ~~ u-- - ~ ;r, -. BS ~ f~,;3.r w ~ ~ r ~ z '. ' w ~`+.~R ..`~' t}'~~ ~tT .x. HY~a ¢~, .6ti~ ; ~R r rc2,hc,~S ?~~ y. 1 ~~~ y, ':% ~ . . }~ ~ __.'^ ~ ~ ~ ;. '~ ~.. ..-.: Q..' . . . . ~ .. ~! MINUTESS CITY..PLANNING COMMISSION, Septtmi>er 23~ 1968 4128 TENTATIVE Mpp OF -(1) Th~it the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6752 is - TRACT`N0. 6752 _:>antrd subject to the approval of Reclassification No. - (Continued) 68-69-4 and Variance No. 1995. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision`thereof shall be submittrd in tentative form for approval. (:-1 Thet all lots in~ithin this tract 'shall be served by underground utilities. (4)' That the vehicular access rights to Rio Vista Street shall be dedicated to the City c~ Anaheim, except at street and~or atley openings. (5) In accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the east property line separating Lot Nos. 1 and 50 through 56 and:gio Vista Street, except that corner Lot Nos. 1 and 56 shall be stepped d~:vn to a height of 30 inches in the front yard setback, and except that pedestrian oper~ings shall be provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned hig:~way right-of-way line of an arterial I~ighway. Reasonable landscapin~, including i,rrigation facilities, shall be installed in the un- cemented purtion of the arterial highway parkway the full distancC of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. f" (6) In accordance with City Council policy, a 6-fo~t masonry wall shall be constructed on the westerly property line separating Lot Nos. 16 and 17. and the proposed Orange Freeway. (7) That Carousel Street (Street "F") shall be 64 feet in width. (8) That drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to _ the City Engineer. (9) That Street "A" shall be named Dutch Avenue; that Street "F" shall be ,.~; named Carousel Street;"that Street "G" sha11 be namad Roya1 PTace; end that St;;eet "H" shall be named Plantation<Place. C CONDITIONpL USE --PUBLIC HEp*;;'yG. STANLEY L. AND PEARL ROSHN and GEORGE C. SCHOLL, PERMII' N0. 1057 318 West Li._coln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; GEDRGE C. ~ SCHOLL, 113;; Leisure Court, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting ~ permission to EXPpND AN EXISTING SANITARIUM~ WII'H INAIVERS OF (1) ' i MINIMUM SI'kUCTURAL SETBACK AND ;2) ppRKING WITHIN REQUIRED SIDE YARD on property f f, described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land fronting on the west side of i Leisure Court, approximately 280 feet north of La Palma Avenue and havin9 a maximum depth of approximately 190 feet from Leisure Qourt and a maximum width of approxi- mately 365 feet, and further described as 1135 Leisure Court. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL AND R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIpENTIAL, ZONgS. Assistant Zoning 5upervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property and the proposal, noting that it was an expansion of an existin9 sanit2rium which was located in the R-A Zone, and the new expansion would be in the portion zoned R-3 in 1~63; that..the expansion would consist of a 53-bed building to the existing 64-bed stri~cture; that Code sequired a building setback of 15 feet zrom thC west property line.~ however, since the existing struct~re was permitted to devClop with a 5-foot setback, thC continuity of the expansion would be desirable; ~nd that although the expansion p'roposed would seem to be appropriate to the surrour,iding area, the Commis- sion might wish to carefully analyze the provisions for adequate fire protection as to access from the westerly portion of the new structure. Mr. Stanley.L. Rosen, one of the-petitioners, appeared beforC the Commission and noted that'the existing sp:inkler system would be expanded into the new stiucture; that adequate fire protection would always be a problem in this area, regardless of the development for either the expanding sanitarium or a mnltiple-family develop- ment.at`the'terminus of the cul-de-sac; and that access could be gained from etth~r the north or the south side. The Commission noted that a number of patients of this sanitarium were not entirely amhulatory, and this was a major problem for consideration in approving subject petition,with adequate fire protection, _ 1:. '` '` ~.~~K~~oz 4 ' A7 ~' Y' ~ :a~ ~~ ~~F a ~ ; ~xJ~~'a:d. .c-~~ ~~': + 5~ 5 ~ : ~ ~k' ' CM,F ,;'...-.~n '~ ~ ~b,:;>" ~<~.•.-~~; ~ , ';}' ~ , !.~. 4' ?~"~` . ~~ i. q.:.: . . .'.. O . ~ ... . .. , . . . ~ ,. ~ . ~ . .. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Sep4ember 23, 1968 4129 CONDITIONAL.USE - Mr. Rosen reqeested that an answer to that statement be•made by PERMIT N0. 1057 the operator of the sanitarium, Dr. Scholl. (Continued) Dr. George Scholl, 1135 Leisure Court, appeared before the Commission and noted that less than 20~; of the patients were confined to their beds, and all bed patients were located in the south wing of the facility where easy access was possible to the parking Tot; that the new facility~would be constructed with a continuation of the existing fire sprinkling system and was a safety factor; however, he could not answer anything re9arding the access for the fire trucks. I'he Commission noted that even though the majority of the patients were ~mbulatory, a good number has sus~;ained somp damage physically and could not move as quickly as they could; and even though the sprinkler system did give ona a sense of pxotection, serious problems could result in the event of a fire. Dr. Scholl noted that they were inspected quite frequently by the Fire DepartmF.nt, and they held fire drills once a month, taking even the bed patieniu in their beds into the parking area. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOS~Do The Commission inquired as to any specific recommendati~;~s the Fire Department might ! have as to subject petition. Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson advised the Commission that th~ proposed six-foot masonry wall in front of the proposed addition could have a gat~. along its northerly boundary which would be large enough to permit fire vehicles tc> gain access, and the petitioner could stipulate to either rCmoval of the wall or prc•viding a gate. Commissioner Rowland noted that a.20-foot gate could be provided in the masonry wall along the northeasterly end of the property; this would provide for adequate fire protection i~r those rooms along the extreme westerly end of the propertyand would not:necessitate pulling fire'equipment around a cornen Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-286 and moved for its passa9e and adoption,.coconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit : No. 1057, subject to conditions and the additional requirement that a gate a minimum of 10 feet in width shall be ins'talled along the northeast-portion of the wall, extend- ing to the north property line, as indicated on Exhibit No. 1. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Ndne. ABSENT: COIdEdISSIONERS i None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. W. H. JEYVSTI', 1309 East Orangethorpe Avenue, PERMIT N0. 1058 Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A B/4RBER SHOP, WITH WAIilER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING S°ACES on property described asi A rectangularly shapea parcel having a frontage of approximately l00 feet on the west side of Fountain~Way and a maximum depth of approximately 125 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being appreximately 620 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further des- cribed as 1153 Fountain Way. Property presently classified M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONH. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the proposal, noting that a barber.shop in a 2,000-square foot portion of an indu,ztrial tract was proposed to serve employees in the immediate industrial area, and ~he ' requested use was a service business primarily serving commerce and industry, with only incidental service to the 9eneral public - therefore, the proposal would :.rroar to be appropriate to the surrounding area; however, Code require 10 parking spaces on a commercial calculation for a 2,000-square foot barber shop, but it was doubtful whether a three-chair barber shop would ever require that many spaces, particularly in view of the fact that many of the potential customers would be located within the industrial tract and would br within walking distance of this proposed facility. ~ - a~ r,r~~. ~ rryix~'-''y~"~ i. y 'a(, '~ ~~'^~~G- r t~ a t. .rLh v~ .,,r-r t . .'M .: 3 t M1~,~?;~ h'Ci~~, %k'4f''l `L.~i~y z .~t'1 ~~~;.. ~.'~i z f.~ ~ C~`,~;, "~ ~ r'' y~. ,. ~ t . . ' '``,..+~`~S•'S~ iv' t ~ ~ ~. .. . .. .. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ . . . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 4130 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. R. C. Teigen, 851 North 2incoln, Orange, California, appearad PERMIT NOo 1058 before the CommYSSion and noted that•he spokp-for'the owner of the (Continued) building, and it was felt the need for parking in this location with the potential type of customers would not necessitate the number of parking spaces normally required in a commercial develop- ment since it ~vas intended to service the industrial area in which it_was located, rather than being open to the general public. However, if addit.isr~nal parking were necessary_ there would be three to four in the rear of the build"n~;ui~ which could be used by the employees of th~s barber shop. Furthermore, there were still other units in the building which were occupied, and under normal conditions, there were never more than three cars paxke;:l in +heir parking facility. No one appeared in oppo~~~ition. I TE1E tIHARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-287 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1058, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rcwland, Allred. NOES: C~~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CGLIMISSIONERS: None. CONDII'IONAf ~JSE - PUBLIC HEpRING. Co MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8501 Bolsa Avenue, PERMIT NOo 1059 Midway City, California, Owner; MADISON REAL~ESTAI'E, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, and K£NNETH S. WING, JR., 40 ptlantic Boulevard, Long Beach, California, A9ents; requesting permission.to ESTABLISH THE SI'ORAGE AND REN:TAL OF LARGE TRUCKS, WITH WAIVER OF REC~UIRED COMPLETE ENCLOSURE OF OUI'DOOR SI'ORAGE AREp on property described ass p parcel of approximately 1.2 acres of land comprised of two lots having a combined frontage of approximately 180 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 311 feet, the,eas;~rly boundary of said parcel being approxi- mately 503:feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property pzesently olassified M-1~ ZIGHT INDUSI'RIAL~ ZONE. Aseistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses esteblished in close proximity, and the proposal for a truck storage, leasing, and rental agency. Mr. Brown further noted the proposed use would abut an R-3 tract to tha north,with an industrial use immediately to the west; that the use was an M-2, Heavy Industrial use which could be permitted through the approval of a conditional use permit, and the plans submitted indicai,ed a six-foot masonry wall along the east and north property lines, but r.one along the west or sov.th property lines - which was a requirement of outdoor storage, which should be enclosed with a minimum six-foot masonry wall. Mrs. Ann Madison, one of the agents for the petitio.~@s~ appeared before the Commission and noted that the prospective owner felt the use ~eoould be appropriate in the industrial area since they would be leasing to industries and`i~ubi~nesses in the general area, and a similar use was granted for a tractor storage and sales facility on Katella Avenue. Furthermore, the architect was present to answer any technical questions on the layout and general operation of the building. Mr.. Kenneth ~~ing, the other ayent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted there were two basic items of concern - those being the requirement of a wall behind the front setback along the south side of the property.3nd they proposed a chainlink fence for security purposes since £rom time to tim~ smaller vehicles would be stored on the property with valuable merchandise, and an open-work fence would discourage theft because of police protection; and secondly, the requirement that lights be a maximum six feet in height'and away from the perimeter of the property would preclude parking vehicles around the light standards because a ilat truck of three feet with six-foot stacks would eliminate any ~rotection a well-lighted storage yerd needed. :=urthermore, the six-foot standards would hamper the maneuvering of these vehicles. The Commission inquired xrhat type of valuable merchandise was proposed to be stored on the property; whereupon Mr. Wing stated that sometimes the trucks held beer, which was a very enticing commodity. _._ _ 0 . , ~'. , ~ . `MINUTES~ CITY PLpNNING CQMMISSION, September 23, 1968 ! 4131 CONDITIONAx, bSE - Mr. Wing also noted that the proposed 20-foot light poles around PERMIT'N0. 1059 the perimeter of the property would be directed away from the (Continued) residential area, and an alley would f~arther separate the industrial use from.the R-3 use. Zoning Supervisor.Ronald Thompson inquired whether or not diesel trucks would be utilizing subject property, since the storage of these trucks would be adjacer.t to the residential uses. Furthermore, would they be arriving or departing around midnight? Mr. Wing noted~that the hours o£ operation would be no later than 11s00 P.M.; that storage of.any equipment ivhich was noisy would be away from the residentiai use; that he had originally projected a higher wall then the required six-foot masonry wall, but they still were desirous of having the chainlink fence along the front setback of the south side of the property, which could be screened and still leave it suffi- ciently open for the protectlon they desired. Mr. Thompson noted that the R-3 tract originally approved on the property to the north had been abandoned - therefore it might be reasonable to assume that the property could develop in a different manner. Mr. Wing noted they would lease diesel equipment, with the trailers being stored at the lessee's ~site and the tractors brought in for servicing and refueling, since it was his opinion the proposed operation would be more or less a gas station operation. The Commission then noted that since this could be the fact, the gas pumps and carwash area, both of which were considerably noisy and emitted offenstvE odors, was proposed to be located immediately adjacent to the outdoor patio eating area of the employees of E. H. Sargent Company and inquired whether the building design could be reversed, placing the pumps and carwash area easterly of the proposed structure and far enough away from the adjoining lunch area so as not to be a nuisance. Mr. Wing then agreed that the plan could be reversed as suggested. Mr. B. J.,1dcKay, ManagPr of E. H. Sargent Company,'i617 East Ball Road, appeared before the Commission an~ noted that one of their points of opposition was the loca- tion of the gas pumps;`chat he telt a masonry wal.l should be required adjacent to the west property line since a 9reat deal of truck traffic making left-hand turns would be creating considerable noise, and it was his opinion that the use proposed was not compati'ble in this particular area and recommer.ded denial of subject petition. Mr. Wing, in.rebuttal, stated that he would like to poic~t out to the opposition that the proposed use was permitted in ~he M-1 Zone; that these would be leased vehicles, and the flow of traffic would be less than a service stai;ion; that it would be more desirable than a machine shop, a bottling plant, or a brE;wery - which all were permitted in the M-1 Zone. Mr. Ra1ph Schulte, 1909 Cany~on Drive, Fs?lerto:,, appeared before the Commission and noted there would be no more thai~ <3 units at one time stored on the subject property, although it was their intent to ee,,~crtually operate 200 to 250 units. • The Commission then inquired whethE ~ar not the servicing of the truck with diesel fuel :~as the type~ of service whE;re one i~~ifi :^_dual company could lease the entire equipment from the petitioner and return all ti;3ie equipment in the evening for servicing, to which Mr. Schulte replied in the affirmatf.:~e. The Commission furthes ipquired as t~; the ~ercentage of diesel equipment presently in - operation in Mr. Schulte s Montebell.o facili.ty, to which Mr. Schulte replied that 30;K of the equip~ent was diesel operated. The Commission further inquired whethe•r it was conceivable a client would lease 25 to 50 pieces of equipment for route purposes, returning the vehicles to subject property for servicing during the evening hr,urs and picking them up the following morning for regular truck routes, and if this were true~ where would the truck-•drivers park their automobiles zn ~he morning, at the time they picked up the trucks? Mr. Schulte replied that at thr present time they had two such clients with four trucks, and the hours of operation were from 7:00 q.M. until 12:00 P.M., and no provision was proposed for parking of vehicles of the drivers of these trucks... The Commission further noted that a similar problem existed adjacent to R-1 property - wherein diesel trucks were idling their motors late at night, and noises carried I r, , .... ,~,. :....: ;:.. , . ,~ .:.c....._:. .-.:.~.~a' ...::1,-....+ . ~~~.,.:'./J. :,~.F:.e: ~ ~. ~ ~i~nc: 'H, " ~ F' t. .. . . . . .,...-. ..l!;,.,. '~:._T+ ] r..: ..._ .; ~~:.. . _ ,.:.' .... , : . O . ~ . . .. ' ~~~~ ~ ~ {- ~ ~/ MIhI1TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~`September 23, 1968 _ 4132 CCNDITIONAL USE - considerably more distances at that time because of the reduction _ PERMIT N0.:105'9 of normal street noises, and inquired whether this could also be (Continued) the.problem as far as diesel equipment on subject property; whereupon Mr. Schulte replied this was quite possible - however, the proposed use of subject property could be compared w~th that of a service station. N~r. Thompson noted that although a service station was permitted by rigrht in the M-1 Zone, after discussing subject petition with the City Attorney's offices it was determined that the use proposed was an M-2 use, which could only be permitted in the M-1 2one by the approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Wing then noted that the proposed operation would not be for the lubrication or general overnauling, nor would there be heavy body repair work, but there would be some storage of trailers. Mr. Thompson then noted that the only storage of equipment permitted on a servide station site was small trailers, and no diesel equipment was ever permitted, nor were large trucks or trailers permitted to park on a service station site - therefore, subject petition and the proposed use could not be compared to that of a service station. Mrs. Madison again appeared before the Commission and stat~: she was desirous of clarifying the use of the property since she understood the use was to lease out crucks and trailers to industry and businesses in Anaheim; that most of the trucks would be stored at the facilities leasin9 them, and most would have their own fuel pumps and fuel to take care of the trucks and would not be desirous of taking advan- tage of the servicing of the trucks at this location. Mr. Thompson inquired of Mr. Schul~e whether or not the operation in Montebello genera~ted.a considerable amount of street parking and traffic. Mr. Schulte replied that it was possible they could park on the street, but there were no facilities available, and parking was not a problem in Montebello, nor did it 9enerate a considerable amount of traffice Mr. Thompson then noted for the Commission that it would be possible for the driver of the truck vehicle leaspd from t1:e petitioner to park his automobile in the space where the truck had been parked overnight, thereby eliminating street parking. Mr. S~:~ulte replied tinat on their last lease agreement they did not provide for the storagc -~f the automobiles of the drivers of the vehicles; however, if this would occur during the night, they would store their cars there. Discussion then was held between the Commission and the staff relative to~the proper vehicle for approval of subject proposal, it being determined that the use was heavier than that permitted in the M-1 Zone; therefore, a conditional use permit would have to be granted to permit this, and the conditional u~se permit vehicle would then have conditions which would govern the specific use on the property, and since the M-1 Zone permitted only incidental storage of accessories, the vehicles as proposed to be stdred on suhject property could not be considered in~idental, but were the prime usage of the property. The Commission then inquired as to the difference between the Fed-Mart warehousing property on the west side of State CoTlege Boulevard, south of Ball Road,since this would be similar to the proposed request and the one recently passed by the Commission on Santa Ana, Walnut, and Manchester Avenue. Mr. Thompson noted that a warehouse facility was a permitted use in the M-1 Zone, and the trailers were stored there for reloading or unloading of supplies. Mr. Wing noted that their operation would be similar to that of the Fed-Mart Company, except that the trailers would not be brought on the property; only the tractors would be brought in for servicing. Mr. Thompson further noted that the M-1 Zone required outdoor storage to be completely enclosed, and a warehousing operation was permitted to store vans on the property - however, subject pe~ition was a rental and storage of trucks as a primary use permitted in the M-2 Zone, and required the approval of a:;onditional use permit. Mrs. Madison again appeared and said if this were a regular M-1 use, they could operate twenty-four hours a day and could have many trucks and servicing of their trucks; - `-,~-;,.:.`. ~- _ _- O " ,,~ ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION~ Se.ptember 23, 1968 4133 CQIDITIONAL USE - however, this petition plenned to have all vans stored outside PERMIT NOo 1059 of the facility and was pri~naiily in the rental business and (Continued) not the storage business.~ . THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Considerable discussion was then held as to the •type of enclosure subject property should 'have, the hei5ht of the light standards, limiting the numb~r of pieces of equipment, and the hours of operation, and at its conclusion, it was determined that since the petitioner stipulated to hours no later than 12~00 midnight,'~'the reversing of the plot plan to orient the pumps and carwash area easterly of the structure, the prop~rty sti11 should be.enclosed with a six-foot masonry wall - however, .for esthetic purposes, the wall along the south property area could be of decorative or open block to allow visibility throvgh the gate, and light standards could be at 20 feet, provided they were directed away from the proposed R-3 development to the north. Mr. McKay then asked the Commission what height the wall would be along the west property line since their .wall was now five feet and the property adjoining theirs was approximately three feet above their grade - this u~ould then make an eight-foot wali. The Commission advised Mr. McKay that the height of a wall was measured from the 4~i9hest finished grade level of subject oF any adjoining properties - therefore~ in all likelihood the wall would be an eight-foot wall along the west property line. Commissioner Herbst o£fered Resolution No. PC68-288 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~arano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1059, subject to conditions and amending Condition No. 5 of the staff report to require the reversal pf the proposed struc~ture to orient the wash area and pumps to the east; that an eight-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the north property line. and a aix-foot masonry wall constructed along the east and west property lines; and a six-foot decorative wall with a chainlink gate shall be constructed along the front of the property, but to the rear of the required 50-foot building setback, said wall to be constructed as measured #xom the highest grade level.of subject or abutting proper'~ies. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was.passed by the following votes AY~Ss COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall,.Allred. N(7ES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSTAINs COMMISSIONERSs Rowland. VARIANCE NOo 2015 - PUBLIC HEARINGo HENRY L. AND VIVA ANN JONES, 1515 Benmore Lane, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) idINIMUM- BUILDING SETBACK, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS~ (3) MINIMUYI Fc'eQUIRED PHDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYS~ AND (4) MINIMUM NUMBFR OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES~ TO ESI'ABLISH A 3-UNIT APARI'NIENT BUILDING on property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Acacia.Street and Benmore Lane and having frontages of approximately 25 feet on the east side of Acacia Street and approximately 175 feet on the north side of Benmore Lane, said parcel having a maximum depth of approximately 118 feet, and further described as 1515 Benmore Lane. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZOA~E. . Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the locacion of subject property, the existing zoning, the proposal and the waivers requested, noting that due to the ir- regular shape of the lot, it would appear there might be some validity for the requested waivers, and the majority of the requested waivers were the result of attempting tn develop around an existing swimming pool which occupied a good portion of the western half of the property - therefore, the Commission might wish to carefully analyze the plans and requested waivers in light o# this fact, to determine whether the requested waivers were truly warranted. Furthermore, after the staff had worked extensively with the owner of the property in an attempt to suggest development plans that would not require as many waivers, the owner had indicated he could not further reduce the number of units proposed since a lesser number of units would make th~~ - proposed expansion economically unfeasible. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ~ (~,;) ~ MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 4134 VARIANCE NOo 2015 - The Commission was of the opinion that with the new industrial (Continued) development proposed northerly in the City of Fullertons the. Commission should continue subject petition until the petitionex was present to answer questions re3ative~to off-street pa~king. (See page No. 4142) . VARIANCE NOe 2018 - PUBLIC HEARING. LA HpBRp COLD STORAGE, INCo, P. 0. ~ox 549, • Fullerton, Califorriia, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIRED' ENCLOSURE OF OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS on property described as~ An irregularly shaped parcpl of land located et the northwest corner of the Riverside Freeway and Raymond Avenue, extending northerly approximately 360 feet fxom the Riverside Freeway and having a maximum depth of approximately 1,243 fee~, and further described as 1415 North Raymond Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LI'GHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, th~ vses established in close proximity, and the proposed request, noting that the peti- tioner had indicated in the a~plication that other industrial uses in tfie i~nediate area had outdoor storage uses without having such areas .anclosed with a six-foot masonry wall- however, these•.industriad uses.referizd to by the petitioner were located in the City of Fullerton; that the oV+riers of subject property had been advised by the Zoning Enforcement Offices that ttse continued outdoor storage of pallets with- out a six-foot masonry wall enclo~ure would be in vio?ation of Code requirements, and either this outdoor storage would have to be eliminated, or a waiver of the wall requirement would have to ue approved; and that in a previous instance, the ownersof this site were required to remove many large paper cartons and cans from the property since these, too, were bein9 stored outside without conformance with Code requirements. Furthermore, a far more preferable location for outdoor storage would be to the rear of the property since there was ample spac.e available, and the items so stored would not be visible from Raymond Avenue, an arterial - hbwever, a six-foot mr hia~her masonry wall enclosing the suggested s~orage area would still be required by Code unless so waived. Mr. M. E. Dahl, representing the pntitioner, apprared before the Commissian and noted thaf the structure was being utilized for a warehouse for general cold storage and freezing of perishable foods; that the pal3ets were stored on the outeide because they were a basic necessity for the conduct of a general warehouse deaTing in seasonal commodities; that sometime~ the pallets were in full use and used indoors, while at other times they were stored outdoors; that the present situation as noted in the pictures resulted in some degree fr~m a construction project under way for which a building permit had been issued on August 13, approximately the same time the inspec- tion was made by the enforcement officer; that the general area withan the existing building is approximately 15,000 square feet, and in order to construct the €reezer, 25,000 square feet was needed for the work area - therefore the pallets were stared outdoors; that these were shielded from view along the south side by plantings by the State, and these plantings would grow eventually ~to a height which would hide from view any storage in the front setback; that the slides presented by the staff did not fully reveal the plantings which had been made aloasg subject property in ~accord- ance with the requirements of the City of Anahei.m at the time the building was built, and since these plantings were planted ,just a little ov~r tw~ years ago, they had not attained their full height; that the constr.~action of the new facilzty would be com- pleted within thirty days and then the majority of the pallets wo~ld be stored in the building; that a number of the pallets had beQn stored ur.der the ea~res of the building, which he thought mras permitted by Code - therefore, he was urging #he Commission to approve subject petition because of the need for this storage on the south side of the property. Furthermore, they had contgmplated the storage of these~ pallets at the rear of the property; however, the Fire Department had requested that these pallets be kept in a general area together to effect a better fire protection, and the area at the Raymond Avenue frontage was more easily accessible to the Fire Department and still was sufficiently far distant from the building to prevent fire hazards. Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion that the petitioner had not attempted to comp3y with the setbacks and landscape planting in accordance with Code and eited the adjoining Laura Scudder Company and St. Regis Paper Company in the City of Fullerton, directly across the street, as having minimal outdoor storage - L'aura Scudder having none, and the paper company was now completing their storage ware- house and would move all their outdoor storage to that location; that adjoining industrial development had developed the property with considerable landscaping, and if storage were psoposed along the frontage of subject property, then it should '~..,' ~.4^, T J~iC 1~'1 ~r'~ f.r~; r 1 &^ .u ~ !.1.,.: l~r °'Rkh~` t rN. r:~q^ ,-~3 at~'~ 1 r { fj:_~ fi `?~'j`+. '.~ln .1 A. ,;.d ..;:s ~y I _ , . ~ . : . . . ~ ~. ~ ~ ' . , . ~ ~. . ~ ~ . . .... ~ . ~ ~ . . . ... . . ; - ~ ~ . , . . , MINIlTES, CITY.P3.$l±INiNG COMMi8SI0N,'September 23, 1968 4135 VARIANLE N0. 20i8 - be:behind a chairelink fence'.with slats or similar matexial to (Continuedj screen this off from general view of the public; that the City h~d alr+.ays rsguised landscaping in the front - ho~ever, since the`majorit'y~of the frontage of.subject prope~ty was owneC by the State, the only,landscap:ing was that planted by the State; and that he would only approve•outdoor storage ~v~thout'a six-foot masonry wall,provided iha~ the ~ pallets were s't~ored to ~~he nortn ~o# the psoperty and better landscaping provided along the 'Ray~mbnd Aven~e fror.tage; since with new industrial development it~•~he Ca~ty of Ftsl~ert6n, thi•s s'taeet would be a major street into th~ industrq~l ar~a and many cars wou.~..d be passir,Kj subject property. Mr. Dahl ~h,en indicated`tha~t they would a,ree to providing additional lan~iscaping i~g; ' to screen subject property from Raym~nd Avenue. Commissioner Rowland noted that one point not noted by the staff was the fact that the palle'ts keing stored were part of the operation, just as trucks are p~rt of another operation; therefore this might not be considered outdoor storage. Mr. Brown noted that there were speeific uses permitted to be stored outdoors as set fpr'th in the M-1 Zone. Mr. Brown further noted•that in discussing outdoor storage with the Fire Department, , the Fire Departmen~ had indicated that outdoor storage along #he north side of subject property would be permitted provided that it was located approximately 20 feet from the building to offset any fire hazards. Zoning Supervisor Ronald T4~ompson noted that similar outdoor storage facilities, ' suCh as the Orange County Food Service in the Northeast Industrial Area, where vehicles had been stored at the rear of the property, were required to construct a six-£oot masonry wall; that the new General Electric plant was required to erect a masonry wall - however, this was waived for two years because the representatives had indicated an expansion would take place and the masonxy w~ll v~ould then be eliminated, with indoor storage of the majority of the materials. Furthermore, ar.other factor to take into cansideration was that the enclosure of outdoor storage as a part of the Anaheim Municipal Code was established appsoximately in 1963 - therefore, it could not be required of established industrial developments and could not be required of industrial property developed while unc~er the jurisdiction of the County and then annexed into the City, since the County did not require en- closure of outdoor storage areas. Mr~ Dahl then noted that in warehousing operat~ons some flexibility was necessary, and when the warehouse was full, no pallets would be stored outdoors; however, it was necessary that these be readily accessible to the storage company and not located too distant from the building. The Commission further noted that if the petitioner did not have rigid pallets, collapsible pallets could be stored in one-third the space. Mr. Dahl noted that the rigid pallets were an essential part of their business since collapsible pallets were not advisable for their type of facility. The Commission then inquired cf the agent for the petitioner why the pa3lets could not be stored to the north of the existing structure; whereupon Mr. Dahl staied this could be done - however, it would be difficult because their truckin9 activity was oriented to the front of the building, and they dealt with both plants and berries, and the pallets would be needed for their customers. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. I'HE HHARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-290 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Vasiance No. 2018, subject to conditions and the requirement that the pallets stiall be stored to the . west': of'the existing structure, and those that were stored along the north property line should be maintained at a maximum of six feet in height and in a neat and orderly manner; that interior landscaping shall be in conformance with the require- ments of the M-I site development standards as stipulated to by the petitioner; that the area east of the existing warehouse shail not be used for the storage of pallets or equipment, but for temporary loading and unloading purposes only. (See Resolution Book) ~_.___~_.__._.__._.___ _ . _ _ _.. . _. ___,----.__._. __ _ ___._ - a.: „ ~„7.q. n ^ _ __. __. . . ~ . - . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 4136 VARIANCE NOa 2018 - An roll call the.foregoing resolution was passed by the ' (Continued) . following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSr Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSBNTs'.CO,NMISSIONERS: None. 'RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess•ttte meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4s20 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4s30 P.Ma, all ~ Commissioners being present. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo LINCOLN PLAZp DEVELOPMENT COMPpNY, 615 South '- PERMIT NOo 1060 Flower Street, Los Angeles, California, Owner; WINDSOR HOUSE `~ RESTAURANT, 2138 East Almont Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to have ON-SALE BEER-AND WINE'- IN CONJUNCTION WITH /~ PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described ass A parcel of approximately 600 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Euclid Street and having approximate frontag~s of 594 feet on the north side of Broadway and 460 feet on the west side of Eucli.d Street, and further described as ; 275 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, y~ ' ZONE. .~t: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the petitioner was proposing to serve beer and wine in conjunction with a proposed restaurant, and that a similar ~;,.',. request of on-sale liquor in conjunction with a restaurant operation was•previously approved for this shopping center site in May, 1966. Mr. Richard Bothwell, 2138 East Almont, agent for the petitioner, app~ared before the Commission and noted that they would have a family-type restaurant, serving a ' variety of sea foods with beer and wine to be an incidental sale in conjunction `''~ with the sale of ineals. Mrs. Hu1da Hemmerling, 114 Coffman Street, appeared before the Commission in.opposi- ~ tion and noted that she was one of the owners oi` the property and she did not feel I that beer and wine would add anything to the development; that she had opposed all ~ requests for any alcoholic bevera9es being sold on this property be~ause of the many ~ children who had to pass the shopping center to and from school, as well as a church ~ which was immediatelX adjacent to subject property; that there were two restaurants at the corner of the.shopping center which did not s~acceed;.and she could not see where the addition of beer and wine would be the criteria for a successful business because of the size and the location of the proposed restaurant; and that since the petitioner had indicated this would be a family-type restaurant, it seemed unfair to have children sitting at a table wh'ere the serving of beer and wine was a part of an operation - this was not a good environment ~or children. Furthzrmore, her husband was also in opposition to the approval of subject petition. Miss Emma Mager, 415 North Bine Street, appeared before the Gommission, noting that she was a partial owner of subject properties and was also opposed to the granting of subject petition; that liquor was available at both Market Basket and The Family Tree; that it was unnecessary to hav~ additional serving of alcoholic beverages in this small shopping center. Mr. Bothwell, in rebuttal, stated that the Report to the Commission had indicated 50~; of the total area would be used for the preparation of food and the balance for the serving at tables and booths of food, and beer and wine would be only an inci- dental part of the operation;,that there were 100 feet of blank masonry wall to the rear of subjeet property, and the front would be oriented toward the east; t'hat there was no intention of saturating the area with liquor facilities, and it was their intent to serve the people working in the shopping center; that all cor~ditions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and Health Department would be complied with; that the Lincoln Plaza Development Company, as lessees, had received permission through the estate for the operations as they proposed, and the family had no control over the uses which would be permitted. The Commission noted that since on-sale liquor had been approved for a restaurant in this shopping center, a pattern had been established, and denying subject peti- tion would be denying a right granted otherso ~ ~ , s~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,~CITY pLANMING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 4137 ' CONDITIONAL bSE - Mrse Hemmerling asked to be heard again, and although the hear- PERMIT<N0. 1064 ` ing was closed, thr Commission granted her the privilege of (Continued) speaking; ~hereupon she stat~~d that each food establishment approved in the shopping cenl:er was obtaining a permit to sell liquor, which in her estimation was subjecting children to an undesirable,influence because they are exposed to the sele of liquor while they are eating in a restaurant; that the Lincoln Plaza Development Company had a lease on.the property, and the property w,as still in her husband's, her sister's and 'her names; and that she urged the'Commission to deny subject petition, as well as other requests for oq-sale liquor in a shopping centero Discussion was.then held by the Commission, it being determined that the Commission ~ would have to judge subject petition on the basis of land use, and since a similar use had been established, the Commission was not in a position to make a moral judgment; that the Commission was confronted with a very unusual set of circum- stances wherein the lessee, the Lincoln Plaza Development Company, was being opposed by the actual owners of the propertyr, and if the property owners were not qualified to sign the petition, then the applicant would have no place before the Commission. Mr. I'hompson advised the Commission that insofar as the staff was concerned, the recorded lessee would be the authoxized person to apply for the petition because of the long-term lease they, in all probability, hade The Commission then determined that the plans as presenfied to the Gommissions and ;,,,~ the manner in which the proposed operator of the restaurant indicated it would be operated, appeared to be a compatible use and nothing would be harmful to children since many children have seen their parents have beer with their meals, and serving of beer by parents was outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission and would be a matter of police enforcement. .. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutzon No. PC68~291 and m~oved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1060, subject to conditions and based on th~ fact thdt t?~e proposed on- sale beer and wine would be only incidental to the sale o£ foad for consumption on the property. (See`Resolution Book)`, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following roote~ AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None. Commission Camp, in voting "no", stated that although a similar use had been approved prior to subject petition in this shopping center, since the owners of the property had taken a stand in opposition, he could not in good faith vote for subject petition. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGa FRED KqY, HAROLD WILLIAMS, AND MARTIN ROBERTS', NO> 68-69-26 220 Laguna Road9 Fullerton, California, Owners; HAROLD Lo RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California, Agent; TENTATIVE MAP OF requestin9 that property d,.~~ribed as: Approximately 10,5 acres TRACT N0. 6733 of land having a frontage of approximately 533 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 785 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being aoproxi- mately 906 feet east of the centerline of Highland Avenue, be reclassified from the (COUNI'x) A1, AGRICULTURE, DISTRICT TO THE R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT RHqUEST: DEVELOPER: W.I,.R. DEVELOPERS, INC., 9942 Central Avenue, Garden Grove, California. ENGINEERs RApR 8 BOYER ENGINEERING COMPpNY, 14482 Beach $oulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract, located on th~ north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, east of the centerline • of Highland Avenue, is proposed for subdivisien into 97 proposed R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the property was still within the juris•iiction of the County of Orange; that adjoining land uses included agricultural and an oil field district zone to the north and west, a developed R-2-$090 tract to the east, and County zoned M-1 land with a packing plant and agricultural uses to the south; and that subject petition was in the nature of a pre-annexation rezoning request. ~~:, . ~ r +ee;ra.v ~t~w.RSe'E." ~'+CS~fC4:L"'!Ul' w~,;.L'Ta 'lY'C~'u}~~`.`3#;;~'~ ~ +^b::: ~4~ •: ~ 7 r~ ~ ; .' .- :~ -. ' ' ~ ~ ,.,. .. ~, r - ~ ~" ,Fr .. . ~ ~~. ~. : . .. ,. ~ . MINUfES~ CITY PI:ANNING COMMISSION, September.23, 1968 4138 RECLASSIFICATI~ON :. Mre`;Brown.further:noted tha~t a request"had been recei~red from NOo 68=69-26" the?;developer of ,the tract; reque'sting a two-weeks' continuance ~ ' to the meeting"of October 7, 1968,:in'order to allow time`for TENTATIVE MpP OF the?redesigning.of..the tentative tract map due to complications =. ,TRACT~NOo:6733 ~~. arising fiom the.:location of an active oi1 well located just ~(Continue:d) north of subject;property. Commissioner Mungall offered~a'motion:to:continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification.No. 68-69r26 and.Tentetive.Map of Tract Noo.6733 to-the meeting of`:October,7,.1968, i`n order to;.allow time for the developer to submit e revised ' trect, as:requestede•'Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICpTION - PUBLIC HEARINGa BANK OF /4MERICA, 801 North Main Street, Santa NOa b8-69-25 pna, California, Conservator; ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT-COR~PORA- ' TION, P. O: Box 3391, Anaheim, California, Agent; property VARIANCE NOa 201T described ass An irregul~rly shaped parcel o.~ land located on ' the•east 5icle of Dale Avenue between Br.oadway and Orange Avenue, TENTATIVE.MAP OF having frontages of approximately 320 feet on the south side of TRACT NOo 6735 Broadway,.1,290 feet on the east sic~~ cf Dale Avenue, and 400 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue ard a maximum depth of approximately 400'feet. Property presently classified R-A, r, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NEo REQUESTED.VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD AND (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, TO ESTABLISH A 48-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUESTs DEVELOPER: ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 310 Roseba~ Street, Anaheim, Californiae ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 Eest Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californi~. Subject tract, consisting of 11~5 acres, is propo~ed for subdivision into 48 R-1 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Superyisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses`established in close proximity, and,the requested waivers, noting that R-1 was' approved for the property on the north side'of'Broedway, east of Dale'Avenue, with waivers peimitting less than 7200-squaie foot lots end minimum lot widths; that the integral street circulation pattern of the proposed tract conforms substartially to the .r.~commendations made by the Traffio Engineer; thet at the time the Planning Commission approved the°property to the north, a General Plan amendment was co.nsider- ed,- however, the Commission was of the opinion that increasing the residential density in this area was not warranted and recommended that R-1 zoning be approved, i or low density - however, due to the size of the parcel, they recommended the applicant for the property to the north be allowed smaller lots in si;;Ax but subject property, a parcel much,larger and wider than that to the north, was i;;volved - in addition, .surrounding developed single-family tracts conformed to the width and ~eaprovisions to the east and those to the west were developed with 7200-square foot 1ots, but the frontages of the lots were 61 feet,and said tract was developed while under the jurisdiction of the Co~nty in 1955. Consequently, the Commission would have to determine whsther the requested waivers, particularly those involving lot width and loi: area, were warranted in this case ar,~ whether the proposed devel- opment would be eppropriate to the surrounding area. Mr. Jack McClean, represent}ng the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that ira addition to subject property, they were proposing to develop the property to the ~orth on Rroadway end were planning to break ground within the:next few days; that-the homes proposed on subject property would range in<pric4 from g18,000 to $23,000, and off-site'costs with double frontage 1 ot5 t: ; r '~„ =~; .~ along tie 1500-foot frontage of T~ale Avenue would,be taken into consideration in the-price of the'property, which the FHA had approved; that the proposed develop- t~ ment would upgrade the area, and a backup treatment with a six-foot masonry wall for;a length of 2000 feet would enclose this entire tract except for,street and ` pedestrian openings; that although the parcel was considerably larger than that ~ :~ on`the north ~ide of Broadway, it was difficult to develop as standard R-l because of the improvement costs;' that they had built several tracts of lots of this size ~ in the general vicinity which were readily accepted by the public; and that in ~ response.to Commissi~n questioning, stated that they had talked with the adjoining property owners in the'single-family homes, who had expressed delight that the ~ ;'s ~ . ' ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . .. . . ~'k~ ~~.. ~ ~. . . .. :. ~ '~ . . . . . ~ .. ., i ~ x~ ~1~•~-~'~~~„_ . ._~__...._._ . .. . . ~._.... ,-.,....; _. :.. . ... ........ . ~- . ., ~ ~.~~ ~ `F' ,-~5~~';~F'~ Wx7 ti a r ~h +,7~s ~~w~'~a ri rseh R 32~'fX' ,x '~: ~ r < wr~' r rt' ai ~ ~.r£ . a . r.n{~ ..~., 0. ~L;f,~ . ,, .}-`'_~'•. !r1'.~ '. , a~, "N'~ u"`~',., t 'w,sY .r 'ws.. s ~ ,, . , ~ 1 : J Y 'x' .. ~,_. ._ ~,A , k,,. s _ r"' , t_c~.~ ,.~ i ~,y„ ;; ~ ~ . . ~ . . , .. ~ . _~~ . . . ... Q ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~.J . MINUTES;:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 4139 RECLASSIFICATION - property was being developed for single-family residential use N0. 68-69-25- rather than higher density, and they were aware the lots would be smaller than their 7200-square foot lots. VARIANCE N0. 2017 ' Mr. McClean further noted that they had developed the single- TEI4TATIVE MAP OF family trect on the former Bielanski property east of Dale, TRACT NOo b735 on tiie south side of Crescent Avenue, if the Commission were , (Continued) desirous af determining or reviewing the type of homes proposed. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso THE fiHpRING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-292 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by CommissZoner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-25 be approved~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESi COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRSs tlone.~ Commissioner Camp offereci Resolution No. PC68-293 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2017, subject to aonditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None. Commissioners Farano and Herbst, in voting "no", stated that subject property could be developed with regulation R-1 requirements of 7200-square foot lots and 70-foot 1ot widths. Commissioner Rowland noted that a 7200-square foot lot was not too large for the size homes currently being built on single-family lots; however,:approva? of subject petition was based on taking into consideration the unique shape and size of this parcel and its location. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6735, subject to the follov~ing conditionss (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6735 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-25 and Variance No, 2017. (2) 7hat should this subdivision be developed as more than one ~,ubdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (3) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley oF,~_nings to Broadway, Dale Avenue and Oran9e Avenue sha11 be dedicated to thE City of Anaheim. (4) That in accordance with City Council policy, a six=foot masonry wall st~all be constructed on the northerly, westerly and southerly property lines separating Lot Nos. l through 23 and 48, and Broadway, Dale and Orange Avenues, except that corner Lot Nos. 10 and 11 shall be stepped down to a height of thirty inches in the front yard setback, and except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highways right- of-w~y line of an arterial highway. Reaaora.ble landscaping, including irriga- tion facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Ar~heim shall assr:.e the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (5) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~e..vSS.~easri ~ f'Rt-'Y L&'76K: .~u'44+9d1~4l~+Fti+idxii3~?` s~~'..~, r 3" ..' ~j' I 'M !~ s ,~ r ? +'~Si. p..,.S. 4 ~ , t- : ~e ~1 Y <~ri'f 7r~ ~ t +~.~ .,~t`~'rz~33,~ ~~ ~ -ry r"s a n ~ ' ~ ~~ ;a O N ~ Q ~ ~.. ,~ MINlll'ES,:CITY PLANNING CONMISSION, Septem6er 23, 1968 4140 '~ RECLASSIEICATTdN - -(6) That pedestrian easements, 10'feet in wxdth, shall be ~~ N0. 68 69-25 provided from Vicki Lane to Broadway and Orange i4venue. VARIANCE N0. 2017 (7) .That Streets "A",-"g~~ and Cul-de=sac shall'be recorded TEN~'ATIVE~MAP OF as'Vicki Lane; Savoy Place and Rawland Circle. ' ~ TRACT NOo 6735 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION'CARRTED. C i ' ,~ _ omm ssioners Farano and Herbst not2d "no". ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - pOgLIC HEARING. CHRISTINE 0`DONNELL, 10304 Clancy, Downey NOo 68-69-27 , Californza, Owner; FRANK KARGHER, 7200 North Harbor Boulevard, CONDITIONpL USE Anaheim, California, p9ent; property describ~~c1 ass A rectangularly, shaped parcel of la d l " PERMIT N0. 1061 n ocated near the southwest corner of Orange wood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, having a~frontage of~approxi~ , mately 150 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and a maximum ~ ~ depth of approximately 150 feet, the northerly boundary being ;a~ approximately 190 feet so~th of the centerline of Orangewood :;~ Avenue, and further described as 2119 South Harbor Boulevard. ::~ Property presently class3fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. .~ :;~; REQUESTEp CL.ASSIFICATIONs C-1,GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RES?AURAIQTo- Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property the ` c:, , uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, no~ting that the existing use w ; ~'. as a?~gal, non-conforming walk-up restaurant, and the plans submitted would also b k . ;; e a wal -up restaurant, but the existing one would be removed and a new structure put in it l ~~.~ s p ace; that the property would be redeveloped in accordance with the C-1 site development standards - however th i "`~~ , e pet tioner was requesting waiver of the six-foot masonry wall along the south and west property lines on the basis that s° "~ although the property to the south was zoned R-A, it had been developed for several ~ years with commercial and various commer:.ial-professional uses, and the wall waiver for this ro rt li *~ p pe y ne would then be a technical one. Furthermore, the property to: the w st ~ . e was;vacant R-A land, and the General Plan indicated this for medium'density resid ntial us n h ~: , e e, a d t e petitioner had indicated he had been granted a 20-foot ease- me t on th t ~~ n e proper y to pexmit access from the rear of his site northerly to Orange-` wood Avenue and that h ld '~ o s , e wou blac t p this 20-foot strip - therefore construction of the wall along this t in ;~~ t proper y l e would effectively block any ingress and e ress to this 20-foot easement; and that the new developm nt as i di ;~ ~ ~ ~ e n cated by the plans would be a substantial improvement to the overall ~~ rn area. ~ Mr. Frank Karcher, sChe agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the ro d t ~~ " y p pose o redevelop the prope~rty with a larger structure and provide access to the west over the 20-foot ~' easement ~vhich was granted by Mrs. 0'Donnell; that the req~irement of down-iighting a maximum of six feet in hei ht i th k `."~' g n e par ing area would :?efeat the purpose of the 10-foot light fixtures they had in all of their ` locations - this size would light the area sufficienty to reduce the juvenile roblems which their t e of o ti '"` yp pera on was constantly confronted with, and requested considera tion of 10-foot light fix~ures rather than th i e s x feet - however, they would direct them away from the properiy line to the west. ,. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the height of the light standards in the parking area, the easement proposed over the 20 feet along the west property line, and to require a six-foot mas!+nry wall would create a hardship along this property line since the adjoining property owner might wish to utilize `; this easement af a later date when the property was developed. ~'' ` x~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. - ` ~ ~ . . . - - . . ~ - . ~ . . ~ ~: ~ Li ~. . . . ~ . ~ . i ..a THE HEARI1rG-WAS CLOSED. ~? Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson indicated to the Commission that the ~ f~ primary reason ~; for requiring a six-foot light standard was beceuse of the many complain-;s received `~i from residents adjacent to commercial uses; therefore this has become a standard ~{r~ requirement where property was adjacent to residential uses, since the height of # " six feet required would then be even wizh, or below, the required masonry wall. I 1 ' : ~ _ ._: ~I x zrawsae 59 YY +M~'.['K4WlC/~S) i`~ ~rf`L5.'~'i ' 4 ~ tx~ h.,. S +, e s ~ti r w. M h"" b-~ ~i ?s'~. ~ li ,,.i +,4' ~" ~~ 3 s r'i u~,}~ ~S"'~ O .. ~ . , . . ' . ' . . ~ t ~ . ~ • •: . ~ :-MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 -." 4141 ~,! , ~ `~ RECI.ASSIFICATION - Commissioner.Camp offered'Resolution No. PC68-294 and r~wved for ~~ -'N0.'68=69=27 its passage and adoption, seconded by'Commissioner Herbst, to `'~~`' ~~` recommend to the,City Council that Petition for Reclassification '~ CONDITIODIAL USE No. 68-69-27 be~approved, subject to conCitions. (See Resolution ~'~~ .:PERMIT NOo~,1061 Book) ~ (Continued)'' '~' '~- On roll call'the fore oin resolution was '~` 9 9 passed by the following ;;•~ vote s ~i~ °~ AYES: ` COMMISSIONERS: Camp,,Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland,-Allreda NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. '~ - ABSENTc` COMMIBSIONERSs` None. :K,~„ ~~ Commissioner Ga~aer offered Resolution No. PC68-295 and moved for its passage and °~'"~ adoption, seconded by Coinmissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use °~'°~ Permit No. 1061, granting waiver of the required.six-foot masonry wall along the ~ south property line, on the basis that the "`' property had been developed for commarcial uses;for.several years:and that the wall at the west property line would block ingress ; and egress to the 20-foot easement which the development wouid utilize to route traffic to Orangewood Avenue, and conditions. (See Resolution Book) . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. .1~,;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None. ~,. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLZC HEARINGo INITIAI'ED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 'NOo 68-69-28~ 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californie; proposing that property described ass Two parcels of land containing a total of approximately 49 acres, described as followss Parcel A- ~ approximately 31 acres of land located at the northeast corner of the intersection ? of the Riverside Freeway and Newport Freeway, said parcel having a total frontage of approximately 2,380 feet on the Riverside Freeway and a maximum depth of approxi- "mately,'1,303 feet, and Parcel B--epproximately 18`acres of Iand located adjacent to ~, the northerly;boundary of Parcel A and extending northerly therefrom approximately 648 feet to the Santa Ana River,. be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ' `(PpRCEL A),AND;R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PARCEL B) to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. Assistant Zoning 5upervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, ~ noting that Parcel B had been developed with R-2-5000 homes, and the developer had also submitted tracts for R-2-5000 for the balance of the property; therefore, the recommendation of the staff was to reclassify this property into its most appropriate zone, placing R-2-5000 on Parcel B, with an ordinance being read upon consideration by the City Council and meeting of conditions of approval under this reclassification for Parcel A, which was basically the approval of a final tract map for the property. Furthermore, if subject petition were approved, the staff recort~mended that the City Council be urged to terminate Reclassification No. 63-E4-20, Reclassification No. 63-64-21, Conditional Use Permit No. 465 and Conditional Use Permit No. 466, since these would no longer be applicable to the properties with the proposed development. No one appeared in opposition to suhject petition. I'HE F~ARING WAS CLOSED, ; Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-296 and moved for its passage and ! adoption, seconded by Commi'ssioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that ~' Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-28 be approved, placing subject property in the mosf appropriate zone since Parcel B has already developed with R-2-5000, single-family homes, and subject to ar, ordinance being read upon the completion of the filing of a final tract map. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. ~ NOES:' COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ " ~. - S: ~.~ 'f :\,.n.1Kii.# bl . . - ' '..'., ~` ~ ' .. ~~~ .. . . . ~ ~ ...'-r. . ' ~ . Y~ MINUI~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 23, 19G8 4142 °RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-297 and moved N0. 68-69-28 for its passage and.adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, . (Continued) to recommend to the City Council ~hat Petition for Reclassifi- catiom Nos.'63-04-20 and 63-64-21 be terminated on the basis that the reclassification to R-2-5000, One-Family, Zone, as ~ recommended for approval in Resolution No. PC68-296, would supersede the type of development.for the property since a portion of the property-had been•dev2~loped for R-2-5000 zoning and revised tracts had been submitted far consideration for R-2-5Q00. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe:~~ by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. ~ NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENIs COMMISSIONERSs None. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-298 and moved for its passage and adoption,~seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 465 end 466 be terminated on the basis that the petitions proposed a planned residential development, whereas a portion of subject property had been developed for R-2-5000, One-Family, Zone, and revised tentative tract maps had been filed which indicated development of the balance of the property for R-2-5000 homes. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes l+YESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs None. Although an offer for termination of Variance No. 1766 was made by the Commission, - it was later determined that this variance could not be terminated until the City Council took action on the reclassification of the property to the R-2-5000, One- Family, Zone. Therefore, termination would be handled at a later date. VARIANCE NOo 2015 = Chairman Allred in uired whether an one was ~~ 4 Y present to represent (Continued from the petitioner under Variance No. 2015. page 4134) Mr. Henry Jones, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that because of the unusual shape of the ! ` lot, and the fact that a large swimming pool and recreation area wer~ located on ' the property, it was determined a minimum of three units would be necessary for i development of the property in order that it might be economically feasible, and by developing the vacant land around the swimming pool, this would discourage ~ residents in the other apartment developments from using the private swimming pool. { Chairman Allred inquired why this apartment development had not been required to I provide a recreation area as normally required under all apartment developments, and he could not understand xhy ~ubject.property was the only one with a recreation area. , Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the entire area along Benmore Lane and Acacia Drive had been developed as a standard subdivision. Mr. Jones then noted that originally each owner of the various fourplexes had paid an amount of money for maintenance of the pool; however, this was closed by the Health Department when 200 people were swimming in the pool. The Commission then noted that the petitioner was attempting to crowd too many units on the property and not providing for the natural amenities apartment living required, i` and inquired whether or not one of the units could not be removed. Mr. Jones replied that from an economic standpoint, it would be difficult to develop ! less than.three units, and he was desirous of having the entrance to his apartment development from Acacia Street; furthermore, th~re still would be considerable land- ~ scaping around the property, and the apartment development would be an L-shaped structure around the pool and recreation area. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSE0. ~ p ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 23, 1968 4143 VARIANCH NOo'2015 - Commissioner Rowland noted that the requested waivers for minimum (Continued) building setback and minimum distance between buildings and the accessway wer~ technical because the buildings already existed; however,'waiver of the required parking should not be permitted because a redesign of,the development could provide the necessary parking, and any parking over and above the minimum required would reduce the amount of on-street park- ing, especially along Acacia Street - the only means of access into this area. Mr. Thompson noted the possibility of removing an existing laundry room could resolve~ the additional parking space. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-289 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2015 in part, denying waiver of the required parking spaces on the basis that the need for more parking spaces had been evidenced around all apartment developments, and subject to conditions, with an amendment to Condition No. 5, to include, ". providing that parking shall be in conformance with the R-3 Zone requirements". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND - Attendance Report Record for the month of RECOMMENDATIONS August of the Planning Commission. Chairman Allred noted that several of the Commissioners wished to discuss the item relative to their attendance on the so-called "report card" which was included in the Commission agenda packets, and then asked the purpose of the report: The Commission Secretary advised the Commission that she had been instructed to send a copy of the attendance recorded - by morning field trip, by public hearing, by work sessions to each Commissioner. Further than that, she had no other information to clarify this. Commissioner Rowlands The reason there are seven Commissioners is that the Commissioners are appointed from various walks of life to represent a cross-section of the community, and the reason there are seven rather than a lesser number is recognizing the fact that all the people in the community are not entirely self-sufficient and must work, and as such are apt to be absent from some of these meetings since this is not their liveli- hood or any portion of it. This can only mean dissatisfaction in our record, and in the way of physical presence, I would deem it very nice if the attendance is checked in person by the person who gets this report. Maybe not only our physical presence, but maybe we should be graded as to quality of the service should also be represented on the report card. I would deem it a rare privilege to see the Director of the Development Services Department so that he could check in person rather than on the intercom in his office, either at the morning sessions, work sessions, as well as the public hearings. Commissioner Faranos I think that in discussing this with Alan, there are times when many of the Commissio~ers are not present for the morning meetings to review the plans, and a lot might be gained by the morning sessions, however; this is all well and good, and whenever I can, I do attend these sessions. Since I do not, I take time on weekends, in most cases, to drive to these properties to review them to note the development in the area and what the proposed use for the pz~perty on the differ~nt petitions might do Lo affect this Grea. If the presence of the Commission at these morning sessions is so important and the value derived from them is so great, then the Commission should get together to determine a better time for this meeting, si;,ce as far as I am concerned, I have been unable to attend many of these morning sessions, and from the looks of my schedule,there will be very few I can attend in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Rowland: If we need more Commissioners, then maybe the Council should look into this. Commissioner Gauer: Since you have brought up this problem, why don't you arrange to have a meeting with Alan Orsborn? Commissioner Rowlands It is not necessary to have another meeting on something as valueless as this. I know what it costs me to attend thPse sessions, and I am sure my time is no more valuable than any of the other Commissionerso