The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1969/08/25~~'~ ~'31~"S~''~I`i .. ,~ .,~, ~ v a ~ ~ .ib'~'j~r "'~- i ~ "~' ,~ ;4 ~i ~~ t ~ ~ r t~ ~ ~;. 1 . ~~~-~. 1 ~ . lf .~:+ r i ~~: _ .. . ~ .. .. . - . - ~~ . ~~ ~ . . . ~ ~ " ('. 1 ~. ~./ City Hall Anaheim, California August 25, 1969 A REGULAR MEETI2IG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeCing of the Anaheim City Planning Cort¢atsaion was called to order by Chairman Rowlaad at 2t00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMANt Rowland. - COMMISSIONERSt Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Asaistant City Attorney: John Dawson Office Engineer; Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor; Charlea RoberCs Assistant Zoning Supervisor; Pat Brown Planning Co~iasion Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Co~isaioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve the Minutea of the THE MINUTES meeting of August 11; 1969, as submitted, seconded by Commiasioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LEO FRE~DMAN,~10350 Almayo, Los Angeles, PERMIT N0. 1129 California, Owner; NORMAN HAHN, p, 0. Box 6049, Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating permisaion to ESTABLISH A CHURCH IN AN EXISTING THEATER STRUCT'JRE AND TO ESTABLISH A STRUCTURE HAVING A HEIGIiT IN EXCESS OF 75 FEET, WITH WAIVERS GF (1) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT~ (2) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF SIGN BASE~ (3) SIGN LOCATION, (4) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, AND (5) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 640 feet on the south eide of Freedman Way and a maximum depth of approximately 585 feet, being located approximately 720 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as Melodyland, 10 Freedman Way, Property presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Sub~ect peti~tion was continued from the meeting of Auguet 11, 1969, to allow time for the Anaheim Hotel-Motel Asaociatian Steering Co~uittee to meet and determine the rami- fications and effect on their operationa and to present their findinge; for the petitioner to inform the Co~isaion as to the diaposition of the exiating reataurant and cocktail lounge located within the atructure; for the applicanta to provide a more comprehensive and detailed analyaie of propoaed and future contemplated uaes in order to have more concrete ideas as to the capacity and number of events so as not to overload the exist- ing parking facilities; and for the applicants to reconaider the aize and height of the propoaed epecial church atructure (sign) to reduce ita size. Assistant zoni.ng Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, the proposed requeet to ut313ze a former theater for church purposea, the proposed apecial structure (aign) waiver to permit one 134 feet high, and the reason for continuance of aubfect petition from the Auguat ll meeting. Chairman Rowland noted for the interested peraona that at the last public hearing a very comprehensive presentation had been made by the proponenta of approximately one hour of testimony; that moat of the proponents' preaentation was heard with the exception of L•nat which the Commisaion requeated for further clariEication - therefore, in the interest of brevity and conciaeneae, he was requeating that the proponenta limit their preaenta- tion at thia hearing to no more than three apeakera speaking for five minutea each, and that the same limitation be obaerved by the opponenta; however, if the Co~ission felt there was some portior. ~f any presentation which needed further clarification, additional time might be allowed since if this achedule were not adhered to, the hearing could continue for houra, thus depriving other petitionera having a public hearing at today's meeting and having adequate time to present their petit3ons. Mr. Odra L. Chandler, attorney representing the petitioner, Mr. Freedman, appeared before the Co~ieaion and stated he did not r,sve cotmnents to make at thie time, but wiahed to 4773 ~i : ~,. [~ 4~,»}v"+~,i`JT'~'r~ ~,`.-3l""l~U Pif'.~3E Mt4 k"Yi;~t'~irn~' i:, il:n ~{ •,~~` JY {..~. :~ .'~' 'F J""~ K' +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~_ ~ . ~ ~ ...a -- .._ -- - -t' ~ . ---- . -` "'--- ~ ~ ~ ' j „ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 25~ 1969 4774 `.:; CONDITIONAL USE - reaerve his commenCa until after the opponents had been presented j , F'ERMIT N0. 1129 ~ (Continued) Mr. Richard Weatherspoon, attorney repreaenting the Anaheim Hotel-Motel ' Steering Coa~ittee and Innkeepera Association of Orange Countyg appeared b ~ ~' efore the Commiasion and presented the resolution adopted by the ' persone he represented (copy on file with the petition) and aumnnarized hia presentatio ~ n as followa: .~ 1. That the proposed uae would not serve public necessitp or convenience as well as its ~ past uae had served or aimilar future uses could aerve; -~: 2. That the propoaed uae would adversely affect surrounding propertiea; ! 3. That the proposed use would cause an economic devaluation of propertiea in the area; and 4 Th 3 . at the proposed use would injure the public welfare. ~ ~~~:~. '~ Mr. Weatherapoon noted there were more than 95 churches in the Anaheim area alone; however th r . r '~ ~ , ere were no other theaters at thia time in Or:~nge County where theatrical entertainment of th ~ ~ " ~' e type or caliber preaented at Melodyland cnuld be aeen; that the statementa made to the effect th t th ~ a e Melodyland Theatre went bankrupt or f:hat it was not a proper land use becauae it a , , w s not succesaful were erroneous based on atatc~nents made by the general manager of the Melodyland Theatre, Mr. Harold Grosaman; that th ~ ;, e ~~ropoaed uae vrould adversely affect the surrounding properties since there would be an increcEe in real t ~ 1`; ea ate taxea because a church would be permitted to operate on a tax exempt ba~is; that according to the Businesa ~ !' and Profeasional Code of the State of California~ the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ` ' could reriew ali renewal and new on-sale liquor licenaes where a church was located in i ' cloae proximity and where a good cauae was shown that it would be in the interest of the ~' public welfare and morals to deny renewal or new petitions; that even though the attorney for the church h d y a stated he would not oppoae isauance of these licenaes, individual membera of the church co ld ~ u oppose them; that a church had a atrong voice and impact on an area, and he queationed ita effect on th e customera of a cocktail lounge located in the ahadows of the Trinity Tower; that the Planning Commiasion and Cit Co il y ; ~ p unc in the past had denied requests to eatablish on-sale liquor facilities where in close proximity t ~ ~• o a church or school - therefore, the reverse or equal application of a church propoaing to be lo at d ~ ~ c e near similar facilities should be considered seriously; that although the businessmen in the C 1 offinercial-Recreation Area did not have ositive p proof that the use would adveraely affect their busineasea if res ib ~ ;, , pons le buaineasmen expressed concern as to its effect on propertp values and loss of profits then s d ~ , ome cre ence should be given to their fears since they had expended considerable money to establiah thei ~ .~ r operatione in the moet appropriate zone; and that conaiderable losa of real estate taxes and salea ~;~ tar,ea would be experienced if the church operated in the Melodyland Theatre since it ` would have a tax exempt status. ~ '`p~ ~ Mr. Weatherapoon, in concluaion, urged denial of aubject petition on the basis that the ; ` , character and integrity of the Commercial-Recreation Area should be preaerved for the ~ q general welfare of the surrounding area and the citizena of the City of Anaheim which ~ , were more important than the eatabliahment of the 96th church in the Anaheim area; and ~ that utilizing the property for ita highest and beat uae as a theater would thereby be ' protecting the inveated interests of the aurrounding busineaemen who ehould be given , equal coneideration. I Mr. Jacob Paull, 8943 Wilahire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, attorney for the Theat H er osta, as well ae the Melodyland Theatre operators, ap'peared before the Commiasion and stated that the l ease for the reataurant and cocktail lounge would not expire until 1993; that the previous o oaition a Pp h d talked about th ~ ,, e conditional use permit requested by the owner - hawever, the owner was not the church but wae contingent upon approval of ~ the conditional use permit, purchase of said property being made through the receiver in bankruptc court a d h i y ; n t at in contrast, the adjoining property owners had made large inveatmenta in thei ~ ' r properties which could not be diaposed of very easily without considerable loas. i , "4 ~' Mr, Paull further noted that Mr. Harold Grosaman was not the only person intereated in obtainin the lea f ~ ' g se o the property, but negotiations were made on obtaining leases - however the owner M ' ~~ , , r. Freedman, needed money for other husineas venturea and, therefore, decided it a w s neceasary to ae11 the Melodyland Theatre ro ert p p y, even though the lessees had eajoyed succeasful , s, ,years of operation; that the operatora of the theater and the Theater Hoats' records wa•ald reveal that both ,~ were operating at a substantial profit•, and this included the firat six months of 1969; that h l ; e cou d not underatand why the sale of the lease to Mr. Groesman or Mr. Green was not made eince they offered the i ~ same pr ce except for the fact that the atructure had to be eold to obtain the money Mr. Freedman needed and th h h ~ , e c urc aeemed to be the only one who had the money readily available. Mr. Paull then reviewed the various techniquea being uaed to break the Theater Hosta' lease a d th ~ n a actions of the referee at the bankruptcy hearing. .+kc ;~' ~ Chairman Rowland advised Mr. Paull that th~. Co~ission could not base their deCision on h " . ~. anyt ing but proper land use, and any other statements made regarding negotiationa, etc., would be conei.dered irrelevant. , - --- - --- - -- - . '` '~ ' . . ,;" ~ ~' ,. ~'' °_'.. , ~ _.. .. ~ _._~ .r~ { ~+;M ~8 ,~+~ ,p h ,. ~~.. ~ ~ ~~-= 4~~ _.-.-_.' __ ~ .._5.. ._ _ .._~.~~L / .~~.. F ~~ C~ ~ ~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 25~ 1969 4~75 -- CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Pa¢11 then noted that the bankraptcy courC °:eferee should n5t have PERMIT N0. 1129 made himself a party to posaible breach of lease' and this ahould be (Continued) considered as evidence before the Cammission aiace it would establish that tk~e present land use would atill be in effect, and the theater was built a6 a greaC potential for tax revenue, while the church, being tax exempt, would mean a considerable amonnt of tax losa to the City of Anaheim as well ae other governmental 3uriadictions while infringing on the rights of ad~oining property owners by creating a hardship through increase of taxes which could adveraely affect all businesses in tY~ie area - therefore, thia should be a coneideration before the Co~iasion as one of the findings of the conditional use permit section of the Anaheim Municipal ~ Code, which wee a requirement as a ahowing. „ Mr. Ben Soskind, Holidaq Inn; Mr. Jose Arias, Disneyland Hotel; Mr. DeLacey, Jolly Roger Inn; ~ and .Mr, Gordon Fisher, Waikiki Motel indicated Cheir preaence in oppoaition to subject petition. Mr, Chandler, in rebuttal, atated that his client was not deairous of entering into a lagr auite with the Theater Hosts since everyone recaguized their poeition; however, he cou1~1 not recall the lease of the Theater Hostsa stating that thia eetablishment could operate even though Melodyland Theatre was not in ogeratior~; that the deatl~ knell had sounded on theatere-in-the-round since formerly there were three in operation, and Melodyland wae the last one; that there was a queation as to breach of lease ea indicated by Mr. Paull aince from what he had read in the lease, if a change in zone and uae were approved, even though the cocktail lounge and reataurant were there, they would be permitted to operate ae a nonconfox~ing use granted under the original conditional use pex~i.t; and that he was aure theae problema could be worked out. Mr. Chandler further noted that purnhase of the theater by the church was not contingent upoa approval of the conditional use permit but had been purchased outright; that people who wanted to operate the theater had evesy chance and opportunity to bid for the property since it had been advertiaed a n~ber of timea ~uring the past year for use as a theater; that the property was atill advertised e+een afEer the church offer was received so that people own:ng property in the Commercial-Renreation Area could make a counter offer - hawever, na one aeemed to be intereated, and those he had contacted were~only people who he thought had the money to purchase the property; th~t the Planning Commieaion was familiar with the price of land in the Co~erc4al-Recreation Area wherein property was being sold at $4.00 per equa~e foot, and ig thia fi•gure were uaed for land alone, the eight acrea which compriae the Melodyland Theatre would be worGh $1,164,000 and $1,000,000 additional for the buildinga, ar a total of $2,264,D00, while tlue eale in bankruptcy court was for $1,125,000, or leae than half the property worth. Mr. Chandler then noted that when tha theater wae firat opened~ it wae a great auccese, and the investore were paid back - however, ihe theater wae now on 4ta last leg, and thia wae the reason the propertq wae not purchaeed for. that purgaee; that although Mr. Groasman eaid he wantad to purchase the property, he coul.d not bacguae of financial inability to do so; that he had represented the aeller for maap ~rear•~i ss an attorney, and in hia opinion, eubject property wae a depreesed parcel-even though the tax.assessor may have told the attorney for the oppoaition the appraised valuatior, i~e did not etate that a protest for tax purpoaes had been filed on the property to reduce thie valuation; and that if Mr. Paull really had a purchaser for the property, he would have come forward eince hie client had tried to get another bidder for the property. Mr. Chandler then preaented lettera from the Charter House manager a:,a the Grand Hotel manager, approving the uae of aub~ect property for church purpose~. Mr. Chandler also noted that the quotation from the California Bueinesa and Profesaional Code 23789 was taken out of context since a transfer of license or renewal of liquor license on the same property would not be affected by the cloae proximity of a church, and thon reviewed other proteats of churchea where iiquor licenaes were granted even though near a church. Mr. Chandler noted that Reverend Wilkeraon had indicated theq would not oppoae the isauance of a liquor license for properties adjoining, but not now developed, at such time ae developmant occurred and noted that hg had an agreement signed by Ravsrend Wilkeraon and the church to this effect, and if the wording wae not in accordance with the requirementa of the Co~aiasion, this could be amended. Mr. Chandler then reviewed the method which the City employed to allow varioue uses to be eetablished in the area known fozmerly as the Disneyland Area and the fact that a zone naw had been created which permitted varioue uaes by right and othera by approval of a * conditional use pnrmit; however~ a church was permitted in any zone in the City, sub~ect ~, ta the approval of a conditional use permit, and fiva findinge had to be ehawn which verified why thia uae would not be harmful if approved. Furthermor,e~ although the ' .;1 . ;r J; -- ---- ~r:, _. . A'.~ :.. ;. . , ^. . ~. i . ^?.w T ~. -~ ~ . .. , ~. ; ~ ~ .:. .~ . : ~ . . .. . ,~ t .'=. ~' - . _ , . .: . - ~y .. . 4... . t _ ~ ..1:;~':~~..~~..~.rm.. '.' 'Y~: ~ - ... _ .. ~ . ... . .. .. . ~ ~ . . Q~ . . . ~ :t ~e,~y ~1 n r'^~~" '~~y .~r~t? S •=r .^l S e) !.'Y L t J f eK: ~r'% ~` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Augtset 25n 1969 ~ 4?76 ~.~`.rc ~`,~..E`3'*.'~1~'~' ~ CONDITIONAL USE - oppoaition stated that the buainesamen oE the Commercial-Recreatioa PERMIT N0. I129 Area 3id not feel a church was compatible, chere w~re churches located (Continued) in manp cities throughout the warld in the heart of busiaeas areas, many of them being located almoat .+.pmceliately a~~ucent to bara and nightclubse Mr. Chandler also noted for the Commietaion that if tke Trinity Tower propo~sed did not meet the Cos~ission's deaires, the church uould rabide :~ith whatever the Cc~saion required of them, and then concluded that, the ~aurch had pnrehased a 10-acre pa:cel in the industrial area, but had been told this was ~r~t the proper place for a church - therefore, if they were excluded from Che indnstrial area and the Commercial-Recreation Area~ then where canld a church be located? A shawing of handa indicated well over 200 geraona present in f~.ver of aubject »e+rition. Mr. Harold Groasman, Manager of the Me~.od~land Ttieatre, appeared before the Co~iBeioni and atated hia purpose in apgearing wea on'ly tm cl.ear np a n~ber of atatements ms,de b;a Mr. Chandler: 1) that Melodyland Theatre was a iimited partnerahip; 2) Lhat t~:~y hac; never been bankrupt and were a:tways solvent~, and he would !~e the one who should :~teows and evea the last aix monthe their prQfits we.re suffic~.ent .te~ warrant purchasing i:ie major lease; 3) that to clarify 'r1r., Chardler's atatement, Mr. Grosaman an1 hia griii;f.pslrs never negotiated fqr acquiaititsn of the MelodyiLnd 'i:r_eatre property n.9.nce *_hey were dsal- ing with Meaers. Lewis and Dare re€~rding the masiEZ lease, and that they had not gonc ahead with the purchase of the property because they had had a deal in Frinciple with a haxidehake; 4) that he had received Ei telegram from the rsc~ivEi~ in bankrup;cy court in which he atated he would not allaw ur approve tha tranef~:r ~~ ssle of th~ master lease of the limited partnerahip - the~^ef~nre Mesars. Lewi.s and Dare turned to Mr. Freedman for further negotiation; 5) that the Carouael was never bankruFt and was st311 ~.olvent; and 6) that the statement made by Mr, Paull as to saie of the property to the church being contingent apon approval of a conditional use permit wae based on information fro~ a peraon whom he felt h~ could rely on for a factual report. Mre Sealy Yatesa attornep repreaenting Che shurch, pre~sented renderings to the Commibston as reqaested at the last public hearing which indir_ated the manner in which the facility would be used, type of oc~upancy, and statiatical data. Mr. Yates further noted thac tbe church would comply with whatever the Commiasion reqa•ired as to the propoaed trinity etructure. Mr. Yatea then preaented peti=ions aigned by 3,51fr peraons, 640 with Anahe3m addresPea, 2*433 out of town addre3sea, and 443 wi.thout add.reasee to the Cammisaion for the record. Mr. yates further nated he was tre actorn.ey in the purchaee of the property for Cha church, and the sale was not contingent u~~on approval of this conditional t:se pgrmit; tha~ theq had acquired the propertq. Farthermore, if L•hd Commisaion deaired, ;hey would place speciel usas in the deed reatri~tiona on eubject property. Commisaioner Camp requeated clarification of any dnad reetrictiona tor other :han the property covered by the conditional nae permi., wi;c;,weupon A~aistant City Attorney Sohn Dawson atated any restrictiona placed iii the decd rzeCr~:etions would apply to the property now under consideration in Conditional Use Permit No. 1Y~9. Commisaioner Thom noted that although he was abaent a: Che Iaet publlc hearing, he had resd the minutes and other documente aubmitted ta him by tha etaff - therEifore, he felt he was qualtfi.ed to vote on eubject petition. Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether or not the signature of the Hqatt-Charter H~use on tbe resolution of oppoeition had been made prior or after the leiter i.ndicating approval of the proposed use. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberte advised the Cammisaion that the lEtter of npproval had been eigned on Auguat 18, and the resolution was dated Auguat 21~. Mr. Roberta also noted that aeventeen lettera were received in favor of r~ibject getition, the ma~ority nF them being fram out of town; whereupon Coamiiasioner Ca~mp :equea5,ed a ahow- ing of hande indicating thoae in favor of aubject petit-ion who reaided in the Citp of Anahe:m. A majority oP thoae pr~sent indicated they wera from Anaheim. Co~iesioner Farano then inquired whett~er o.r not the statistical figurea presented bq the attorne~ as to edurational facilities wer~ for religioua inatruction and Sunday echool clasees or for regular school. -- ---..._._ _ ~_. ,,~~ - "~ ..ll .. . N ; A ..'~~s~ .. M - ~ ~ 9. # ~ ~~r''"` ~,m~~c`..._"'~,~ ~ ~ . - . , . . . _ . . . ~ ' . . ~ i~ .. ~ ~ . . .-..~...s..~~ .. '~'T `2r `t la \AS~' ~R ~ `~ I{ 1. ~~Y ~ .~ ~ ~_j r7F ?.; 5 ..s~.~r .,~~ y_ i F - .. ,.,~ : ' ___.. _ -- ~ / - , ~ (~ J ;, ~; MINUTES, CITY PLANKING COMMISSION, August 25p 196? 47:%i ``' CONDITIONAL USE •• R~ve;end Wilkerao,n advised the Comm.t,saion cfiat t~e 1rap~s~d educatioa al ?? . PERMIT N0~ 112~ ~~,~iiities wonlci be f~r Sunday acho~l ~c].asses only. (Continued) ~ 4~~:ti` F~.ARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Chairman itr,~].;s,a& !betrseted the Commission to cannaider the merits af sab~ect petition on Ia ei' ~ ' , tt use- e.n s~~tt~S~Iity in the area proposed, and atatements made by hath th~; proponente r and b •e ~ '"' ,n p p ~t:{5 aa to lease operation and other background testim~onp ahould nor, be conaidered i~ C'aeiar d1Qliberation ~! ; . , 'rIr. Rob~~es noted for the Cummission tha~ one of the waiver,s advextased was frrnn the '~' requiredl~nmmber of paxking apacts; tb~,~s was made because tt~e ataff had been in£urmed ehat th `:;~' e aeat:in,~ capacity would be incrrisEd fPOm 3,270 r~ 4ti~90:~ aea~s - th~?xefore 4here woatld , be a sbc~rtage of the required number of paxking egFt.r.,3s; -:'~ <:,~ b' Rars^~ni~ Wilkereon ~dvised. e~:n Commission that th°= e:icy¢naJ.on would not be conr,tder:d cnless ~ addit'io~nal laad was acqaiY~Bd to ta~e care af. the a3ditiana~, parking; therefore, thes er.~sting parkia wauld b d - @; e a equatrs, and they would stipulate to the seating of 3,270. The Commission thea inq~sired whe~uer mr noC any of L.e waivers r,rould be needed since ~h~~ ~ i:r.init;y ai.ructure was not considered e sign in the ss.ne light as ane nor,:.slly aeen in tiomme.rcial facilitiea. ~ Mr. Roberts noted that the waiver of t'ae atructare o~ver 75 feet was needea becauae of the H'ei.ght Standard Guideline adopted by che City Counci.l for the Cummercial-Rzcreation A;rea; tl~erefore, if the aign pe~~e reduced to 75 feet, the onlp canaideration before the Comucis- ~~ion would be the conditicnal use pezmit to permit the church, which was a requirement regardleea o€ where chureh. facilitiea were propesed in any zon$. The Crn.-rmi:~s,,:,rn then nc~tad. that the church representatives hrsd indieatpd r,hey wonld adhere to whateYtzz height the Cammiasion req~eized. Cov~iaeioLer Gauer was of the opinion that the atructuirs psoposed to be used fo.r chtrc.h gurpusea had been approved zs a building ¢ar the asaem~uly oF people - whether for a chnrch or theater purposas; that che Commercial-Recr~:ation :i•e~, was for recreation purp4aes, and t~~ wesd "racreaeion" was r~rived from the word "recreate", and some people gainpd this thn:c~p.gh attending chnrch, while ethers received theirs tfirough entertai~ent facilities - tbzerrfore, he saw no reasoa wh9 ~ ~:huruh would be detrimental to Che Ca~ercia7.-Recreation A:rea; that many people oeit cf the state did not know of Anaheiffi but did kn:,7w ~E Dianeyland, and Disneyland was estal~'liahed as a alean, family enrertainmeTt place wheira alcoholic beveragea were not sold; thaC the reataurant facilities in this area would profit from church m.embera having meals clos@ by, ~ud t:13a was a p~oven fact since he had eaten a number uf Sunday meals at a reetauraiit withi4i two blocks of the Chrietea Center Church's preaent facilitiea, wherein hz was unable to fiad a table if he did not get there »efore their church eervices were let ouC; and Lhat he could not see where the value of the adjoining propartiea woald be affected, r.er why the other theatera were torn 6~wn - therefore, he mould dislike aee~ns the existing str!teture not being uaed and become an unsightly blight in [he Commercial-Reareation Area, and in :~is eatimation~ a church was permitted in any zoi:s - therefa~re, the uae would be compatible. Ca~iasioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-175 and mav2d for ite passage and sdoption to brant Petition for Conditianal Use Ptrmit No. 1124, aubject ta a height of 75 feet for the trinity'spire, with a seating capacity for .~,270 peraons as st3pulated to by the petiti~ner~ and conditione. ;See Resoluttun Book) Prior to a vote an the rgsalution offerad, Commisaioner Farano atatad it wae his apinton that the propoaed c:~ur~h wonld not injure or deatroy the Co~ercial-Ascreation Area of Anabeim; cfi~~t cities ttrroughout the United S*_ati±s aad the world in which ue had v3aited bad aome ef. the largvtlc chr.rct~ee in their daiwntawn areas - typically thoeQ i.n Chioago, I17inoisy whicH ranked aecoac~ in tonrism to Anaheim and where a number of churchea were within a fep c,undred fe~:E of the Ruah Stree~. area lanown as the nightclub district of that city. However, apprwal of snbJect petition would aet a precedent when an applica- tion for a liquar license was made - anp oppoaition by a church would not be considered since reciprotal treatment ~bould be afforded auch applicanta because a church would be approvad adjacenC to established on-eale liquor establiehmente, and that other citiea had churcass in their downCcswn areas which were compatible to co~ercial usee and did uot harm t2:e auccess of theee establiahmants, Copr~isaictner Farano then inqutred of Reverend Wilkeraon whet height he would agree to aince he did not fenl it was neceasary to remove the trinity spire whic:z he felt was ~;, symbolic; that the height requeated wae not in keeping witii the height of etructures in the Cammercial-Recreation Araa. ' .!~ ;i r p'; ', ' I °ww -ria-i -..._ _ . /;"i ~? ", _ ~ ' _ ,: ~y~ "' b'. - S . , . ." p~~ y$ ~r~+~ --' .. ..' . _ S ~1' ua ~' . ; _ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~'~~i~~ ~~; ~ 5 ,n . ... . .. .. - . ' . . . . . . . ,. . ... , _r . .. ' . . . . . . . . _. -. . .~ . .. . . ~..... ..... . ,.. ~. :.-,.r.,,'r }~ ~ . , . . . . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,, Augnst 25, 1969 ~~~$ CONDITIONAL USE - Revtrend Wilkerson etated that one of the reasona for tha proposed PERISIT N0. 1129 height was because of the Edison power lines to the nort~; however, (Continued) they would abide by a height of 70 feet if tha Co~ission so desired. Mr,~ Broom advised the Ccmmission that the Code permitted a atructure to a height of 75 feet in the Cummercial-Recreation 2one.. Commisaioner Thom noted thac he wcruld be basing hie accion on t~e land use, public welfare, health, and safety as it affected t~e existirg uses; hoaever, cn evideace aubmicted, the proposed use would have no adverse effeot on. the existing.~xs8s - therefore, the basic question before the Commiasioa was w3etaer or not this was a proper pla~:e fer a church; Ehat he could not see where it would be improper to establish a chu:ch if the Anaheim Municipal Code permitt~d a church in any z~ane aubject td the appraval of a conditional uae permit. Commissioner Camp noted that einae tha Cammisaivn wo~xld consider land use on the,proposal, aay other data preeented wouid be irrelevant; however, on the basis of the infarmation preaented, ne coald not see how it w~a1d adverselp affect tbe adjoining land uaea, and he would have a difficult Cime ~uetifping denial of the propoaed use; that since the property had been liated oa the open market far a year and no one fram the theatrical world had displayed any interest in the bidding, the church became the succssaful bidder; and that becauae the Anaheim Municipal Cade permitted a church in any zone aub,jec"t to the approval of a cunditional use permit, it would be most difficult to deny sub~ect petition. ~';+ Commiasioner Herbet anted there wae one point which had not been brought up in the dis- '~;;:~i cussion by the Co~~~Bionr that being the fact that during the time he had served on "~:'_„T~ the Commieaion, the Ccmmissian had never approved a bar adjacent to or near a church; ;;~ that he had tried to weign that fact againat the fact that this would bring in thousands ,,;;~tel _ of peopLe who conld sugport tne facilitiea in the Commercial-Recreation Area ocher than ~„'-:~:a'~ the bars - therefore, approval of aubject petition, in his opinion, wonld be setting a ~~ precedent even though it was a worthwhile addicion to the community, and thaC it would `~;`C;*; bring in more permanenc, year-around bnsinese than if tne theater patrons were using thQ ~`~~ facility. i°~ f~ On roll call the foregcing reeolution was paeaed by the following vote: ; ~,_ ; ~ ~ ~ ~,' AYES: COr44ISSI0NERSc C•emp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland, NQES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ~~ ABSENT: COPSMISSIONERS: Allred,. ,;;:~, RECESS - Cammieaioner Farano offered a motion to recese £or ten minutes to allow time for the many pereona preaent for the previous petition to leave the Council Chamber. Commieaioner Thom aeconded the motion MOTIDN CARRIED. The meeCiag receaeed at 3;45 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairmsa R,;;wland reconvened the meeting at 3:55 P.M,, Commiseionere Allzed, tarano, and Herbet being absent. CONDITI~NAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLTC HEAR.It~~G, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, PEA?IIT NO_ 1126 DISTRICT i, P. 0~ Box 2304, Loa Angeles, California, and HOLSTEIN EIdTERFItISES, INC., i70 Esat 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California, Ownera; HOLSTEIN 'ENTERPRISES, INC.., L7Q East 17th Street, Coata Mesa, California, Ageat; reaaeeting permisaion to ESTAISLISH A PRIVATELI OPERATED PLAYGROUND PARK AND R~CREATIONAL FACILITY an prop,erty deacribed as; An irregularly ahapBd parcel of land consisting of two parcela approxima:ely 2.3 acres in size, located at the northeast ~orner o,f the Riveraide Freeway and Riverdale Avenue~, having approximately 87 feet of frontage at the weatc:rly end of Alderdale Avenue, and further deacribed as 4101 Alderdale Avenue. Property presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, and R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONES. Subject petition ~ras continued from the meeting of Julp 28, 1969, as requeated by tha petitioner. Aesietant 'Loning Supervisor Pat Brown adviaed the Planning Commission that the petiCioner had submitted a letter reqaesting continuance of aub~ect petition for an additional 90 days, or ATovember 17L 1969. Commiseioner Ga.uer offered a motion to continue coneideratien of Conditional Use PermiC No. 1I26 to the meeting of Nr~vember 11, 1969, ae requested by the petitioner. Commiseioner Thom seconded the motit~n. MOTION CARRIED. ~r~~""!i~~°'~ ~'1~*~^.~°-~' 1 ~~ .. 7 t ~ %~ ... ..., '- ' " .-: ,'. i ~.: , . :. ~ ~ ;1< , . ~. . ., . 1 ~., ~ .. ~ . _ . . ' ;' ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COM'MISSION~ Aagus*_ 25y 1969 a ~ ~-~ .~~ ~,,, >> ,,`~ ~:il 4i7c VARIANCE N0. 2I13 - PIIBL•IC HEARING, WILL•IAM AND NINA SIMPSONS, 903 So~t~ Agate 5tree*, Anaheim, California~ Ownera; JAMES HODGES, 903 So~t'~ Agate Strzet, Anaheim, CaYifcrnia, Agent; requessCing WAIVERS OF ('1) ONE-ST.ORY HEIGHT L~lITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF P.N R-A ZONE' (2) MTNIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE7WEEN R.:iILDINGS, (4) LIVING UNI~TS WItHIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD , STREET~ AND (5) ADEQUATE aCCESS FOR TRASH COI,LECTION AHD FIRE VEHICLES~ TO ERECT A 54-•UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX oa propertp descrtbed as; A rectaagularly shaped parcel of l~ad having.s frantage of approxintaC4ly 29? feet aa th2 west side of i•TebAter Street and a maximnm drtQth bf npprox3mately 299 fePtq being lccated approximately 500 feet soath of the cent~erline of Orange Svenu~, and furticer described as 639 South Webstar Street. Pmpertg preaently claseified R~A, AGRICUL7PURAL, ZUNE (reaolution of intent to R-3 pending). Assistant 2oning Snpervieor Pat firawn r~vieped tae LOCFiCi~n of s~bject praperty and uses eatablished in clase pr~cimitp, n~ting that it was gart of Reclasaifiaa*_ion No. 63-64-62(6) on which an ordinanca reading waa pen8ing t;~ racias=ify it to tha R-; 2~ne; that Variance No. 1998, to eatablieh a 43-rcnit apar~nent aomplex, was denied by t:~ Planning Commission, and that Variance No, 2020D Revisiou No. 2, ro establish a 60-unit aparCment complex, was approved bp Lhe Plann.iag Ca~ission in October of 1968 ~ howevera ae part af the Commis- sion'a action, a requeei•ed ~iv~r for inadequaxe Eize a~cess was denied; that the proposal te develop a 54-unit apart~ma,t ccmgl~x on aubject property with 54 covered and 27 opEn parking apacea was indica~adj and that this w~uld coafarm Co the newlp amended multiple- family residential aite develogment standarda fr,r parking. Mr„ Brown then reviewed the propased circulat±on whiah was a 25,foot wide, privaCe drive indicated on the northarly portion of the property and two oeher private drives into the interior of the project extandad soutberly from this drive, thE *.~esCernmoat one cu.lminat- ing in a 54••foot diameter turning radiua proposed to be loaatied on an open cou.rtyard - however, the Asaiatant Fire Chief had indicated to ataff that this interior syatem of private drivea was lese tl:aa desirable as it psrtainEd to its function of providing adequate accessibility for ftre equi.pment and peraonnel to many of the unita. Mr- Brown then reviewad ttiree af the five requested waivers, notably "b'; "c'; and "d" of the Report to the Commission and indicated that theae were technical based on paet amendments recently approved and which become eff.ective on September 19Ch; that waiver "a" might also be considered technical in that there were three two-story unita located within 150 feet of an R-A parael locaCed across the atreet from aubject property, thie being the only R-A parcel not in~luded"in, the resolution of intent to R-3 - however~ waiver "t" would be of concern'to the Planning c;ommission ainte their body had coneiatently denied requeats t~herein applicante had prop~Be~ development~. wiCa inadequate facilities for fire and trash eqaipment on the basis that euch prop,:~~als were not in the interast of the public ~ health, safEty, and general welfare; and thet although the ataf~ had had aeveral meetings ~ with the deaigner of this proposed pro,ject rugarding thia and o.her problema asaociated ' with the propoeal in w}i^h the eta£f had poiated ou~ that redesigning of the development, ' providing a peripheral drive c~mgletely araund the praparty, would offer a better circula- tion an3 mare Chan adequate accesaibility for fire and trash equipment, the deaigner had ateadfascly retained the criginal design concepCS wita a f.~w minor changes. Therefore, the Co~ieeion would have to detexmine whether the propoeal presented was ±neeting the intent of the Commisaion'e previous action and whethEr unita located immediately ad~acent to drivea wherein very little green area to relieve the bleaknesa and other nuisancea i asaociated with private drives and car.porta was the type of environment con~istent with i quality atandarda eatabliehed P~r mul~iple-family developmanCa by the Co~isaion and City ? Council. ~~,_ :?~ ~~. ::; :~ ~ ~~ ' ~.<~ ~~ :;~ ,' -.- ~ ;y, 3 r;~ `! ;~ ~ Mr. James Hodge:s, agent for the petitioner, appeared before tha Cammieaion and reviewed ~ the waivers rec~ueated, not3ng that waiver "2~c" wherein he was allowed only [wo buildinga ~ on this aite - he had tied in most of the buildings wtth a connection, and the diatance ' between the bui[ldings bad no= even been considered by him when he had developed thia ' concept since he had aesumed ~his would be acceptable; that the access propoaed was , "similar to that wtiich had been used in the past, and, cherefore, he would disagree with the statement in the Report to tbe Co~aisaion since the property could not lend itself to a peripheral drive, and Chen pasted two sEparate exh4bita on the east wall of the Council Chamber depicting ~he propoaed develapment and the development which could be placed,on subject property if a perigheral drive were reqnired, wherein he noted that the two-story portioa alang the sonth side wasld either have to be located to the north, or the peripheral drive would have to traverse ia front of theae anits, eaparattng theae units srom the main area which wss moet undesirable. Mr. Hodgea thea nated ~n tt:e sketth that if a peripheral drive wera required, this would ~ reduce the number of units from 54 to 49, anc na one wauid develop a plan auch as this elcetnh - thErefore, in aIl likelihaod the number of units would be f~rther reduced to 45; that aubterranean parking was prapoaed, and with~ut subterranean parkings only 45 unita would be developed; and that sinoe the praposed type of development had been used ~ ~~~~~ ~ : =~3~~r~ --;a ~ ark'yu~r,t ~ac~X~~ ?~ r.~l w ~u ; rd ~ l~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Augvst 25~ 1969 ~ 4'80 ....a ..,~.~i qi ~ ~ ~~.:~-:~~~ ~~ y VARIANCE N0. 2113 - before and recou~ended bp hatb the~ Eire Degartment and tl:e ataff where '' (Continued) lats which were tao narrow ta t;av~s peripheral driro~ea were permitted to `' hsve a 54-Eoot turnaround radlus wi~ain the center oP the project, :~ea the propesed development sh~uld also be givan this same considera- ~ tion. Furthermore, i£ sub~ect petitiyn were agprav~ed~ ht preposed to provide additional ` accesa both to the rear and the center tmita for fire personnel and equrpment in the event of a fire. . Mr. Hodges then took isaue w3.th the stat~enta made in tk.e Report to the Commissioa regard- ~ ing tbe desirability of Che progosed develapmezt since he had been deaigaing buildinga in ~ Ca<ifornia for twalve yeara, and taat hia plans had been analyzed bg managemeat c~nault- '' ants and developera whst were la:awledgeable in ~his field in conferencea with lendera - -~•'' all oE theae people had decided that the proposed plan was the highest and best use of the property. Therefore, with hia professinaal baekground aad with the opinions of people "~ in tha land developmen~ bustness concurring tbat th.e pr~tposed dasign of devel4pment before '~' the Commiasi~n was desirable, chis should be given axne credence as coutradictorp ~evidence against the staff'e statem~nts. Mr, Hodgee elsa nested tnat tha Report L~ the Cammiesion 3id not mention the fact that the coverage was only 47% snd th~ 3ensity wae 27 dnitr~ per acre~ both of. which were oelow the maximum permitted; that the recr~eaticn area was also considerablp more than minimum re~quiremeats sinae 16,000 aquars feest were pr~poaed campared with 10,000 minimum require- ment; that the ogen parking area was separated with sidewalks and curba inatead of the Lumper guarde, and this landsaaping treatment was better than green epacea placed indea- criminately in Che parking arta; and that if the Commission were ineistent upon having a peripheral drive~ it wae hi.a opinion t~e City would be denying the owner of this land the righC to use his prapeztp in the same manner in which his neighbora were permitted to usE taeir property ~xnder tl:e same condiCiona as subje~t property was faced - therefore, he urged approval of tne plans as aubmitted, subject to additional accer;s being provided ae suggested by the Fire Chief. The Cammisaion nated that they had driven through one of the apartment developments on Webater Street in the morning and had noted it had a peripheral drive wliich afforded better circnlation, as well as being a better deaigned development; however, in viewing the developmeat naw ~snder conatrnction, which Mr, Hodgea hr:;i designed and in which aub- terranean parking was being developed, i:here was little chance of residenta of these ~snita having ar.p privxcy becsuse t}:2 w~alkway was located immediately adjacent to the aPartmeat windowe and apartmente were acrosa from each other so that little privacy could be maintained, and converaationa could be overheard. Mr. Hodgea neted that patio feacas 6 faet in height would provide privacy; that the patios were proposed to be devei~cp~d with weather decking; that they would have a pase-through window and sliding doar so that the reaidenta cauld enjoy outdoor eating, Commiseioner Gauer noted thaC the closenesa of the units gave the effect of being abla to shake handa with ane's neighbors, to which Mr. Ho3ges disagreed, atating that con- siderable privacy was beiag prcvided, and that additianal living eavironment features were being added to the propoaed developa:ent. The Courmisaion wae of tbe opinian that a development with peripheral drives had more character and more Livable environment than where one accesa drive with a turnaround area was propoaed. Mr, Aodgea noted that tha firat developmeats built oa Webater Street were required to have ao more than 18 unite per sere; however, preaent development permitted regular R-3 density - therefore, a conaiderable nmaunt of wasted Land formerly left over becauee of the coverage limitatioa was now bainK utilized. Mr. Otis ,T. Burris, 624 Soath Webeter Street, appaared before the Commisaion in oppositioa~ atating Hie property was approximately 100 feet Co ;he northeast of aubfect property, and the slidea presented did nat show the east side of Webater Street where a number of very attractive, single-family homea ranging ia value from $28,000 to $45~000 had been developed for aeveral yeare; tt-et ~He propaaed two-strory apar:~ent development with eubterranean parking would be detrimental to thair living environment, ae well ae reducing the value of their propertq; and that he was apeaking also far all of the neighbore in the R-1 developueat i~ediately to tha northeaet. THE HE.ARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner Rowland noted that ana of the prablems which the developar of aubject property was faced with was the fact tl~at the developer or the deaigner w~s interpreting the Code tao litezally -even tkough tha Cvde germitted a~~~ of 36 unita per acra, thie gener.ally was true throaghout the co~nunity, but in isolar,ed parcela [his particular ' ~ ~ ~ y:, ~ ~* . ,. ~ _..._ ..~ . . . ~ . . ~ MINZiTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSIONa August 25a 196~ ~~~ ~ } ;~~ 4~J `, 1 'ti3 ;,^ry,, s~./ r 47E31 ~ VARIANCE N0. 2113 - formula for deasitp and cac~rerage was n~r: necessaril~ true; that he ~`°'~ (Continued) wonld aoncur that t;he staff r~spe~r~ was verp definita and stroagly worded K howEVera this ca~ld be Carrected by tte previoa.s stat~:ment "`^" regarding interpretation; and that the h~ghe~st and best uae of ttie propzriy never entered into the Commisaion's delib~ratian - this was onlp a real estate econamic term. However, the site develapmenC s:andarda as expresaed bp the communiCy in ,~!:~;~ the adoptioa of the General Plaa was a criteria under w~ich Lhe Cmmn3.C~aisn reviewed plans; and that the statemeat made by Mx, Hodges that development oP aubjeeh, ~ntvperty was nat y economically ieasible unlesa a~.nim~ of 54 uni~s was permt.t"ted and Zhe circulatioa cnt ~>"'~ down was in all likelihomd correct. However, confarmance witn adequate circulation was ~ ~, important, and it was noted thn: a n•xmber oE units wculd be lost; that from his personal ~~~' viewpoint, he did not feel suY,_ect propercy conld be develaged wi~hin the framework of ~'!^ the ordinance at the densitp w~tich Mr. Hadges thmught :.t ceuld be dev~loped. '~'~'' >,~~ Co~nissioner Camp inqreired what were the latest ce~nnents from the Fire Department regard- ~^r ing accesa to aubject property? 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Co~niesion that he, Mr. Brown and Mr. Hodges had a conference last Friday regarding subjact pe~ition with the Assistant Fire Chief, and it was Asststant F3re Chief Heying's expressed feeling that thig was not the moat desirable aituat~,on for the Fire D~paztzeent and t~eir equipment to enter sub,ject prop~rty in response to a fire, He did indicate, however, that if the Commission felt this was a proper means of develoging the property, additioaal pedeatrian walkways between the units, together with hoses and equipment to some unita not presently served, would be desirable. Ca~amiasionerc Rowland noted that, to hia knowledge, the Fire Department had never accepted the propoaed type of development, and on other develapmence in which he was concerned the Fire DeparLment had "shat holea" into aubatantial pragrars because betier airculation was desired. Mr. Roberts noted ~hat this w~as ene of tne reasons why Caief Heytng did not feel this was an ideal situati~n. Commieaioner Rowland then noted that accese through the upper buildinga with the addi- tions proposed by Mr. Hodges wonld give accesa ta two additional unita; however, it would not take care of all thi. units in this propoged development. Mr. Roberta noted tha~ in order to provide fire fighting aervt.ce to other unita~ the patio fences would be knocked down to gain entrance. Cou~issioner Rowland furtnar noted that he cauld think of several instances in the last year wherein the Co~niseion had not apgroved a petition or development ae propoaed; that aeveral of the varisnces requeated were tachnical in nature, namely, the location of acceasary buildings, living unita located within 200 feet of a standard etreet; and that the one-etory height waiver within 150 feet of an R-A 2one could also be aonaidered technical aince a reeolutien of intent to reclaeai.Ey to :he R-3 2one wae pending on said R-A parcel. Mr. Roberta noCed that waivera "2~~~b" and "2-d" would not be needed after September 19, when the amendments to the site development stan~ards of the R-3 Zone would be in effect, and that on a previous variance approved in part by tha Colemisaion, a similar waiver requested as to adequaCe acceas and circulatian far trash aad fire vehiclea had been denied bq the Com:oiesian. a .,,,~ Chairman Rowland then noted that che request before zhe Commisaion was the same as before, thaC being inadequate c:rculation, and if the Fire Chief felt the change auggeated by Mr. Hodges would be adequate, then he should be preaent at the public hearing to obaerve what the Co~iasion was faced wirh, i Mr. Roberts nated that the Fire Chief said he did not consider this propoeal adeqaate, ~ but if the Commiesion felt this was adequate, then he would requeat tha_ additional ~ openinga be required as he had suggeated. i Co~uisaioner Camp noted that he would not like to see development of the property in accordance with the plot plan illustrated by Mr. Hodges with a peripheral drive; however, ~ he felt the plan of development ehauld provide far adequate circulation for fire equip- ~ meut - otherwise, he could no: vute favorably for aubject peti.tion, j Mr, Aodges adviaed the Cc~miasion Lhat a eizc to eight-wEek continuance would create a hardship on the petitionera; th-at ne felt in deaigning the propoaed development that ha ; was folloaiag Lha rules for a Taorthwhile development; that by sitting down wiCh the Fire Chief aad reviewing these planay thereby eliminating aome of the points ef content:-.~n, sub~ect petition cauld be approved subject to *_his be3ng done. ~ ~ ~ y4 %'~ x / :~" 4 _ ~_....~ . "'___ .'. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, aaguat 25~ 1969 4~82 VA2IANCE NO> 2113 - Chaixanan Rawland advi.sed Mr. Hodges tfiat it would not be within the (Continued) prcviace of tne Commission to grant a variance subjecc trs forcing a depa~~tment head Co make final decisians, and it was within the juriedictioa uf the Commissi~~n onlp taat plaas with adeqaate circ~- lation be approved. Commisaioaer Thom offered a motion to approve Petiti~n far Variance No, 2113, in part, denying waiver 2-e , adequate access and circulation for traeh aad fire vehicles, and aubject to condiiions, After ,furLhez dieaasaion by the Commiasionn Co~iasionez Tham withdrew his offer of approval. Chairman Rowland aoted that the Cammiasion had of£ered the design~r an opport;tnity [o redraw the plaas and pzesent them be#ore the Commission. at a later hearing aad inquired how soon tb.e plaas wusuld be needrd by the atafi if sub,jact petitioa wera continued only two weeks. Mr. Roberts adviaed the Co~ission that revised glane would be needed in the department by Wednesdap in order that th~ staff could analyze them prior to the Interdepartmental Cou~ittee meet±ng which wag beiag held on Thuraday, due to a holiday, aad if the plans were received on Frfdays the sGaff would not have time for thia review since the Inter- departmenCal Committee meetiag would have been held. Mr. Hodges advieed the Co~iasion that he wonld have the plans available for review by the staff on Wednesday, Commiasioner Thom offerad a motion to reepen the hearing and canti.zue Petition for Variance No. 2113 to the meeting of Septembe~ 8, 1969, in arder to allaw time for the aubmisaion of revised plana~ in.d3cating proper circulation for fire and trash vehicles. Coa~isaioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION ~4RRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2114 - PUBLIC HEARING, LYNN V, E~ANS, 2401 Via Marina, Newport Beach, Califomia, Owner; MAX MICHIELSEN, 9380 Larkspur, Westmiaster, Ca2ifornia, Agent; reqaesting WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS TO ESTABL~'.SH A R~TAiL PIE SHOP WITH A RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly ahated parcel of property located at the southeast corner of Eucbid,Street and Cataipa Drive, said parael having approximate frontages of 78 feet on ~clid SCre~t, and 175 feet on Catalpa Drive. Praperty pres~ntly clasaified C-1, GENERAL COI~IlSERCI,~L~ 20NE. ?r assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, usea G': estabLRahed in c2ose proximity, previo~s zoning ac[ion, and the proposal to establish `' ` a combination reetaurant and r~taii pie ealea facilit o~i sub ect `~ Y ~ property, having a square footage of 19024 aquare :feet of retail area and 2,151 aquare feet for the a reataurant area, requiring a ic,tal of 22 parking atalls wheretae only 17 had beer. ~~ propoaed on the plaa; that while the uees propoeed were appropriate to the area, the ~~ Commission would have to conieider the propoaed request to per.mit only 17 parking atalls, ' ~ ahort of the aumber which wuuld :;~ r2qu,red by Code; that Che applicant was questioned ~'t by ataff as to whether additionai v~a~~2rt f p p Q ;~ ,? y or ~hie ro oaed use could be ac uired from 4 the main parcel ao as to provide aa~~'Y.ilonal pariii~gy and he had indicsted that the ~~ owner of the p.raperty did not wieh ~ glve additionai 2sa.'. for thie uae, and, therefore, , due to the aize of this facility and ,':~.~e fact almoet txo-thirda of it was to be utiliaed t ' for restaurant purposes, a garking dat;`i~:it reaulted - thus the Co~isaion might wish to ` ~ queation the applicant ae to whq addl.2•io,aal vacant C-1 property to the east could not ,;~,,.;,;<'y;,~~' be acquired for the proposed uae so ~as t;~ have parking meet Code requirementa since it ,;~ appeared that the proposed develormeai, w.as overbailding the aite. si Mr. Max Michielsen, agenL for th~e petiCioner, eppeared before the Cammisaion and noted that the proposed use of subject ~raperty was geared t~ retail sale of piea, and the eecondary operation would be for restaurant purpoeea; that the oaly waiver being requeated was for parking; tbat ~hey rgalized the parking was short, but Code requirementa for rezail eales were lees than restanra~.~t uee of the property; that approximately two-thirds of the actual buildin.~ area wouid t.e needed for the pie eales aad preparation of the pies which were baked on the premiaes; triat in diacusaion with the staff regarding the park- ing rstio for retail sales, it was his feeling that since this propoaed nse would be geared to retail ealea, the reverse calculation for required parking should be made; that parking was not available in t};e setback arEe, thua two additiunal parking apacea would be last; and that in the past they had developed a~number of sitea ae proposed througbout Southarn California with parking far leas than being proposed, and no shortage of parking had beea experienced. ~~ a tFb ~~ :~ ~~ ti :`~ ~~ ~tis r., . - .: - - y- .-':i.t Y r 7e -a' 4 s„ .. ..~~ i; ~ ~- t ~ ~ ~ ~ p'1 , j L~% ~ MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 25~ 1969 ~ 4783 VARL9NCE NO,. 2114 - The Co~misaion inquired as to the tyge of m~nu propastsd in addition " (Continued to : ,. ) he sale of pi~ and coffee; whereupon Mr. Michielaen s[ated that ';....~• roast beef sandwiches, salads, and similar type faod would be served ,~, and woald not consiat of the regular tppe menu usually experienced ' ~ in reatauranta. ,~::~:; '~ ~ No one a eared in o ,~~ ,,, PP pposition to sub~ect petition. NJ,'~ ;;;;"i?;.:~- , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. r+~ Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed the Commission that Conditiua No. 1, requiring payment '= of fees for trees, was unneoessary since this fee had been paid under an old tract. ,'~~~.~ ~. ,:;,;;..1; Commissioner Camp inq~ired what percentage of the facility would be devoted to the "-<"'~4. reataurant a.nd kitchen faailit3ea? `:~:i Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commisaioa that when the Zoning Representa- ~~ -~ tive had reviewed the plana of development with the petitioner, the figures presented in rt the Report to the Cammiasion had bean uoted b the figures were revarsed, giving more square footage toPthe~pieeretail facilicyughanhto the $. ,~= restaurant, a minimum of 19 spaces would be required. i~;, The Co~isaion then inquired of the agent how many employees would be on the premises; whereupon Mr. Michielsen atated there would be three to four employeea, which included ~- the manager, and it was not kncwn what type of business they might expect to receive - ~ ~ however; the u;anager and the waitress were also responsible for the sale of pies. ,, ' Commisaioner Camp noted t6at although the shortage of five parking apaces did not seem ~a ;; too much in calculating percentages, this would mean a deviation of more [han 22%, and ~'F '; applying the same waiver ta lar er facilities this could mean a shortage of 25 - -z„ r, 8 ~ ,~ therefore, appraval o£ subject petitinn would be aetting an undesirable precedent for ~k similar requests for commercial retail and restaurant operationa~ l~~ j7 ~ d The Commission then inquired what comparison could be made with the proposed uae and ~~ ~ the Carl's Jr. walk-up reataurant. d): ~ ~`u ~ Mr. Roberts advieed the Con¢oisaion that the initial requirement for a walk-up restaurant ~ 4~ was 10 spaces, piua one additional space per 100 square fee[, or 20 spaces on 1,000 square feet; however, w4ere ir,dooz seating was proposed, only 8 parking apacea per 1,000 rn ~, u. :! was used. Co~issioner Camp o~ffered Reaolution No. PC69-176 and moved for its paesage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2114 on the basie that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstaaces or conditiana applicable to the property involved or to the intended uae that did not generally apply to other classee of use in the eame vicinity and zone; that the requesced variance wae not neceseary for the preaervation and enjoy- ment of a aubat.antial property right posaeased by other pxopertiea in the same vicinity and zone and denied subject propertp; that the approval of eubject petition would estab- lish an undeeirable precedent by permitting a waiver of more than 22% of the required parking, and although a loas of five apaces did not aeem exceaeive or significant, if each commercial operation were permitted a aimilar reduction~ a grave parking problem would reault; and that adequate parking could be provided on the aite - however, the property owner was not deairous of relinquishing additional Iand for off-street parking. (See Resolution Bouk) On roll call the foregoing re~solution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Camps Gauer, Thom, Rowiand. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, ~arano, Herbst. VARIANCE N0. 2116 - PUBLIC HEARING. DUYLE HILL aND DELMAR JACKSON, P. 0. Box 3045, Anahein~, Califo mia, Owners; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED USES IN THE M-1 20NE, (2) 50-FOOT FRONT SETBACK ON BROADWAY, AND `(3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS, TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land cansisting of two lots situated on the norch side of Broadway, approximately 170 feet east of the centerl3ne of Loara Street, said parcel having an approximate frontage of 490 feet on Broadway and a maximum deprh of approximately 150 feet. Proparty presently clasaiffed M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~.~ ~~..:~'..;:, r: a~ L i ~ ..~; ~ . 4'~. r ~;' ,~ -. i:. ~.4 , ~ r- w~i ro .~.P~"~,~,~.'L.C+~} ~'~ &:: f~ ~ ~'~~+r~'+~w~* ~z^ t ~ '7 p~ s .a ~e~ a ^c r~.. ^i ~ ... z ,' t 1 :_:~, F. }.,,"'~. C~ c~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLAN~IING COMMISSION, Atguat 25~ 1969 4784 VARIANCE N0. 2116 - Aasistant Zcning Supervieor Pat BxYs~wa xeviewed the location. of (Continued) snbjeat propert}*, uses established in close proximity, and the prop_~sal aubmitted wttich indicated the petiaioners plan to construct a total of three indu~trial type struc*_ures on subject property, and these would be in addition to an exieting induetrial stxvctnre preaently located in the eastern portion of the gropercy; that the existing atructure was developed with the required 50-foot, M-1 strnctural setback from aa arterial highway - hoc~*ever, the three propoaed structures were indicated to h~ve a setback of 10 feet; that the petitioners had indicated to ataff that they had filed aubject patition to obtaiCn approva]. for utilizing all these st-uctures for botla commercial and industrial purpases - however, retail or aervice commercZai usee in an ind~atrial zone would be permitted ~niy wherein such uses were alearly incidentel ta a primary, permitted industrial use and where the producta to be retailed were prodncad on the premisea or whare there was a planned, uaified industriaT aervice c~mplex wh~re the retail and serv3,ce ac:ivities were deaigned primarily to aerve commerce and industry, with only incidental aervice to the general public; and that in this particular cas~, full retail sales or services to the general public as a primarq use had bEen corte~plated. Mr. Brown then noted that aince Cae petitir,ners had not indicated what percentages of the total floor area woald be utilized for industrial or commercial purpoaes, it had been difficult for staff to arrive at a tatal requlred parking for the proposed develop- meat, and based on the assumption by staff that Che parking reqnirementa would be on a ~0-50 split, 18=000 square feet far manufacturing epace would require 36 apacea, while 18,000 square feet for retail and service commercial uses would require 90 apaces - or a total of 126 spacea, wheresa oaly 87 spacea had been indicated on the plansa Mr. Browa, in reviewing the evali;ation of the Report to the Commission, noted that the petitioners' request for the m=x_v3 :ises was based on tae fact that Broadway acCed as a dividing line between existing M-1 zoned property to the north and R-A zoned prapertiea to the south, while Leara Street also acted as a somewhat similar dividing line between the elementary school and ttae anartment complexes to the west; that the petitionera had indicated to staff zhaC they were desirous of developing a complex similar in nature to the Central Park Industrial diatr±ct located to the aoutheast - however, Conditional Use Permit No. 437 had granted commercial uses for that industrial tract, and these had been clearly delineated and apecified in the approval of :he conditional uae permit, whereas th~, petitionera were, in effect, requesting the privilege of having the full range of C-1, C-2, and C-3 usas; [hst while variances cr cenditional use permits had been granted permitting limited reCail or service cammercial uaes within the industrial zones ~hrough- out the City, auch permits had bean specific in nature, and the only exceptiona to this policy had been where anch uses existed prier to annexation to the City of Anaheim - therefore, the Plaaning Commi.ssion may wish to consider the applicanta' request for permisaion to conduct aIl saea requiring a conditional uae permit in the M-1 Zone, and with this exceptiona113 broad request, even all M-2 uses could be permitted. It was further noted, in tne opinion of the City Attorney, that the requeat would be more appropriately handled by meana of a rezaning petitian which would clearly delineate areas wherein either c~~arcial or industrial uaes could exiet, rather than permitting the full scope of both zanea on the same pi,ete of property. Furthermore, conaideration might also be given to the request for a 10-foot structural aetback aince the 50-foot structural setback had been required in the induetrial zone and had been strongly adhered to throughout a11 the industrial areas - therefore, posaible parking problems could ariae if thia mixture of aeea, ae requested, were approved. Mr. Doyle Hill~ one of the pecitionere, appeared before the Commission and noted they had purchased aubject property several years ago and since thac purchase had built one building on the apecific basis of putting it up for lease; that they had had a number of inquiriea about leasing - however, 90% af the uses propoaed did not fall wichin the permitCed uses in the M-1 Zone but were a combination ~f commercial-manufacturing use; that he had presented a liet of these uaes to the ataff for review; that 50% of theae usea were already established in adjacent buildinga, as well se in tha Central Park Industrial development; that eame may have existed under a conditional uae permit or variance as a nonconforming uae; that the previoua month he had had a prospective tenant for a furniture busineas in whic:h the majority of the uae of the property would have been for repair of furniture, which would then be resold; that he had not applied for a conditional use permiC but had stt.empted to handle this administratively - however, had been turned down by the ataff; thaL he had diacusaed this praposal with a number o' people within the City and had been informed that the beat possible procedure was to apply for a conditional ase permit similar to that which had been approved in the Central Park Induetrial area; that aubjezt pecition was then filed with the aseumption that there would be no problem since similar waivera had been granted before - however, he was unaware of the fact tnat the waiver of the 50-f~ot aetback rad been denied in 1960; that aome of the findings presented in the Report to Commission ahould have been preaented to them at the time they filed the petition and could have been resolved at that time; that he had been in the business for twenty-five yeara, and the [ype of tenant they :itf :z ;t~s~.-i. , ~~ « - -~^ s ^z.. _ ,_ ~f~~"~5 ~ % a ~:~~~ 'W '~,' fi l .,;c t i ~ . . r ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION' August 25' 1968 _. q-g~ r*. ~ : } VARIANCE N0. 2116 - planned for thie facilitg woald require less garking tfian tha: '. (Coatinued) indicated by the staff; that t~ey had had a requea* £or a 3rum ;' brake aufsply and repair facility cwvering 16,000 square feet, and r~ F, mast of tBe pr~posed teaanis wo~sld 'be usiag t~r~ir buildings far ~~, ti, .;r warehouaiag purposes; Ch~t the prmapective ienaat fo•r furniture regair had only two ~~ ~: employeea and woald never have mare than one customer at a tf.me; t~at f~ was hcped to ,:` lease the building, and if ~nadequate parkiag could reeuit~ full leasing of the building ~;? would not then be allowed; that two apaces per 1D000 faet was adequatE for the purposes k of leasea of their butldings; that he had made furCher atudiea on det~rmining vhere he -~~,,.;, would obtaia additional parking~ ard it seeued t~e only wap wauld be t~ reduce tha aize ~' of the building by 20 feet td prcride for eaid nfE~street paz•king; that nowhere in their request had th~y indicated full C-I~ C~~2n ar C~3 useas nor had th~y reqnested M-2 uaea; ~ q,; that he was nat falls awar.e of Ca~de requix•emauta •• :'r.erefbrea he eould n~t speak with :; knowledge as tu the differ~nc~s, Mra Hill thea aoted t~at manv of his prospea~~v~e~ lesaeea were peopi.e whm~ were driving along Broadway and requeeLed ta l~aae the building beca•.~ e o£ ita expoaure, and other eities had commeroial-manufacturing ;ssea on their main erreete, aud many tenantn had been. lcst becsnse theae p~ople cmuld ap2ra.e witain the countyn and tz~y w~re not desirouB of waiting s;.xty da~s up~n th.e filing of a conditianal nse p~rmit to determine whether or not Cney wa;:Id ba pErmitted in the City of Anaheim; and then, in reagonse to Commiasion queatiuning, atated that t1e requeat far tAe reda~tion uf the b~tlding set- back was needed beaauae th~ depth o£ _he lots was anlp 150 feet~ and since 10 feet of the aetback was required t~ ta Eullr plsnted~ thia wonld require all parking and loading and unloading in tha froaL= whereas t~ey ha~ had requeats for temporaxy atorage in the rear~ s~ch as a glasa company unloading their inventary wnich conld not be etorad the same day as unloaded, and by vuviug t~e lcsading and unlogding and parking ta the rear of tha building~ thta would preaeat a more eathetic appearanca without any break in the landacaping with asg~alt 3n tne front, and parking wae more deairable to the rear rather thaa parking as was uaually desirable in regular retail uaea; and thak thep had a similar operation in the City of Fullerton wherein adequate parking wae provided since the uaual re~sil uses were not eimilar to general retail as indicated bp the staff. Mr. Rex Caone, owner of the Rex Constn:etion Cempanyg appeared before tbe Commissionr noting that he was present wiCh Mr. Jamea Fant, owner of the propertq at the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street; that he had very littla to say regarding the permitted usea ~ however, he was deairous o£ expresaing his opinion regarding the 50-foot front setback and the minim~nn aumber of parking stalls, and he was in auppurt of tbe requeat by th~ petition~ra. Mr. Coona furth~r noCed that lin-Brook Hardware had purchased the property at the northeaet corner of Loara and Broadway from t'he YMCA laet November; that they had apent coasiderable time in tryiag to design a warehousing development for tha7: rorner that they could live with ecoacmically - however, because of tte 150~foot dep~h with a 50-foot aetback taken away, thia would leave only 100 feet for development of the propercy with a atructure~ and it wae virtually impoasible to deaign a building far eucli a depth which wo~ld have aace8e to Che rear of the bniiding; that from an economiC etandpoint, the 10-foot bnilding eetback with all park3ng, loading, and unloading facili- tiea ta the rear of the etn:cture, wonid be much more eathetiaally desirable with full landacaping to the front of the building, r,emoving the lees deairable sepects of parking and unloadiag ia thc front eetback~ and deaigaing an attractive entrance which would be more functional ead reaol~e many of the probleme for developing the remainder of the M-1 property on Broadway. F~rzhermore, L•he requirementa of the parking in the induatrial area could not be uniformly aFplicable to the uses aince all businesses had different parking requirEmenta, ,and becauae of the aetback and size of the buildinga, these tuild- ings Aould be limited to the ueea based on garking reqnirementa, Mr. Jamee Fant, 8252 Briarland Drive, Huatington Beach, apptared before the Co~aiesion,. noting that he wae an employse of Lin-Broak Aardware; that the parcel of land adjacent to anbject progerty was held in truet for i~Ire. Marks; aad that he could add ver} little more to rfr. Co~ne' c+rsmenta on the propesed requeet other tnan he had no oppasition to the propoaed development and urged approval ef same. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED., Chairman Rawland aseured the petitieaers that the many findinga in the Report to the Commisaioa were not becauee tha ataff had "doubled crose~d" him; however, becauae he had requestad all commerCial usea in aubject petition, thia antematically coald include M-2 uaes, and nnder Code requiremente tnere was no procedure or method by wnich both could be approved aa requestsd, F ;tU~ *'~ ~ ~~ ~ ;~;i rii ',3 The Commiaeion then inquired whetner or nc~ the etaff had the liet oE reco~eaded ueea for subject propertyy and afcer a aearch bp Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberta, it wae iadicated thta wae ooC in tha file. ~~« . - ~.. r .;, :~:r ,~' n~^rr ~ sa_:~ r~s, ~ ~ ~: A' MINZ1TESy Cb~!'H PLANN1:a1G C'ODQIISSION, .A~gust 25' 1969 ~ ~ 4785 !L.,-; VARdANCE ~Ia, 21~.6 - kir, gill chen ~advised the Cva~isai~a t*.gt t;,s lis: ~;ad beea aubmitted ,~,;:,; (Cont~.aued) f~r rev3ew at tY~e time oE filing of snbje:t getiri~n; howevar, it was '` " n~at f41ed ae doaumeatary evidence c~ ~he uses requested since they .~,,,,.`, wese deeiraua of nct beiag limited cd t:,,eae uses, r"°~-- Commiss~onser Gauer iwas~ of the o inioa ihat the reqass~ed 7ca3ve~ di the 50~faot building ~' aetback wn~ld ;mot b.3rne ~t~e agl j iui;:g land uses aince t}aere zaere ver,y few par~els left `~~;, to de~lop betwees~ the str~ctnre already bv31t with t~e 50-,out sei~aak and Loar-a Street. ;.,• -` Commiss~pner Caaap noted t'hat aloag tha same line as C~mis~ioner Gauer was ~peak3.ng, it ,,~% wou7~g ~seeta mos4 spgzopriate tm p~zm~.g a 10-foot9 fnlly la~ndvcaped strip ad jacan~ to the atrue~ure rath~er than having a Blacktopped, 40-frsat spaa 'batween said laadsoaping and the bu3lding5 thus eff$ctivelp lu~_.ag the eathetics of t~.e laad'scaping; that fz~.past -~~`:}''xl~' exger~ences of the Cormrtisai~n and £`r~m atatements mad.r~ bq Mr. Hill as tu the usas pro- °~. ~~ posed in this area, the uses wnuld ba a ligntsr ca~maercisl use than normall y experiea~ced in eoamieraial artas sn~ cuuld be c~nsidered an. iacideatal use to the 3nduatri~lpnse, ~~ elthough not ne~aesaxily sales being £rr,m prodacts produced on the gremises; t~at he ,~.' agreed with swateaenzs made by C~s.ir:aan RowYaad that the reqaes"t was a probiem aince ~. . the Anaheim Muniaipal Ceae zvae somewhat specifla in w~at cauld be permitted ~ however, ' he wae na*_ deeir.aus oi approving csrtts olanc co~muercial ~xae6 on sub~ect property, even `~~~ `~ though ttte inteat of t~e petitiont~rs kad be~en t.ndicatgd as being basicelly industrial. Mr. Rcberts nated for the C,^a~i.esic~n Caet one pdint wi~.c~ the petitioners had brought up was the fact tnat they w~re ttest aware of the tqp~s of ~sses permitted in theae commer- ~ cial zones, aad t}~s staff was una`nle tn calcalate th~ re ,:ired number of 9` parking based 'j oa data aubmitied by *tz, A3118 c~v-bining h.~ta the ca~nercial and indnstrial uses; that ~ if only t~e indcxbirial uses were pr;tgoaed, 72 parking spsces would be required - there~ ~ fore, Che assy-mptinn rcade b~ ti!e xts.ff was anYq to give smae idea of whst the combined usea wasld requize as te per.king. ;~c : •.~;~ ,° ~? Co~isaioner Gauer ttien inqaired w:~;~ development of the property c~luld not be within ~/,:`..,,T< the M-1 Zons, and if any r:rte were prapassd tuat was uc: normaliy permittad, a cenditional , nse permit could be filed, and it might ba detexmined that some oE the uees in the ,~, combined cem.mercial•~industrisl propoaed might be lighter than the HI-1 usea permitted in y,~r,,,_ the zoae; that the induatrial bnildings ware only shells with movable partitions which ~ could be moved, expanding or reduoing the size af each industry; aad thst t?ie l~ssee ~~:,,,,.,;` could then deveiop in anq manner he desired. ~; ..,Y: t Mr. Coon9 notEd it~r the Co~misaion that moat in3uetrial bnildinga were ahells; hovever, .;x:; ~ ehe Code did nat permit general sales in the M-1 Zcne. K> ~ Diacusaion was tf,en held bp the Cammisaion as to incidental salea in the M-1 Zone where '' properties were located aloag major arterials - this might be coneidered more appropri3te ~ than having sales 4n t~ aenter of an induetrial complex; that the auccees of any busi- nesa, whether indueCrial or coxmeraial, wo~ld be contingent upon providing adequate < parking - therefores it might be goseible to conetruct two of the atructures and lease them to determine whetner or not additienal parking wculd be needad of the third parcel. Mr. Roberta, in reaponse to Commiasion questioning, noted there would be a potential problem if the ataff wer~e to adminiete; previding adequate parkiag eince plana could be r , aubmitted for approval aad. all atrucCUres developed - however, upon leasing to the `~ mixture of usea~ the ehertaga wauid thtn occur wherein the first two buiidinga migbt ~ utilize ell the parking prcpaeed for all th~e buildinge, thereby eliminating any possi- ~ bility af utiliziag the last buildiag, ~~-':::".._ ~ . The Commission then noted that even if all three buildinge were constructed at one time and leaeed in incrtments, the oniy manner in which the balance of the building co~ld be nsed would be fox warehcsusing pargo~ea, and tne ataf£ conld make a constant check at the time a businesa licenee wae requeeted -- Yhis coaetant check would prohibit the poseibility o£ creatiag a harda~ip by haviag inadequate parking for one building. Mr. Roberta then noted that even thaugh the parking could be something that would be adminiatered, tkere was still ona unanswere~i question, that being whether or not co~er- cial usea would be p~rmitted i.n t~ese buildings. The Commiesinn then detexmiaed that they w.^nld not vote carte blanc far co~ercial- industrial usea on aub~ect proeertp; hcswever, if any apecific uaea were groposed, thea a canditional uea permit canld be filedr aad this waa based on the fact that other requesta had baEa ~ade on an individual basis - therefora, granting a carte blanc far commercial~industrisl usea of sub~ect pmperCy•would be granting a privilege not sfforded other industrisl prcpartiea. ;~ s a Y ~ f ~ ; I ~ ~ ~ r ; ~ ..~, a ~ ~ - 3.: ,~ - -. . _ ; ;~ _ , ~ ~ , ~ t:~ t,~ MINUTES, CITl' PLANNING COrL*1ISSIAN~ August 25~ 1969 ~,~87 VARIANCE N0. 2116 - Co~iseioner Camp noted that he would like ta praaeed one atsp (Continued) further aince the City had beea facing th;s probfem increagingly along maim t~aronghfares and s•equested that some stady be made to determi.ne whir,h specific uses would b~ pax~m:.[~ed and allow che Ctty to maintain contral of t~ese uses on a p?~y33ca1 basis ~ th~refore, t~is might be a pro~ect which the eLaff cauld give further atudy ta for fut•sra consideration by the Coamission, • Mr, Aill then advised the Co~i~safon that if tte waiver of the 50~faat building aetback were permitted, they would build witfiin the confines cf th~ M-1 Zoae; however, it was his opinioa that further etudy ~hould be made to det8rmine whether or not the City nee@ed a co~ercial~manufacturing zoae since the commerciat-manafacturiag zone did nat require any more parking than Che indus~rial zane itseif. Co~issioner Camp offered Resolutian Nc. PC69-177 and moved for its passag~ and adoption to Srant PeCition far Varian:.a No. 2116 ia part, permitt~ng a 10-foot building setback from $roadway and denying tt~ xequEet for permitted uaes in the M-1 Zone and the minimum number of requ3red parkiag stalls, and subject to aunditions. (See Reaolution Book) Prior to roll call, Mr. Dyqle reqaested that he be heard again and atated he would prefer that tHe waivers fox• the pezm£tted nsea in th~ M-1 Zcrne and the required parking stalls not be denied; tkbt he wmuld prefer to xaithdraw t~e requests from subject petition and develop in accordance ~ith Che requiremante of the M-1 2ane, Co~iasioner Ca:ap ti!en amen$ed Y~is resolution to indicake that the petitioner had ~withdrawn waiv~ra for the ~ermi.tCed uses in the M-1 Zone and tke minimum number of reqnired parking aCalls, stipuiating to developmene in acco.rdance with the site devel- opment etanaa~a~ of t~e M-1 Z~ner except that a 10-fo~t building setback would be grovided inatead of th~s 50~fc~t setback. On rall call ~he fcregoing rasolution was paesed l~}~ the following vote: AYES: C0.'~lISSIONE"itS: Camp, Ga;:Er, Thom, Rorland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; Nr~ea, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Farano, Herbst. (See page 4789, paragraph ~, in Variance No. 2112) _ ,~, VARIANCE N0. 2112 - YUB:.IG !iEARING, Pc~OF1T SH9RING PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF BRYAN INDUSTRIAI. PROPERTIES, INC., 146 East Orangethorpe Av~nue, Anaheim, California, Ownez; R. S, HOYT, JR., TRUSTEE, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, Califernia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WHOLESALE- RETAIL AUTO PARTS STORE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK on .property described ae: A rectangularly snaped par~el of land lacated an the we~at aide of State College Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately 83 fee* and a depth of approximately 150 feet, aubject property being apprcximately la0 feet north of the centerline of Via Burton Street, and farther described ae 1515 North State College Boulevard. Property presently clasaified M-1! LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE. Aseiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Browa reviewed the lecation of aub,jecc property, usea ` ~ established in cloae preximity, and the Report to the Coa~isaion, noting that aubject ,. Y groperty had been reclasaified tc the M-1 Zone in January, 1956; that plans aubmittad by the petitioner indicated a praposal to estabtiah a wholesale-retail auto parte '' facility on aubject praperty in a 4,930-aquara foot building; chat an analysis of these r ~ plans indicated thaC 3,200 aquare feet of the structure would be directly related to ,, the sales-showroom area whlck wou13 requirE 16 parking epacea, and the balance of ~, 1,70A feet wouid be devoted to warehoesing atorage, requiring 2 spac~s, or a total of ~,.u 18 spacee, and 19 garking atalls were propoaed; that the main structure wae to be ~., locat,e~d onlq l0 feeC fr~m the bighway righta-of-way line of State College Boulevard, ~~,,_y`~ wherea,e the Mri Zone requlred a 50-foot atructural aetback adiacent to an arterial s w~,~ street; .that recail sales were germiC~ed in the M-1 Zone where salea involved producta ~ ; produced on the premiaes ae an accesaory use to the main use and were germitted by ;,'•\',,tis conditianaT use per,nit wten euch sales were a part of a planned, unified iadustrial ~ complex gerving coamerce and industry, wiLh only incidental servics to the general 5.__, _`, , Public. Mr. Brown fuPther noted ;hst while Che Com~isaion and Council had granted variances permitti~~ retaif uses in the industrial. zcnesy in mast cases che retail nses had been basicallg i:acidental to the primar3 uea of the progertg= and in thia parti,nuiar instance, the entir,e p.iropoaed activity would agpgaz to be eesentially a hona fide retail eatab- lishment wit}~ only incidenta7, parehoueing of auto parte and suppiies, and eimilar aitustiona we~2 found with otaer auto garts facili.tfx,t; located in commarcial zones. Furthermore, the waiver r~qu~stad far mintmum frent .~etback in the M-1 Zane did not i~~ :,:~ ~ " 4a ,;~ ~ . i ~~~.I„"F:~ ;!~~; `; :S; :'s~ s ~'yk A~ ---:~- _ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONs A:zgust 25p 1969 I ~ :::` ~ ;'{ ^T~~~~"`, : ~ :~t . ~' ;,i~ ~ ~ ~i 4;b8 VARIANCE N0. 2112 - appsar to be ~uetified aince the small ai~e of the lct and the to~al ~ (Continued) area proposed far tne atructure indicated overdevelopment of the property as it related to narmal industrial uses - thereby turth2r ,.:=~ lending cradence to the fact that Chis entire prcposal was truly co~ercial in natnse. Therefarea the Commisaion would have to determine whather the I ~ requeated use wae appropriate or euitable for thie area. Mr..Cal qaeyrel, repreaentiag Bryan Industrial Propertiea~ noted that of the 1,700-square <~~t foot warehouaing, 400 aquare feet would be naed for aa~o repair~ aad as the ataff had mantioned in the report, thia wsa a ao;rmiercial use of th~ property9 and if the Commission ~ detp ~•nedthe commeraial nae wr~ appro~riate, taea the request sor the 10-foot setback ';;3 wae juatified. Furthezmore, the froat portion of the showroom wo¢ld be a 45-foot glasa ;;: exposure, and etrnetura! plans fndicac~ed there would be slumpstone along the front and ~ northerly and soutterly pertiane of the building„ ~l;:ii ~.T Mr. Queyrel furthar noted tteat aa industrisl building s~as located south of Via Burtan Street which had a 7-£oot bcilding ~setback; howev8r, he was not sure whether Lnis set- back had been granted by varianc,e, or whetker 3t rad been estahlished prior to the adopted site develepmeat atandatds of the.M-1 2one. . Mr. Brown advised th~ Coa~iaeiun that tt~e b~ild3ng ~ad been eatablished prior to the adoption of Lhe eite develop~ent etaadards and also,prior tm tbe revision to the width which had been eatabllehed fer Scate ColTege Boulevaid. Mr. Qaeyrel aoted that thia entire area was commeraiel in cheracter, and if the vaiver were approved, it was planned to develop in acaordance with tha plans befor.e the Commiseion. No one appeared in oppoeition Co sab~ect ~etitioa. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Charlee Roberts, in respoarse to Commiseioa questioning, noted that the aervice etation immediately tc the aonth of sub,ject propertq, as well as the plumb- ing supply building, were required to ihsva a 50-fant getbaTk•, hoxever, the Avionic Company structure had a 7-10-foot aetback,, ?~ut that had baen conatructed prior to the 50-foot eetback in trte M~1 2one and the widening of thn atreet. Furthermore, the reataurant on the eaet eide aE the akreet had been required to have a 50-foot building setback, as were all the eervice etntione in the area. The Commiasioa requeat~d clarification of tte etatement made in thn ntaff report relative to overdevelopment; whereupon Mr. Roberts etated that thn sKaff'e only reason for making thie statement wae the fact thet in order to place this particular building on the site, ~hn petitioner wae pr6posing to encroach into the requized 50-foot setback; that the parking was adrqnate, a~d if tha 50-foot •~tback were rnquired, ~hia would create a smaller building. Puftharmora, the parking propo~ed was not to tha rear or to the front of the property, but was proposed along the side of the atrueture. Discuseion vas hald by rhe Commieeion reletivs Co tha proposal, it being the opinion of Commiasioner Camp thet it waa aeceeeary for. the City to find ~om~place whare a combina- tion o£ commarcial nnd manufacturing usea could be nstabiithed, and the moat logical place would be along.ma,~or arCeriel highwaye where the introduction of commercial traffic wonld not ba as muah a probiem aa if CMf9fs commercial-manufacturing ueea Were petmittnd in an industriel park. Ca~atssioner Roaland wae of tha cpinion that the requeeted 10-foot eetback might be permisrible along certaia arteriale; hoovever, it would not be deeirable through the entire induatriai area whereia an arterisl euoh as Statn College Boulevard in the viciniCy of the etadium would be less deeirabla. AEcer furChar di~cussion by the Cemmisaion relative t;, the reque~t for waiver of the building satback in the indastrisl sone, ae weli as the permitted ~aes in the M-1 2one~ ths Commi~sion wai of thn opiniou that svhere properties wera limi,ted becauae of other land uoea end Were aue off from the &outheaet and Norehaaet Indurtrial Areu ~ combinad commarainl and indasCrial ~ueee might be permitted, a~ orell as waivar of tha required 30-fovt bt~Sldtng esCriack. However~ thi• did aot neaesrarily mean thaC thi~ would be the Citq'a poei~ticn in othar induetrial atiean~ but wo~xld applq to a partioular parcel ae iC aae preronCed under a pe~itian Co the Cammiseton or the City Counoil wher~in e~pecifte charecteridtxcr as w~e applic~bls ta the property under Vartanne Nba. 2112 and 2116 waro Yppardar. ,~ - c'; H TG?h re .y~^: .~.:;: a 9,:;! :~ iG.i,&.: ~ ~ , ` t ~l ~ ~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIN~ t;OMMISSI.ON, Auguat 25, 1969 4i85 VARIANCE N0. 2112 - Commisaioner Thom offered Resolu~tion Na. PC69-1;8 and moved for (Continued) itrs passage and adoption t~ grant Pet3.tion fur Variaace No. 2112, subjeat te conditions and findings that wafver af the 50-foot ~ I atruckures in the arearwithrsetbacks~ofWleasrChand50nfeet,band5aubjecthpro erze otrer ~' located in any of the mafor indnstrial areas; that approval of this variance n nosway~ entablished a precedent for 10-fooC aetbacks elsewhere in tae Anahe.tm industrial areas; ~`" and that approval of the var.iance in no way establisk.ed a precedent for retail salea in ,~' the iadustrial zones. (See Resalucion Eook) "=;;;:,.` Oa roll tall thc foregoing resolucion was passed by the following vo[e: -e ,gY~,, AYES; COMMISSIONERS; Campa Gauer, T~oms Rawland. ' * NOES: COMMISSIONERS; Noae. ~ ~' ABSENT; CO?~!^1ISSIONERS: Allzedy Faran~, Hezbst. 4 `~ (VARIANCE NU, 2115) - Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts inquired of the Commiseion ~~ _ wbether apprcval af eubject petitian wit't; the finding relative to atructural aetbacka ti '. and retail sales was agplicable ta Varianae t~o. 2116 gince this would be a considerable .? deviation to ti~a M-1 etcndards if thece speciiEic £indinga were not spelled out. 1' Chairman R.ewland noted t'r.at c~e General Plan aad sgecific plans in the previous petition ~.- limited the use of subject property be~auae of the other land uses, and it was cut off e' from the Northesat and So~~~east Induatrial Areas. Furthermore~ it is one of the last ?;, Y; parcela to devalop in this psrticalar arear and tna awner of the property to the weat ~ a had indica*_ed 'nis aupysort in appraving the setback; howeverr thia would not necessarily ~` reflect the Cit 's .. y positian of setbacka in other M-1 areas9 aad that the waivera as rr atipulated in the reaolucion appreving Variance No. 21I2 were also applicable to Variance , ,~ No. 2116 as thep gertained to the setback. RECLASSIEICATION ~ F(TCsLIC REARI:NG. GEOR.GE COLLMAND 16651 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba N0. 69-70-8 LindaA California9 Owner; JEFFERY M7LLETa 511 South Brookhurat Road~ F~llercon, Califoraia, Agent; reqneating that property deacribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenv.e and Kellogg Drive, said parcel having approximate frontages of 340 feet an Orangethorpe Avenue and 765 feet on Kellogg Drive, be reclaesified from the COUNTY AIg AGRTCULTURAL, DISTRICT to the CI7'Y OF AN~IHEIM C~la GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Yat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uaea eatablished in cioee proximity, and the fact that eubject petitioa was a pre-annexation zoning request eince annexation procaedinga w~re bEing processed; that no plans of development were aubmitta:d with. the application - however, the General Plan indicated a neighborhood ahopping cer.~er wovld be agpropriate in the general vicinity of the inter- aection of Kellogg Drive and Orangethorpe Avenue - therefore, the propoaed C-1 zoning would appear to be appropriaCe. Mr. Jeffery hL{llet, agent for the petitioner, indicated i•.ia preaence and availability to i answer queatione. i The Commisaion noted that the requeet wae in line with previoua diacueaions by the , Commisaion at the [ime the R-2-5000 zoning was approved for the property to the w~at and { north of the 6ub,jecc propertq, Mr. Miilec adviaed the C3mmiasion that he was also procesaing zona ch~,ngea for the property on Che eaet aide of ICellogg Drive and had fil.ed annexation proceedinga at the asme time. Mr. Lyman Wood, 6472 Cymbal Str~et, Yorba Li.nda, appeared before the Commiseion, noting that hia property was co the west of snbject property, and a petition aigned by 17 families in this area in oppoaiCion ro Che progosed coffinercial zoning was based on the fact that thia wa~ tctally a reaidencial arsa; that he had purchased hie property four Year= ago, electing ta drive 80 miles to and from the city of Las Angeles each day in , order that he wauld be in a mare rural area, and during the past two to three yeara ' coneiderable reeidentisl development had eccurred, both to [he weat and nor[h of aubject property. b ehawing of hands indica~ed five persons present ia oppoaition to aub~ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, The Commiasion request~d that the Zaning SuparvLsar indicate on ehe General Plan whare the commercial symbol was loca~ed. I ~ ,: a. ~ r x t' ~ a , f~$ ~. ,i .. .. . . . . , . . . , ~ ~ ri.,. '~ . ~ ~ o > ,u~ r ~,r •~a,_w . s='=^ : ~ , :-~, i i? r :. . . " ~ , . ~ ~ I ~ r r~ w 4 ' ~ ~ `--` .~r^~ "~r ~,.' r ~ ', . --' - a ~ ` _; ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANN~ING COMMISSION~ AugusC 25, 1969 4i90 _i~ RECI.ASSIFICATION - Mr, Roberta also adviBed the Cmmmission that commercial shopping ~ h0. 69-70-8 facilities were located at Ritchfiel,d Road and Yorba Linda Boulevard i ~' (Conriaued) and at Rose Drive and Yorba Linda Bculevard; both mf theee ca~tercial sho i t ~ pp ng cen ers were fairly large, ~~ r The Commisaion expressed cor.cern relative to what was being planned for the groperty -;~ on the east aide of Kellogg Drive eince thare was a possibility that aommercial zoning "' r~ight also be requested with gro~ections of servtce stations for each corner.. ~ ~~~ ` Mr. Wood xequested clarification as to the reason why the City of Anaheim was consider- ;~ ;~ ing zoning of County prcp~rCy. : ,r'• ~ 4N?;+ ' The Commisaion advised Mr. Wood and interested per~ons that the uwner of subjecc property h d l ~~ a;~ ~ a fi ed with the Lacal Agency Fnrming Commiasiom for annexat.ion to the City af Anaheim ~ ~ ~r' , and the ~etition befere tha Cu~issian was a preW~oning request prior tru annexation into i'1 :~.; the Cit whiah was ~ Y, pezmi_ted by State of Galifornia regulations. , i Mr. J. Henry, 6362 Cymbal StreeCy Yorba Linda, then noted that if aubject property and ~ ` the puoperty on the east aide of Kellagg Drive were being absorbed iato the City, would thi ' e mean that the R-1 proparty of which his heme was a art would be P permitted to be ?;j, an isolated parcel in Y.he middle of the Citp of Anaheim? ;r The Cammission requested the latsat findinge from LAFCO relative to permitting isolaCYon { of parcels. R;~ Mr. Roberts advised the Co~iasion that there had been a recent amendment to the annexatien laws, and now theae County islanda were being permitted. ~ Mr. Brown alea noted thst where a natural reaource wae available~ auch as the Walnut ~ rv ; Canyon Reaervoir in the Peralta Hills and tt~e City of Fullerton having an isolated area within the City of Ananeim for water purposea9 theae had been permitted in the i :- : past. ~ ~ ' ~~ Mre. Ana Milligan noted for ihe Commisaion that a achool was in this immediate vicinity, and it was not their deaire to have commercial usea injected whE~e children wonld be 7y v sub~ected to the pnsaible hazarde of vahicles leaving a commercial development as they ~,c~ ~a were going ta and from ach.ool and reco~ended that thia area be retained in ita resi- ~ dential character. # _ ~ ~ ~, e Co~iasioner Gauer noted that if the residenta of this area were not desirous of having ~ ~ *~ commercial development, then perhapa the City ahould not approve it aince this would ~ leave parcels of land undeveloped, or if developed, tbe residenta might not patronize = ~ ,~ the place. g ~{ Commiasioner Camp noted the problem ae he saw it was the fact that thie wae a fairly ~ :~ large, 5-acre portion propoaed without plana of ul~imate development, and if a major tensnt were not aecuredp thie would mean very emall commercial eetablietmaente, creat- ' ing a leas deeirable co~ercial complex, and considerable concern ahould be expreased ~: aince a well designed ahopping center was more apgropriate and would be more compatible ; with the reaidential uaea than a small leae desirable one. r . }.: .: t ... ..... . . . ' Coffinisaioner Gaaer offered a motion to recommend dental of Petitioa for Reclaseification , No. 69-70-8. Continued diecusaion was held hy the Commission relative to the possibilitq oE continu- ing eubject petition in crder that it might be consid~red as a total package with the requeat for rezoning of the property on the easz side of Kellogg Drive. bIr. Millet then neted that aince the reclassification pecition for the property on the eaet aide af Kellogg Drive was far other than R-1 zoning, the Co~nisaion might deaire to continue aubject petitton to be considered with that property as a total package. Commisaioner Ganer wzthdr!~n his motion of denial. Commiseioner Thom offered a moticm ta continue Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-8 to the meeting oE Septembe; 229 1969, in order to be caneidered as a part of the total package of development far bath the east and west s~dea of Kellogg Drive, north of Orangethorpe Avenue, Cesmmisaioner Camp eeconded trte motioa. MOTION CARRIED. i ----- '~`:~;~-9. . . _,. ) T n ,. . , ". ~~ .:.. :. . - . . . . ..:' 1 ~. ~f~ ~~~~~~ i:7" . :t ... . .. . ,.. ., .. _ . .., I ~.~'. .. . .,_ . t3,M~ M~ _ y- YF ~ ~ s ~~t ~ ', h, ' ~~ ` ~ ~.,~., ~ . . 1T ~~~ , `~. - .__. . ` ._ _ . . ., f _. I :~::::'. ~-~'„, ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION9 August 25y 1969 4`./?1 REPORTS AND - ITFM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARLl~TCE N0. 2050 - Requeat for an extension of time (M..R. Bo.renatein and Albert Gudes) - Property located on the west side of G~lare Street, approximately 270 feet south cf Orange Avwnue. Assistant 2on'.ng Supervisor Pat Browa reviewed the reqaest for an extension of time for Variance No. 2050 to complete canditiona, said variance havi:ng been graated by the Planning Co~isaidn on Febrnarv 10' 1969~ to eatabliah a 49-unit apartment complex. "' Mr. Brown further nbted that ths approved plans proposed 1~ aovered parking spaces per r;f , dwelling unit, for a toial of 61 covered apacas and was in conformance with Coda at ,~4 the time the variance was appraved; howevera as of September 20p 1969~ the uumber of ' ~: parking apaaea provided woald not satisfy the newly amended Code requirements aince Ye` ~` for a 49-unit camplex e total of 78 epacea would be required, of which 49 muat be _ ~; covered, Thereforeg the staff recrswmended an axteasioa of time, to expire September 20, 7'' -~ 1969, aince the parking s~o~rn on tae approved plans would not complp with the amended Code. ~ Co~isaioner Camp offered a~etioa t~ grant an extension of time for completion of - con3itiona of Variance No. 2050 tv expire September 20a 1969, and basis for not ! granting a six-manth extension of time was due to the fact that the approved plans ! under esid variance wvuld not meet Cade requiremeata for parking; therefore, reviaed ;: plaas would have to be approved. Commiseioner Tkam seconded the motion. MOTION , CARRIED. i ITF~! N0. 2 :N Praposed pnblic hearing to coaeider undergr~und utilities. ,i ; Zoning Supervisor Gharles Roberta adviaed the Commisaion that although tha Commisaion ~ had set fc+r public hearing consideration of ameadmenta to Title 17 regarding under- ~ ground utilities, it wa~ deternined that additioi.al information was neceasary, and _ said informe:ion would noL be available in time for the public hearing ae originally acheduled for September S, 1969. Therefore, the staff recommended that this be ~~ poatponed indefinitely until ench time ae the ataff had all the available data to ~~ preaeat ta the Cosoxieaion. ' ~ Commieaianer Csmp offered a m~tion to direct the etaff to wit}uiold coasideration of the ~ underground utilitiee gublic hearing originally aet £or September 8, 1969, until auch ~ time ae all necesear5 and available data was received by the etaff for Co~iesion ! deliberation and directad the ataff to set said public hearin~ at that time. i.;y Co~ieaioner Tham s~ccnded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, TTEM NO,. 3 ' Atwood Cane Area - Community Study - Orange County Caee ' No. ZC69-38 (Sectional Dietrict Diap 33-3-9) - Atwood Cos~uniiy located eoutheastrrly of Van Buren Street and Orangethorpe Avenue~ propoaing a zone change from the Countg M1, "Light Manufacturing" Dietrict to the R-1-3800 "Single~Family Reaidence" Dietrict. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberte reviesre: for the Commiasion their action of Auguat 11~ 1969 on the Atwood Community Stu~y, Orange County Case No. 2C69-38y and the City ' Council's concurrence wiCu the Commisaion's recommendationa. i ~ Mr, Roberta further noted that Mr. Manuel Mendez~ repreaenting the Atwood Community, r was desirous oi reviewing for the Co~isaion their reason for including the 6.75-acre ~ ~ portion in Study Area "A", which tha Commisaion had daleted from their recommendation, ~,;.;:...;,?` in order that the C~mmieaian might wieh to reconeider their action and recommend an ~~ amendment to the City Cuunail ~a include said 6,75 acres. ,. ;. ' '~' Mr. Manuel Mendez, architect, who is a member of a number of Mexican-American Aesocia- ,,., . tions, aome of which were attempting to improve their living environment tlirough ; varioua programa, appeared before the Cc~mmiaeien and noted tbat he was one of the initiatore of the pro~•~ct kncwn ae the Atwood Cone Cocmnunity Study, aow known ae :;'. Oraage County Case No. ZC69-38, which is a pert of thia Study, and which he had pre- aented to the ~renge Caunty Board of Supervisora. :,. ,.: *.: , r'~ -. Mr. Mendez then raviewed in deCail the program and Study, su~narized ae follows: ~ .._~. ____. ~ ~_.__._.____~.__,_~.__~~_,,,, . I ,s ~ 1 , . r ,; ti ~ ,,?Sr'r ,~~:~.f~~rMa 1~w-r,sy~;~i~„~~r~,.~ ~f . .~o+r ?`;r ` n~+~ ~: w~':. .7- ~~.T .`' .... .. ,_ .. , ., . , F~d ~ r . , { _ ir ~ , ~- -~- -- _ .___ . ~ . - ---- - ..._._..__.-._~~--_.,.. . ~ . _.. _ . . ._ _o ~ ^~ '~ c ~ j ~ ~ ~.~ i M3:NQTES,. CITY PLANNING COMI~IISSION~ Auguat 25, 1969 4792 , . REPORTS AND " RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0, 3 (Continued) ~ 1. That the reclassificatian petition initiated by the Orange County Planning Commission was not the uaual reclasaificarian petition, but was a means of affording the ~ Mexican-American familias ia this area a c~ance to improve their exiateace through , :,; assistance from the federal governmant in its financing, ~a,1 t~ 2. That the 6.75 acres located easterly of Stndy Area "A" prime, deletad from the ~,>;.-,w;;` Anaheim Planning Commission's recommendati~ny was needed so that new housing conld J``~`~:;';• be built and th8 residents in tae amall homes to the west cauld be relecated. , ;l~ ,~ , -; 3. That it was nat the iateat of t~e Atwood DeceYogmenC Corporatioa, a non-profit k~ ~,i organiz&tiaa ef reaideats of thie area, to build hom~s with 3800~aquare foot lets ~,, in the 6.75 acrea portiony but 5000-aquare foot lata. ', 4. That tne redevelopment wauld occur through r~moval of exi~ting structures on the ~ small extsting lotsa canstruction of a community center, a amall park~ aome amall ~ +~ atoresa as well as constrs:etion of new hesmes in the westerly portion of Study Area "A". r 1 5. That coam~ercial zoaing will be requested along the north side of Oran etho ~ when the f•zture wid~sning of the atreet occurred, since many of the homes thereAwould '"-~ - have ta be removed, and an interest was e~ressed to develop a Mexican Reataurant and ~-` ;: ;~~ a 8rocery stare. ~ ~'~ t; 6. That reiinanaing fer improv~ements and the building of hamea by the federal government , ~' wae not ohtainable ;intil Che industrial zaning was removed from the properties through y~._.,, rezoning act3on. 7. That the Board of Supe.rvisors gave tacit appreval of the concept plan and directed the Orange Connty Plan~ing Department to make a study for conaideration of the possihle retlassificatian uf the stndy area property, 8. That np until 1968, the FHA had avoided any favorable conaideration of financing pra~ecta which were delineated on the mapa with a red border, auch as the area the Atwood Redevelopment Carporation propoaed. However, in 1968, the FHA was directed co delete any referen~e to undesirable areas and consider them on individual merita. 9. That the FHA limits tae amaunt each home could cost, that being $17,500; therefore, the 5000••square foot loL would be the largeat size lot, 10. That Orange County had 60,000 acres of land reaerved for industrial purposee, and th~e emall portion being requaeted for coneideratian eo that theee Mexican-Americans need not be diaglaced, bvt cQUld remaia in the community to improve their exiatence, was only a very miaute pcrtion. Coneiderable discuaeion wae thea held by Che Commisaion regarding the proposal as pre- aented by Mr. Mendez, it being concluded that the Commt.saion's deletion of the 6.75 acrea was based an staff's recommeadation; however, their baeic reeaoning for recommend- ing approval was so that resideata o£ the Atwood area might have a meane of rehabilitat- ~ ing their present exiatence, but thie acticn was nat made so that it might indicate i setting a precedent for requeate from developere and epeculatore to request rezoning of the induatrial area knawn ae the NorCheast Industrial Area. Furthermore, the Atwood Co~unity should be cummended for recognizing a problem and being willing to take it upon themBelvea to solve their own problem, Mr. Roberta adviaed tae Cammiaeian that ainae Aasistant Devalopment Servicea Direotor Ronald Thomp~on had warked very cloaelp with plannere regarding thia recommendaCion, and since he was on vacaCicn t:sis week, perhaps the Co~iseion could conaider continuing the petition for further conaideration until the next meeting so that all data could be presented to them. Mr. Mendez noted that he wea asking the Cemmission co give the concept plan a vote of confidenca by amandins~ their original recommendation to include the 6.75 scree, which would be built with hemes on 5000-aquare foot lote for reaidente, to be relocated from the older area to the weat, and that Mr. Thompaon had euggeated that he preaent tne foregoing atatement~ made by him in order co clarify the purpoae of the Orange Count.y reclasaification proceedinga. Co~iasioner Gaaer affered a metion ta recommend to the City Council that the action taken by the Planning Caaenissian on A~guat 11, 1969a be amended to include the 6.75 acree, based on the fact Lhst e~idence submitted indicaked that the Atwood Development Corporation, a non-prafit arganizaticn of residents of thia area, progoeed to develop homes for reaidente w},o would b~ relocated from the amaller lots to the west in 5tudy ,~,r -- ., _ ~. r:.. . _., . . , ~ ~s.r ry Kih,. [i .~G7C~?tF;'..~~~~~"-7~t'~'"4F"...g~?~.~,'~~4''-g' w^ rlhs7' ~"~~ r~""m ~rs .~ a'~ 7~'~~ _ '-t Y ~h k^n (a ' ~ } ~ r ' .. SL~7.z .a ..~b.f~ ~.,~>* w ~ •u..r - i i.rn- a ~ +~. ^ . ~ _ ~. - ~• - ~'. ~~.. ~ ~~~. ~ ~ ..~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~. ~ MIN[TTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Auguat 25y 1969 4793, REPORTS AND REi.O1~IlSSEN~ATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued) Area "A" of Orange County Case No~ ZC69-38; that Lhis amendment is contingent on the ,fact tbat no other develaper other than the Atwood Developmeat Corporation wauld be considered for,developing this property; that this additional portion would be developed with`5000-square foot lots, as etipulated to bp Mr, Meadez; and t4at the Commisaion was deairous of'encouraging residenta of the AtWOOd Area to imprwe their present `existeace through their owa-efforta. Commisaioner Camp secoaded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDt ADJOURNMENT - There being no further busineea to diacuss, Commiasioner Camp ' offered a motion to ad~ourn the m,eeting. Co~ieaioner Gauer seconded the motioa, MOTTON CARRIED~ The meeting adjourned at 6s25 P.M. Respect#ully aubmitted, ANN KREBS~ Secret/~ai~ rY Anaheim City Planning Commission