Loading...
Minutes-PC 1970/01/26i . i ~ i ..,...»sr..~^c. ,-r.~z..-.-~-+;.^~..-~--.r..-..+-'_....-r-.r,.. .._.,p.........^t_,..-^.^~--~^,.--"":'-,.., ~...i'.1, i.~". .-.:.*.~-~,w~«.... -..., _ . , . ~ ~ ~ City Hal! Ansheim, California Januaty 26, 1970 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION .~ REGULP,R MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Comnission was called to order by Chairman Rowland a t 2;00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being preaent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowlan3. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom. ABSENT - COTIlIISSIUNERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Ser~trss Director; Ronald Thompson ~ Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Er.gineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Aasistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown ~ Planning Commiasion Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF AL:.~GIANCE - Commisaioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of December 29, 1:969, ~rere approved as THE MINUTES ~, a~ubmitted on motion by Coimnissioner Thom, seconded by Cormnissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED. • . The Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1970, were approved as submitted on motion by Cr~nissioner Thom, aeconded by Co~issioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED. , RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GERALDINE E. ROTH, ET AL, P. 0. Box R, ~ i ~ t' - N0. 69-70--2~raceatia, California, Ownera; JEFFREY H. MILLET, 5t1 South Brookhurst Road, Fullert~n, Califor!iia, Agent; property described as: An VARIANCE N0. 2142 irregularly sh9pv:d parcel of land consisting of approximately 90.2. ? acrea, having approximate frontagea o"? 3,100 feet on La Palma Avs..~ue TENTATIVE MAP OF (future) and 3,780 £eet on the Atchi: :a, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad ~~ TRACT N0. 7137 right-of-way, having a maximum depth of approximately 2,200 feet and ~ being located approximately 2,890 ~eet'east of the centerline of . Imperial Highway. Property preser.Y.ly clasaified COUNTY A1, GENERAL ?.GRICULTURAL DISTRICT. REQiJESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZO1VE. REQUESTED VARIwNCE: ESTABLISH A 454-LOT, R-2-5000 S~JBDIVISxON WITH WAIVER OF THE MIDIIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR ONE LOT, f TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: SCHMID DEVELOPMENT, INC „ 2949 Randolph, i Costa Mesa, California. ENGINEER: Millet, King & i Asaociatea, 511 South Brookhurst Road, Fullerton, California; proposing subdiviaion of approximetely ~ 90 acres of land into 454 R-2-5000 zoned lots. ~ Subjact petitions and tzact were continued from the meetings of December 1, 1969 and ' January 12, 1970, in onder to allow the petitioner time to resolve development an3 ~ annexation problems. ~ s Zoning Supervisor Pat Bxm~m reviewed for the Courmission the location of subjeot property, uses t~stablished in ciose proximity, the requested zoning and waivera, and reasons for ~ E~revious continuancea, and then advised the Commission that the ataff had received a l.urther request for a four-week continuance since development pr~blems had not been resolved. Mr. Jeff Millet, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~nniasion and requested that the reclassi€ication and variance petitions and the tentative tract ~^equest be ~ removed from the agenda since they were unable to determtne when all the problems involved 4991 • ,- . . , . . . _ _. __. ~_.!._ __ . _ : ~ , ' , .r....~.s....~.,w,.- .r_.n.~ -~,...--:. ,.r. .,:._~„ -.,.,,,:.._, ~ ~ ~3 \ ~~.i MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMZSSION, January 26, 1970 4992 ItECLASSIFICATION - as to the proposed development, both as to plans and annexation, N0. 69-70-25 ~ would be resolved, and that li:ey wou).d be egreeable to bearing the costs for readvertisement of the peticians r~t such time as these VARIANCE N0. 2142 problems were resolved. TENTATIVE MAP OF Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion to remove from the Commission TRACT N0. 7137 agenda Petitions for Reclassification No. 69-'0-25 and Varianc^ (Continued) No. 2142 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137 until such time as the petitioner had resolvcl all development and annexation problems, and the petitioner's sgent had stipulated that they would bear the costs for readvertising and notification of adjoining property owners at the time the petitioner was ready to presen_ plans which had resolved all problems. Coirissioner Camp seconded the motion. MCTION CARRIED. Cl1%4DITIONAL USE - PFJBLIC HEP,RING. TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 80Q South Lemon FERMIT N0. 1151 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; DEAN HUNIBERT, 800 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRE-SCHOOL NURSERY IN AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY on property des- cribed as: A rectan;ularly shaped parcel of l.~nd located at the southeast corner of South Street and Lemon Street, having approximate frontages of 249 feet ozi South Street and 330 feet on Lemon Street, and further described a; 800 South Lemon StYeet. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. • Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that no previous zoning actions had been processed on the property; that the proposal was to permit utilization of two exiating rooms on the church property for pre-school purposes for a maximum of 32 students, and hours of opera- tion would be from 9:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M., four days per week; that 7 instructors would bP available; and that no external alterations to the structures were proposed, and adequate parking for such a use already existed on the properCy. Mr. Walter Taylor, representing the agent for the petitioner, stated that he !Eully under- atood all of the recommended conditions by the staff; however, he could not apeak for the Board of the church as to dedication - that this would have to be considere~d at a meeting before an answer could be given, and he flilly understood the balance of =he recou~ended conditions. Zoning Supervisor Charl:es Roberta, in response to Commiasion qa-estioning, stated that Lemon Street on the easterly portion adjacent to subject property had a strE~t dedication of 24.75 feet, whereas a standard atreet had a minimum of 32-foot half-width from the centerline of the atreet, which meant an additional 7'~ feet would be required; that where properties to the north and south of subject property were proposed for more intense uae, this dedication had been required - however, since the curbs and gutters were already in, the City would bear the expenae of relocating theae curbs and gutters at such time as the st~eet widening took place. Off.ice Engineer Jay Titas, in responae to Commission questioning, atated that the Engineering Diviaion had ao plans for immediate street widening; however, this condition was for any future widening of Lemon Street at auch time as the capacity of vehiclea on the street would d2em it neceasary. Comaissioner Gauer then inquired how the City planned to obtain dedication for street widening purposes from the adjacent single-family homeowners. Mc. Titus atated that when street widening was contemplated, the City would negotiate with the property owners for dedication of property. Cormnissioner Gauer then noted his reason for asking these questions was based on the fact that dedication was normally required when property was undeveloped and planned for a more intenae use - however, the petitior.er was proposing only to uae two existing rooms for a portion of a week - therefore, he could not understar.d why the ataff was recommend- ing street dedication for a distance of 330 feet in view of the minor type of uae pro- posed, in addition to the normal use of the property. ~. F $ i i ~ ~ ~ Mr. Titus advised th:: ~a~ission that thia was a reco~nendation of the staff, and it was ~ the Co~nission's prerogative to determine whether or not this recommendation was appropri- _.__. ~ ate. ~ 1 Commissioner Camp noted he concurred with Commiasion Gauer - however., there were other ~ conditiona which were reco~ended that he wi.shed to have clarified €or himaelf and for the representatives of the church - since the church had been-in exiatence for some ~ tim~, that no structural expansior, was proposed except for an additional program in the same building; that he wished clarification as to the requirement of trash storage areas ~ _ . _ _.. . ~• " ~ ~ ~ ---.___ _ - -_.. _ „ ~ - ---- --._ . _ _. _ _ ~_ _ ~.--- . . . . " - ---- __--- . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ .e..--•,..nw-c.•-,,.-.r . ~ .~r.~... . 7u:. c.:~"-.~. -"zr-fM*w~+.vmY:Sx.w'ts+^Y)tn'r.,_R^~..• .+xf.^:-e,^c•~r~~ nYC~.....,. ~. „. . . .~~~y[•yi.~ qFa'!'RVF~11R1~ .a~3•5+~^`.a'+.'++c~x'+^m.~r+~r-. ~._ _.. _ ~~ ~~ ~ 4993 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 CONDITIONAL USE - and wondered whether or not the existing trash storaqe areas were PERMIT N0. 1151 in conformar,ce ~ith plans on file or were they in con ~rmance when (Continued) the church was built. Mr. Roberts replied that he did not know the answer to this question. Comm3ssioner Camp then inquired what specific building co3e requirements would have to be met; whereupon Mr. Roberte stated that if the existing structure met the building co3e requirements, nothing would be requ3red. However, since these rooms were being us.:d by children, the Fire Department and State Welfare Board had specific re4~ir~ents for occupancy of this type. Commissioner Camp them noted his reason for asking these questions was the fact that the church was coffinitting themaelves to ~:inor expansion, and if all the conditions of ofptwoeexistinge oomsdfort pproxima:.elyeten hoursSabweek, a dpcostiof thesimprovemente mightreach $50,000. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that some of the requirements were not necessarily recotmnendations of the staff but were necessary for enforcement of the Fire Code and State Welfare requirements as they pertained to having children ~in a building, and that the City of Anaheim had adopted a new building code which might have necessitated requir- ing certain conditions. but~he was desirous ofthaving the church representatives~fullylaware oflthegpossibilitiese3~ that they might be facing. Commissioner Gauer noted his reason for being opposed to requiring street dedication was that the use proposed was only a minor expansion of existing uses and it was not intended to have a structural expansion, and that the City, not knowing when street widening would take effect, could not predict what would be required of other property owners - therefore, he did not f2e1 the church should be penalized for requesting a minor additional use o£ the property. Mr. Taylor, in response to questions by Commissioner Camp, noted that he had contacted the Building Di~iaion's Assistant Chief Building Inapector Les King since the condition of approval regarding meeting build3ng code requirements was of major concern to them in order to perform this commuaity aervice; that Mr. King had been the Building Inspector at the time the church was built and was the person best qualified to answer these questions; that Mr. King had stated that without checking the building as ta the new building code requirements, the only thing he could see was the addition of a fire alarm system in the event of exceasive heat or smoke, and s.fter asking him the cost for said fire alarm, he had been advisad it would not be expensive - however, from his own personal observation and as a aupplier of building materials, he felt there were some hard work changea which would have to be accomplished as far as the two roo~s to be used were proposed; that all rooms had fireproof walls, but he was not sure whether the roof of the buil~ting was `ireproof; and that the building had been built in 1954. Furthermore, requirementsehadnnotrbeen submitteduto thembaanofuthisthearin~.e State, and the State's No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Co~issioner Fsrano noted that in ansion$of theeuseeoflanpropert~y asrequirementpof dedi- conditional use permit for the exp cation had been made, and by waiving this requirement, he felt the Commiasion would be setting a precedent tor aimilar waivers. ' i - ~ '. ~t~- F Commissioner Thom noted that i.n a recent case where he had requested deletion of a condit on permission to have off-sale of beer on Brookhurst Street in conjunction with the sale and - ofithe C-1fZone be~completedthandtthishwasrone~conditionawhich hetrequested~~betdeletedrdg i Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-5 and moved for its passage and adoption i to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1151, subject to conditions, deleting ~ Condition No. 1, on tr~ basis that the requested expanded ueP was minor in nature, and ! to reciuire dedication of A large amount of property would be creating a hardship since ~ the Ci~ty was not certain when street widening wauld take place, nor what would be resolved _~ for +_hose properties having singi~-family homes and not proposing any change in the use. (See Resolution Book) ~ - ---_ ._. ~. ~ , .~ ._..~. __._______..--- ----..____._._~..~__..___.._~_.__~_..._._,_....._~..._.,._~.,...,.,,~K._. _.__ _,._.„~.~..,, .~:w,., ...~.. ,....._ _,.~,. ~ ~~ ~~ ( .~} ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPIIiISSION, January 26, 1970 4994 CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following PERMIT N0. 1151 vote: (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, He:bst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. \ ~, Co~issioner Farano based his "no" on the fact that althaugh he was n~t in opposition to the petition, he felt that if the Caomission deleted reco~ended conditions of dedication, etc., and were considering adopting this type of philosophy, then the Co~nisaion should ~ } reco~end establishing some policy so that this could be applied to future applications. ', Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:15 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. TkANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT R~NTALS, INC., 525 SW Pine PERMIT N0. 1152 Straet, Portland, Oregon, Owner; CARL J. HEINZ, 944 South Brookhurst Sereet, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN ENCLOSED RESTAURANT, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT Tu' RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND (2) REQUIRED STRUCTURAL SETBACK AND LANDSCAPIIvG ADJACENT TO AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY on property described as: A rectangu2arly shaped parcel of land.having a frontage of appraximately 150 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located approxi- mately 200 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the proposal to establish au 1880-square foot enclosed restaurant; that the pla~ns indicated there would be a seperate dining area seating 48 people and a serving counter, both located entirely within the structure; that an enclosed restaurant of the proposed size would require a minimum of 1S parking spaces, whereas 39 spaces were propo,sed;'that Code would require a 6-foot masonry wall along the north property line since said property was presently zoned Ra3, although a resolution o£ intent to C-I was stiii pendittg befors the Planning Co~ission; and that the plans further indicated a structural and landscape setback of only 15 feet adjacent to State College Boulevard, whereas the M-1 Zone wovid require a 50-foot str~ctural setback and either fully landscaped or with a minimum oi 10 feet of landscaping w~th the balance for parking purposes. Mr. Brown, in presenting the evaluation, noted that the Co~umisaion would have to determine whether or not the proposed use was an appropriate one for this area and whether additional cormnercial uses were warranted; that waiver uf the 6-foot masonry wall at this time did not ap~pear to be warranted, and as an alternative, a remedial solution the staff would suggest poating a bond to ensure inetallation of said wall in the event the reclassifica- tion of the property to C-1 zoning was not activated. Furthermore, the proposed 15-foat landsceped structural setback, whfle not in conformance with the M-1 site development gtandards, would be 5 feet deeper than that required by the C-1 Zone, where the propoaed use would be permitted by right. Mr. Carl Heinz, agent for tfie petitioner, appeared before the Co~nission and ncted that they proposed to develop a fully enclosed restaurant which would be compatible with the area; that they would be amenable to the staff's recoa~endation of posting a bond to ensure installation of the 6-foot meaonry vall on the north property line in the event the adjoining property was developed for residential uses; that the proposed building aetback o£ 15 feet was necessary to have proper exposure to the motoring public; and that because of the type of traffic and width of the street, State Co2lege Bou2evard being a highway of 120-foot width, the proposed restaurant would be ideally located. No one eppeared in op,position to subject petition. THE HEARING k~AS CLOSED. Commis8ioner Tha~ expressed the opinion that the propoaed restaurant would be an appropri- ate use to the area since it would be larger than the normal hamburger stand; that it would be a good ca~nercial enterprise; and that it would not be an intrusion into the induatri,al area. 1'urthermore, the atatement made by the petitioner-agent as to the set- back was correct since the 50-foot setback required in the M-1 Zone would not be conducive to a co~ercial operation, and if a bond were posted to ensure const~uction of a wsll if ~ the R-3 property to the north were developed for residential purposeR, he could see no reason for not approving subject petition. Commissioner Gauer then noted that tne proposed type of facility was just a"hamburger stand" and could encourage similar operations in this area, which were not complementary to the general commercial concept as was the large restaurant facility on the east side . __,..,,~. ~ _. .. -. .. _ . .,_.~..~ ,-, . , .,.~.,, ;,, A,~~-, . ~- n- ~3 ;~ ~ `,,}~ ~ ~s ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 4995 CONDITIONAL USE - of State College Boulevard, as well as the Spanish architecture ty~e ' PERMIT N0, 1152 of commercial facilities. ' (Continued) Commissioner Thom felt ttiat workers in this general area needed a restaurant or some place to go fos lunches wher~ they could receive hot food and be served quickly. Commissioner Farano stated he was not in. favor of waiving the site development standarda of the M-1 Zone as to building setback; that other restaurants in the M-1 Zone and other industries were required to maintain the setbsck, and to grant this waiver would be granting a privilege not granted other M-1 property owners. Commissioner Camp noted that he would agree in prirtciple with Commissioner Farano's statements; howetir_r., from observing development of State College Boulevard between ~ Wagner Avenue on the north and Ball Road on the south, a change in the uses had been noted, and subject property was the only parcel north of Ball Rnad still zoned M-1 - therefore, one could consider this spot zaning. Cou~issioner Farano then inquired why the petitioner was presenting only a conditianal use permit instead of requesting the proper ~oning, Co~isaioner Camp noted that in all probability this was because the restaurant was a permitted use, subject to approval of a condition.el use permit, whereas reclassification ~,, procQedings took severel months longer; however, he wished to emphasize that subject property now was the only parcel north of Ball Road on State College Boulevard still zoned M-1 - therefore, it would be in order for the Commis sion to approve the conditional ~ use permit and perhaps initiate reclassification proceedings to the C-1 2one for subject property. ~ Cos~issioner Farano then inquired of the staff whether or not the petitioner would be ' meeting the site development standards of the C-1 Zone with the plans presented; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the development would be in conformance with the site development standards of the C-1 2one. Aasistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commiasion that from a practical atandpoint the conditional use permit accomplished the requirements of the -" petitioner and until additional changes occurred, including a large parcel, there seemed 3 to be ao need for initiaXing the reclasaification proceediags which would cost the City money, and the delay could be made and rezoning accomplished when the 22Cpd occurred. Cos~issioner Thom offered Reaolution No. PC70-6 and moved for its passage and adoption Y to grant Petition for Cnnditional Uae Permit No, 1152, subject to conditions reco~ended in ~he Re~nort to the Commission, basing waiver of the required 50-foot setback on the ' fact that subject property was a amall parcel having a 150-foot frontage and being the ~ only parcel along State College Boulevard zoned M-1, with the exception of a service station site at the northweat corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road, and that i • the use propoaed was a commercial use by nature, and the setback would conform with the ~ requirements of the C-1 2one where an encl~sed reataurant was permitted by right. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: t ~ AYES: COPIl~fISSIONERS: Csmp, Fareno, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. ~ NOES: COI~ASISSIONERS: None. o- ABSENT: COPIliISSIONEitS: Allred, Herbst. ~, CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. VINCENT AND RU'iH SULLIVAN, Route 1, Box 180, j . PERMIT N0. 1153 Templeton, California, Owners; ANTONIO H, RANGEL, 318 North Stardust Aaenue, Placentia, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR, HEAVy EQUIPMENT STORAGE YARD, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ENCLOSING OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS AND (2) REQUIREMENT ~ THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY on property described as: A ~ rectangularly ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre, having a maximum widt'h of approximately 290 feet and a maximum d~nth of approximately 150 feet, ; and being loceted approximately 1,540 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard i and approximately 500 feet 'outh of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue. Property ~ ~ _ _ presently classified M-1, ':.IGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~ ~ Aasistant Zoning Superv:sor Pat Brown ryviewed the location of aubject property, uses ~ established in cloae ycoximity, and previous zoning on subject property, noting that ~ ~._. __ under Conditional Use Permit No. 630 subject property had been a part of a landscape ~ contractor s storagr, ygrd - however, subsequent to this conditional use permit, the ~ ~ southwest ortio measurin a P 4 g pproximately 150 feet wide by approximately kU7 feet ,deep, : ~ ,y ~ { --- --- _ , ; - - - ----- --- - ~ . ~._ . _ _ _ , • i . ~ • ~ ~.~...~:.._~._,~.~„~,~r ... ,, ~..~,~. . -...,.n~,.~.... r-. ~.,,-_ ,.,.:.,~ _..._.r . ..,~._^*^ :r. .~..-:..---,. -.•.n..:~-- ~ .+~r. ... :F..•,:.,, ,~.,-... ~,,.;~.... - ' ~I ~~ ~ ~ "t ~. k~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 4996 7 CONDITIONAL USE - wes sold to other paxties, subject property being the easterly 290 PERMIT N0. 1153 feet of that southwest portion; that the petitioners had indicated _ (Continued) they proposed storage of heavy equipment used in the construction of streets; that they intended to develop this in two phases, with the easterly half of the property being developed first; tliat a 6-foot chainlink fence was proposed, whereas Code would require a mini~um 6-foot hi~h wall; and that ttne petit;,oners were proposing to have uses on a landlocked parcel having no frontage on an:y adjacent streets or alleys, ha re~~aired by Code. Mr. Brown notel that when Conditional Use Permit No. 630 was approved for the entire original pax~cel, a condit~on of approval was that the owners provide the City of Anaheim~ with a 32-foot dedication elong the west boundaries of the prcperty, which would be utilized for the ultimate development of Red Gum SL•reet; that an irrevocable offer of dedication hsd been delivered to the City - however, had not been accepted as of this \ date; that improvementa on Red Gum Street and the payment of light and tree fees for that street were to re complied with when the City accepted the ~edication af Red Gum Street - however, these items sti11 were not accompl.ished, and Red Gum Street at its present • terminus was at La Jolla Avenue, approximately 650 feet south of subject property and did not extend across the flood control channal to Orangethorpe Avenue in the City of Placentia - however, even if Red Gum Street were developed, subject property would not have frontage on it since it was proposed to be spZit off from that portion now having frontage on the street; that the plans indicated the petitioners proposed to utilize a 10 to 15-foot wide easement from the.east extending southward from Orangethorpe Avenue ~- over a wooden bridge across the flood control channel and the 20-foot easement extending westerly to Red Gum Street as means of vehicular access to this property; and that the petitioners were unable to provide any information to staff regarding any development for the weaterly 120-foot parcel having frontage on Red Gum Street. ,. . ' Mr. Brawn, in noting the evaluation, stated that the use was an M-2 use; that the ' Coamiission would havre to determine whether this use s~as appropriate in this particular location and would be compatible with other uses that might develop in this area; whether -", or not there was justification for the requested waiver of the required masonry wall enclosure since other outdoor storage areas had been required to be surrounded by a masonry wail with the exception of Tran Serv Company who were permitted to have a land- ecape screen in lieu of ti~e required wall for the interior lot boundaries; that although ,~~ subject property would not be visible from any streets in this area, due to the type of storage propoaed, the atarage facilitiea would be visible to adjoining properties and could have a deleterious effect upon development of the adjoining properties; that the Code-required 6-foot masonry wall ~ould provide only a minimum scree:iing effect for the type of equipmPnt proposed, nnd the chainlink fence would provide rio screening effect whatsoever - therefore, the Commisaion might wish to consider requiring a higher masonry wall plus tree screen landscaping if subject petition were approved, but no setback landscaping would be required since there were no adjacent streets. Furthermore, the City's policy in not permitting the creation of a landlocked parcel had been complied I with in all instances in the past - therefore, the Co~nission would have to determine not only whether the proposed use was appropriate, but whether or not the petitioners should be required to have a minimum 20-foot frontage on Red Gum Street. Mr. L. E. Wilson, representing the agent for the petitioner, gave the Commission photo- graphs of the heavy equipment proposed to be atored on subject property and stated he appreciated the co~ents made by the ataff in their Report to the Coimnission on the ~ proposal; that he had mentione3 to Mr. Rangel, the agent and owner of the proposed ~ equipment etorage facility, that the chaialink fence shoul~ be set in and landscaping be planted to assist in screening this faci'Lity; that the reason for proposing a chain- ~ link fence was because of past experience and considerable vandalism where equipment storage occurred in remote areas; that the property to the east had an approved condi- tional uae permit granted (Conditional Use Permit No. 630) wherein heavy equipment was also stored on the property - however, there was no fence or masonry wall required; ~ that the location of the fire hydrant proposed could present a problem since only a ~ 2-inch line was available; that perhaps permission could be obtained from the Fire ~ IIepartment to connect to this 2-inch line; and that the petitioners proposed to black- , . top the entire area. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. A letter from the property owner to the north, across the flood control channel, was read, indicating opposition to no acreening of the use and requesting that adequate ___ screening be provided so that properties fronting on Orangethorpe;:Avenue in the City of ~ Placentia, which could be potential cummercial, could develop without any problem as to unsightliness of the storage on aubject property. - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,.'~ t) t~ ~~ =. ~ , 7 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZS~ION, January 26, 1970 4997 ; CONJITIONAL USE - Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber at 2:40 P.M. PERMIT N0. 1153 ~ (Continued) Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the ~ Co~ission that the petitioner indic~ted a willingness to meet the requirement of haviag a 20-foot wide portion fronting on Red Gum Street so that acceas to a dedicated street or frontage on a dedicated street waiver ! originally requested was now withdrawn. ~ Ti~e Co~ission inquired as to the time for extending Red Gum Str••eet northerly past this 20-foot port.ion would become a street. \ ,~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a condition of the conditional uae permit originally passed for the landscaping contractor's facility east of subject property was street dedication; that the petitioner under Conditional Use Permit No. 630 had made an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City, but it had not been accepted as yet - therefore, when the property to the south was proposed for develop- ment, ther.'ited Gum Street wou~d extend through and pass subject property, but it was un- certain whether this street would extend over the flood control channel; and that Che parcel would be landlociced since the street was not now an actuality. Mr, Thompson noted it was the plan of the Engineering Division and the Development Services Department to adopt a precise alignment for Red Gum Street in the near future, thus assuring tha~ the street would extend northerly from La Jolla, and that he made this statement for both the Commission and the petitioners' benefit. ~ The Commission then inquired how subject petition could be approved and still not create a landlocked parcel~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Coimnission that the condition of approval 3 would be requiring an irrevocable offer of 3edication be made which would ensure that ys ttiis parcel would not be landlocked; however, if this offer had been made on a previous _ petition, said dedication would be in effect regardless of the ownership. a ;~ Mr, Thompson then noted that if a preciae plan for the street were adopted, then eventually ,~ a atreet would go through; however, this would depend upon the development of those surrounding parcels. ~ Mr. Lowry then inquired of the representative for the agent whether or not the petitioners ;; were also the owners of the property to the north and weat. ^ 9 Mr. Vincent SuLl:.van, the petitioner, appeared before the Coa~iss3on and atated he owned the properties immediately to the north and west of subject prop.erty; that nothing was ? planned for either parcel at the present time, but any uke pl~r.ned would have to be compatible with the area. `• The Co~ission inquired what would happen if the access over the flood control channel , ~ to Orangethorpe Avenue were removed - then there would be no acceas to aubject property even though dedication had been ~ede. Mr. Sullivan advised ths Co~isaion that this access was granted by the courts yeara ago, ~ and, therefore, was irr~evocable. Mr. Lowry then noted for the Co~ission there were certain requirements for street iimprovement, lighta, etc., which would have to be met upon request by the City; therefore, aieaurance of improvement of the actual iatreet was made unde~ Conditional Use Permit No. 630. Co~isaioner Gauer then noted the Commiasion's primary concern was that at some later ~ date the petitionera would elaim s hardahip because of the present status of the property being landlocked. Mr. Roberta advised the Commission that since the owners of the property had agreed to include a 20-foot strip extending from subject property westerly to the fnture alignment of Red Gum Street, this would assure that subject property had street £rontage. Mr. Lowry, in responae to Co~iasion questioning, atated that subject petition need not be readvertised for this 2Q-foot strip aince it would be'u"sed for access only and could not be coasidered a buildable lot because of aetback requiranents. ~ Mr. Sullivan then st.ated thac by granting the 20-foot frontage on Red Gum Street, this, ~ ~,- - -- --- • would create a flag lot for subject property. ~ Considerable discussion was held by the Commission as ta the exact conditions which ~ y should be imposed if subject petitioa were approved; whether landacaping should be in i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~.` _ ~ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ ~} F' . ~ .... .i •` . ~1 7 ., "'.. . . . .~ . . . _. .._._.._.. . _ _ .. . ~ , _ . . __ .. . _ .._. ._. . .. _. . . _..__ .. .- ._ .. _ '.. ~ ~~' ~ ; -~ . , \ ~_ MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 499g CONDITI6NAL USE - front of the chainlink fence; possibility of not ueing able to comply PERTIIT N0. 1153 with requiring fire hydrants since it would be difficult to waive (Cc~ntinued) fire protection requirements which the Fire Department felt were inadequate on the plans; and that a revised legal description should be aubmitted which would include the 20-foot strip extending to Red Gum Street. Mr. Roberts advised the Co~ission that in order for proper maintenance of the landscaping the staff would auggest that the chainlink fence be on,the property line and the land- scaping to the inside of the fence, thus maintenance would not be difficult. Furthermore, the petitioner stipulated to submitting a revised legal description which would include the 20-foot atrip extending to Red Gum Street, as well as stipulating to as~halting the entire parcel except for the landacape strips. Commissioner Camp offered Reaolution No. PC70-7 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1153, in part, deleting the request for waiver of a parcel not having frontage on a dedicated street since the petitioner had atipulated to previding a 20-foot strip extending from subject property to the future alignment of Red Gum Street, and aubject to conditions requiring that the entire parcel be blacktopped; that the chainlink fence remain at the proposed present location on the property line - however, that a 6-foot wide strip of landscaping be provided along the interior portion of thia chainlink fence to be planted with Acacia Latifolia and Car.ary Is2and Pines in accordance with approval of the Parkway Maintenence Supervisor; that said landacaping strip be provided with irrigation facilities and perpetually maintained; that any problem as to providing proper fire hydrants shall be resolved with the Fir~ Department; and that aince improvementa for Red Gum Street were bonded, this would assure that impravements would be provided for the 20-foot strip at su~h time as Red Gum Stren.t was extended northerly from La Jolla. (See Resnlution Hook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: aYES: COI~ASISSIONERS: Camp, Earano, Gauer, Thom, Rowl.and. NOES: COMMISSI~'1NGRS: None. • ABSENT: COl~AfISSIO.~TERS: Herbat. ABSTAIN: COI~AtISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FRIMUS HOLDING COMPANY, 9889 Santa Monica Boulevard, PERMIT N0. 1154 Beverly Hills, California, Owner; T.ARRY CHATFERS, S00 South Main Street, Suite 405, Orange, California, Agent; requeating permission to ESTABLISH A CHILD CARE CENTER on propertp described as: An irregularly ahaped parcel of land consie'ting of approximately one acre located at the eouthwest corner of Shepard Street and CarQenter Avenue, with frontages of 90 feet each on eaid etreeta, said intereection located approximately 1,500 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Kraemer Bsulevard and La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Aesistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed fur the Commission the location of the property, previoue zoning action, uaea established in cloae proximity, and the proposal to estahlieh a child care center having 11,200 aquare feet deaigned to serve 200 pre- achool children and having 20 inetructora and/or aupervisors, and khat the petitionera based their requeet upon the contention there was a great need for such a use in the Northeaet Induetrial llrea, particularly around the Autonetics facility since hundreds of mothera worked in the aurrounding induatries. Furthermore, the plana indicated 23 parking apacea were being propoeed; that a circular drive in the front of the main atructure would have acceee to both Carpenter Avenue and Shepard Street; that a 6-foot maeonry wall was propoaed along the east, south, and west perimetera of the playground area, while the front part of that area would be encloaed with a chainlink fence; and that the hours of operation would be from 6;U0 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., although the State of California had indicated a permit could be obtained to aperate the faciZity for a longer period, up to 11;00 P.M.~ in ordar to accommodate the working hours of the mothers on the afternoon ehift. Mr. Brown, in evaluating the propoeal, atated that although the propoaed facility would be convenient for the mothera working in the area, there appeared to be a question as to the appropriateneae in view of the heavy traffic generated on Carpenter Avenue and Shepard Street, which provided the primary accesaways to several of the Autonetica parking facilitiee; and that with the number of vehicles which would be entering or leaving the parking areae at different times of the day or night, traffic conflicCs could arise ae a result of the proposal at this particular location aince mothers would be dropping off their children and picking them up at approximately the same time as the varioua ahifta let out or began, and mothera wou?d not necessarily be utiliaing theee parki.ng lote but cauld come from other induetrial developments in the Northeasr. Induatrial Area. Furthermore, a prime coneideration before the Commisaion was the ~ _. . . i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ..,.....,„-.,_....,...,.....-......,......~....,.,...,a..,.~-.l..e.~.-,. -,.......~ r~ t-> r-~ ~~ _~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 4999 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - appropriateness of land use given the fact that this was not considered ~ PERMIT N0. 1154 an accessory use to the primo use in the industrial area and could s (CONTINUED) establish a precedent for other commercial operations in the industrial i ; areas of the City. Mr. Larry Chaffers, agent for the petitiuner, appeared before the Commission and noted his ' f'irm, Bill Brooks Company Realtors, represented both the seller and buyer; that there were several items which he would like to cover as additional information and background on the s~udies made on subject property and the proposal, which could give a better insight, ~{ namely: the buyers were the F~ur Seasons Company, a company on the New York Stock s Exchange with headquarters in Oklahoma City; that the company was one of the largest ; developers and operators of extensive care and convalescent hospitals in the country; ? that for the past two and one-half years they had been researching the problem of day j care centers and had since come up with the plan before the Commission which was proposed :~ to be extended throughout the country; that these day care centers would be franchised on ~ a state-~ide basis and would not be operated individually; that eighteen states now were ; covered with franchises in this program; that the Four Seasons Company was a multi-million ~ dollae corporation, and it was important to note that subject property would be purchased with caeh and built with cash - therefore, there would be no financial problem, and they `. were not asking for something which would not be built in the very near future; that in ! all probability there wuuld be two or more of these day care centers in Anah~im; that he had met with representatives of Autonetics and had make a market study which w~s more precise than that presented with the petition, and this study indicated there were more than 4,700 working mothers at Autonetics, with about 400 having children between the ages of 2 to 7 years, which ;•ou~d be the market in ~:hich his clients were interested; and that the State of•California did not allow day care centers for children under 2 years of age. Chairman Rowland a:vised Mr. Chaffers that the Commission's prime concern, in addition i to proper land use, was that of the possibie traffic conflict - therefore, he would suggest that further commenta be held to these two fields, j Mr. Chaffers then noted that according to City of Anaheim studies traffic on La Palma ! Avenue was 17,400 cars per day on a 24-hour period; that there was no precise study on the two streets on which the proposed center was to be located - however, there were three arking lota off of Carpenter Avenue and Shepard Street, one of which had a capacity P of 360 vehiclea; that he had visited that lot at 1:00 P.M., made a count, and found it was not filled; that the others had a capacity of 200 cars each - therefore, one could assume a maximum of 360 cars would be using theae two streets since none of them would be at capacity, and then by adding an additional 50 to 75 cars which could be coming in ac odd hours during the day because of achool-age children, this would mean an increase of approximately 2QU cars on these streets; that in his discussions with representatives of Autonetics the only traffic conflict they could see would be at 7:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M., their peak load periods~ an~l the eotal increase from the proposed use would be 8.74>0 over that now using these f~:cilities; that he recogni¢ed there would be people coming there to ma,ke left-hand tu.r~;s onto La Palma Avenue - however, Autonetics also had a psrking !ot in which left-:iand turna had to be made from La Palma Avenue; that in addi- tion to the representativea of Autonetica he also discussed this proposal with the National Busineasmens Alliance - however, the day care officers for the proposed facility were not in on the meetings with Autonetica, and, furthermore, the Autonetics representa- tives indicated there was a need for the proposed type of service being offered; that there might be oppoaition as to the possible traffic problem, and his cTients would have to make a more precise etudy; and that, in his opinion, there was an urgent ne~d to stabilize the woxking mother's problems - therefore, the proposed child care center would be the answer to one of them. Mr. Robert Goll, representing Autonetics, Division of North American Aviation, appeared before the Commisaion in opposition and presented a letter to the Coa~iasion, which was also read, summarized as follows: 1. The proposed use would be advantageoua to their employees. 2. Their compsny had certain reservationa which they wiahed to express, namely, traffic pattarna for ttie atree*.s affording ingress 8nd egress to the various parking lots of Autonetics and for the proposed site, which could become quite congested at certain times during the day and could be a considerable inconvenience to the parents picking up or leaving their children. 3. One of the company's helistops was located only 1,300 feet from subject property, which could be further objectionable ta the operators. 4. Their moat seriaus reaervation concerned the establiahment of a precedent for the intrusion of non-induatrial uaes into the Northeast Industrial AreA since Autonetics continued to insist that in the interesta of the industrial future of the City, their own interests and interests of other induatries located and proposed to locate in the Northeast Industrial Area could best be served by the exclusion of non-industrial usea. 5. Although they would welcome the eatablishment of a child care center located con- viently for the ua~ of their employees, it was ~elt the interesta of all concerned ~ h ~ ..~__".. - •` .. ~ - . / ~ - - -- - T-- ...~,._.._.~._.._._._... . _._...__.~_ __._.......-,...,.a.,'.,,-,............../_...,..n,......,....,-w . _....-....,... ~--...-......~,r.,..:-.ri -+,,.~ _ . .•.>-.,...r. ~.n-...:~;e.~..e<.,.r~^-^~ . . . . ~'~. ~ } r;~ . ~~ ~~ ,;. > MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 5000 ' { CONDITIONAL USE - would be to locate the facility adjacent to the Northeast ; PERMIT N0. 1154 Industrial Area rather than in the center of it. ; (Continued) The Co~ission Secretary noted there were letters of opposition oa file from other industries in this general area, as well as owners- j developers of industrial properties in this area. ' \ Mr. ~haffers, in rebuttal, stated that he could appreciate the concern of the industries in this area - however, they had done a considerable amount of research as to this problem, and the proposed facility was designed and proposed to serve the working mothers of Autonetics; that it co~ild be considered a supporting use similar to a computer company, and with the propoaed £acility the,y would be offering a service to industry just as a restaurant, bank, service station, etc.; that they had been working.quite closely with Autonetics ~n this reapect, and they felt the request was not spot zoning but a badly needed service for the working mothers. THE HEARI.IG WAS CLOSED. Co~issioner Gauer noted that one argument that could be used as to the application was that Cne City would not permit a public school at this location althougt~ this use could be considered to be a coriiplementary use, such as an infirmary which took care of the injured and suddenly ill employees - however, in view of the fact that Autonetics and other induatries felt this .aas an intrusion into the industrial area, and since their imves,tments ~uo~ld be aff~cted, they would know what their employees needed. Thezefore, because this eatire area was develop'•.ng with industrial uses and industries were opposed to the use, the ~Co~issinn should tt=:> this into consideration. Chairman ltowland noted thaL in the past this type of use was propoaed in a residential area where parents dropped off their children before leaving for work; however, the timing mig'~t be difficult for them if traffic conflicts arose as they planned to drop off their childr~en at this lccation just before entering their place of business, which was not a prbblem when the child care centers were located in residential areas. Comiaissianer Camp noted thst other than the fact that the child care center was propos~ed to ,bE Tocated ia the ceater o£ the City's largest induatrial area, the City in the past had bee:~ reluttant to approve uses that were not industrial in character or incidentalJ to industrial uses; that the capacity of the proposed facility and the number of working mothera ha~ing children of the age proposed to be using this facility would indicat~ that in order for this operation to be a success, there would have to be children of working mothers outside of the Autonetics facility,whicli could create the biggest traffic conflict, and it had been the policy of the City in the past to discourage introduction of neighborhood traffic or commercial traffic into the industrial areas. Therefore, it was his opinion that although the uae was a needed one, it should be located elsewhere outside of the induatrial area. Co~issioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC70-8 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1154 on the basis that the proposed use was incompatibli: t~ *he industrial development already existing adjacent to subject property and in r.hia gen~ral area; that conflicting traffic patterns could result since the proposed use would be at th~ interaection of two local streets used for access to and from parking areas of s very large industrial complex (Autonetics); that the size and scope of the proposed use would indicate that children other than those of employees o£ the major industrial complex in this area would be utilizing thie facility, thus injecting additional non-induatrial traffic into ait area reserved for induatrial purposes; that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area in •Which ic ie proposed to be located; that the Planning Commissian and City Council have attempted Co retain the induatrial integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area, and approval of the propoaed use would set an undesirable precedent by allowing o~L•her than industrial uses into an area projected on the General Plan and being developed fur induatrial purposes. (See Resolution Book) On roll caZl the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COrIliISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENi~ COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~ a ~ `~ ; --_ __ ~-_ _ __------- --...-•---- - - 3 \_~ ~ ~ l.~ 4;. - :- . -_ -, . MINUTE6, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 5001 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL, 204 Eaat N0. 69-70-33 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: Portion A- Several parcels of land located on the east side ot Anaheim Boulevard, extending northerly from Lorraine Drive a distance of approximately 750 feet and Portion B- A rectangularly shaped par.cel of land located at the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, having approximate frontages of 67 feet on Anaheim Boulevard and 136 feet on Vermont Avenue, be reclassified from PORTION A- C-1, GENERAL CODfIfERCIAL, ZONE AND PORTION B- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to PORTION A- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE AND PORTION B- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the City Council had initiated the reclassification petition in an attempt to assist the pYOperty owners in•-this area in expanding their existing multiple-family residential uaes without each owneL• being required to file a variance petition to expand an exiating noncon:orming use, as a result of denial by the Planning Commission of a variance petition by the owner of one of the parcela for expansion of her triplex to add an additional apa~-tment for heraelf on the basis that the use was a nonconforming use, and it was not tt:Pir desire to allow its expansion. Furthermore, the development did not have adequate open space as required by the site development standards if said property were zoned R-3; that subsequent to the Planning Commission action, after the variance petition was appesled, the City Council granted the variance and at that time determined that since these properties were developed with apartments, to avoid any future variance petitions being processed, reclassification of these parcels located on the east side of Anahetm Boulevard between Vermont Avenue and Lorraine Drive should be made to the most appropriate zone. Ch~:rman Rowland noted for interested per~ons that since this was a City Council initiated petition, and since it had been the Planning Commission's policy in the past not to rezone properties in the City against the property owners' wishes, and the City Council acted in good faith by initiating this petition on the assumption that the existing apartment development owners might wish to also expand their facilities, the reclassification to the R-3 Zone was the vehicle which would permit expansion without numerous variance petitions being considered at pub~ic hearinga, and that the C-1 Zone no longer persnitted xeaidential apartment development. In addition, he felt the City Council did not want to do anything contrary to the wishes of these property owners, and, therefore, this public hearing wouZd clarify the wants and desires of these property owners. A ehowing of hands indicated seven pereona present in opposition to subject petition. Mrs. Florence Burrows, 956 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared before the Co~ission and noted she represented persons owning six parcels; that her son was alse the executor of the estate of the owner of another lot, all in opposition to the propo~ed reclassification of their properties from C-1 to R-3; that she and her family originally awned 16 acres in thia area but sold most of it for the development of a reaidential aubdivision; that those lots in Portion A originally were zoned R-3, but after considerable discuasion with the City Council dnd Mayor (Pearson) in 1955, their propert'_.ea were reclassified to the C-1 2one subject ~-_~ meeting aeven specific conditions, ane of which was dedicstion of a strip of 18nd along Anaheim Boulevard for street widening purpoaes, and in 1957, all properties had an ordinance read on them; that most of the owners of these parcels desired C-1 zoning becauae they felt this was the moat appropriate zoaa for their long-range investments when their properties would ultimately develop for coc~ercial purposes; that since they had accepted the Mayor's word, it was assum~d that a speciai letter was not necessary to aubatantiate reclassification of their properties since he had informed t5em the toning would not change unleas tt~g property owners themselves requested it; that she and her son had delayed aelling their late to the first potential buyer beZieving that the best intereata of the City and themaelves would not be se~ved, and they had considered the posaibility of building an office high-rise aimilar to the one in che area to the south; and that she, therefore, urged the Commission to •recatmnend denial of the reclassification petition to lt-3 zonis~g for bath parcels in Portion A- however, they were all in favor of reclaesification to C-1 for Portion B. Misa Alice Emery, 918 South Anaheim .Boulevard, appeared before the Co~nisaion and noted she was the petitioner of the variance request for which she asked to add an additional unit, which precipitated the initiation of this reclassification; that sh~ was not opposed to the properties remaining C-1 so long as she could still proceed wi*_h the variance the City Council granted and which the PlanninZ; CQ~ission had denied, ~nd inquired whether or not this reclassificati~n petitiun w~ould sffect l~er prope.cy. Chatrman Rowland noted that since the variance had been approved by the City Council, she was free to build in accordance with the plans the City Council approved. ~ Mr. A. R. Allen, 938 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared before the Commission in opposition ~ and noted he had purchased hie property four years ago with the understanding that the ~ + tl :, - r_ _~ __ _..._.._.. _._ -, .. ___ _ _ -. : ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ...-o_,.~........~.~_._...._..t~.......__._..--- ' _ __ __--- F_..........~ . ~.ran . . «....._:,._ a~;r.+z'^'s,'.-•-•~. .. a:~~..~M„~+..,~,.r"rss-.,-s..,...r,•~:.~- , , ~ ~ t~ ~~ .~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, ~anusry 26 1970 ~~ , 5002 ~~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION ro ert was zoned and would remain zoned C-1 and that his N0 •~ p p y purchase 69-70-33 ~ % , was made as a long-term investment for C-1 - therefore, he was not (Continued} inte t d ~ res e in the change to R-3 zoning, ~ j Mr, William Konzal, 920 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared befare the Cormnission in oppositio•: noting he had h 4, ~ , purc ased his property 'oecause it was zoned C-1 for a long- term investment; that if he had known consider ti ~ a on would be given to changing the zoniny~ to R-~, he would not have paid the price he did. - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Comaission that prior to the reclassifi- cation to C-1 ten l ~ , parce s in Portion A wR~re zoned R-3, and the apartments were developed when the C-1 Zone permitted apartment develo ment h { p - owever,, since the C-1 Zone was amended in January, I965, apartment development was deleted. Further ' \ more, the Commission might wish to consider zoning Portion B to C-1 since a restaurant already existed on th pro ert '• t p y, e The Commission Secretary advised the Cormnission thac there were two letters on file from adjoining ro ert ` , c p y owners requesting that the properties in Portion A be retained in the C-1 Zone. Furthe~ore ^ lett i , , er was also on file from the owner of Portion B, indicatLng he had purchased two of the lots i~nnediately adjacent t P '± o ortion B for parking purposes since he planned to expand his restaurant facilit} and if Portion A , we_e rnciassified to R-3, this zone would not permit comner~aial parking. In addition, since he had contacted the Plannin De a t :; - ~, g p r ment prios to purchasing these lots to determine if parking would be permitted, he felt the price he aid for th l p e ota was far and above the price the property would have brought if the zoning had been R-3 and that he wish d ~a ~ , e to go on record as being opposed to the R-3 zoning on Portion A since this ~.ould mean a great financial loss because the existin a art t ~ ~ ~ g p men units were difficult to rr.nt to suitable tenants because of the excessive noisea emanating from the s i • erv ce stations on the other three corners of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. ' ~ :~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED ~} . Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-9 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to th Ci ' e ty Council that Portion A of Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-33 be disapproved on the basis that ' no evidence had been aubmitted that a land use change had t.eken place to warrant favorable considerati t ' on o reclassify to the R-3 Zone; that the property owners were unalterably opposed to reclassification to R-3 b h ' ecaus~r of t eir long-range investmenta made in these properties for ultimate commercial de~relopment; and that it was furth er recommended that reclassification to the C-1 Zone for Portian B be approved, subject to conditions since the ro ~ ' , p perty owner indicated by letter that he was in favor of the zoaing which would place the existin reataurant i g n the most appropriate z~ne. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~o~lowing vote: AYES: CObII~fISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer Thcm Rowland , , . NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. i ~ RECESS - Commissioner Thom offered a motion to recess the meeting. i ~ Co~issioner Camp seconded the motion. Prior to roll call ~ requesting the motion to be carried, Chairman Rowlsnd noted ` he would be ahsent for the remeindzr of the Planning Co~ission ! meeting, and since the duly electe3 Chairman pro tem ~as also absent, he was appointing Coa~issioner A1Zred as temporary chairman. Chairman Rowland then requeated a vote on the motion £or ` temporary recess. The motion was carried. The meeting # recessed at 3:45 P.M. i Commiseioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:45 P.M. ! RECONVENE - Chairman pro tem Allred resonvened the meeting at 4:00 P.M. , Commissioners Herbst and Rowland being absent. ;__.,_ ~ ~ ~ - _ __ _ _~_ , ~- - ~ s - ~ ~ . ~ ~' s ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ i I ( i I i ~-, ~ ~..~,__.., ....,._..~,.~ m,,.: ._,_..., _... ..~;., r. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAP:SIING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 ~ ~oos REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARI~.NCE N0. 2139 - John and Ann Kraj~cic - Property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 570 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue and zoned R-A - Request . for waiver of the conditions of approval in Resolution No. PC69-234. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the action taken on the petition in which the Commisston required the standard conditions reco~ended by tne Interdepartment Coum!ittee for Public Safety and General Welfare, and in addition the Co~ission attached two conditions requiring that a sewerage dump station be provided and that all drives and travel ways be blacktopped and areas where travel trailers and boats vere to be stored were to be treated with a sodium compa~nd to eliminate weeds and dust which might affect the adjoining property owners. Mr. Brown then noted that the petitioner had contacted most of the members of the Zoning Division as well as personnel of other departments of the City regarding deletion of the conditions imposed, and in each instance the petitioner had indicated he was never made aware of the conditiona imposed and to complete them would be a financial burden upon him considering the amount of money derived from this storage facility. However, evidence to the contrary indicated that the petitioner's property had been posted with a~legal notice of public hearing ten days prior to the public hegring; that the petitioner was mailed a legal notice; that a Report to the Coimnission had been mailed the Friday prior to the public hearing in which the recommended conditions were enumerated; that the minutes of the Commission meeting indicated the Comcaission had discussed in great detail the conditions of approval with the petitioner; and Chat although all City employees contacted by the petitioner had made every attempt to visit the property and discuss with Mr. Krajacic the fact that the conditions which the staff recommended were standard in. the approval of the expansion of a use of property and that the Commission had added the two conditions regarding a sewerag2 dump station and blacktopping and treatment with a sodium compound of the storage area, the petitioner was still adamant in his desire to have these conditions deleted, stating the conditions of approval were unfair. The staff adviaed Che petitioner to submit a letter to the Commission requesting reconsidera- tion of the conditions of approval, and subsequent to this, the petitioner forvarded a letter through his attorney to the City Council, requesting that these conditions be deleted. However, because the Planning Comnission took the final action on this petition, the letter was forwarded to the Co~ission for further consideration. Mr. Brown, in conclusion, noted that the conditions recommended by the ICPS&GW were conaidered necessary to guarantee the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the surrounding properties - therefore, there would seem to be no valid reason, other than financial, submitted by the petitioner to warrant waiver of these conditions, and the staff would recommend that since the conditions of approval were required to be completed by February 15, 1970, if the petitioner felt it would be impossible to meet these conditions by that time, that subject petition be terminated and that the petitioner be required to have all stored vehicles, boats, etc. removed from the pre~nises within ninety days from February 15, 1970. Mr. Odra Chandler, 807 South Harbor Boulevard, Attorney representing Mr. Krajacic, noted for the Cormniasion that due to the Code requirements,any consideration the Commission might give to amending or deleting conditions, as he understood it, would have to be through a public hearing - however, he wished to state that these conditions with which Mr. Krajacic was primarily concerned were onerous, and that the petitioner requested additional time for the completion of these conditions. The Commission inquired of Mr. Chandler whether or not the petitioner intended to comply with the conditions of approval since thPSe were very thoroughly discussed with him at the public hearing; therefore, they could not understand why the petitioner Would make a statement that he was unaware of the conditions of approval. Mr. Chandler advised the Commission Chat the petitioner failed to understand the amount of money this w~uld cost to meet these conditions. The Commission then noted the matter of requiring blacktopping was of utmost importance in order to reduce the dust factor which could be dangerous to the residents in l•his general area, and that most of the trailers presently being constructed were self- contained - therefore, the sewerage dump station was also necessary. Mr. Chandler advised the Commission that the trailers being stored on subject pxop~rty were not aeif-contained but were par.t of a truck bed which could be left of: and o*_ored, and that the owner of the property in the past oiled the property several times a year to reduce the dust problem. Furthermore, he had visited the siCe on this date and had found no problem as to dust. ~ ~ ; ~ ~ _...-- _•-- - .. ~ , i , ~ / i " / i I I~ .. ~•~srctiv,avm`nm~ .nr~s.veoe.n.mr.av~av.~.av..scc~w.en~e~x~~n.+n~c.~!c~'..~nsa.w!.a'.A::.~rf ~^.n~~cns~vm-'W^.~a^CT^!~'r:h^.T.'^^?T.S;??«'/„+±~^~ 1.....~.,w Y^-'^M„'~'~?.. ,°a.^^n_: V ~ '~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 REPORTS AND RECOh44ENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) 5004 ChE~ Coarmission further noted thaC it was their understanding from discussions with the petitioner that it was his intent to have other types of trailers stored on the premises aiso. Mr, Chandler noted that the size of the parcel was 660 by 105 feet, and there was a 10- unit motel cpnstructed on the front of the property; that the use for the rear portion was planned on a short-term basis, for approximately two years, until the tight money aituation eased since the owner had plans to enlarge his present motel facility, and that a phase-out program would be initiated as soon as final plans were formulat~d. However, when Mr. Krajacic had made inquiries as to the cost of the work and materials ~ ir.volved in the conditions of approval, the cost of a fire plug alone came to $4,000; and ` that the trailer perk to the east of subject property had been developed for soma time and did not have a fire plug and was still the same depth. • ' ~The Commission then noted that since this waR not an advertised public hearing far subject petition, the Commission was bound by Code not to make changes to conditions; however, an extension of time to meet these conditions could be granted. Commissioner Allred noted that it was his opinion the improvement of the rear portion of ~ subject property would not be an economic loss to the petitioner; that he had seen other trailer storage lots where varioua types of trailers were stored, and since there would , be a variety of trailers scored, a dump station would be needed because of the possible unsanitary conditions which could result, and it would be more conducive for the peti- tioner to have such a facility. Furthermore, in his opinion, if he personally leased the praperty and met the conditions as recommended by the Commission, the cost of these improvements would be more than met in the two years which the petitioner claims•he- proposed to use the property for storage purposes. Mr. Chandler noted that there were similar og~erations in the City which were not required zo meet these conditiona, and this operation had been there for the past ten years with- out requiring a aewerage dump station on the property, and if any health hazard would ~ ~ have occurred, he was aure the neighbors would have complained prior to this time, and y ^ then cited other areas where boata and trailers were stored in which no paving was ~ required. ' : S The Cormnission noted that the boat storage area at Manchester and Lincoln Avenues was an entirely different type of facility than the proposed use of subject property. ; ~ ~ Mr. Chandler noted that even if an additional six months were granted to meet the conditiona, this would not assist the petitioner since many of the people were out of ~ ~` the country, and it would take almost all of that time to contact them and receive a E ~ reply. ~ ~ Commisaioner Gauer then inquired whether or not an additional time could be attached to ~ meet theae conditiona aince it was his opinion the use was ideal for the property and ~ ~ would take many of the trailers and boats off of lots where they were parked in the % front setback of restdential homes. f t Commisaioner Allred then noted that if another petition had been received and procesaed for a similar type atorage facility, the Commisaion would also request the same condi- ' tiona since theae were necessary to protect the health and welfare of the people living i in the general vicinity. Mr. John Krajacic, the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted that another factor to take into conaideration was that his taxea had doubled recently; that when he ~ . purchased subject property he had been informed the property to the east would be developed for apartments - however, thia property was now developing into a motel; ; that he had the property up for sale now, but his prospective purchaser wanted the property only on the condiLon that trailers could be atored on the rear portion for at least one year, and the former owner had stored these trailers for almost ten years; ' ~ that the inaurance underwriter had required additional inaurance from him because trailers were stored on the property; that aix montha ago there were fifty trailers stored on the property - however, there were now forty-eight; and that they were not able to obtain additional storage trailers because they were unable to have a sign advertising the fact : ---- ~ that they had etorage facilities. Co~issioner Farano noted that he would make one suggestion: that subject petition be readvertised for the meeting of February 25, and any conditions of approval which were ~ to have been met by February 15 would not be required until the Commiasion had resolved ~- the request of Mr. Krajacic at a public hearing; that the termination date of the petition ' & ~ after the 25th would be until such time as the Commission and City Council took action ~ E ~~ 1. ~-.~-----...._._~ _ _ _ _.._ - -- -- ----- ------ :. .. , E ~-- ' { / i nz.v-me.a.+m....-.~._. ..~..~.e..~..~... _ ... r . . .. ... . ~. .... .. rrt»~,..,+.+.-+rs,;.rF." \_.~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 26, 1970 5005 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) on the petiCioner's request. Co~iasioner Farano offered a motion to direct the staff to readvertise Petition for Variance No. 2139 for the meeting of February 25, 1970, and the use approved subject to completion of the conditions shall remain in effect until the request for amendment or deletion of conditions•under Resolution No. PC69-234 were resalved at public hearing by the Planning Coimnission and City Council. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRiED. Commiasioner Allred voted "no", stating he felt that the petitioner was fully eware of what he was doing when he came in for the original petition; there- Fore, he felt the petitioner should be required to complete the conditions in order to assure protection for the health, safety, aad general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and that the petitioner would use his property to its fullest, regard- less of the manner in which it was presently proposed to be used, and in his estimation the discussion before the Co~ission should not have been considered but should have automatically been set for public hearing. ITEM N0. 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 118 - Kellogg Drive extending southerly from Orangethorpe Avenue to La Palma Avenue. --- + s ---- --- - ~ . y ^ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed fur the Commission the proposal to have a General Plan amendment designating Kellogg Drive southerly of Orangethorpe Avenue as a secondary street exception an3 requested that said General Plan amendment be set for publ.ic hearing. Coamiissioner Camp offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for puhlic hearing on February 9, 1970, General Plan Amendment No. 118 to consider establishing Kellogg Drive southerly of Orangethorpe Avenue as an eacception to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Cammissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEL. c ITEM N0. 3 Propoaed Code amendments relating to "adult businesses". Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Co~ission that the City Attorney's Office and the Development Servicea Department had prepared recommendations of Code amendments to Chapteia 18.37, 18.38, 18.34, 18.4C, 18.44, and 18.48 which are intended to enable the City to more effectively regulate the establishment and placement of "adult buainesses"; said busineases would be permitted by approval of a conditional use permit only, and that the staff recoimnended that these amendments be set for public hearing. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary ta set for public hesring amendments to Title 18, Chaptera 18.37, 18.38, 18.39, 18.40, 18.44, and 18.48 pertaining to establishment and placement of adult businesses by conditional use permit ~nly. Comnissioner Thom sec;anded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 Mobile home sales at newly developing mobile home parks, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Planning Commission data as set forth in the Report to the Co~iasion regarding the Commisaion's recent reco~endation to the City Council in Resolation No, PC69-254, to eatablish a policy which would permit the sale of new mobile homes for use in newly established and approved mobile home parks and the subsequent study made as a reault of opposition expressed at a Council meeting by the Mobile Home Park Association. Conaiderable diacussion was held by the Cotmniasion on the variaus facets of the Report to the Commission as it pertained to the Co~nisaion's recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Denny Dickenaon, 1858 Mission Street, South Pasadena, appeared before the Co~ission and stated that perhaps he could give some additional information for their consideration; that he was th~ developer of the mobile home park at Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street; that the sale of mobile homes at the parksite could be likened tn the ssle o£ homes in a single-family tract wherein modela were available for the purchaser to select one which would meet his apecific needs; that the City of Anaheim, to his knowledp,e, did not have dealers having retail sales of mobile homes, ~hus any dealer sale outside Anaheim would deprive the City of sales tax revenue; that with their present operation having retail sales at the site the Cit would reali th ~ ~ ~ I ~ . y ze e revenue on the saZes; that he had just ----- : - _. _. .. `..- _ . _ , i- , _ ~ ( ~ { ) t.~ \ MINUTES, CTTY,PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 26, 1970 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (ConCinued) 5006 returned f.rom a tour of many of California~s mnbile home parks and had noted that a majority of them were now "closed" parks; that ioan companies wpre now considering loans in a more favorable light•where mobile homes were sold on the parksite; that this sale of mobile homes was necessary due to the high coat of land and for improvements to make the park more desirable; that they had 23 mobile home models from which the prospec::ive tenant could choose; and that since the Crescent and Gilbert mobile home park was filled, from an economic sEandpoint they would not be interested in maintaining a continuous sales operation at the parksite to assure similar replacewent when a tenant moved; h~,w- ever, since they were legitimate mobile home dealers, an acceptable model could be obtained from any dealer they contacted. Mr. Dickenson, in response to Co~ission questioning, stated his presence at the Commisaion's reconsid~ration of their reco~endation on mobile home sales was because the staff had invited him to present his viewpoint; Chat the manner of sJ31es was ~ new concept of operation; that it was economically impossible to develop a mobile home park without being able to have mobile home sales on the premises until the park was filled; that prices were controlled by a buyers' market, and one must have prices which were competitive; and that from a selling standpoint, when they sold the mobile hoaes, their buyers were guaranteed servicing of their mobile home, this being due to the fact that they were the developers; and that 85% of the purchasers of mobile homes made outside the park from regular dealers were given no guarantee as to servicing. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised interested persons in the Council Chamber that the City Council would be considering at public hearing the proposal of the Planning Commisaion for the establishment of a policy for mobile home sales at their January 27, 1970 meeting some time after 1:30 P.M. Mr. Brown then noted that since mobile home parks were approved by conditional use permit, the Co~ission might wish to consider expanding the advertisement to include their sales; however, the Commission was of the opinion this was unnecessary. Commissioner Camp offered a moti.on to advise the City Council that the Planning Commission action in Resolution No. PC69-254, dated December 15, 1969, is hereby reaffirmed after considering all the additional evidence and testimony. Co~nissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to February 2, 1970, for a work session with the Orange County Planning Commission. Co~aissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M. MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, February 2, 1970, 7:00 P.M. Chairman pro tem Herbst reconvened the meeting of the Planning Co~ission, Co~nissioners Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, and Thom being present. Others present were members of the Orange County Planning Commiasion; Development Services Director Alan G. Orsborn; Aasistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompaon; Zoning Supervisor Charles Raberts; Assistant City Attorney John Dawson; and Deputy City Attorney Frenk Lowry. The work session and meeting with the Orange County Planning Commission was to establish better co~unication between the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Planning Commission relative to petitions within the area of influence of the City of Anaheim submitted to the City for co~ents. ADJOURNMENT - The work sesaion of the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, G~ti-~r./~ ~./ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission I i t i i ~f I .1 ! ~ - __.. _ _.._ __ _ _ . _.._ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ . ~ ~, ~ ~ [ \ t ~ . • ~ : ~ ~ _ ~ ~ } ; ; ~ . ; j