Loading...
Minutes-PC 1970/05/04~cr.~~~uc r~~TING ;;A regCiTar meeting of';;the Anaheim,City Plepning ~os~ission was called ,to ord~r b Chai 'R . • y rman. owland at 2:00 o'clock P:M., a'quorum being.' present; . , , - PRES,F.NT ', CHAIRMAN: :Rowland. ` , i - COAIl~iiSSIONERSr. Allred; Farano, Gauer, Herbst,,Seymour. ABSENT - COPffiISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Aasistant Developmenf Services Director: Ronald Thompson- ~ Aasistant t Ci y Attomey: John Dawson Office 'Engineer. Jay Titus Zoning;Supervisor . Charles RoberCs Assistant Zoning Supervieor: Malcolm Slaughter Pl PLEDGE OF . anning Commission Secretary; Ann"Krebs. AI.LEGIANCE ' - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge,of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - •. THE MINUTES .The Minutes of-the meeting of April 20, 1970, were approved with the • folTowing correcti ;' ~ ons on,moEion by Commissioner A1l;ed,.seconded'by Commissioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED: ~ Page 5100 - Paragreph 7, lines'4 and 5 should read: " before the City Council:and edvised that h w u ` ', , ~-,' e o ld abstain from takin g part in any of.the itiems at;this.time." Page 5103 - Paragraph 5, first.line should.read: "Cownissioner Farano".~~ VARIANCE"N0. 2161 I - -,CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING; LUSK CORPORATION, P. O. Box 1217 Whittier Califor i O r `TENTATIVE MAP OF ` , , n a, wner; equeating,WAIVEB.OF REQUIREMENT THAT RESID~NTIAL :STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS n .TRACT`::NO. 5674, ' REVISION o property described as: An irregularly.shaped:parcel of land cons3sting of,a pr imate - N0: 3 . p ox ly 22 acres located at the northwest corner of Nohl Rarich Road and Ro a1 0ek R d ~' h ` y oa , aving approximate':frontages of;940 feet on the north side of Nohl ; Ranch Road and 700 feet on the wes,t side.of Roya1 0ak Road. Property j presently classified R-A,.AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ TENTATIVE TRe1CT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: LUSK CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 1217 Whittier ~ , , California. ENGINEER: Hopen, Hedlund & Darby, Inc., 3030 West Main Street Alhamb a , r , California. Property located at the northwest corner of Noh1 Ranch Road and Ro al Oak R d y oa , consists 'of approximate.ly 22 acres of land and is proposed for sub- division int 52 R o -H-i0,000 zoned lots. Subject petition and tract.were continued from the meetings of March 9 and 23 and,April Cx, 1970, in order to allow the.petitioner time to_,resolve certain engineering and site development problems connected with this proposal. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter.reviewed:the location of subject property, the existing zoning with`a resolution of intent to R-H-10,000 pending, aad the request . for four residential..structures Eo be oziented"to side-on arterials, whereas Code,required said single-family homes to rear-on arterials; that the-pr~posed tract would subdivide subject property,into=52 R-H-10;000 zoned lots; that'similar development existed to the north, kith R-A to:,the south, east and-west;:and that the one large lot proposed for the northwest corner of Noh1 Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road'was proposed for a future church site - however, the petitioner indicated that,plans of development for Ehis facility were not yet available. - No one.appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to aubject petition. The Commission expressed the desire to question the petitioner, and since he was not present this might be held in abeyance until later on in the meeting. 5119 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y LY ~ , , _ . ~ ~T. ' ~~' : ~~ .. . ~ . . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . > ~ n~ . ~': MINUTES,:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 4, 1970 5120 . - ~ . ~ - ' ~'f• ~'.. . . .. . . . VARIANC& N0. 2161 - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Cou~ission that he had - .; yr~ had.discussions,with the'petitioners as of the previous Friday, at TENTATIVE MAP OF kich i ^`' w t me,they:had indicated they would be present at the public TRACT NO.:'S674,: liearing.. However, since the were t e en °~ " ~'~ y, no pr s t, a, temporary delay REVISION N0. 3 would "ne in order ~ while he contacted the petitioners to determine ~ , , .(Continued) what they desired to'do. '~' Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion to delay,conaideration of subject petitions until•the staff had~h d fr h '`~r~f ear om t e.petitioners: Coa~issioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. L~''- : Y~ ^~ Later in Ehe meeting•Mr. Roberts adyised the Couanission that he had contacted the peti- ~ tioners ho h d ad r3LP~;, w a . vised him that they would submit a letter.requesting that the variance and`tract-be removed from consideration b the Co~i i n , ~'!K ~.y'~ ~~K. y ss o , and at such time as all data regarding engineering problems was obtained, they would request readvertisement fo a r public hearing. ~`; , a;::: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue indefinitely Petition for Variance No: 2161 end T a ent tive Map.of TracE No. 5674, Revision No. 3, and at such time as the peEitioner:was read for con ider o '•~ y s ation f said petifions, they..would.be readvertised at the petitioner's en e 1 . exp s and scheduled for public,hearing. :Commissioner.'Seyinour seconded Ehe motion. MOTION CARRIED. .. .. .. , . ~ ~ '~ ~ . .' .. ~ .. ~ . ' RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING.. JAMES MOORE, c/o Leonard Smith, 125-D South Claudina N0. 69-70=51 Str et, Ana ~ j „~w~iry.; e fieim, California, Owner; Leonard Smith and James Hollenbeck '' , 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting~• ' .'' that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a fronta e of a o i '" t g ppr x mately 165 feet on the.north side of Ba11 Road, having a maximwn depth of approximately 218 feet and bein located ap i `' =` , g prox mately 165 feet east of the centerline of Webster Avenue; and further described,:as 2449 Weat Ba11 Road be ' , reclassified from the R.~, AGRICULTURAL,.ZONE to the R-S,.:SULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEr : ~` ~ : I Assistant.Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property ~ - , uses established.in close proximity, and previous zoning action in 1964 by the Planning Coa~ission a d Ci un f' n ty Co cil establishing a resolution of intent for C-1 zoning on subject property; that although the General Plan indicated highway-related b ~,, A:~ ` uses as eing appropri- ate #or the`Ball Road frontage in this general area, the parcel on the west side of £ , Webster Avenue had been reclassified and developed for multiple-family residential uses; and th t a ° a an dditional lot still existed between aubject property and the Webster Avenue i frontage to which th C i e ommiss on might wish to give particular attention in order to avoid ' "spot zoning" and future land use conflicts between subject ro ert d :;~ p p y an the abutting property to.the west. •.:~ ;y r;':1 Mr. Slaughter then stated there were several corrections to the Report to the Commission as the ert i d ic s -~ y p a ne to conditions; namely, in lieu oF Condition No. 1, the petitioner be '`~~ required to pay $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes, and a correction to ! Condition No 2 where ref !``~ . erence was made to street lighting, this should be changed to I street tree planting. . ;:~:~9 ,~ Mr. Leonard Smith a ent for the ' ~ S petitioner, appeared before the Co~nission and noced the coi d , 's ;'! a y ~curre with the recommended conditians uf approval; however, there was one item ° that the wer d i '~ y e es rous of having approved, namely, the retention of the several large ~ trees in the fronl• yard partic l l .~~~ , u ar y one which would be within the sidewalk area - having the sidewalk curving or bending around th t e h ~ ~ e re ; t st he had talked with the PBL~$Y_ Maintenance Superintendent regarding retention of this tree and had been in- f `~ ormed that since the grade would be lowered, if a 6 to 8-inch deep masonry curbing around the b f `',~ ase o tl:e treeswere provided, the tre~ could then be maintained, if this were waived. Furthermore steff com e t , , m n s regarding the trash storage area - their plans indicated landscaping in the front since it was desiro t ;`~ us o screen this masonry wall construction. i ~.~ Mr. Smith then noted, in response to Coffinission questioning regarding the adjoining lot ! to th . e west, that the owner resided in Santa Ana; that he had contacted him regarding the possibility of combining these two l t f o s or one development but had been advised he was not in the market at this time and might develop the parcel himself '-+ at a future date; and that although subject property and the adjoining property had a resolution of inte t t n o C-1, it would be difficult to develo these p parcels because of the limited type of uses th t ~ a could be placed on the properties due to the proximity of the high school to the south. I ~~ The Commission expressed the opinion thaC it would be a logical step to rocess a ` 2~ p zone change £or the adjoining parcel to the west, at the northeast corner of Webster Avenue i ` , } t ~ ~ _ " ' _ F~~.r...f u,Y;:~ t ~. . . : .:; ~ -. ~ ~~ , -, ft ~ . S ~ : :. ~ _ (v'~,. ~ " MINUTES,~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 4, 1970, ; _ , r . r. _ . S1Z1 ~ RECLASSIFICATION :.- and.Ball Road which was still urideveloped - howeyer,. no zone change ~ ` NO ~,69 70-51' should"be.processed unless',the owner of,the properEp was fullq aware ~ (Continued) ' of the Co~iesion~s''i'ntenEion;;arid that the property owner should be 'contacted~regarding this,` ~ ' Mr. Smith advised the Comqissiori thaC he had cimtacted the:property owner about the proposal before tlie Commission, at whic6 time F~e did not indicate,how he plaaned to , ~' develop his property, nor;would he express any opposition to the proposal. ~ . ; ,. , _ ' The Commission inquired.as to the legaT;procedure necessary to iniEiate a petition for R-3 zoning for the parcel=remaining at Ehe.norEheast'corner af WeSste= Avenue and Ball Road. ';. " ~ " As~~,stant City-~Attorney John Dawaon noted that the resolution of.inteat did have a time : lin~itation;;therefore, if conditions had.not been met, this might be a reason for termi- nation of said_resolution`of intent for'C-1.zoning on_the'p;operty. ~,-. Zoning:Supervisor Charles,Roberts advised rhe.Co~ission that the.reclassification~coverec the'properties considered;for.reclassification to C-1 for the Ba11 Road frontages and reclasaificetion to R-3 for tfiose,properties.on both sides of'Webster Aveatue for the balance, and-if action to:delete`the.-C-1 portion were deemed appropriate; it should apply only to that portion originally considered for C-1 zoning. Mr %Dawson then stated that under those conditions and circumatances this extraction would have to be done at a public hearing. No one appeared in opposifion to; subject:petition.. THE:HEARING.WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed whether,`or not to initiate a petition for R-3 zoning on the ;property to,the west along with subject property.; ~ahether or not the Co~nission would be denying the property owner a".right he thought he was now enjoying, and the need to contact the`property owner of said property;`and that nd action should'be taken on subject petition until some poaitive.action.was taken on the,property to the west. `Co~issioner.Farano offered a motion to reopen Ehe hearing:and continue Petition for ReclassificaEion No. 69-70-51 to the meeting of May 18, 1970; i,n order to allow time for the'staff to contact`the owner~of the property at the northeast corner of Webster Avenue and Ball Road and to advertise said property for R-3.zoning, Commissioner Herbst seconded the'motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct the staff to advertise for public hearing the property located at the northeast corner of Webster Avenue and Ba11 Road to remave said property from the resolution of intent to C-l approved under Reclasaification No. 63-64-62, said hearing to be acheduled:for May 18, 1970. Co~isaioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, STATE COLLEGE MEDICAL CENTER, 215-B North I PERMIT N0. 1163 State College BoulEVard, Anaheim, California, Owner; JAMES A, CARTER, ~ 1540 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Orange, California, Agent; request- I; ing permission to EXPA1dD.AN EXISTING MOTEL WITH WAIVERS OF (1) ~ REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A YUBLIC STREET AND (2) MAXIMUM gUILDING HEIGHT.. f on property.described as: _A rectangularly shaped parcel'•of land located generally north- y ~' west of the intersection of State College Boulevard and Center Street, having a maximum j depth oF approximately 270 feet and a maximum width of approximately 155 feet, and being ! located approximately 510 feet north of the centerline of Center Street. Property ~ presently classified C-0, Coum~ercial-Office, Zone. ~: Subject petition was continued_from the April 6 and 20, 1970 Planning Coa~ission meetings ~I to a11ow Eime for the applicant to resolve certain problems in connection with the pro- i posed development and ko present redised pians for the project. I Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the reasons for previous continuances, and the ~ waivers requested, noting that subject property was zoned C-0 in 1967, with the easterly portiou being developed with medical-professional faciliti.es; that the petitioner had indicated the property was being purchased by them - however, it was not their present intent to include subject property as part of the existing motel property - therefore, since subject property had no- frontage on a dedicated street or alley, it was classified as a landlocked parcel, and unless the waiver were granted to create said landlocked parcel, a building permit could not be i.ssued; and that the proposed development would be two-story in height and would be sek back only 5 and 10 feet from the west and norch ' tn~1~r - _ ~ `s --_... ._ _ - , ., _ . ~. ~:~,.;. , , .. , .. _ ~ ::~ ~~ i~ r r ~ ,. , 'i ~ • MINUTES;:CITY PIANNING COMMISSION; May 4, 1970 5122 CONDITIONAL USE property-lines_where single-family homes were located, whereas Code PERMIT N0..~1163 would require 37.feet or twice the tieight of t'.e proposed structure. - .:~Continued),;. " . ' Mr: Slaughter then reviewed the proposed parking;.noting that 40% ` of the.parking was,proposed on the property presently zaned R-1; on which e resolution of intent.io P-l was pending, said:.lot fro:iting on Coffmaa Avenue; however;.:a~condition.of the recla"saification required dedication of all access rights to Coffman Ayenue:,-:-therefore,.access'to these-parcels located some distance<"£rom the:'motel . units t6emselves:;would.be through accessway from the properCy to the south. Furtheridore,. the.Building.Division.had indicated that it'might.be necessary;to;provide sewers to subject~p=operty from`Center Street:because of the depth of.the sewer in State College Boulevard. Mr...James`Carter, agent'for the petit;.rner,:.appeared be'fore the Commission and reviewed some of.the.comments made by staff>,an the proposal; ramely, the proposed:setback was ~ designed because"the motel on the property to`the south.was set back 5-feet from the property:line - however, it was their plan to,set back 10 feet and plant trees to the north property iine; that there were liding units_on the,property to the:north,.but there waa no access by;a'dedicated streeE`to these properties - therefore, it would be very difficulE:to develop the~e properties for single-family residential.uses in the future,. and would;'in-all probability, develop for coamiercial purposes; that it was ~eit the property to the aorth would not be'attracfive:for R-1-uses - therefore, the setback ro 0 thepmotelWto the-southiwere a:partn~shipa1andethe purchaserpdety~ that the owners of veloper,of the proposed motel, who"also,.owned more than one-half of the motel to the south;'was.desirous of maintaining subject property under his name - however, if.this became a problem it could be'arranged to`.be incorporate'd unde~ one ownership of the moEel corporation; and that the.access'wouTd,be,gained:fro:u tha motel property to the south, as well as the medical - facility to the east, where,adequate fire acceas from State Callege Boulevard would be more readily available. Mr. Carter, in response to Commission questioning xelative to legal ownership of subject '„ property,.stated that the president.of the motel copo.e2ion owned.the'major portion of the stock of the motel,and,.tf needed,would make subject property a part of the corpora- `tion, but.preferred not to'do so. In response to Commisaion queationing, 2oning Sapervisor Charles Roberts advised the Coa~ission that the area where 34 parking spaces were proposed was presently zoned lt-1, ~ but had a resolution of intent to P-1, and the establishment of C-0 zoning was for a medical-professional office building and the P-1 was proposed for employee parking. I Furthermore, dedication of access rights to Coffman Avenue was a condition of approval. ~ I Mr: Carter noted, in response to further Cou~ission questioning, that he did not know I the length of time the tenants stayed at the motel since management was not gresent; however,.this was a basic operation in that daily or weekly rentals utilized these ~ facilities and were usually occupied by newcomers to Anaheim who planned to settle in ~ the area but t;ad to look for more permanent facilities, and few stayed more than one to two weeks since it would not be very economical for people to use these facilities on a permanent basis, even though all units had kitchen facilities, slnce the room rates were too high to use these facilities, and as a rule, after several weeks, people looked for more permanent and cheaper facilities. Mrs.Terry Coykendali, 15332 East La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted she was opposed to two-story buildings within 10 feet of her property line on Lots 10 and 11, and she was fully aware of what this distance meant because her father lived on South Anaheim Boulevard where two-story apartments were built adjacent to him, and there was no privacy whatsoever because of the second-story residents throw- ing debris and peering into the rear yard; that any•two-story construction would be depressing the single-family,home valuea in the area, making it difficult to sell them in the future; that the p~r;r~sed parking would be ad~acent to her property, and even though a 6-foot wall~was proposed, this would not keep.children from climbing over said wall to gain entrance to the adjoining properties; that she was greatly concerned that the children would c13mb the trees and be injured, thus causing her to incur expense because the zhiidren were injurQd on her property; that a"keep out" sign did absolutely no good since amall children could not read signs, and older children were defiant of any.signs; and that the Cou~is.sion mu:et be fully aware of the ef£ects a two-story motel would have on the residential integrity ead the value of the homes adjoining subject property. Furthermore, if access were permitted to Coffman Avenue, this would create a traffic hazard on a residential street. t.r. Carter, in rebuttal, noted that the two lots referred to b the o have two-story construction 10 feet awa y PPosition would ! y, and trees would be placed behind the 6-foot masonry wall in such a manner that the property would be screened, and that a two-story motel alreadj+ existed for a distance of almost 400 feet southerly of subjQCt property. ;•- . i . ~, . . ~a~.. ~ ~~ - r..~.~r~m ~~:1~~e`,'1_;4}r;~,rr'a :~ - r { _ ~`~y~ ~ . - ~ . ~ ~. .. { ~' 1 . xfC . . . .' ~ ~ . . . NS' . . ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~. . MINUTES CIT:' p T • ' , LANNING CON'.ci~SSION; i~tay 4, 1970 • ~ ; , _ , ^-, 5123 CONDITIONAL-USE - THE HFARTNG WAS CLOSED, ~~, PERMIT N0. 1163 , (Continued) The Commission'inquired why there was a difference between requiring ;` :,ne-story for R-3 and;permitting two-story.for.a motel; whereupon on which a 2:1 setback.ratio wasrsetiforthaintthemCode,wandpEhe~Re3 had ad'~oininal property ~ dential uses, J g resi- ~; k; r The Commission al~~ noted that they had viewed sub ect ` the south to deEeimine what possible effects wouldjoccurrfromttwonstory.devel pment,t88to ? well as'the location of the parking area, and after reb3ewing the existing m~tel.and the plans.of;'the proposed L•,otel, it was,'their feeling this was a substandard apartment devel- opment; that it was poorYy:constructed for.environmental amenities since.there was no plaf area for cliildxen of these transient'persons; Ehat alt::~ugh subject property was a dif_;,cu1t pa~~ceL to develop since it wouYd be landlocked, this was n~t the first proposal presented; and that it could be developed for a more compatible use than proposed. Commisaioner•Allred offered'Resolution No, PC70-70 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditiorial Use Permit.No. 1163 on the basis that the location was not desi;able in that the parking.for the motel wouid be inaccessible to the units them- aelvea; tfiat in.a given time:land assembly would be effected, and a desirable R-3 develop- ment could be made on the assembled parcels; that the proposal appeared to be a subterfuge to'having substandard aparCment development; that access to the property was negligible except for proposing access through two separate parcels; thaC subject property could not be adequately served with:public`facilities; and that the in such close proximity to existing single-family homes.wouldpbeadeleteriouspto thetr si- dential enviranment already established. ,(See Resolution Book) -0n roll call the.foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COML~IISSIONf`.:S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. ` NOES: _ COrIl~IISSIC1NERi: None. ABSENT: :COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0: 2170 - CONTINUED PUBLIG HEARING. DR, JOSEPH P, GLEASON, 9581 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROWE DEVELOPMEIVT CpMp2,lqy~ ~p. p, gox 3066, Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE:AREA'pER DWElLING UNIT, (2) MINIMUM.LWELLING UNIT FLOOR AREA PARKING SPACES, AND (4) MAXIMUM gUILDING HEIGHT, TO ESTABLISH A THREE>STORY,~100-UNITED APARTMBIVT.CpMpI,g~ on property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consist- ing af approximately,3.10 ecres, having a frontage of approximately 220 feet on the east side of Magnoiia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 607 feet, and being located approximately 365 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property preaenEly classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (resolution of intent to R-3 pending). Subject petition.was continued from the April 20, 1970, meeting to allow the petitioner tine to devise a'.means of screening the three-story development from che R-1 homes to the south, and to meet with the R-1 properCy owners to resolve these screening problems. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the reason for the continuance of subject petition to allow time for the petitioner to resolve problems in screening three-story construction and to meet with adjoinin~ property owners, Mr. Slaughter thea reviewed the fact that the petitioners had not submitted a proposed solution to the problem - however, they had advised ataff they had devised a solution, and this would be presented at the public hearing, and that basically no change had occurred to which the staff could add any further comments than ha3 been presented at Ehe previous public hearing. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for.the agent for the petiticner, appeared before the Co~niasion and presented a line-af-si ht _ ~ decorative masonry wall the three-story structureiwouldanottbe visibletfrom the~Rtl properties to the south, and notad that since this would be a self-contained develop- ment having no access to the R-1 developmeat, there would be no traffic conflict. I Chairman Row.and noted that the line-of-sight atudy indicated a grade separation and inquired as to the reason for this. Mr. Knisely replied that this varied from a maximum of 2 feet to 0 feet, I I The Commission then noted that the solution presented.by the petitioner was projecting an 8-foot wall, and wh~re a di£ference in grade occurred„ this would mean a 10-foot wall; R. t.;:.~ - - ~_.. ~ ,, ~ar ~c ,;:y, - -~-=-~. "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PL.9NNING COrQiISSION, May 4~ °1970 . . ;. -: ' 5124 VARIANCE~NO. 2170 = theiefore,.a retaining wa11 would have to be prodided and inquired (Continued),~ whether or not this was planned. . Mr• Knisely atated they::would have to;meet Engineering and Building Diyiaion.requirements relative to this eall: The~Commission further'inquired whether the;petitior.er would be-willing to provide screen- in iin addition : , _ . S to the wall,~s'1nce.this,~ in`ieality,-would,.be a 10-fooE wall. Mr..Ray.Rough, developer, appeared~before the Coinmission'and noted it.would be impossible to:relocate the garages which were noE located at the,properEy line, and his only other solution was to provide`a berm on the R-1 properties which would partially shield the 'retaining: wall. ' ` Mrs;. Elizabeth Roork, 1010 Home Place, appeared before the Commission,in opposition and steted her'property would.be.affected by~the 2-foot grade dsfference, and she could not envision having a 10-foot wall £aciri"g her living area,,-, this would be like living in a p'rison; that ahe;did not see how subject pioperty could handle the proposed density, and if.po children were to be allowed, this could mean two cars per each apartment,`or an additional 200 cars to be added to an already b.usy intersection, Magnolia and La Palma Avenues, said ir_tersecfion serving two freeways; and it'was her opinion the intersection could not handle;that meny more trips per day..,Furthermore, subject development would destroy the esthetica of the entire area. Mrs:'Roork, in reply to Commission questioning, stated that the only meeting the R-1 homeowners had with the:petitioner-developer.was after the-last public hearing, outside of`the Council-Chamber, and no solution had been submitted to them for their review, as suggested by the Commission. ~ Mr. Knisely, in'rebuttal, atated that they had met outside`Che Council Chamber, but since they came'to an'impasse, nothing was-done; however, he felt the proposed development would be`>ideal for the„location; and,he was:not aware whether or not the Traffic Engineer had _ reviewed the proposal es it_pertained`to traffic prbblems. ' THE:HEARING:WAS!CLOSED. Coffiuissioner Farano inquired of the ataff what Code required as to height in terms of feet for R-3 development.` Mr, Roberts replied that there was only a two-story heitght limitation,'and no footage was indicated, alChough the.proposed three-story.would be 28 feet. Commissioner Farano then noted that there was a considerable difference between a two- story, 35-foot building and a three-story, 28-foot building as it pertained to the line- of-sight. Commissioner Herbst expressed the opinion that garages or carports could be built abutting subject property.at a height of approximately l0 feet, which would 'ue the same as the wall proposed - howevery the wall proposed would be a decorative masonry wall; that the balance of the waivers were somewhat technical since.bachelor units up to 25% of the total units had been allowed, and the waiver of the minimum square foot per unit was m3taimal - there- fore, the basic considerat3on before the Commissioa was the matter of the three-story height proposed; that the adjoining property.owners would be receiving a more attractive wall at,a height that would shield the view of the three stories, and since two stories j were permitted by right, only a 6-foot wall would be required. i Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the proposal, suimned up , as follows; 1• Possible consideration of trees to be planted by the petitioner on the R-1 homeoxners' ' property, if they so desired,to help screen the effects of an 8-foot masonry wall. 2. Need for a more definitive height as to number of feet, rather than just two-story. 3. .Possibility of having dev~lopmcnts adjacent to R-i wherein the R-1 homeowners were given some protectiott other than a high wall or the rear of carports. 4.. Future need,for high-rise .in the City due to lack of much undevelo~ed land. 5. Requiring trees more specifically as to size, Cype and height which should be required I so that screening would be effective within six months instead of five years. , 6. Need for more communication between.developers and adjoining property owners to apprise ( them of their proposals and to resolve the many conflicts prior to presentation at public ; hearing of any requests similar to subject petition. '1 ~ The Co~ission then inquired of the three property owners present of the six lots affected I by the height of the wall and structure, whether or not they preferred to have landscaping on their property to shield from view the wall propased. ~ ' f ,. _.. __.~_ ~: ,.~.T ,ar _ ~- .s.~ ,~, _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,;~ . - . . , . ~' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 4~ 1970 ~i ;,,, , 5125 .~~"' ~ VARIANCE`NO ~.2170. Mis: Roork, spokesman for~the~group, noted fhat she aZready was Continued '~i ~ ) expending considerable'money,in',the mainteaance of:her landscaping ~t : since the;;composition of'the.land was;:primarily sand,' and considerable ~3 water and fertilizer were necessary in order to,grow any vegetation, ~~ and~it would~be necessary,for;them to°take care of the additional landscaping, which would be xequiring them;to spend their money to grent"a:privilege to a'developer becauae he ~~ wanted to'get the'.`most for.his property, that Ehe amount.,:of land tiiat would be landscaped` ~~ on her property line alone would be between;b0 and;70'feet-and was considerably mo-e for ~ other lots; and.that„it,was her fur*.her opinion that the:.proposed development would greatly depreciate,the land values and,residential enviro-.tmeat of the single-family homes in this ;.~ area =:therefore,<she could offer no~solution to the dilemma which the Commisaion was now facing., Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC70-71 and moved for its passage and adoption to.grant Petition for Veriance No: 2170;..subject.to conditions, and the requirement that an 8-foot decorative masonry;wall with'openwork`design on the top be constructed, said waTY-'to~be'measured from the highest.grade level of'subject or abutting property along.the south property;line, and that in the event the R-l property owners requested screen land- scaping, that trees be planted on 20-foot centers on Ehe R-l properties, which then would be'maintained by said R-1 res~dents. Prior to,voting, Chairman Rowland noted that the trees should be a minimum specimen of 22-inch box size or iEs equicalent so that screening would take effect in a short time rather than waiting for small trees eo meture: Cou~issioner Herbst then included this minimum specimen of 22-inch box size or,its equiva- l~nt for tree screem landscapir.g in the event the R-1 property owners.desired said screen- ing on'their praperties: (See Resolution Book) On roll call Che.foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS,: Alired, Gauer, Herbst,`Seymour, Rowland: NOES3 COMMISSIONERSc Faraao:` ABSENT:; CONAfISSIONERS: None. . CONDITIONAIr USE - PUTfLIC HEARING. H.,K. MARVlN, 17129 Ventura Boulevard, Encir.o, PERMIT N0. 1167 California, Owner; HOIM, TAIT & ASSOCIATES,,900 Orangefair Lane, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A '. PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DENTAL AND'MEDICAL ASSISTANTS,.WITH WAIVER OI' THE MININ.UNt REQUIRED NU1~ffiER AF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting o.f approximately .6 of an acre, having a frontage of approximately lO5 feet on the:east side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 257 feet; and being.located approximately 283 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ¢ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter seviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the existing zoning on subject property, and thc proposal to establish a achool for medical and dental assistants with waiver of the required number of parking spaces, noting that the proposal would be appropriate for the area - however, the only concern of the Commission would be the waiver of the required number of psrking spaces wherein only 45% of the required parking was proposed. There- fore, the petitioner muat demonstrate a hardship which precluded him from using the property in a manner similar to the other uses in the area - however, there seemed to be no, justification for approving said waiver, and it appeared the petitioner was creat- ing a new parcel of land which was inadequate for the proposed use. Furthermore, the landscsping proposed was minimal, ar.d the Commission might wish to require additional landscaping as a condition of approval. Mr. Larry Maxwell, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted he was director of construction for the facilities pruposed; that adequate parking was provided in accordance with evidence that woiild be submitted later regarding the parking requi.rements of other Orange County cities in drawings of three cities - two in California wherein the parking was indicated xo be_adequate; ttiat the development was a franchise operation,"and'from marketing studies made there appeared to be a need for the proposed facilYty in this general area; that the budget wa~ set up for similar type operations throughout the United States, and the budget varied very little from city to city; an•: then, in response to Commission questioning, stated these facilities were always projected into the same type of marketing area, and as near as possible with the same value of land, with the total cost being approximately $100,000. Mr. Maxwell noted that the type of students who usually patronized their faciliCy were '•-==-~ high achool graduates who did not have r_ollege; that Chere would be three classes, with ~',^;:.;:~ a total of 75 studen*_s per session - morning, afternoon and evening; and then, in response ! ~ ~ - f ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~ ~ yy ~ MINUTES;~CITY PLANNINu'COMMISSIUN~ Mey 4~ 1970 ~ -: ': ' . 5126 CONDITIONAL USE:•- -'.to further questioning by.the Co~ission,;stated that no outside PERMIT N0..1167 patients_were.practiced on - this,was done:only:on "dummies" or (Continued) other students,.and practicaL training occurred in outside offices. • The'Commission aoted.that although,the agent stated there were'75 students per session, plans indicated,114 seats; whereup~n Mr. Maxweil stated there were two classes, one for laboratory work`and the other for regular activities - how.ever, there were three•sessions of:classes=from'9.00 to 12;D0.in tiie morning, 1:00 t~ 4c00 in the aftemoon, and 7;00 to 10:00 in the evening,:and there would not'be any'overlap of students; nor, would classes be,increased beyond the proposed;limit. ' The Co~ission then inquired',whether.or r.ot the petitioner would atipulate to`a maximum of 75~stadents at each session as anticipaEed by the petitioner; whereupon the petitioner stipulated to a'maximum of 75 students at.each scheduled session and five teachers, or 80'persoas at any one,time cn"the`premises,,. The.Commission then inquired what the parking ratio uuld be if this facility were con- yerted to"regular co~ercisT purposes. - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commiasion that the most'intense C-1 use would be"for medical.and dental officea,,with 40 parking apaces required - however, general commek~ciaT uaea: required oniy 30 spacea, and that the parking as shown would meet the requireinent of general commercial usea in the C-1 Zone. Mr. Thomas Turner, 400 Orangefair Lane, presented detailed parking requirements of various citiea through6ut,Orange County, as we1T as plot plans for three other cities - Encino, San Jose,,and Sa1t. Lake City, Utah, and.'noted that although the landscaping proposed met the required perceatage, it was concentrated around the buildings; that this could be amended to-place 2andscaping in the,parking area; and that all conditions recommended by staff inet with their approval. Mr: H. V. Blankenmaker, rep;eser.ting Circle Seal Products Company, 1111 Brookhurst Street, appeared,before..the Co~ission and stated he would be opposed to any use which would increase the already.overburdened traffic problem on Brookhurst Street. Commissio3er Seqmour inquired at what.time was the heaviest traffic along Brookhurst Street; • whereupon.Mr. Blankenmaker replied that they incurred traffic problems at 8:00 A.M. and between 4:30 and 5:30 P.M. - however, Ehere was no problem with the ea:lier shift, and they had`: to.separate the`quitting time into several shifts in order to alleviate the stack-up of cars leaving the plaat premises. Furthermore, Chey had to dedicate a portion of their property to provide a right-tum lane to the on-ramp.of the freeway., Mr.'MaxFiell, in rebuttal, stated that i£ the traffiq problem occurred at either 8:00 A.M. or ScOQ P:M., the students at this schoo2 wauld either not be in the area,or would have already left the premises - therefore, there would be no additional traffic conflict to add Co th~+,Pro'.:3ems tne opposition exper3enced. TGe Commission then inquired what would happen if students were absent from several schoo3. sessions - would they be aole to make up thes~e sessions in other classes; whereupon Mr. Maxwell replied that these sessions could be made up only if the other classes were not filled, since they could not accommodate raore than the class enrollment, and if the class were filled, then make-up classes would have to be at another enrollment time. However, to date they had never experienced a full enrollment in classes. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, The Commission inquired of staff whether or not the City had experienced any parking problems with trade schools of this nature, and whether it had been staf~ experience that students combined ridea since Aneheim had no transit system, and children were not used to walking. Mr. Roberts noted that the only complatnt they had was the law school on South Brookhurst Stre2t where neighbors complained that the students were parking on the residential street to the west. Furthermore, it appeared that there were few people in business who combined rides - therefore, it c not likely that the.students would do the same. Commissioner C=a~;er noteu that the students could be dropped off and picked up by parents, similar to whaL• he had done when his daughters worked at Knott's Berry Farm. Chairman Rowland then noted that the parking was adequate for any commercial use other than teaching students, and that from experience, Anaheim could not take the experience af other couwunities as it pertained to student activities - therefore, it would still be possible for the petitioner to provide the necessarp parking, if it became necessary, with lift parking structures, such as were provided for the nurses at St. Jude's Hospital, :: :_:;: 4 ~ . ~` ~ . . .._ _.... ..., ..:...~_,:~~._~,...-,va: .. ;_, .r..2~ta~.k~"r> ?", :,c ~ . ~~. ..~ ~~ ~ "~~ ~~ .' .~ ..`~ ' .,. ~~ .~~ - . ~. ~~~ MINUTES, CITY PI~INNING COPftiiSSION, ,May 4, 1970 5127 ~'~~ CONDITIONAL USE :- and it would be within the Commission's jurisdiction, if subject ~ PERMIT N0,'-.~1167, petitioa were:approved,'to review the ~*''~ {Continned ' parking situation after a t ) yeer of operation to determine if~the earking layout were sufficient ~,~'p or whether the petitioner would,have.to be required to.prog*ide ~ additionaL'parking. „ ~ ' Mr.,l4axwe1l then stipulated to providing parking,if, after.a year of operation, the ~~,' Comm~ssion:inspected the property and.determined there was a need for additional parking. a a~ ' ; . _ 4~~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether the Commission could;make this a condition of ~ appro~al: to require something,in the future: Assiatant City Attorney,Johr.,Dawson advised,the Commission'that since they were considering a conditional use permit, any`conditions which were reasonable could be imposed; further- more, the petitioner had',stipulated Ehat.tliey would provide adequafe parking since it was essential`to the success of their operation, and that the'Commission could review the conditional use.permit at the end of::any specific<`period of.time nnd require parking in accordance with Code - otherwise, the conditional use pexa~it could be revoked. _ , , Mrr, Maxwell advised the Commiesion.that the.structure would be built in ni~nety days upon obtaining a building permit. Commisaioner Gauer of#ered Resolution`No,. PC70-72 ar.d moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Perwit No. 1167, subjecE to conditions and subject tu.waiver of the"parking for a period of one~year, after which time the Planning Commission representative would inapect,the property to determine if parking were adequate for the use, and if not,.require_them Eo meeb perking requirementa in accordance with Code, as stipulated`to by,the peEitioner to said proviaioq, as well as the atipulation that a aaximum of.75 students and 5 teachexa`would be on the premises for any given session. (See Resolution Book) On roll call.the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, r^arano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. i NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None. ABSENT: ':COMMISSIONERS; None. ABSTAIN: CO2IIIISSIONERS: Herbst. _, ; RECESS - Chairman Rowland moved for a ten-minute recess. The meeting recessed at 3:57 p,M, RECONVENE -.Chairman Rowland reconveried the meeting at 4:08 P.M., all Commissioners being present. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC liF„ARING. CLIFECO, INC „ 886 S~Test 16th Street, Newport Beach, PERMIT N0. 1168 California, Owner; RALPH STOCKMAN, 1647 West Sepulveda Street, Torrance, California, Agent; requesting permission for AN ON-SALE LIQUOR ESTaBLIStIl~lENT IN A YROPOSED BUILDING, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION on property des- cribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located north and east of the northeast corner of Ba11 Road and Lemon Street, having approximate frontages of 115 feet on the r.orth side of Ball Road and 20 feet on the easE side of Lemon Street, the westerly boundary f ,~ -of thz Ball Road frontage being approximately 170 feet east of the canterline of Lemon i Street. Pzope,:ty presently classified C-1, GENERAL CO1~Il~iERCIAL, ZONE. I As,sistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing znning on the property, and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing that the petitioner was proposing a 1280-square foot structure at the rear property line to be'designed similar to an "En lish ~ 12% of, the floor area was proposed for kitchen or food preparationbfacilitiespr~therefore, , the structure could not qualify as a restaurant since 25% of the floor area must bn. devoted to food preparation; that although the property abutting to the north was now zoned C-1 . it was developed with apartments at th.e °,~:tme apartmer.t development was permitted in the~ ~ C-1:Zone - therefore, the Commission ~,;,~ftt wish to consider methods to afford protection ~ and privacy for the residential use, i.e., relocaeing the structure some distance to the `south which would require redesigning of the arkin I P g plan with the loss o£ some parking spaces = however, more than ample parking was proposed, and a 6-foot masonry wall provided to aeparate the general co~ercial use from the residential use, although this was not a i requirement of the C-1 Zone; and that as a means of placin¢ the proper'ty to the north in ~ the moat appropriate ;.s,y~e, reclassification proceedings [ ;.t R-3 Zone could be initiated ~-- by the Planning C~~iaaion. ~ ,, - - - . . . . . . .. ~ • ..r... w . h .. ., ,h ... ~~ ,... .~... ~ . : ..+ '. :; _ ,.. - ;-. .. , ,:: - - .,- . .,.._... . .. . , ... ,. .:,.- ~..,. .:~~~ .;:~ .......~. :": .~':.'- ' , ..-.~ ,. ....~... ~.... . . . ..,.. ...~~:. ... - ... . . ~..;.~.., .,'.. _~.' ~ . . - . . .. ~~~ ~~, _ -~~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COPIIfISS ~ ` ':. .., , ION, May~4, 1970 .. - ' ' S128 CONDITIONAL USE~_ - Mr.?Slaughter also noted the_petitiorier was proposing a 16-foot high PERMIT N0: 1168.,'. sign near'the existing fish arid chips:sign,'and aince the two existing (Continued) signs were noncanforming; the,;Co~ission inight wish to question the petitioner:as to the:possibility of an.integrated.sign with the fish aad chips.operation,..aad that'while ttie landscaping met Code require= ments, it was not dist=ibuted properly and should be increased. Mr. Ralph`Stockman,.agent~for"the petitioner, appeared before the Commission.and noted there,would be no'problem to relocating the building-behind;the fish and chips facility - however,!he did not feel thc;proposed;operation would be in.conf,lict with the residential uses`to the'north, and lie was i-ot aware the signs>were nonconforming. However, he had a letter of:agreemenG.wiEh the fish and chips representatives:to integrate the two signs. Zoning.:Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the leftes'of authorization or agreement f.;,r ~n integraCed sign sh%;,~ld be`placed on file with the petition. Mr. Stockman,:,in response to Commission questioning, stated that they proposer?:.to operate similarly to an English pub wherein specialized food was prepared and serveu along with beer and w3.ne only, and;that he would stipulate to providing 25% of the floor area for kitchen or,food preparation faM lities; however, much of'the food was prepared off the premises and shipped irozen, thus.there was less need for a foo-3 preparation area. The Co~ission noted that they were desirous of avoiding having a beer bar come in in the guise of a restaurant since this had happened:in the past, and inquired whether or not the petitioner anticipated naving this a.family-type restaurant and whether a bar was proposed for the:dining aYea. Mr. ctockman seplied that family-type $erving would be in their VIP room, but only a serving bar was propoaed where no cu'stomers would be served except at tables, : Commissioaer Gauer,expressed concern that families could enter through the bar area, and since the State.of Caltfomia had two standarda wherein only persons over twenty-one were permitted in operations where the prime commodity was`alcoholic beverages and the inciden- tal use;was serving of food, while in faciliEies where.the prime use was secvin of food and on-sale alcohol was ac~ incidental use, then..persone:under.twenty-one were permitted - therefore;:he would prefer a separate entrance-for the dining erea so that persons under twenEy-onE woald'not be sub~ected to viewing the preparation and storage of alcoholic bEVerages, as well as persons principally partaking of alcoholic beverages, and there was always.the`possioility that after ttee facility was in operation a request would be presented ' to the Coam~is.nion for on-sale liquor. Dir. Stockman replied that this operation would not be a franchise operation, and it was their intent to serve only,wine and beer, usuallp of the imported type, and that this would be the first of its kind in the city. No one appeared in opposition to sub;ject petition. THE HFARING WAS CI.OSED. Mr. Slaughter noted that the Commission m~tght wish to question the petitioner as to whether or not just on-sale beer and wine was anticipated or did they contemplate on-sale liquor. Discussion was held by.the Co~ission regarding the existing uses established in this immediate area wherein many families and chiidren patronized the various facilities - Cherefore, it would be undesirable to undermine the existing facilities, and then inquired of the staff why the apartments were developed in the C-1 Zone. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised'z1-F Commission that prior to 1965 the C-1 Zone permitted apartment developmenb, and thee•,apattments had been in this area for some time. The Commission then inquired why the R-3 pr.operty could not Be'placed in its most appropri_ ate zone since it was thP Coimnission's feeling that a 6-foot masonry wall should be con- structed between the proposed use and the apartments to the north,even though both properties were zoned C-l, thereby separating two distinet uses. Commissiaaer Herbst expressed the opinion that he was not in favor of the proposed use if no wall separated the apartments from the commercial use, and that subject petition should not be approved until revised plane were submitted to relocate the structure southerly, praviding an integrated sign,or an agreement to that effect, and a floor plan which indicated 25% of the area would be devoted to the preparation of food since the petitioner had stipulated to all three items. Commissioner Gauer concurred with these requests; however, he was also of the opinian that revised pl.ans should indicate either a separation of the bar .;rEa by screening or a ~, : . .-,.,...r ..+zs,cavsc,~rw+Ti' , an3f'.r.r ~^~~$r'~- ` T~~-' ~r"~~` ~.~ ~ .' r~' i.. t .F4 d ~','"~.~p~-.'~$.r, ~ _ t •,~~i~' L~~~ ~ ; k . ' . MINUTES, CITY PL~IIVNING'COMMISSION, May 4, 1970 •~ ~ ;. ; : 5129 CONDITZONAL USE' - separate entraace to the dining area which would serve food to families. .PERMIT N0. 1168`. (Continued) Conmissioner Seymour noted there were a few'points'of conflict which ' would require a review by the` Commission before plans could be approved; thereEore, subject petition'should be continued to allow time for the submission of revised:plaas. Commissio'ner Seymour o£fered a motion to reopen the hearinq and continue Petition for Conditional Use.Permit No~. 1168.to the meeting of`May l$, 1970, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised.:plans; relocating;the structure,soutHerly,"provid3r.~ 25% of the,floor:area,for~food preparation'purposes, providing an integrated sign with the•"fish and,chips!'.opeiation,'or pro'of to~that effect that these!:two signs would be integrated, ; and providing-'a b'etter landscapisig plan and separation o~i-the bar and eating factlities; ~ and,that,further consideration be given ta providing a 6-foot masonry wall since residen- tial uses;were eatabiished to the north, even though the property was zoned G 1 and the _ ataff could not require a 6-foot masonry wall in the event a buildin Commissioner Farano seconded`the motion. MOTIpN ~_SRRIgD: 8 Pe~it>was requested. ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direcc the staff to initiate reclasaification proceedings for the property presently developed for multiple-family residential uaes fronting on rhe east side of Lemon Street, northerly of Ba11 Road, presently zoned C-1 and developed for multipZe-family`residential uses to the R-3 Zone, said public hearing to be set for June 15, 1970. CONDITIONAL USE - PjJgLI~ gEARING, CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH, P. 0. Box 6000, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. ?169 California,_.Owner; NORMAN IiAHN, Hahn Realty, 1605 North Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana, CaIifornia, Agent; xe uestin a STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 75 FEET IN HEIGt1T-on property8describedeas; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8,5 acres, having a fronEage-~f appxoximately 640,feet on the south side of Freedman Way, having a maximum depth of approximetely 585 feet, being loceted approximately 720 feet east of the center- Line of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as i0 Freedman Way,: property presently classified C-R, COP4IERCIAL-RECREATION,,20NE, ' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter revieved the locaEion of subject prnperty, uses'established ir. close proximity, and the request of the petitioner to erect a 134-foot high "Tower of Peace" s~ructure consisting of a tripodaT shaped structure topped by a descending dove near the west boundary of subject property;. that the staff had attempted to establish whether or not the-'structure would be lighted and had been`inforuied this date that it. would be lighted, but the ligF~ting method had not been establishec;; and that the.Commission would have to determine whether or not the propoaed structure would be an asset to the area, Furthermore, since ther.e were no exact ground surface elevations, it was not possible to determine the exact height which would be permitted by the C-R Area height standarda - hoevever, in no event could the structure exceed 134 feet in height and still remain within the Height Standard Guidelines for the Commercial-Recreation Area, Reverend Ralph Wilkerson, 4039 Circle Haven Road, representing the Christian Center Church, appeared before the Commiasion and noted the proposed structure would be an identification feature which wouid be attractive to the area, and that it was their intent to increase the landscaping for the property. The Commission inquired as to the manner of lighting proposed since staff was somewhat in doubt as,to whether or.not there would be lighting, and if the tower were to be lighted, whether or not the petitioner had been i;iven clearance from F.A.A. regarding the heighr of the structure. Reverend Wilkerson replied that the exact method had not been determined, but it was not intended to have the ordinary flood lights, and they were.considering the effectiveness of a black light; that a spot light would not add to the soft effect they were desirous of "obtaining. However, the engineers proposing th~ plans wzre still working out the details, and since the engineers had designed a aimilar structure in Tulsa, Oklahoma, he was sure any F.A,A, requirements would be taken care of. The Commission noted that the Grand Hotel was required to have special lights for air traffic, and the proposed Tower of Peace structure would ba considerably taller than the Grand Hotel, and then, after lengthy discussion on the height of the structure as well as F.A.A. regulationa, the Commission determined that the structure would be regulated by F.A.A., even if approval were granted by the City of Anaheim - therefore, final plans would have to be submitted to the F.A.A, for approval by the petitioner. The Commiasion then noted that if the Tower of Peace structure were approved, this meant that the unsightly reader billboard in the public right-of-way at Freedman Way and Harbor Boulevard zould be removed since it previously served only as an identifi.cation for ,.::j,:~.:.... , i' . . `" ' ; `' --- . , , _., , . . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ` MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,,:May 4~ 1970 -, : 5130 . '.,CONDITIONAIr USE Melodyland, and,:it was'an undesirab3.e billboard for this general area ~PERMIT N0: 1169 :, ,'from ana~et:het~.c:viewpoint. - (Continued) Reverend Wilkerson stated that the reader.board was the "lifeline!' to :ttiem,-similar to`Dia~eyZand's reader board„in thet future events were advertised.~'.. ,, . >.- , ,,. IF ...:- . . ~. '. . ,' .. :. . ~' . . , . . ... . . . .. '. The,Commission noted that the Disneyland reader board was on private property, whereas the existing Melodyland•reader,board~was-on public property: ~ Reverend.Wilkeison then noted that the reader board.was of greater importance to them than the'Tower-of Peace~ since it advertised the many`activities of tlTe center'which could not 'be'.done with,.the requested strucEure. Chairman Rowland inquired whaE the legal status was of Ehe existing reader board.. Asaistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Co~iasion that the reader board was grarit~d.as a,license to the'.Melodyland Theatre some time ago, and'the license was similar to any other license,in that it was subject to revocation'and did not stand fhere as a matter of;right.` However, he was noC certain as to the legal aspects regarding the encroachment of this bcard fnto the.public right-of-way and, therefore, he would have to reqi'ew this problem before submitting an answer,since the CiCy Council had approved this reader board some time`ago. Reverend,Wilkerso~ noted that the City Council previously considered revoking the reader board license at the time Les Girls appeared'at Melodyland Theatre. Coromiseioner'Herbst then noted that the petitioner,was enjoying a right not enjoyed by any'other.property owr.er in.this.generel area, and this was the Commission's concern - that the rights of use of propertiea were enjoyed alike in not giving-preEerential Creatment - therefore, if the Tower of Peace were necessary, the City might consider a trade whereby the xeader'board,would be eliminated. Reverend Wilkerson then noted"that when Melodyland was:purchased ti:ey had paid $50,000 for.,this reader board with the thought in mind it would remein in its present location, assuming that it:was legall~ erected. Couunissioner HerbsC inquired whether or not it wouTd be in order to approve subject petition, but making a recommendation to the City,Council that the reader board be relocated L•o the petitiuner's property'and taken out of the public right-of-way. Mr. Dawson stated that a finding could be made to this effect. Mr, Jacob Paull, 8943 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, appeared before the Coa¢nission in opposition on behalf of..the Theater Hos~ts Bar and Cocktail Lounge and noted that when Conditional Use Permit No. 1129 was considered by the Planning Cou~isaion and Ciky Council, the very nature of the request s~as for a church use in an existing theater structure with a structure i.n exceas of the permitted height. This, of course, was denied by the CiCy Council; however, the church was again requesting a waiver of the structure height for the Tower of Peace, and since the church was denied, the requested use would be opening the existedr epproval of thechur.cdiiu a diversionary manner; that since no church actually , pproval of the Tower of Peace would be approving a structure for a use not actually in exiatence; but. through an interpretation permitting church functions within a convention facility or meeting hall; that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence of any change in circumstances to grant a change in the position taken by the City Council in the denial of the conditional use permit; that there would be no purpose served in creating this additional structure which they themselves termed a church spire if.no church, in fact, did exist; that claims made this struature wouid add to the beauty of the area would be granting the petitionei something_that was previously denied for both the church and spire and would be "putting the foot in the door", condoning the church acti.vitiea arid.sanctioning the cAurch without formal approval of a petitton for eame; that Reverend Wilkerson had indicated'this as a convention-theater cente;- - however, he did not mention the fact that they were conducting church activities in the facii?r.y, and this was evidenced by the advertisemer.ta in newspapers, with the City fathers Lurning their heads - this, however, did not alter the fact that the church was denied the right to use this facility for church purposes, and, therefore, he urged the Commission not to approve a use that was previously denied by the City Council, and it would serve no purpose to have a church spir.~ since the theater was in operation for many years without , any similar identification. The Commission inquired whether or not Theater Hosts still operated thei_r cocktail lounge-restaurant; whereupor, Mr. Paull replied thatthey occupied the building and were open from time to time in order that their liquor license would not be revoked; howe~~~er, the people they served did not have the same requirements as theater patrons at night, ._. . ...._. . __._.,. ..+.ax.: . ~ ~..,. ...~r fl.::;~..1 74 ~ .~~.FU ~iaty~ '~r,...~ .C~i~' ~.'~.<.-: ::-: ~ . 1 ' . .: ~ -.~. .'..... ~ '. ~ . ~ ~ :..~. C.. S , t~ ~~' ~ :.' ~ 4 , ~~_"~~ -.' . ~~~~~ ... .- . .. . MINUTES ~.~Y . PT ' '~ ' rANNING COMMISSION, May 4~ l~ p ~ ; 5131 CONDITIONAL USE - and that.-the operation was a limited one now.,. Furthermore, the existing PERMIT NO 1169 readerboaid on Harbor-Boulevard was_a'further indication of a"foot in (Continued)._, . the:door" for.thia church operation. The.Commission'noted that they were willing to' tiade the "Tower of'Peece" structure for the removal of,the readerboard. Mr. Paull noted tnat although Reverend Wilkerso'n'stated he had paid ~50,000 for this readerboard, tHis was:.not so sirice;tHe $50,OOO,was paid for seats"and other items•in the Melodyland Theatre proper, and that although he had made a proposal for the purchase of the.lease, he had not heard from nor had:been contacted by the petirioner to this date. Also, his prime concern before the Commission, was not. the sign o:~ Harbor Boulevard, but the request before the Co~ission, riamely the Tower of Peace,',which would allow them to convert this Melodyland Theatre into church facilities,'since they did not have a legal right by,'an approved canditional .nse perniit to operate as a church, furthermore, removal of the, theatre louage'would'be thr~+ugh negotiation with him, in addition, approval of , subject:petition would be tantamoun; Eo the petitioner expecting to have the church facil- itiea operation apprpved: Since the lounge was,1,100 feet from the street and business could be;gained. only through theatre patrons, if was his opinion that to maintain their present operation was not`desirable because of the existence o£ a church in such close proximity, and that the use necessary for continued operation of their facilities would be for general theatre performances such as had been held in the past, prior to purchase of,the property by represenEatives of Reverend-Wilkerson. Cl:airman Rowland noted that the opposition presented by Mr, paull was ver himself; however,, the Co~nission-would have to judge the petition on the merit of land use only: Y pertinent to Mr. Dawson noted that Conditional.Use Permit No. 1129 had been denied by the City Council on November 25, 1969, and the request for rehearing was withdrawn, However, in the past the Planning Commiseion and City:Council, by policy, would not consider a similar request within six months unless substantial proof was submitted - therefore, the petition before the Co~ission was in order since six months..had.already passed, and the application was for a apeciaY structure called a"Tower of Peace''; and that the petition was for such ~a request - therefore, a church could'not be considered approved by the approval of subject petition, and the Commission'could take action on subject petition on Lhis basis. THE HEARING ~)AS CLOSED, The Commiasion noted that since the petit;one= did not have specific designs for the pro- posed structure, it wouZd be imperative that the petitioner adhere to the Height Standard Guidelin~s in.the height of the structure, and that special application of the height would have to be made to the F,A,A.`Co insure that there would be no hazard to air traffic in this general area. Furth~rmore, in order to make_this tower effective ~ithout having to have special airplane warning lights on it, it should be lowered; that this excessive.h~t had been of.cancern to the Commission in their previous consideration of the tower; and that noth~ng had changed to warrant the height proposed - even thou h tional use permit, the effect of the tower would truly be lost if special warning lights would be required on the tail of the descending dove, g p~~itted by a condi- Coaunisioner Allred noted he had not been present for the voting on the reviuus petition however, he would hsve voted no because of the location of a bar and restaurant in close proximity to a church facility, and if the petitioner were so desirous of approval of a Tower of Peace , he should be willing ta upgrade the area by removal of the readerboard. Commisaioner Allred offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 1169 on the basis that the need for the structure was not demonstrated and that the existing use it was to advertise was not consistent with the uses established in this general area. The foregoing motion lost bp a vote of one "aye", four "no", and one abstention. Commissioner He_bst offered Resolution No, pC70-73 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1169, subject to maintaining the height of the structure within the Co~ercial-Recreation Height Standard Guidelines and findings that the petitioner be advised to contact the apprapriate agency for air space clearance and to determine whether special lighting would be necessary to prevent this structure from being a hazard to air traffic, and further, that the proposed "Tower of Peace" would provide ade- quate identification for the use of sub3ect property, and if a readerboard is needed, then such a board should be developed on the Melodyland site rather than in the public right-of- way along Harbor Boulevard, since this type of signing would be granting a privilege to the Melodyland Theatre group that other businesses are not privileged tu enjoy, and that ~ the remuval of this readerboard from Harbor Boulevard would improve the a I sign clutter of this general area; therefore, the Planning Comaission re::ommendsctoethe City Council that the existing readerboard sign, located at the intersectiun of Harbor ' Boulevard and Freedman Way, be rEmoved as required under Section 18.63.^70-Nonconforming Billboerds. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ '' ,- ~ I i ~ ~ - ~ i~ ~ ~ t, r s trm • 4 ' ~ 1 Y' . ".`i, ..,.. 1. . . .. _ ... -~- . ~ _ __..:..._ ~, ~... , ..~ . ,,:,: ~ n r; (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 4, 1970 5132 ,CONDITIONAL:USE -: On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' PERMIT N0.'1169 (Continued) °AYESi : COMMISSIONERS: Farano,,Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: - CO1~fISSIONERS:. Allred.' ABSENT: CONAIISSIONERS: None. ' ' ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HFARING. EUCLID STREET BAPTIST>CHURCH, 1408 South Euclid PERMIT N0. 1170 Street, Anatieim,,California, Owner, requesting permission to EXPAND - AN EXISTING OHURCH AND'RELATED FACILITIES on pro~:crEy described as: - An ir;egularly shaped;p~rcel of -land consisting of approximately 2.7 acrea, having approximate;frontages of 351.feet on the east side of Euclid $treet and 127 feet on the west side of Edda Lane, having a`maximum depth of approximaEely 565 feef, and being locat,ed approximately 122 feet nrs~th of the centerline of Buena Vista Avenue, and_further described as 14G8 South Euclid Streeb. Property presgntly classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL; ZONE, `Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity,, previous zoning action permitting the establi~snmem~ of the church;and~the permission by the City Council in 1968 to use the property to the south of the,exist3ng facility for temporary parking purposes,and the request to exoar,d the existing church on the southerly parcel, wherein adequate parking was proposed, a~d that.since the expansion for an addition tc'.[he sanctuary and church related facilities was proposed to the existing church to 6e located on the temporary parking parcel to the south with the.addition of landscaping in the parking area, the proposal should be a definite improvement and asset to the'area. Reverend Byron Crow~, Pastor of the church under consideration, appeared before the Commission:and noted the proposed expansion was the normal process of the growth of the church; that the prooerty under consideration was owned by the church, and parking requirements ~s~tdll wtiul8,be met; that the expansion was just as important to the environ- ment,,of the community,as the originally approved uae was; and that without conta_~ing any of the neighbors,:theyneighbor'who had the corner property had submitted a letter in favor of the proposed expan§ion. Reverend.Crowe then reviewed the recommended conditions, requesting that consideration be given to amending Condition No. 7 to read, "for church and parking purposes ; so that they would not be limited in the expansion and for them to again appear before the Comeiission for approval of another peCition since the manner in which the condition presently read,any additions would not be permitted. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that this condition was rer.om- mended because'the property to the south was a separate, recorded parcel, and it was felt by staff that some type of document should be filed whereby ~he area would be reserved for parking and would not tse sold off, thus creating a parking shortage for church purposea, in accordance with Code requirements; however, the inclusion of '"church" would be satisfactory. No one appea~ed in opposition to subject petition. A letter from the adjoining property owner was read and placed on file, indicating no opposition to the proposed expansion o£ the church facilities. THE HFARTNG WAS CLOSED. Co~iasioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-74 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1170, subjec!: to conditions, amending Condition No. 7 to inc:ude church uses and parking. (See Resol4tion Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~~ t ~: ~ x ' ~ lk r y x '~: ~~~.N ~ ~ 'i ~,~ 1 } ,-~ ~. ~• i ~ C e ,,.-,ti c .~ L_ _.. .'.r..u,v...._tiau.....i•w~...~ ~ .._, . .. , , : ... , -. ., ` .. ~. . . . ~ ~ . . . . ^~' _ . ~ I~~ . .. . ,, __ . . ...... ... : . :r ~ ~, ~~ i . . . . _ . _' (.'~ ,y ~ ~ . I' ~ ~ ' . . . ~ . . . ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMIfISSION, May 4, 1970 ~ ; , : 5133 RECLASS3PIGATION - pU$LIC HEARIN(i, ALVIN PENHALL,.1540 East 9r~sr~ Street, Balbco;. N0. 69,70-53 Ca7iforriia~, OWner, 'gURGER~KING ' 2101 Sou!• Angelesm California,'Agent;-requestinc ~•~x Afl~-~~iertyndeacribedsas; A rectengularly shaped,parcel of iand ~,~yas:[sting of approximately " ~ 1,5 acres, liaying a'fronCage of apprux~mate.l -330 ~ having a maximum de th o~ a 3' ,_ eet o t7~;:. ~.e -:~ side of Euclid Street, p PProximate7y::?I7 Pc~+.t, and ~e~c~r,l.ocP~ed appiacim~tely 165 :Eeet south of the oenterLiri~ of Tedmar Avenue be rec7~ss~fi•.d from the R=A, AGRICiJIMTUR,AI,, "LONE to the C-1, GENERAI, G~7'ry~FRC,;prL; 20NE. • Assistant Zoning Supervisor:Malcolm Slaughter reviewed tl~e location of subject propErty, uaes establiahed in alose prc+ximity, Che pre~vious zonin.g ~rC3on on ad oinin and,the proposal to esta'blish an enclosed restaurant oni tbr. ~ 8 Propercy, properfy, southerly 150 feet of §ubjtct i i.' t~s~ Slaughter then reviewed the,plans whi.h fnilicate3 a~ total of 56 on-~i.te parking spaces, F~i~h~~u$h 19 on-siCe~ parkfng $paces weFe r~qraiTed for ta.~e 2300-square foo•r. building; that ~:. "t,:he use would be a',permi'r.ted use in Che f;-1'`Zone; theat the proposed zon:in would confo=mence with..the General Plan and,land uses~in tF~~: general area• a~1~d gaat if be in ~ p~rcperty were..considered a ppropria'te forf commerc±a.l zuning, the ~ ~ -ib.lect file a parte], map in,order tha~_ signing couYd bc, accampliahed forethelint~endediuaeain to c~5n{ormance wirh City code rRq •:;r~ements. F~:r.cieermore, in view of the pi•ox'~~zy of ci~a ~c-2-500Q, singlR-family subdiv~sio;~:to the ~~:,t, acsoss Alvy Street, the i~mission might ~mish to.require a 6-foot wide planti..g-sr_=ip adjac~ant to the easterly prap<<cy"line rehind the existYng ~all to ~rovide for screen-type plar,iting to protect the single-family ~•esi- dences to the easE - this planting cou'1•d be actoa~plished with only a sliglht modificatfon to,the proposed plans; and that, in addition, tF.e Cpmmission might wish tc~ have at least 10-foot high,`screen-type trees inetalled within the planter _tstP Prior i:o final build- ing inspection of the property, - Mr. Larry 0'Toole,,agent for the petiCione.•., appeared be£+;~ the Commisnion s^.3 aaced theit the requeated zoning would establish co~nercial zoning ail along ChF Euclid-•6treet.'~ fr~~ntage since commercial zoning already'existed ts~ Ehe no.rth and south ot_subject proper.try. N.~ one appeared in o~posi'tion to aubjec~t petit.:t~n., The Commission iinquir,:d aE: 6he agant fr~r ths petit'.~o,ier whether or not Ehe ~Z~i yQ atveaable to providing .Fa,;';~~gpl~ p;7on'g tn.+ e~ster.:l o~tfon. of sub ect y~; ; Mr. 0'Toole Yeplied +.~t>~- t~~ey ~,.ouid not obje~..t to .no more than a 6-foot utriprof~landreupon scaping. Assistent Development Servir.ea Directo~r Ronald Thompson u~oted for the Commission tha.r,;~~. s.S-foot strip of landacaping were required, this would mean a m~,nor amendment to ~:he plot plan, with the posaibility•of rpToeating the building westerly, nearer Eur:lid Sttee~;.. THE HEARING iJA3 CLOSEII., ' ' Cowmissioner Farano offerc~ n.:snlution No. PCiO-75 and moved for ita nassage end. adoption to recommend to the City Co'uncil that Petition for Reclassificatioa No. 69-70-53 be approv,ed, aubjeCt to conditiona and khe atip«latioti by the petitioner that a 6-foot wide strip o$ laAdssaping planted ~rit.i: tree; st 2f1-fooC c~entera would be provided aZong the sast pro~serty line, an~ tha~ sai3 ~stipulatLon would aiso be a condition of approvet,, (See l~psola~ion Boak). On soll ca~'! xhe foregoi.ng resalution ,vas paesed by the fol2owing vote: AY'a~c Cf'.~MISSItlNERS: Allred, Par.ano, Gauer, Herbat, SPy,.~our, F.owland. NOES: C014dISSIONF,RSo None. ABSENT; COMIHISSIRNERS; None. REPORTS At:D - IT1~'N0, 1 R16CO1~tENpATIONS CONDITIONA.L CSE PL%t;[IT N0. 952 (Calvary Baptist Church) - Propezty Iocat.ed a*_ 2780 EasC Wsgner Avenue - Request for apFrove} of da~~LJ.opmerct plane indicatinq a 4800-square foot sanctlsa~q~ addQl,~i,pn,~Co tC,hr . e}~,e ~~g.: chur,:~r. facility. As~fatant Zcin~ng Supervieor Ma~rolm Slaughter p~:esen~;sd to the Cochnisaion the request for approval oi deaelopment plana.lr"or a 4800-aqwirw, foot santtuary addition to the existing church facility granEed u~tder i;on~Fitional Uae pexmit iro. 952, located on the southwest corner of Wagner Avenue and Rio ViaCa Street,•, that ihe property was presently developed ~rith a two-etory atrueture F;ousing cl~jrch clasarooms on the first fZoor and a 215-seat church sanctuary c~n the •aecond ~fl~nori v~ith a,eeparate singYe-family house used as a Parsonage; that the addi~ion propbaed a two-at~ry s~nctuary seating 400 persons south of the exieting buildings; thar ~dequate perkirig would be provided ~y the expansion of `i T ~ ~} r~ ~•:~~ ~ K ., `. ~ _ ~~, ~ p-j~ ~,~ ~ :~' - , F r . L ( l ~ . t ~^;S '~ ~C ~ ~,, .,~ t`34"r.~ ~ -~ >a ~ i, . . w...-_ ...._... . .... i .. . . .~... .. ~ . .. .. ~ _ . ..... ,.... . ... . ~ ... - ~ -.: '- aa-ti,ur C ''.4'f+v^s .,n j'/r;Y"bT' ~ :., ea .,. .,. . ., .. ... -.:~ .:~ ~~sA{ . . ..: . .. ~ , ,. . , ~ ~ ~j .. ~' ~' ~ : ~ 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COrAiZSSION, May 4~ 1970 5134 ". REPORTS:AND ~~RECOMMBNDATIO~+ ITEM N0. 1~?(Continued) ~; the:-existing parking-lot to the south property line~; that.plans;also indicate the new- building.would have a 15-foot,setback;from;the single=family honies to the west, and.the project architect?noted;<that ttie west'wall of the new bui'lding would:have.no`windows; that the main.entrance.for the`new structure~would front'.on Rio`.Vista';'StieeE; end'that ' the>petitioner:was proposing to contiriue~the.'tr~e:screen;landsaaping along the west. .~ property,line to;.the south property line in~`ad'dition to providing.2% of-the off-$treet ++~r~tng ;area. with, landacaping :,': Mr.-_~iaughter th'en noted:that`liecause,`of the;.substantial additian proposed, stafE felt ~. they were;not.in~'a poaifion to,approqe.the proposed sanctuary administratively and presente3`:iG to;the Co~ission:.to dete'rmine:whettier or not:the proposed`structure'could be considered and_approqed without a.public:hearing. Furthermo;e, Che applicant had ` already giyen an,:irrevocable~offer of'dedication,fo.r the-;widening of Rio Vista Street, but;due to the uncertainty of;determinir.g,preci~ely'where'the str~et'would be located; . ~he:'Commission might wish to cons3der`re uirin " ~- q g`a bond ,for' street: light and tree fees 'and;;the required`landecaping. ~ Diacussion was held ~,y.the Coomif,ssion 'relative to the substantial expansion proposed under the original conditional ase permit and the fact•that the,.petitioner was'proposing cont ,' .: inuation of the tw0=story~structures within 15 feet of tfie.,R-1 properties'to tfie west.; thexefore;'ans> consideratton of the development,plans 'should.be"at'a public hearing and to so advise,the Fetitioner. ( ~ Zoning Supervisor.Charles Robertx.noted for the,Commissior.~that Ehe ~ the west were full a property owners to y. pprised aE:the time of the public hearing tHat subject property would be ased as a church facility,,together wiEh the~pos'sibility of::exparision for same. Mr. S1augHtes ;~dvis~d the ~ommissior. that ~he R-A Zone required only a 15-foot setback ! from:any structure; therefore, zhe coi~ercial'or R-3 ratio of setback could not be applied. ;; ; .. ; . _ Commissioner Allred offered-a.motion ta direct the staff to'advise the petitiones, the Calyary,Baptist Church,.Ehat approv~I':of the proposed:4800-.square foot sanctuary under the:original Conditionel.Use Permit No: 952 would.have to be considerr_d at-an advertised pu~~La.c hearing,.,and cost;of said advertisement would have to be borne by the prope=ty owne;r. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion.' MOTION-CARRIED. . ITEM N0. 2, _ CONLITIONA'L U~E PERMIT N0, 947 (Princr of Peace.Lutheran Church) ProF~r=;• located on the nortn side o£ Ball Road, approximately 140 tiut east of Hampst,;ad"Street -~equesE for permission to • inatituta s day care nursery cerving approx'~nately 20 children, ~ ages 2 tn 4, Rperated in cor.Junction with an exit;~. in.g day school, ~, Sunday school, and chureh ~~rogram. ~. Assistant Zoning Supervisor N.alcolm 51augY,t~r p~•esen*_e~ to the Comoiission a request from the Princn of Peace Lutheran Church to estab2i.sh ,~. day care ne~rsery se.rving approximately 20 children, a,ges 2 to 4, and to be operated in coujuncEion with an existiag day sahool, and further noted.that,land uses to the north, ;:~st, and south were singlE;-family homes and to the ea:~t the existing Lutheran Hume compiex; thai the day sch~ol was authorized under subject peEition in 1967, and the pelitiott•.:r now proposed to uCilize •rs portion of the'day school to initiate the day care nursery. The.Co~~is~ion noted that since th~re ;;nuld be no substantial changes or adciitions to the existing structure, anc7.3ince tl!e use was similar to that already established, approval would be in oraer. Com .,sioner Seymour offered a motion to approve the request to initiate a day care nursery for approximately 20 children, ages2 to 4, in an existing day school. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 1 `i 1 ~~ -;? I t ; .~•;!;, ~ .'~ ;'".:g ,., :.~ ~ --.. ..,. :.; . S,`y'° r 3:: ;~~~~. -tss'.?. _....:i~;; . _. M , . . . . ~ . .. . .. '. V ,~ . ~• - ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ 7 - . . .. . .~. - ..~ .. ~ ~ . ~~' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING Qi,MNfISSION,.May 4, 1970 5135 ~ ~ BEPORTS AND - ITE~I NO.. 3 ~, RECO1~AiL~NDATIONS CONDITIONAL U~E PERMIT.NO. 1138 (Ray Spehar) - Property located on the no=th side'of the.Santa Anr~ River, apP+-oximately`800 feet ~ east`of Imperit~l-Highway, having the Santa ~e Raiiroad and ,Esperanza Road'a~ its:northerly bo~:iidarq, and containing approxi- f mately 48 ~acres.-'Request for approval of revised plsns. } ; ~Assistant Zoning`Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter review~ed for the Commission the location ; of'sub~ect,property, pasE zoning~action:to establish a 347-space mobile~home park which ~ the:Planning Commission:approved in Octooer=.i969, and the revised plans which 3ndicated ' a'!cluster!' type concept for the mobile home.park, together.with the Regoat,to:the Co~iasion 3n;which it was noted the .•nevy innovative design concept provided for green belts, landscaped:.walk-through,;and more open-space areas bet:~een clusters of mobile home spaces, and`,tiia!-,the green belts would,be planted in such s manner that fhey would provide a means of acceas for moving mobile homes as well as emerge~ecy venicles. Discusaion:.was held by the Co~ission as to the propos~d cluster-type concept presented, and'it-was noted that,,by employing a little imagination, mobile h-:me park deaigns can~be achieved,that'wi11 vastly 3mp=ove the environment and quality of these types of residen- tial communities: • The-Cou~ission then inquired as to the responsibility of maintenance of the landacaped green belEs; whereupon a representative of the mobile home park developer indi.cated this maintenarice would-be taken care of through a cqrporate ownership. Commiasioner Farano offered a.motion to approve revised pians, maxked Exhibit No. 2, Revision No,,l.- Commissioner~Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEB. ITEM NO. 4. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 69-70-37 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1159 (Hazel R: Epkens) - Property located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Av~nue and Gilbert Street, proposing C-1 zoning and a walk=up restaurant. Zoning Supervisor Charles Robzrts reviewed the Plsnning.Co~is~,i,on action on sub~ect petition and the concern':also expreesed by the City Council regarding general<commerrt,al uses':for aubject.property whe~ said p~titions were consid~ered at public hearing by ~r~~;ir 'Body,,and that said petitions were referred back to the P'sanning Co~ission for review and report and recomrnendation of the poasible means of developing subject property. The:Report to the Commiasion-was then reviewed by Mr. Roberts, along with possible alter- natives es to the menner in which the property could be developed and have the leaat possible detrimental eff~ects upon the resider.tial neighbors. It was pointed out by staff that if the Planning Commission determined that C-0 zoning ~ ,~ would be the mosC appropriate zoning for subject property, it would be necessary to have a ! I :;~ variance approved to waive the 20,000-square foot ninimum parcel size requirement of i ~ the C-0 Zone. Fucthermore, depending upon the final site design, other waivers from the '~ site development standards of the C-0 Zone may be necessary, i.e,, waiver of maximum ; building hei ht wai g , ver of building setback from aide property lines, and encroachment ' into th r i ; e equ red 35-foot building setback along Lincoln Avenue. Staff also recommended I . ~ that in the event the Planning Commissioa determined that the 35-foot building setback '~ need not be adhered to in this particular instance,;that it be clearly nated that this I '~ would not establish a precedent Far addiCional encroachments for other properties develop- 1 ` ing,along Zincoln Avenue. It vas also pointed out khat the single-family homes back up t ;:a o Lincoln .4venue weaterly of subject property, a,lready encroa~h upon the established 35-foot building setback and"th t f e ~ , a e:r.c s and walls have been developed out to the Lincoln Av + enue property Iines. ~ Discussion was held by the Coffinission regaiding the various alternatives presented the t , - commen s made by staff, and the fact that the C-0 Zoae would be the most appropriate zone ! f ec ,a or subj t property since the uses would be somewhat reatrictive, but would still give the ;'~ property owner an opportunity to develop the property without creating hardships or ( `.1 a nuisance to the single-family residents adjoining subject property. Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to recmmmend to the City Council that consideratian ( b ~` e given to approving C-0 zoning on subject property, provided that the petitioner . i initiate a variance to waive the miuimum lot size and site development standards as ~ necessary, The Commission further noted that the exhibits rrepared by staff represent f ~ ~ our design alternatives, although it is recognized that other alternatives may be ; possible. Furthermore, Ehe Planning Commission reco~ends that the 35-foot building ~ , ~ - ~ ~ ~ < ~ .: ~~5.,~rp~s~~s°C'^~~r~~~ ?~1;y~.~P,~ ~~.»..~~`~' YX,z~4'~~.Rl~~y.4tr.w+ ~ 7t,~+!.~.+ f~ 5 Y '^I..4 .f X ~°' 5, } ~~C ~' ~ . R`~.,'~.~*i ,n ~ y -?.~:.~'~.~~.E:?<~f~~" ~~'1~;L~E F4`rd ~ +N¢a.,~K~t~~e""Jq~~~~ la''Stry 5.j,P~'" W'1 J~,Y~F~t~ r"~w~~ ` , .i 4,~, ~t ~r f ~4....-.?f...~J~~ ~~, ~.Y <h'-" r~ ..FT.~._.. ff ~ ~r ..C . . . S. :~P,'. ~ ~ . ~. . h~ ~ .. .. ..~ ~ .. ~ ~ ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 4~ 1970 5136 REPORTS AND '2ECOrff~lENDATIONS - ITEM N0, 4 (Continued) setback policy.for Lincoln Avenue need not-be strictly adhered to in this particular instance, since the homes to the west already encroach upoa this setback, and.t6ere is a definite hardship involved with.the development of subject prop~rtq. However, if an office building is allowed to encroach into the 35-foot building setbacTc on subject property,,tHis shall not be deRmed as setting a precedent for additional encroach- ments on other parcels along,Lincoln Avenue. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM TM~. 5 TRACT N0, 5591 (George Holstein & Company) - Property located northeast of the Riverside and Newport Freeways - Request for approval of development plans for 25 homes submi~•ted cc~ a building permit. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Co~ission the development plans submitted under Tract No. 5591 by Mr. George Holstein, proposing to develop 25 homes backing ~nto the new alignment of the Riverside-Newport Freeway, and noted that the staff had not approved the plans on the basis that the proposed homea l would not be compatible with the intent of Section 18.26.050(7); that the homes were ~ all of one type which could be "flip-flopped" from one lot to another and were all propose~l to have rock roofs; that the aize of.the homes was only 1,225 square feet, whereas homes in this general area had been developing with many over 1,800 square feet; and,that the rack raofs proposed would be a very undesirable appearance, especially since they would be located in the area known as the Santa Ana Canpon Area wherein a new scenic route,had been epproved, and most homes were considered to be an asset to the area. Commissioner Gauer noted he had driven through the subdivision located on the west side of State College Boulevard, north of Ball Road, in which there were a number and variety of designs for sel~:ctfon by the prospective purchasers, and not all the homes had beea , sold in this tract which had been constructed aome time ago; even though these homes had , a,yariety of designs, they appeared to be less than desirable - therefore, he could not see how:the,proposed homes, with only 1,225.squore feet having four so-called bedrocros and a separate dining area, could be sold with any success. Mr. George Holsteia, developer of the tract, appeared before the Co~ission and stated he had purchased subject property from Harry Rinker who had filed the tract map. However, it was difficult selling the homes because of the proximity of tl:e freeways and the fact that most of the rear yard was taken up with the 10-foot slope portion of the elevated freeway; that this proposed type of construc*„ion had been more or less successful in sales since they were unable to sell homes in the higher price range; that the model homes were submitted to the Building Department and had received their approval for said models; and that these homes would be the modular-type homes which were being built there with yards which had been reduced, an~ the modular homes in the method they used would.reduce the cost inasmuch as poasible, thus the reason f:,r the same design for all 25 homes. Mr. Holstein noted his purpose Eor being before the Commission was because several of their loans had been recorded on the basis of the model homes on which a building permit was issued, and they were desirous of having building in~pection on aome of the home sitea. Furthermore, it was his feeling that the plan was a wel,l-done home and was in the same sales price as others in the area; that this was the anly floor plan in which they were attempting to reduce the cost so thaE they could sell the home; on what they considered marginal lots due to the proximity to the freeway slope, and that he was snaware of the fact that the City of Anaheim had a minimum square foot regulation for homes, and the Building Department had presented many oppositions to other developments - therefore, i*_ was their desire to have these plans approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Chairman Rowland noted that statements made by Mr. nolstein might be true - that ti~e tots ' wese marginal for single-f'amily residential - and construction an them would undoubtedly ! be more economical if done on a production basis, and the homes built by him ir, the past ~ might have been ar, asset in many; areas; however, he did not feel they would be ~ representative of the community values ttiat the Planning Coamiission was attempting to ; promote, aad judging from his personal viewpoint - with four bedrooms and a separate • dining area - everybody, in a sense, was an expert on housing in one way or another - the proposed design wes not an asset to the coa~unity values or to the area in which they were proposed to be located, even though only 25 homes were involved. Mr. Holatein noted that the design o~as basically the same type of home they had built ~ in Anaheim in the past; that many of the problems presented by the Co~ission were ~ srchitettural problems; that the same number of bedrooms were in other plans; and that i ~ '.. ~ ~`- - _ - _ - '.,,. .. ~i _.~' . .., , . ~~~ .. . ~:: . . MINUfES,.CITY PLANNING COlA1ISSI0N, M9y 4~.1970 5137 'REPORTS::AND '':RECOMMLNDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 (Continued) there wss not, much that could be done~with the iaterior thst wauld make any difference. Chairman Rowland stated that he had not seen 1,2~5-square foot homes with 9-squsre foot bedroams`and separate.dining areas,'as well, fa recen*_ years in Anaheim, and that the Co~ission was'not Asking for'a'diEferenE ides - only Chaf the b;:ifder provide'~adequa~e liying~'facilities. - Co~issioner Seymoar expressed.si,~rprise that loans were obtained witlioL: benefit of a building.pezmit, arid that the.building permit issur~r~ ~,-as ouly `for model homes. - ~ Mr Holstein noted that the design would not chang~. since these homes had been simplified for.3ome of the features; however, the_price remained the same, and they had had trouble in the sales of some models - therefore,.the sales personael had advised them of the complainCS from pro.epective purchasers, and this was ttie reason this model sold more easily. Mr. Thonipson noted that ia the other models there was a variety of one and two-story tiomes as wel! as different layouts, but the proposed 25 homes were identical except that they woald be "flopped" over and would have rock roofs which ~rould give the appearance of "Daly City" which was not the desired architectural eff: :t for the Santa Ana Can~*on Area, and then, in response to Commission questianing, stat d the developer was involved in several`tracts in the Santa Ana Canyon Area; that the City Council hsd expressed some concern ia the developmeat of the homes west and north of State CoYlege Boulevard and Ball Road - that these were not the type of homes they were desirous of seeing in Anaheim, and these hvmes did not have the appearance of having been "pushed out of a cookie cutter". Chairman Rowland noted that the approval of development plans was an area he found repugnant, and since he had been on the Planning Crnm.aission the zoning ordinance had been f ` reviaed so that site davelopment standards would control this type of development withont E- the Commission having to pass on developmeat plans for each petition before them and left f the Commission free to determine.whether or not the request was a proper land use. ~ However, if this were a sample of the type of architecture the City could expect, then j, perhaps the City would.haye to regress,to six years sgo and review all plans of develop- E ment. E ~' The balance of the Commission concurred with the statements made by Chairman Rowlr~nd, ~:, noting they felt their aliility to judge plans archi~ecturally was limit:ed - however, all f the Commissioners had ideas of the type of development they wanted for Anaheim, and the ! proposed development did not -~eet this criteria. ~ Mr. Thompson, in response to questions by Co~¢nisaioner Sepmour, state3 that the staff had never aftempted Co dictate to'developers the Cype of materials to be used - therefore, they-were not incorporated into the Aite dEVelopment standards; that the building permit for the model homes was iss~•ued in error, as well as premat~zrely, even though this did meeC the building standards but did not meet the criteria the City wanted for the Santa Ana Canyon Area - however, he conaurred with Chairman Rowland in that it was rather repugnanC to the staff also to review plans and have to present them to the Cort~issi~n ` for consideration, but if the Santa Ana Canyon Area weze to.be maintained and ci9Ve~oped for high quality type living which the City anticipated because of the fact tlmt this was raw land, then the entire area would be developed with stereotype dwellings if some form of standards was not established. Continued diacussion was held by the Commission, Mr. Holstein, and the staff as to the purpose of the R-2-5000 Zone, maintaining areas where homes would be available to the average persGr~, utilizing raw land, and reducing zhe cotst of these homes through smaller lots, buC in no way.destroying Che aesthetics of a desirable home; that it might be necessary for the Commission,to review plans for any development in the Santa Ana Canyon : Axea,.particularly in the tracts still not developed nortii of the freeway interchange, as well as any new tracts proj~osed in this general area; that where homes abutted a freeway, care should be given to the design of the tract so that the slope of the freeway would not reduce the rear yards of•these ;~ome sites; and that changes in the roof lines and composition of material for both rock roof and composition type roof interspersed and a`variety of rsim for garages and homes should be provided so that the stere,e~type appearance was somewhat broken up: Furthermore, the developer should meet with the staff to present revised plans for the 25 homes now under construction, and that any tracts proposed for the area should have plans submitted for Planuing Commission and City Council approval. Co~issioner Seymour was of the opinion that some type of standardsshould be formulated as part of the site development sf.andards if the Planning Commission and City Cauncil were to avoid reviewing plans for all tracts. These standards should be the barest i ( , ~ ! '. . .. ; ~,~.~' F ;~..„~ -,; ~:, i~,`,. - ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANhING COMIiISSION, May 4, 1970 5138 REPORTS AND RECOPQiE1VDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 (Continued) minimum permitted; especially in the Santa Ana Canyoa Area,since no specific square foot floor area was indicated for the Santa Aaa Canyon Area. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to direct the developer to meet with the staff to resolve architectural shortcomings of the homes proposed in Tract No. 5591 to provide changes in roof lines and roofs.with both composition and rock materials interspersed; ~that a..variety>of trims and treatments of the garages and homes be submitted in order that the appearance:of:this tract would be less stereotype.than the present plans indicated, these pians to apply to the 25 homes proposed to back up to the freeway; and that any,future tracta proposed in this general area have plans submitted for Planning Commission and:City Council approval in order tkat the Santa Ana Canyon Area might main- tain the amenities desired as set forth in the General Plan. Commissioner Farano aeconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED. Assistant City Attorney John Dawsoa advised the Coffiission that the developer would have to have development plans approved by staff prior to release of the building permit. Co~issioner Farano offered a motion to direct the staff to prepare a study to recommend some type of controlled development for the Santa Ana Caayon Area in order that the cou~unity valuea set forth in the General Plan were eseablished, rather than permitting development of homes in the manner proposed under Tract No. 5591. Co~nissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Rowland noted that until these controlled development reco~endations were available, any development proposed for the Hill and Canyon Area ahould be presented to the PYanning Commission and City Council for review of the compatibility of the development for the Hill and Canqon Area. Mr. Thompson noted that plans originally submitted by Harry Rinker for the tract were highly desirable snd would have been acceptab'~e for this area; however, the property was sold to George Holstein Company, and, therefore, these plans were never considered or materialized. ADJOURNMENT - There being no t,.irther business to discusa, Commissioner Farano offered a motion to ad~ourn the meeting. Co~isaioner Allred - secondecl the motion, MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6e30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~iy~'YL~ ~'~ e-4~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Co~ission