Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/03/08,~ ~itq Hall , Anaheim, CaliEornia ~ . March 8, 1971 . ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANA~EIM CITY PLANNING C OMMISSION M, .... '. i~N^ ~..~ ` ~ , ~ _, :_ REGULAR °' MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:00 P.M. a : . , quorum being present. e' PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland, ICaywood, Seymour, Allred, . ~arano. ~ _ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. ~-° PRESENT - Assistant Development Service's Director: Ronald Thompson i Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry F : Office Engineer: Jay Titus ~i; Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Asaistant Zoning Supervisor: Malc.olm Slaughter Commission Secretary: Ann Kreba PLEDGE OF ;j ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Seymour led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ~~ APPROVAL OF `~ THE MINUTES - Minutes of the meeting of February 2, 1971, were approved ~ on motion by Commissioner Raywood, seconded by Commissioner ; ~ :~ Allred, and MOTION CARRIED, with the following corrections: Page il-44E ara h 3 " , p grap , add to end: (resident of Stanton)" =~ paragraph 7, for clsrification, shoLLld read: ,~ Commissioaer Raywood noted that the Orange- Blue Route would have continued the freeway route northerlq from Lampson Street in Garden 1 Grove. Was Garden Grove's reasoning for choos- ing the Green Route just to get the freeway out ,~ of the city? Regardlesa of which route is ':i aelected, the Anaheim Planning Commission should very strongly recommend that a trans- portation corridor be provided for mass move- ment of traffic. A rapid transit system, - whether bus or whatever, is technologicaJ.ly feasible in ten or fifteen years - with the ~ sophisticated planning techniquea available ~.~; then - the transportation corridor will be a neceesity." Page 71-441, paragraph 4, line 29, should read: "said schools. ...noises, aad replace park acreaRe adjacent to exiatinst narkland taken bv the ~ <.~ freeway; that the City" Miautes of the meeting of February 8, 1971, were approved oa motion by Commiasioner Raywood, seconded by Commiasioner ; Seymour, aad MOTION CARRIED, aub~ect to the following corrections: Page 71-46, paragraph.5, linea 5 and 7, ahould read: "Commisaioners" not Commiasions. Page 71-47, paragraph 1, line 16, should read: "affected by exhaust fumea the first five rows of trees ~ dies; that" ` paragraph 1, line 26, should read: "treea. . ~~ _ that ahe had lost.over 500 pine treea and" ` Page 71-50, last paragraph: Mra. Violet Griveq. *, Page 71-52, last paragraph, line 5, ahould read: "the other ~ hand there were. . . .area". - 71-101 ~.. ., ..;; :- = _----~~ -, r.:.:i~<, , z . ~ _ ~ y . a . , _ . i , , , ~ ~ _ , ,- _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-102 APPROVAL OF - Page 71-63, paragraph 8, for clarif3catio~n, should read: THE MINUTES "Commissioner Raywood noted contradicto~y (Continued) statements in the petitioner's request for a variance for a smaller luxury home for affluent familiea. She atated thEt she considered smaller homes one ar two bedrooms, not three and four tiny bedr.aoms." Page 71-66, paragraph S, line 23, should read: "his. . however, that his niants were not damaAed;• • and that. . . .~.ere con-" Page 71-71, paragraph 8, line 2, should read: "the Commission could only be concerned with land use." RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HUGH D. AND LELA PROCTOR, N0. 70-71-32 1445 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; property deacribed as: An irregular2y-shaped CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land having a frontage of approximately PERMIT N0. 1223 192 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and being located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Mi3way Drive, and further described as 1445 South Anaheim Boulevard. Propertq presently classified R-A, AGRZCULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN EICISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR A5 A GONFORMING II3E. Sub~ect petitions were continued from the meeting of February 22, 1971, in order to allow the attoraey for the petitioners time to resolve parking problems through the possible acquiaition of additional propertq located to the north. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject propert ~ uses establ?s~ed in close proximity, the reason wh sub ect y~ ' continued, e.nd Xhe request to establish y j Petitions were restaurant as a conformin use in the proper zoning and an exiating if the zone requeated were establiahedponpthedpropertqndituwould betdiffiat . cult to have the property developed in accordance with the site development standarda of the C-1 Zone, both as to parking and landecaping. Mr. Roberts further noted that in discussions with the attorney for the petitioners, as to poasible acquiaition of the property to the north to provide for adequate parking, he was informed that the property was dedicated to the State of California, but he felt that something could be worked out with the State to acquire said property. However, this would take considerable time to reaolve and, therefore, preaented an alternate plan of parking which would be aimilar ta tandem parking - these parking spacea could be reached from the public right-of-way from Midway Drive ~ and furthermore redesigniag some of the parking spaces that presently existed. Mr. Harry Rnisely, attorneq representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had held discussiona with the State as to acquiring some propertq which had been dedicated at the time Anaheim Boulevard was widened - however, they now were required to send them a preliminary title report before any defiaitive answer was given, and they were attemptiab to resolve the parking problem in the meantime,.as explained bq ataff, a:nd then reviewed the alternate parking plans with the Commission. Commisaioner Seqmour inquired of the agent for the petitioner what would happen if one of the accesa points were not made available. Mr. Rnisely replied that if hia clienta could not negotiate auccess£ully vith the State, then no one else would be able to purchase the property except the ad~oining property owners, and that he would give his word to try to obtain this propertq from the State. ` , ~ ,f~ .-. , a~.-~~...~.:w; _. _,. , ~ ~~ ~ c..~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-103 ,, I RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at N0. 70-71-32 2:10 P.M. . CONDITIONAL USE Commiasioner Seymour then inquired what if the access PERMIT N0. 1223 were closed; whereupon Mr. Rniaely replied that the ~-~ ~~• (Continued) petitioners had been usiag this for the past fourteen 7~ R'~= ears and never felt there was an q y parking problem. ~' , , Commissioner Raywood inquired as to the length of time that would be ~. necessary to obtain some answer from the State. _ Mr. Knisely replied that~ an answer from the State could take anywhere from ~ ~_ three to four months. ~ ,~1 Commissioner Kaqwood•then inquired whether oz not a continuance of subject ~ petitions for such a length of time could create a hardshin on the '~ petitioners. k~ Mr. Rnisely replied that this would create a hardahip since they were attempting to settTe the estate by obtaining a loan - however, the banker, ~ Mr. Pawlowski, sts~ted that the zoning on the property had to be obtained ~ before a loan could 'be approved. Furthermore, it was the intent of the petitioners to clean up the atructure and generally upgrade it, and a ~ three to ~f~our-month continuance would create a hardahip for the owners. r ` ~:; Mr. Kniaelq further noted that it was his opinion the parking deficiency was nat a problem since the restaurant had been there for the past four- teen years - however, the suggested alternate could be adopted. Commi~ssioner Gauer inquired whether or not the facility was a regular reatauraat or was the cocktail lounge part of the restaurant or was it separate from the reataurant, and had they been serving liquor for aome time. Mr. P.nisely replied that the petitioners had been serving liquor since 1955. ~; "` Commiesioner Gauer was of the opinion that if there were a cocktail lounge, ~'~i it would have t~o be separated from the reetaurant or a sign poated '',,•-~>~ prohibiting anyone under twenty-one becauae he did not feel children should be subjected to a diAplaq of alcoholic beverages and the drinking 5-;, of same, ao that people wanting to partake of food with their children would not have to be aware of the fact that liquor was sold, if the bar '~ were separated from the diaing area. `~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. , ;; ; - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour inquired of staff ia reference to commenta made by Commissioner Gauer, was the ordinance regarding separation of a bar from - the diaing area created subsequent to the isauance of the liquor 13cenae. Mr. Roberts replied that the reataurant was developed while atill under the ~urisdiction of the County and upon annexation ta the City, th~e use had ' to be acceptefl evea'thongh it was not in conformance with the atandards ~ of the zone~ therebq establishing a nonconforming uae. Commiasioner Seymour then stated he appreciated Mr. Kaisely's attempt to . resolve the parking problem by submitting alternate plans - hewever, without aay knowledge that the petitionera would not loae their accesa becauae of some other disposition of the propert~, approval of this t petition by the Commiasion vould be a grave error. Therefore, he felt theee petitions ehould be continued until the petitioners could determine _ whe'ther or not th'ey could acquire this additivnal property from th~ State. ~ Mr. Rnisely adviaed the Commieaion that he ahould be able to have more ~ 'r concrete information vithin a month. ~ ; I ~ i i I MINUTES, CITY PL, ~ECI,~S S xF~CAT~ON N0. 70-71-32 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1223 (Continued) ~ ~~ ANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-104 - Commissionex Allzed asked whetaer a one-month coatinuarice F+as sufficient. Commissioner Seymour noted that if the petitioners did not acquire this property, there would be a very serious problem to resolve. --~.~ Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that since the petitioners had been in _ r'~`; operation since 1955 at the same place, regardless of the fact that they y' could acqutire additional parking, the prablem would still exist if the petit3oner~z did not acquire this property from the State. Therefore, the .~ petitioners had a very definite hardship which was apparent when the property was annexed to the City - however, if the zoning were granted, - : there would be some upgrading by requiring the petitioners to meet the ' site development standards of the C-1 Zone as to landscaping - otherwise, this would remain a noncon:Eorming use with the same parking problems and ~ the same non-existent landscaping. Therefore, he felt the Commission _ should take some action on the petitions regardless of the outcome of the ~ acquisition of additional property. ~ _ Commissioner Seymour noted that the City had to accept a nonconforming use when the property was annexed to the City - however, when approval for proper zoning was made and the property did not meet minimum Code standards, if a fire occurred deatroying the building, the City still would not have anything but C-1 on the property, and the necessary standards would not be required if these were waived. 'j Chairman Herbst noted that the petitioners still could provide landscapiug along the front without losing any of the existing parking with the alternate plan presented, and since the petitioners had been in operation for a number of years and intended to remain there, not granting subject - petition would be creating a hardship. Commissioner Seymour noted that the only hardship claimed that he could see was that the petitioners were attempting to obtain a loan on the property, and when one looked at it from a loan standpoint, any lender would be loaning money based on the fact that the loan would be returned - : therefore, the questfon before the Commiasion was zoning, which could not "~ be resolved as to parking and landscaping if granted without any assur- •`,;; ance as requested, although a loan could be repaid with insurance in the • ; event of a fire. • Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue :" Petitions for Reclassification No. 70-71-32 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1223 to the meetiag of April 19, 1971, to allow time for the attorney for the petitioners to resolve acquisition of the adjoiaing property in order that the site development standards of the requeated C-1 Zone could be met. Commissioner Raywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Herbst voted "no" and Commissioner Farano was absent. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BROORHURST APARTMENT FUND, LTD., PERMIT N0. 1225 9th Floor, 1880 Century Park East, Los Angeles, California, Owner; LARWIN MULTIHOUSING CORP., 9100 Wilahire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; ,~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CAILD CARE CENTER Si:RVING THE PUBLIC IN AN APARTMENT COMPLER on property described as: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 540 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 604 feet, and being located approximately 390 fec.t east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street, and further deacribed as 2130 West Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Z Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uaes eatablisb.ed in close proximity, existing zoning „ on sub~ect property, and the proposal to eatabliah a child care center * serning both the apartment complex now under construction and the general public as an integral part of the R-3 development; that the child care .~t • :. . ~ ~ ~~:~~.^::~_5`':~.~_~ ~ . ~ , .. ~ ._ .~....,_._.._..-, _,,.,_,~,~, _.._._---- V ~ ~~ : '~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-105 I CONDITIONAL USE - center was proposed to be conducted in an 8000-square PERMIT N0. 1225 foot recreational building centrally located within i (Continued) the apartment complex, which would also have various rooma, such as gyms, arts and crafts room, billiards, card rooms, and other multipte-purpose rooma; and tha.t -,,,,, a play yard of approximately 98 by 67 feet was proposed outaide of the ;,~;'=~~"- recreational building. ., ~ ' Mr. Slaughter, in evaluating this proposal, noted that the ~ommission may ',~ F wish to consider whether allowing some children from the outside could have a detrimeatal effect upon the environment of the apartment complex or whether approval would establish a precedent t:hereby commercial child care centers would be requested in R-3 developments to aerve solely non- tenants or whether or not to restrict the percentage of the outside children if the use'were considered appropriate. ~ Mr. Gene Mauch, land planner and consultant for the developer, appeared ~' before the Commissioa and noted that he was a former director of planning, ~, and because of that he had been asked to represent the agent for the ~ petitioner who was ill; that the Commission was faced with the problem of a possibility of the opening up of commercial uses in reaidential areas - however, this could be controlled through approval of a conditional use permit; that a child care center was needed with so many working mothers . these days; that the City of Los Angeles required that a child care center, as proposed, be allowed to take care of children from outaide the apartment ~ ~ complex because the child factor fluctuated from month to month in apart- ~ ~ ment complexes of this size; that a child care center must be State licensed ; ) w3th profeasional help; that women in single-family homes were permitted ~ •1 to take care of up to six children without any professional training; -~ that in order to separate this propoaed facility in accordance with State ~ requirements and maintain it in the highest manner poasible, a minimum ' `~ of 40 children would be needed - this was the reason £or the petitioner ~ requesting permission to have children from outaide fn the event the apartment ~ ~ aomplex did not generate that number of children; that this should not ; be considered a commercial venture since no signing was proposed; and ~ that although he did not discuss this petition with the staffr if subject ~ petition were approved the Commission could limit the number of children ~ ~ that would be permitted since the petitioner would expect or wexcome it. i. ~. i ,~~ Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the petitioner was proposing to adapt thia use to the recre.ational facility already on the premises, or would it be a separate building. Mr. Mauch replied that there were two apartment complexes owned.by the petitioner within one-half mile of each other, and it was hoped that a number of children would be coming from th~se two complexes, and that a portion of the recreational building was proposed to be utilized. - Commissioner Gauer then inquired whether the child care center facility proposed to be located in the recreational facility would in any way conflict with the recreattonal uaes if both were confined to one structure. ~ Mr. Mauch replied that other complexes of this size usually provided the child care center during the daqtime hours only, thereby releasing the facil3ty for evening recreational activities. Commissioner Rovland requested that Mr. Mauch explain what he meant by etating the petitioner would espect or welcome a condition that woul.d limit the number of chi~dren from the outside. Mr. Mauch replied that this atatement came from experience as a director ~ of planning and was a normal condition of approval of a conditional use permit wherebq the number of children would be limitEd, and that it would , appear to him that the proposed use would not be a commercial enterprise * but would be a aervice provided primarily for the apartment complex. ~ Commissioner Rowland noted that the use was still the same on the land, and as a plaaning cons~ltant or former director, it should also be the same to him, whether a commercial venture or whatever - it still would be ~ a child care ceater. .:_:~•.~.,~_,.. ~ . ~i '~~„~E.~. >+~o~ ; -s~e-~ t,--.,--~- . . . . ` . ._ ~e.Ku ~,,,. ~ . ~ ~' •'+ _ ; ~..1 ~ i~ `,. • i. M~NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-106 •. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Mauch replied that•since the proposed uae could PERMIT N0. 1225 be considered partly commercial, and in order to (Continued) maiatain a miaimum of 40 children, if the Commission were desirous to prevent a possible runaway situation ,- by advertiaing means, making this a complete commer- Y~`; cial operation through soliciting businese, the intent of the developer ~,.;`~:'~F was to have this child care center aerve the apartme~tt complex primarly, ,' ; limiting the number of children that could come from outaide the complex. ,<' Chairman Herbst inquired as to the maximum nu was intending to serve with this facility, mber of children the developer `. Mr. Larry Gunn, representing the Larwin Development Corporation, the agent for the petitioher, appeared before the Commiasion and stated their plans -. were for a maximum of 79 children in accordance with the requirements of ' the State aegulationa, and that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M, Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not there might be a conflict between this proposed uae and the adult functions held in the center. Mr. Gunn replied that although they had intende~ this building to serve dual uses, theq were finding it difficult to have the two uses - therefore, it was their plan to uae the child care center only for very large adult ~ functions, and it would not be open to adults other~.iae; and that the other facilities already planned for adult activities, boLh during the ,•~ day and evening, would still be available. Commissioner Raywoad inquired what the agea of the children would be who would be attend.ing the child care center. Mr. Gunn replied that it wao planned to have only pre-school children - ', however, they would have the ability to have children up to the ages of ten and eleven after school houra, who would report to the facility upon returning from school, ,'~ i Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether th3s facility would be open on - - weekends - also, what was planned for school-age children during the aummer. .~ Mr. Guna replied that thia would be only a ueek-day operation - however, ~ he did not know what plana were propoaed for the summer hours for school- age children. Commissioner Seymour inquired of Mr. Gunu whether or not Larw~n Corpora- tion was presently operating similar facilities in other parts of E - California. F i ~ Mr. Gunn replied that one was being developed in Cypress and another in ~ Northridge, but theq did ~r+t have that experience at the present time, and that theq wuuld have a lessee operating these facilitiea. ~ Commissioner Seymour noted that since the petitioner indicated they have : had no experience with this type af operation, could the agent estimate , how many children would be com2ng from theae 368 units and what percentage was anticipated from outside of the complex. :~ ~ . Mr. Gunn replied that they did not have any idea as to the number of children - however, the Cqpresa faciltty was not yet completed, and they alreadq had reaervations for 30 children with space avaiZable for only 39. ~ Commissioner Kaqwood then inquired whether or not the developers had taken into consideration the noiae factor, both indoors and outdoora, from 40 to 79 children, particularly where some apartment tenants worked * night ahifts and could be sleeping. ~ ~ Mr. Gunn replied that it was his opinion there would not be a distracting ~ !~ amount of no3se because the children would be aupervised. ~ 1 .~• _ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, :farch 8, 1971 71-107 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Seymour then noted that from comments PERMIT N0. 1225 made by Mr. Gunn, the leasee would be very restrictive (Continued) as to what could and could not be done, such as no aigning - this was only a"word of mouth statement" - were all these restrictions spelled out in the lease; whereupon Mr. Gunn replied thst he did not know the anawer to that. '~~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;` a Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that this type of function was ; needed in pro3ects of this size, particularly for working mothers who ` formed a large part of apartment living, particularly in those complexes 1 ,~; geared for family li'ving, and even though this appeared to be a commercial function, there had been commerc3al functions in other large complexes of • this type approved by the Commissiou; that the Commission could be faced ~ with other applications in the future of service-oriented activities - ' I~ particularly besuty shops, barber shops, or even a convenience food market which would serve the needs of.large apartment complexes; that ' there could be possible traffic problema, but these would have to be reaolved by management as part of the housing development itself; that ' if sufficient conditions were applied to this particular activity - by ' ; the State and the City - eve~ though this activity would be super.vised, the Commission could not be overlq concerned with the area involved since -~~ the City's ordinances did not specify how recreation areas were to be P used; and that the developer was in his right as to allocation of th. ,r space - yet this was a commercial use - and it was still a constructive I~ s tep . ,I Commiasioner Gauer concurred with part of the commenta made by Commissioner Rowland as they pertained to the possibility of a beauty/barber shop, but '__~,: he did not feel the proposed uae would be compatible since children were .:,~ generally brought to a facility of this type as early as 6:30 A.M., and ,~ he could speak from experience because there was one jus.t two houses away ~, from his home, since someone who worked the late evening shift and who was residing in a nearby apartment would have a difficult time sleeping with so much activity and the ehrill voices of children; and that it might be compatible if all tenants in thia apartment complex had children, but no apartment complex had families exclusively - what would happen to the families without children. Commissioner Rowland noted that a complex of this size did not have one center of open space and there would be ten open space areas; that people generally gravitated to their own areas of interest, especially where a swimming pool was involved and where a variety of living areas was devel- oped; and that the renter should be fully aware ~f the locaticn of his apartment at the time of rental so that any unde:;irable noisy areas could be avoided. ; Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that if tl,e use were for the ,i exclusive use of the tenanta of the complex and if residents of the complex had children, there would not be so much of a problem, but where one was iatroducing children from as far as a mile away, that would be another atory - therefore, he felt that any use proposed for the property should be confined to the tenante of the complex since if outside children were permitted, the child care center would be able to advertise and expand ~ a regular commercial facility otherwise. ~ Commisaioner Roc~land observed that.when a child screamed tt would not make any difference whether it was nearby or far away - it atill would sound like a scream, and the number of restrictions placed on the operation , would determine its auccess or failure aince a complex of this size would , generate one-third child per unit, or well over 100 children, and whatever ~, restrictione were placed on it, since it was F.H.A. financed, no children ~ within the complex could be restricted - thus, with approximately 120 pre- school children within the complex, if there were any children from outside, this would generate traffic into the public streeta because parents would +} hane to,tranaport the children to and from thia facility - therefore, this ~; would be the only problem thet might affect the community as a whole. ~.. + ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-108 CONDITIONAL USE - Commisaioner Gauer expressed the opinion that he would PERMIT N0. 1225 personally like to see and hear from a State child (Contiaued) care aupervisor to ask how the sanitary operations were handled, etc., aince it would have to have controlled aupervision of the highest type - there- fore, he felt the Commission aeeded to queation the State representative as to policing and restrictions for this type of a complex because he felt it was a new concept, and until he knew what was going to be done in this category, he would have to abstain from giving an operation of this type his blesaing. "- Chairman Herbst noted that the devplopers had established a very large apartment complex and were now addiag a serv.ice for the prospective tenaats - wouldn't Commissioner Gauer feel that management would want to ~ have the beat for this facility? Commissioner Gauer reaponded that the developers had admi.tted they had never operated a facility of this type, even though the State might have given their approval of it. Continued discussion was held by the Commission on the merits of the proposed use; how it compared with other child care centers; how it would - have to be aupervised; possib;.e need in the future to use more imagination to allow these service-type commercial facilities in large complexes; danger if not restricted to childrea of the tenants of an apartment complex `{ because similar requPats could come from a 12-unit complex to serve 20 chi.ldren, which may or not be from the complex - therefore, defeating the :~ proposal as intended and the possibility that the uae could be, in some .i way, twisted and the City takea advantage of; and operating a service to the tenants for a profit and inter~ecting a totally diseimilar uae into ;~ an apartment developmeat. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the City did not have the power to control thia type of operation since the State Superinteadent of Education pre-empted any control as to square footage required per child, both indoors and outdoor play area. Commissioner Gauer aoted that the City did have standards for day care centers, and most were separated from adult use, and that a program had been set up by the State for their particular uses; however, this was a child care center in an environment which may not have been considered by the State. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta noted that in a similar request before the Commisaion a child care center was approved, but it was reatricted to : children who were reaidents of the pro~ect. , Commissioner Seymour noEed that the applicant could stipulate to restric- . tions being worked into the terma of the lease as to limiting children to ~ tenants of this apartment complex, no advertising, no aigning, and if complainta were received by the City, this would be checked out by the Zoning Eaforcemeat Officer, which would be aimilar to any other problem pertaining to zoning. Commissioner Farano inquired of staff whether or not a business license would be necessary if the center were operated for th~ convenieace of the tenante. Mr. Roberta replied that~the businesa licenae still would be naeded, but he did not know what the requirements of the State would be - however, ~ he would prefer to defer to the Deputy City Attorneq for an actual quote regarding these•regulationa. Furthermore, the Commiasion could approve this petition for a givea period of time, and within that time thia use could be reviewed to see if it were operating to the Commisaion's ~ satiefaction - if it did, then the Commieaion could extend the time of ,~ the use. Hot-ever, if at the end of a year all safeguards had not been furnished and the uae was not operating as the Commiesion intended, this conditional use pe~mit could be terminated. ~ ~'...J~ .- . W ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-109 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Raywood i~quired whether or not any PERMIT N0. 1225 resolution of approval coul'_ include giving preferen- ' (Continued) tial treatment to reaidents of this complex before • anp outside children were taken - this, of course, '~- wae if the Commisaion determined that a given percent- ;..,; " age could be from the outaide. ;;• Deputy City Attorneq Frank Lowry adviaed the Commission that ia Section !~' `' 3.04.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code it stated that a licenae would be ~ ~~ imposed for a child care center regardless of whether or not it was devoted _ primarily to the tenants of the apartmeat complex. '~ Mr. Slaughter noted for the Commission that in checking with the City of ,, Loa Angeles, it was determined that they did not approve this type of an • operation if it were limited to children of the tenants only; however, the petitioner had indicated they would atipulate to a maximum of one-thir.d enrollment from ~•itside of the complex. Chairman Herbat was of the opiaion that the outside attendance should be limited to one-fourth since this, at least, would give the tenanta of ,. ''I the apartment complex priority, and that thie should be encouraged in ' large, multiple-bedroom apartment complexes. ; . `! Commissioner Seymaur was of the opinion that the Commission would have to ~ustify permitting a commercial use in a reaidential area since there appeared to be a need of this type. ~ _j Chairman Herbat then atated that by a finding thia would eliminate the '-~ poseibility of a small apartment complex eatablishing or requesting approval of a large facility wherein more outsiders would be in the center than children from the complex itself. Commissioner Rowland of£ered Reaolution No. PC71-38 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1225, subject to conditiona, and limiting the use to children of tenants in the complex, prohibiting any signing, obtaining appropriate State approval of this type of facility, limitiag the use to one year, after which time the Commisaion would review the use to determine if the use had any adverse effects upon ad~oining units, and if not, to grant an additional period of time for the use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONEBS: None. Commissioner Farano. in voting "ao", stated that since this was a new concept of a commercial use in an apartment complex, better guidelines I were needed since this could lead to oCher undesirable uaes, such as beer bare aad cocktail lounges, to aerve theae apartmenta, and if this j happened, then better standards would have to be written. CONDITIONAL USE - PIIBLIC HEARING. JOEI. LEWIS, JR., 19752 Larkridge `::.. PERMIT N0. 1226 SLreet, Yorba Linda, California, Owner; DON CARSON, ORANCO INDIISTRIAL PROPERTIES, 4332 East La Palma A~ie'nne, Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating permisaion to ESTABLISH A TOWING SERVICE AND IMPOUND YARD WITH WAIVER j OF MINIMIIl1 HBQUISED SETBACR AND REQUIRED 6-FOOT SOLID MASONBY WALL on property deieribed a~s A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately•2.8_,acree. having a frontage of approximately 198 :eet on the east.aide•of~,L~icevieW Avenue, haviag a maximum depth of approxi- ~ mately 604 feet, aad-beiag located approximate2q 1,115 feet north of the ~ centerltae of 7.a Pa1sa Avenue, and further deacribed as 1290 North Lakevietc'Avenu~.•-Y.z.operty presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. . 3' . ' , , , .s•. . , ~~ • . .~ , ~ .. . , . - . . _.. _ . .. ~ ~ - ; e = 1e ~: . . ~ . _ _. ..-. ~a: _~. ~ ~ ' _ ; ~ ~ '_~ • I. MINUTES, CITY PLANi~ING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-110 CONDITIONAL USE - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the PERMIT N0. 1226 locatioa of aub ect (Continued j Property, uses established in ) close proximity, and the proposal to establish an impound yard aad towing service on sub~ect property, using an existing atucco house as a dispatch area and for a caretaker's home; that the petitioner was requesting waiver of "' the required 6-foot masonry wall and in lieu thereof, proposed a chain- „• link fence; and that the waiver of the required 50-foot setback and landscaping was proposed in order that the petitioner might continue to use the existing structure at its present location, which would be f approximately 5 feet behind the ultimate rtght-of-way line. - Mr. Roberts, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the Commission might wish to determine whether it would be appropriate to allow an existing, nonconforming structure to remain at its existing location only 5 feet 1 behind the property line in an area where future industrial buildings would be required to provide a minimum 50-foot setback from the street with appropriate landscaping, as well as providing parking spaces for tow trucks and employeea in addition to the impound area which could be viewed from the street, whereas Code would require any storage areas to be compietely screened with a 6-foot masonry wall. Mr. Roberta, in conclusian, noted that one of the stated purposes of the , M-1 Zone was to establish an "industrial park" appearance - therefore, _ the Commisaion would have to determine whether the proposed use and the i manner in which it was proposed to be developed would be consistent with ' this purpose or whether it would be detrimental to the future development ' of the area inatead. In addition, the petitioaer had advised staff _; that this would not be a standard wrecking yard, although some of the _j veh3clea might be wrecked, but an impound qard. ,.~ Yf Mr. Don Careon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ~ and noted that the prospective purchaser, Mr. B,arnhart, presently ~.-; operated a aimilar uae in the downtown Yorba Linda area - therefore, he ~ obviously was a very good neighbor since the Yorba Linda City Council spoke very highly of him, as well as the appearance and maintenance of ;{ his operation; that he also had an impound area in Atwood, and none of ~ the neighbora knew or were aware oE his operation; .that most people thought of a towing aervice as a wrecking yard - however, only about SX of the vehicles were wrecka, most o£ them were abandoned cars or those i awaiting some insurance adjustment; that the prospective gurchaser needed an Anaheim location since he had a AAA franchise; that Lakeview Avenue wae presentlq improved to a 40-foot width, and he did not know how long it would be before it was widened to its ultimate 53 feet; that the exiating structure was not an ordinary frame house but was built of stucco, and its outside appearance lent itself very well to being ccnverted into an office facility; and that the prospective purchaser was present and available to answer questions. Chairman H~rbst inquired whether or not thia would be a permanent use; whereupon Mr. Carson replied that thia would be a permanent installation. ~ Commissioner Gauer inquired about what type of signing was proposed; whereupon Mr. Carson replied that all the signing they would need would be the AAA sign on the building. Chairman Herbat then inquired of the proapective purchaser what were - his intentions as to meeting the required 50-foot building setback in the M-1 Zone required along all arterials. Mr. Carroll Barnhart appeared before the Commission and replied that it ~ vas hio plan to use the ezisting structure for approximately two years. Chairman Herbat theZ noted that eince this area was developing into a ~ fine induetrial park vherein the 50-foot setback would have to be main- * tained, the Commiesion Wae quite concerned as to any deviation from ,~ tbis requirement. % , .. r ------ ~- - ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~:J ; ~ . ~.~ ; - ~ . • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-111 I ! CONDITIONAL USE - Mz. Carson noted that since his firm was the owner • ~ PERMIT N0. 1226 of the Lakeview Industrial Park, they, too, were ~ (Continued) anxious to maintain the site development standards ~ I of the area - however, they did not feel the proposed + ase was incov~patible with the area. `'~"` Chairmsn Herbst noted that, historically speaking, impound yards created a junkyard appeacance, an¢1 this was the reason the Commission expressed '~~ ~~. concern that only a chainliak fence waa proposed to enclose these i unsightly vehicles, and inquired when or if Mr. Barnhart intended to ;a' bring thie property into conformance with the site development standards of the M-1 Zone. I Mr. Barnhart replied that this would be accomplished within two years. ~ Ms. Anne McGrory, 19151 Skyview Knoll, Yorba Linda, appeared before the Commission in opposition, nating she was a general partner of the Lakeview properties 3mmediately to the south of subject property; that her partner also owned property farther south of sub~ect property, and " both were in strong opposition to the proposed use, parf'icularly with the waivers beiag r~~quested, becauae this would depreciate the values of the surrounding industrial properties; and that when they purchased their property., they thought the area would be a primF industrial area - therefore, it was hoped it would be retained that way. ;'~ Chairman Herbst then inquired when did the opposition intend to develop ;1 their property. t;_~ Ms. McGrory replied they intended to develop within the next two years _# and perhaps sooner. '~ Two letters of opposition were read to the Commission, one from the opposition ~uat presented and one £rom the owner of property to the . I northwest of subject property, both opposing waiver of the site develop- ;., ment standards of the M-1 2one. :i ; Mr. Carson, in rebuttal, stated that the area was not developing as ;i rapidly as they would like to see it developed, even after Tustin and La Palma Avenuea were extended through the area; that there was no industrial development along Lakeview Avenue; that he would also be opposed to sub~ect petition if the impound yard were located immediately ad~acent to Lakeview Avenue, but it was proposed to be located to the zear, approximately 350 feeC from Lakeview Avenue, and the frontage would be retained for future industrial development. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not there would be any right-of-way along the easterly property line; whereupon Mr. Carson replied that the only thing wae an overhead easement and no dedicated street. However, the City did plan to build a street approximately 300 feet farther to the east so that the property ad3acent to subject property to the east would have frontage on a dedicated street; and that the Santa Fe Development Company was intending to develop in this particular area. Chairman Herbat noted that with a depth of 600 feet it was possible that the ~ad~oining property would develop along the zear portion of subject property, and the sight of the impound yard would not be attractive to theae proapective developers. Mr. Caraon noted that there presently existed some homes within orange groves to the east. THE $EARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Raywood inquired of staff when the City planned to have Lakeview Avenue at its ultimate width. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the City preseatly did not have any plans for street widening of Lakeview Avenue, and it was hoped to obtain the right-of-way on Lakeview Avenue as these properties developed. ~ ' . j ~ ~ i~ , "~~~~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-112 , CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Herbst noted that since the Lakeview Avenue PERMIT N0. 1226 bridge was opened, in all likelihood, this area (Continued) would develop more rapidly. _ Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that the use ~.,;.s:,,,~. would not be incompatible with other industrial uses, particularly in ., ~+; the manner in wk~ich the petitioner proposed to develop anc maintain it ~' so that it wov~ld not be allowed to be a detriment - however, he did not feel that a$ull waiver of the site development standards should be ~ granted sincenin the past similar uses had not been o ~ ~ ' pposed if the 's site development standards had been maintained, and he would be in favor of it.:only if the site development standards of the M-1 Zone were - met. However, to impose this on the petitioner at this time, when develo.pment of the area had not occurred, was a hardship, and if the ~ petitioner would stipulate to full compliance with the site development , standards, such as a 6-foot masonry wall, removal of the existing house, maintaining a 50-foot building setback, etc., within twp years, then the surrounding landowners would have a more definite idea of the period e o~ time in which they might expect to wait for these improvements rather than 2n indefinite period - therefore, there would be no amount of devaluation of the land if this were done. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted that the resolution : of intent to M=1 was established so that the City could require dedica- ~ ~? tion, and the City Council would not want to waive that, and they would ~~ require this prior to the reading of an ordinance reclassifying the . j property to the M-1 Zone. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted the resolution of intent was on the property, which required street dedica- tion to its ultimate width and street improvements and street lights which were established at a public hearing, and perhaps the City Attorney would recommend that if these conditions were modi~fied, it would mean another public hearing since there had to be some safeguards set up. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the street improvements would be required immediately along with the dedication. ~ -:~ '` Mr. Titus replied that the City Engineer would prefer that this be done immediately in accoruance with the resolutioa of intent to M-1, unless '.~' the City Council waived this. Chairman Herbst then stated that this could be done within a two-year period since he could not see why one property owner should be improving his property when ad~oining propeziies were still unimproved. Further discussion was held by the Commission regarding the manner in which conditions for rezoning of,the property should be met and whether the Commission should recommend to the City Council requirement of . ~ dedication or an irrevocable offer of dedication now and the posting of a bond to insure street improvements and lights; that drainage problems could result if only one small portion of a street were improved as required - therefore, an ordinanca might be read if the condition requir- : ing a bond to be posted for street lights and street improvements to be ~ completed in two years or subject to being developed on demand of the City Engineer - this only being if the properties on the street developed prioz to the expiration of the two-year time period proposed, and whether or not all site development standards of the M-1 Zone shoul3 be required after the two years. Mr. Barnhart then stipulated that he would dedicate for street widening l purposes on Lakeview Avenue at this time. . Commissioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC71-39 and moved for its R, passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. ~, 1226, granting temporarq waiver of the si'te development standards of the M-1 Zone Eor a period of two years and ninety days, sub~ect to conditions, 4 and the amending of Condition No. 1 to require completion of Reclassifi- cation No. 70-71-5 for purposes of having an ordinance enacted.to t, ~ -~ ~ /' ~-----~--- -.____. . . - 1 \_1 ~r~: ~ i {~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 3, 1971 71-113 CONDITIONAL uSE - reclassify the property, providing that a bond be PERMIT N0. 1~26 posted to insu:e the installation of street improve- (Continued) menta and street lighting within a period of two qears and ninety days, or upon demand by the City, requiring all site development~standardsrof~thedM81 Zonettonbe compliedn with within a period of two years and ninety days, as etipulated to by the petitioner, said standards to include a 6-foot masonry wall enclos- ing vehicular atorage and the impo,tn3 area; removal of the exiating atructure and any nE~r structure would be required to set back 50 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line of Lakeview Avenue; 3nstallation of all strest improvements and street lighting facilities; all required landscaping; and asiy other requiremeats of the M-1 Zone. Furthermore, that findings be made as follows: 1) That the Planning Commission determined it would be unnecessary and undesirable to require the immediately installation of off-site improvements on the property as a condition of rezoning the property aince no development had occurred on any of the ad~oiaing properties; 2) that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that a temporary waiver be granted for the installation of street improvements and street lighting facilities and required, instead, that a bond be posted to guarantee inatailation of said improvemeats within a period of two years and ninety days from date hereof, or upon demand by the City Engineer; 3) and that the petitfoner stipulated that the proposed operation would be a towing service and impound yard and would not be a wrecking or auto salvage and dismantling yard where there would be no stacking of vehicles on the property. (See Resolution Book) AYES: COMMISSIONEItS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. an roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: =~~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HAROLD D. STEVENSON, 916 South PERMIT N0. 1227 Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permisaion to EXPAND AN ERISTING MOTEL on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres, having a frontage of approximately 94 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 380 feet, and being located approximately 340 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further deacribed as 916 South Beach Boulevard. Property-.presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. , Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uses eatablished ia cloae proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the proposal to erect a 17-foot high, 12-unit, two-story ~ additioa to an existing motel which had been established under Variance No. 674 in 1956, and noted that for the height of the proposed structure, a 34-foot setback from the ad~acent reaidential property liaes would be _ required, based on the 2:1 setback-to-height ratio, and that if the . underlying zoning were C-1 instead of R-A, then only a 10-foot building ' aetback would be required, and that although the maximum building height waiver had not been advertiaed, the City Attorney ruled that the Commission could act upon this waiver without readvertising the petition. Therefore, the Commission might wish to discuss with the petitioner the possibility of relocating the units elsewhere on the Z property, away from the existing R-3 development to the east. Mr• Harold Steveason, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission aad - noted that the existing motel had been developed.and operating since ~ 1956, and then reviewed the commercial uses established to the north, ,,~ south and weat, noting that the ma~or portion of the uaes were motels or reataurants - therefore, the request before the Commissioa would { appear to be appropriate; that if waiver of the required 2:1 setback 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ) ---~- ; .. • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mar~;;, ~, `.q;•: ' 71-114 CONDITIONAL USE - were not graated «.~;a • PERMIT N0. 1227 ~ '~ ~"' ''a-a*k a hardship because - this would leave d~,~,~ 4:t•~;,.;; (Continued) for anything but ~o-_,-,;,;:, :; ., ~~"~`~}~ could not be used only one apartment wou3u b~ affecteddbyethe' that height waiver, and if two-story height were alloweda this could shield the apartment house from the excessive rays of the ~,~-° ` sun during the summer since the tenanta currentl ? -~r ~ windows which would be ahielded b y PlBCed foil on the ' propoaed structure; ' that the uses established in the areseweregCtR~intcharacter, and the C-R 2one only required a 5-foot setback; and that this could be ac ~ by requesting the C-R Z~one. ~ complished - Chairman Herbst advised the petitioner that the C-R Zone the general area around Disneyland as it was so designatedeon8thed to General Plan - therefore, the use proposed would be C-1. ~ property abutted R-3 development, and even if this were zonedeCeR, the 1 5-foot setback proposed would not be permitted. Furthermore, since the 1 petitioner's property was zoned R-A, which woul"d require the 2:1 setback or 34 feet for the height of the structure proposed, could the petitioner "live with" a 10-foot setback normally required by the C-1 Zone. ~ + Mr• Stevenson stated the: _:tey were desirous of completin~ these units ~ as soon as possible since 60X of the motel busiaess was darived during ~ the summer months. ~~~ ~ ~ : ;i Chairman Herbst noted his comments were not intended to.mean that the , ~ ! petition should be delayed to obtain C-1 zoning - oniy whether there ~ ~ would be any hardship involved if the building were set back 10 feet. ' ~.~ ~ y~ Mr- Stevenson replied that the apartmenta were onlq 5 feet from the ~ { property line (carports), .j ~ ~ ~ . ;~ The Commission aoted that there was still a considerable amount of ~ ~ ,s-~ property which had not been developed or ~ ;t to permit construction only 5 feet from the~easterl~r development, and , create a problem for the ad oinin y ProPerty line could 3 8 property to the east by subjecting it ~ ;,~ to face a complete wall enclosure. `~ i Mr• Stevenson noted that the wall adjaceat to subject prope~cty had been ~' r built jointly by the apartment and motel ownera; maintenance, if vehicles ~ were damaging the wall, had been taken care of immediatel b ,' ment owner, y y the apart- ~ ' No one a ' ppeared in opposition to sub~ect petition. ~' ~ THE $EARING WAS CLOSED. ; - Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that since uses established ia ,_ this area were similar in nature and there appeared to be no problem in permitting the 5-foot setback along the north property line since only carports would be affected by the height - however, where living units ~~ abutted to the east, the proposed expansion of the motel should be a minimum of 10 feet fYOm the east pr~,perty line - this wonld give a 20-foot building separation between the mocs? and the apartment, which should be ~;-. comparable with the required setbacka between other apartment developments, ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-40 and moved for its - passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1227, granting waiver, in part, for a minimum building aetback by requiring that the proposed addition have a 10-foot building aetback ~ from the easterly property line aad a 5-foot building setback from the j. northerly property line, sub~ect to conditions, with the added condition that the petitioner apply for C-1 zoning within a year, (See Reaolution Book) ~: On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: .f3t ;. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Raywood, Rowlanf~, NOES: Seymour. . COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ 1~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , ~ .~ ; ~ , .._.__ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, March 8, 1971 ~ ; . 71-115 ~ ' i RECESS ~ - Commissioner Seymour moved for a ten-minute recess, a I The meeting receased at 3:55 P.M. ; ~ i i RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeti.ng at 4:03 P.M., ~ ~ 'I all Commiss.i.oners being present. ~ rs ~ 3 ~ • ~_ 1 ';; ;~ ~~ VARIANCE N0. 2238 - PUBLIC HEARING. AUGUST VILJAK, 511 North Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF SIDE YARD, AND (3) MINIMUMNREQUIREDUFRONTUSETBACKETO(ESTABLISHMAR64UNITD APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of Illinois Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 157 feet, and being located approximately 308 feet north of.the centerliae of Broadway, and further described as 207 South Illinois Street. Property presently classified R-3, MiJLTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta noted for the Commission that a communication had beea received from the petitioner's wife, requesting that subject petition be continued to the March 22, 1971 meeting due to the illness of the petitioner. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2238 to the meeting of March 22, 1911, to allow time for the petitioner to be present. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIE.D.. i - RECLASSIFICATION - PUELIC HEARING. CHARLES AND ERMA FRANK, 1616 South ~~~ N0. 70-71-35 Euclid Street and CHARLES AND FREDIE ROHLENBERGER, 1233 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, California, VARIANCE N0. 2237 Owners; H.M.S. AIR CONDITIONING CORP., 760 North I Main Street, Orange, California, Agent; pro ert ; described as: An irregularlq-sha ed p y having no street frontage locatedpa parcel of land '; 215 feet east of State College Boulevard and approximately~225afeet north -• 'i ef Placentia Avenue. Pro ert _:::; ,ZONE. P Y PLeSently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, • R~QUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. (i REQUESTED VATtIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MARIMUM BUILDING HEIG$T, (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARRING SPACES, (3) MINIMUM LAND AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (4) MINIMUM ACCESSWAY WIDTH TO - :: ESTABLISH,A TWO-STORY, 30-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. i ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of _ sub3ect property, usea established in close proximity, and the proposal to reclassify a landlocked parcel to the R-3 2one which was proposed to be develaped in con~unction with an R-3 development already under construc- 'f tion to the east, and the waivers requested were to establish a two- story, 30-unit apartment complex having access *_hrough the apartment complex to the east, which had been approved by the Planning Commission in December of 1970; that secondary accesa to Placentia Avenue would ?: be provided via an exiating easement across the union headquarters property; ` that the applicant was also proposing a total of 42 parking spacea on `" the parcel, whereas Code would require 45 spacea - however, since the proposed project would be developed in con~unction with and be under common ownership with the property to the east, aufficient parking would be provided for the total complex; and that the petitioner was also ~ proposing onlq 1033 square feet per dwelling unit of laad area, while Code would require 1200 square feet, thereby creating an equivalent of approximately 42 dwelling uniSs per residential acre in denaity. Mr. Slaughter, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the primary question ~ before the Commission was one of intensitq of land use - however, in view ~: ~- _ . 5 C ~ ~~ ` _~ ...... • i MINOTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 ~ 71-116 RECLASSIFICATION - of the approval for R-3 for the property to the east, •~ , N0. 70-71-35 the land use p j pro osed could be considered an extension ! VARIANCE N0. 223~ of that already approyed, but in the most recent proposal, tliis would be developed with a density of (Continued) 42 units __ ~ Per acre, whereas the maximum permitted would • .,,_. be 36, and this would take on additional significance ~`f''"" '' ~+*hen one took into consideration the fact that the ~-,'r '~ Property had no direct frontage to a • 4 , Mr. Slaughter noted that since no requestihadtbeen•made forcwaiver~of ~ the Code requirement that a lot have frontage on a dedicated street •;` ~ staff would be unable to Property if it were issue a building permit to develop subject~ ~ con3unction with theProposed to be developed individually and not in property to the east. ~ . Mr. R. S. Jonea 128 East Katel.la Avenue, Orange, designer of the project, ~ appeared before the Commission and noted that this weuld be similar in : architecture to the pro~ect approved on the property to the east; that these plans were the reault of the petitioners' contacting him regarding their property after the property to the east ha8 been approved; that a portion of subject property had access only to State College Boulevard, and with traffic conditions as they were on State College Boulevard, it was felt that haying access to Placentia Avenue through the pro~ect to the east would be more desirable; that there would be additional access , now for the property since there was an easement across the easterly 20 feet of the union headquarters property, thereby creaCing two access -'~ points; that a trailer park ; pro ert of the p y, and there weresnotplansitoehave windowstoverlookingathat ~ park; and that he was not aware that tlie development was over the density ':.~ permitted or that the aquare footage of land was less than Code - however, _:! they could reduce the number of units by two in order that Code could be f inet. t Commissioner Rowland noted that if this were =~ , unique about sub ect done, there would be nothing 3 property since waivera of one-story height limitation ad~acent to r-A parcels had been granted in the past where it was apparent ~ that single-family uses would not be established, and the petitioner °; stated he had resolved an acceas problem. Then Mr. Rowland inquired _. ,', whether or not the petitioner would stipulate that the minimum square ;:: footage of land would be 1200 square feet per unit; whereupon Mr. Jones '' stipulated to meeting Code requirement of the minimum square footage '~ of land per unit. Mr. Jones then noted that one of the persons in opposition to the develop- ment of the property to the east had indicated additional traffic from any apartment complexes along Placentia Avenue would be detrimental to the area - however, the oppoeition must not have been aware of the fact that the Orange Freeway would be extended southerly, thereby removing through traffic from Placentia Avenue. Commissioner A11red inquired what was propoaed vith the R-A parcel to the south, and would this later come in for R-3 zoning also. ,~ Mr. Jones replied that the owners, the Rohlenbergers, reside on the ~;I property since this was their home alrea8y, and their property had access to Placentia Avenue. Chairman Herbst noted a problem could result with such a small parcel `.. left having access to Placentia Avenue which could have no commercial value - however, a rather substandard R-3 could be developed with many waivers requested if this were not combined with the adjoining property. ~ Mr. ,Tonea noted that the developer had only a given amount of money and had been unable t,o purchase this property. ~ Chairman Herbst inquired of staff how a landlocked parcel had been ~ created. ~ Mr. Roberts replied that it had been a part of an original PRD in which the rear 200 feet was included - this had been conveyed to a Mr. John Curry - however, in 1964, a notice of default was recorded, and in 1965 ''l ~ trJ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-117 RECLASSIFICATION - the 200 feet reverted back to the Rohlenbergers. N0. 70-71-35 Mr. Rohlenberger, oae of the petitioners, appeared VARIANCE N0. 2237 beEore the Commission and noted that what appeared (Continued) to be reference made to two separate parcels, in reality, was under one ownership. -,.`~~=~ Mr. Roberts noted that aince no parcel map had ever been processed through the City for division of the land, and if the Commission consider- ed sub3a:ct petitions favorably, a cundition. of approval should be the ~ requirement of the recordation of a parcel map. Y 1 ' ~i 'I , :~t ~1 _::.1 :~ .! ~ .:~ ,,t '. : i ~j Mr. Kohlenberger advised the Commission that he would do whatever t:he Commission required if a parcel map were necessary. The Commission inquired of Mr. Kohlenberger what he proposed for the parcel having frontage on Placentia Avenue. Mr. ICohlenberger replied that it was their intent to reside on the property. The Commission was of the opinion that a detrimental effect could occur to the entire development by not allowing access to Placentia Avenue. Mr. Kohlenberger replied that when he eold the northerly portion to Mr. Curry, there was no acceas - however, if the developer were desirous or purchasing his property, he would sell it him. The Commission was of the opinion that if Mr. Rohlenberger's Placentia Avenue frontage were included in the entira pro3ect, this could develop as a worthwhile multiple-family residentia:l development. Office Engineer Jay T£tus adviaed the Commission that according to the assessor's parcel map, the two parcela shown as being split were still one ,parcel since no legal lot split had been recorded, and even though there wpre deeds indicating sale of a portion, a legal lot split still would be required as a condition of approval if sub~ect petition were approved. This, then, would mean the City F.ngineer would require dedication and street improvements along the Placentia Avenue frontage - thus, he wanted the property owner to be fully apprised of the fact that a parcel map would not be approved unleas and until dedication and atreet improvements were made. • Commissioner Rowland then noted that the City must have recognized this when a previous reclassification and conditional use permit were granted in 1963 for the northerly portion of the property. Mrs. Clara Adams, 215 Shakeapeare Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that they owned property on Placentia Avenue; that in December, 1970, when the Planning Commission approved a 36-unit apartment complex to the east, the primar.y concera was the added~traffic hazard that the project would create with this denaity, and now with n additional acreage, having minimum acceasways, the number of units on a small portion of land and if the 30-unit development were approved, this would mean an overdevelopment of the property. The Commission noted that the petitioner was proposing an additional acceas along the east side of the union headquarters propertq to alleviate. anq access deficiency. Mr. Roberts noted that subject property had 36,000 square feet which could be developed. Mrs. Don DiPietrantonio appeared before the Commiasion in opposition, stating she represented her brothers-in-law, Nicholas and Mario * DiPietrantonio, who owned property at 124'4 and 1250 Placentia Avenue; ~; that they were opposed to addiag apartment developments on aub3ect property because of an already difficult traffic problem on the street, 1~ ' . ~ i ,,~ . ~ : -- ~ ~ ~ -- --__ ---------. ` . ~ ~ I ~ ~ { ~ j i i I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 71-118 ~, I RECLASSIFICATION - and approval of the additional 30 units would only N0. 70-71-35 add to this problem. ' ' VARIANCE N0. 2237 Mr. Jonea, in rebuttal, atated that within one-half ! (Continued) block of aub~ect property the new Orange Freeway was ~~ : pro~osed to be conacructed shortl ,;,;'c-: y, which would take a considerable amount of through traffic off of ?'~' ~ Placentia Avenue, as well as from State College Boulevard. ~, ' Chairman Herbst noted that he had aome comments of opposition regarding the division of the Rohlenberger-Frank property, particularly the - ICohlenberger property, if they wanted this to be developed for R-3 - then the "not a part" portion ahould be included in the Commission's consideration - otherwise, a very amall and difficult parcel would ,` remain, and becauae 'of this difficulty when a later request came in for _ R-3 zoning, the developer would claim a hardship existed and waivers should be granted - therefore, any consideration of the zoning should" also include the small portion left out on which the Kohlenberger residence was located. Commissioner Seymour iaquired whether or not the petitioaer was desirous of a continuance to determine if the balance of the property should be included in the reclassification and/or whether the developer could purchase the property. '• Mr. Charlea Frank, 1616 South Euclid Street, one of the petitioners, ;j appeared before the Commission and noted that the two main reasons this `'f deal came up, in reference to the Rohlenberger property, were because '~ the Rohlenbergers - because of financial need - had to sell a portion of :~ their propertq, but they wanted to retain their home for their residence i because they were too old and ill to attempt to move; and, secondly, ~ the propoaed developer, Mr. Maher, was not financially able to purchase ~";~ this additional property at the present time. i Commiesioner Farano inquired why the developer was onlq proposing to i , purchase the rear portion of the property since this was highlq unusual. :, ' Mr. Frank replied that the Rohlenbergers were desirous of remaining in their residence but needed financial assistance, and the developer was ''` not financially able to purchase all the property, even though he had purchased the Frank property at a reasonable price. ~ . Mr. Dave Maher, 6806 Titan Circle, Yorba Linda, appeared before the Commission and stated that at the present time it would be too expensive to purchase the balance of the Kohlenberger property and remove the residence - however, by taking the rear portion, he was able to enhance the development to the east, and the 30-unit proposal before the Commission now would be operated in conjunction with the development to the east and ' would have access to all of the recreational facilities, as well. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the developer would be interested ~ in the balance of the property for R-3 in the future. Mr. Maher replied that eventually rhis might come about - however, he was ~~ unable to finance the purcnase at thia time, and that in addition, the - property atill would have the same developmeatal problema, whethei considered'now or later. The Commission noted there were disadvantages if this vere approved as - proposed, particularly aince they could aot see having one parcel divided in this manner - however, there would be an advantage if all of the ~ Rohlenberger property were included in the R-3 zoning with development some time in the.future, rather than riak a separate reclassification , petition for R-3 and development of three iadividual parcels. ~, ~ Considerable discussion was held by the Commission regarding the'manner in which the,balance of the Kohlenberger property ahould be handled since it was deemed appropriate for multiple-familq reaidential uae and should ; , 1 ~ rJ ~, ~~ ,, ~~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ . , ~ ; ~ .; ~" ; MINJTES, CITY PLANNING CO*iMISSION, ::arch 8, 1971 71-119 . ~ RECLASSIFICATION - be covered under one reclassification to minimize the ~ N0. 70-71-35 possibility of development of these parcela separately. ~ VARIANCE N0. 2237 ~ (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CL05ED. ~ ~.y.~-- ~~ . t ~~ ;~~~. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council 7_ approval of Reclassification No. 70-71-35, sub~ect to conditions, amend- ing Condition No. 5 to read "weat" instead of east, and the recoxdation ~'~ of a parcel map. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Raywood, Rowland, Seymour. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONSRS: Allred, Farano, Herbst. . ABSENT: COMMISSIOIQERS: None. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant Petition for Variance No. 2237, in part, denying waiver of the minimum building site azea per ' dwelling unit on the basis that the petitioner stipulated to meeting ( Code, and that the property be developed in conjunction with the R-3 I property to the east in order that the waiver of the number of parking ~ ~ spaces would no longer be necessary, ; ~ .~~...: ....Vr On roll call the foregoing resolution failed by a vote of four to three. _' Commissioner Farano offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance ~1 No. 2237 on the basis that the traffic flow from the development would ~ be inadequate and that there would be no assurance that development ; would occur on the "not a part" parcel. aa ; ,; On roll call the foregoing resolution failed by a vote of four to three. ; ~. tl Further discussion was held by the Commission, and upon its conclusion, ; ,~~ Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the `~ Commission that the developer had agreed to a two-week continuance to allow time to readvertise the balance of the Rohlenberger property for '~~ R-3 zoning and to submit a circulation plaa which could serve the "~.;'>~ Kohlenberger property at such time as it was deve3oped. `.`~. Commissioner Rowlaud offered a motion to direct the staff.to advertise ;b the balance of the Rohlenberger property for R-3 zoning. Commissioner ,,,,.,~ Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. .:~~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to rescind his previous motion for approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-35 aad reopen the hearing and continue subject petition and Variance No. 2237 to the meeting of March 22, 1971, to al•low time for staff to advertise the ', balance of the ICohlenberger property and =or the developer to submit a circulation plan which would handle traffic from the balance of the .: Kohlenberger property at such time as the property was developed. Commissioner Gauer aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~`'~ Commiss~'.oner ~towland left the Council Chamber at 4:57 P.M. ~-- _ • '~ 1 5-.. IA~1 - _. . _ . . ~ r. C , +. _ . ~ . ' I ~ ~.l ~ ~ _~ ----- ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 ,' . 71-120 ' RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING i N0. 70-71-34 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; ~ ~ proposing that property'described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 437 „ i acres bounded generally by Haster Street on the west, Katella Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, and Orangewood Avenue on the south ,- ~~ i be reclassified from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; C-1 AND C-2, GENERAL +~:~ - COMMERCIAL; C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL; ANA R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONES to the ' C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. ' `~: Assistant 2oning.Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ;~ subject property, uses eatablished in this general area, existing zoning, _ and the fact that the petition was initiated in order to establish a resolution of intent to the C-R Zone for the area designated on the General Plan for commercial-recreatioa uses; that approval of the petition would only reclassify the p'roperty at such ti,me as conditions of approval estab- '` lishing the resolution of intent had been met or completed; and that this same procedure had been followed in the past on properties designated for industrial usea on the General Plan and located in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Emerson Burgeas, 1858 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that he had requested annexation to the City of Anaheim in order that he might obtain M-1 zoning in the city, and that he had $450,000 in••ested in equipment above and beyond the cost of the buildings. However, he was in somewhat of a quandry because he was also ~~ a limited partner in the Pacific World pro~ect, as well as being in the manufacturiag business; that at the time he developed his business in 1955, •j the City had provided a 12-iach water main, bringing it from the corner of .;7 Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard to serve his facility (2ero Cold); and .! that there could be a problem in increases in taxes due to the proposed ~~,~ zoning. Furthermore, it was his feeling that Pacific World would never ',I materialize. '~-~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired of Mr. Burgess whether or not he was concetned that the M-1 zoning would be replaced with C-R zoning. If so, ; approval of this petition by the City Council would only establish a j resolution of intent on the property to Commercial-Recreation zoning, and '' only after conditions attached in the resolution of intent were met and the property owner requested a zone change would an ordinance be read to change this zoning. However, he could not answer the problem regarding increasing the tax rate on the property - this would have to be answered by the County Assessor. Mr. Burgess then indicated on a map the area which he felt should be retained for industrial uses, that being an area having the Southern Pacific Railroad on the east, between Katella Avenue on the north and the freeway bordering, eatending southeasterly. . Mr. Slaughter noted that the zoning existing on the property would remain until such time as the property owner requested a change in zone, and cited ~ Ling-Altec located on the weat side of the Santa Ana Freeway along Manchester i Avenue, south of Cerritos, which had been zoned M-1 for a number of years I even though it was immediately ad3acent to many of the commercial-recreation uses and which also had a resolution of intent to C-R. However, this had -,f~ never been exercised because of their existing development, and the same + would be applicable to aay M-1 zoned property in the proposed reclassification. Mr. Burgess then aoted that the property owners in this area had dedicated their property for atreet widening purposes - however, many times he was unable to gain entrance to his property because of the heavy traffic going to and from th.e Anaheim Stadium for t~aseball games. ~ . ~ . . Chairman Herbst advised Mr. Burgess that all the City was atating was that some time in the future this property would be zoned Commercial-Recreation, ' and onlq at the requeat of the property owners. ~ ~c • Mr. Burgess then iadicated he had a 20-qear lease on his property, and he did not want anything to interfere with his business operation, particularly ~ if he were deairous of expanding to adjacent properties, and then inquired whether zoning the property to C-R prohibited thia type of expansion. ~ _ ' y _ e ::~ ~i ;. . :. .- .1 ~ ; , ;. . ,. ' . rv.- _ ~~~~ ~ ~ Z *> ' .f:e ~~ _ , i _ .. ~ ~ ~~ ! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 ~ ' 71-121 ~~ Commissioner Farano noted that at the present time it would not, and if • the use proposed wexe a compatible use within the Commercial-Recreatior. Zone, then a portion of the property would be developed under the site development standards of said zone - however, there would be no problem as to existing industrial development, and there appeared no proolem as to expanding an existing use - even though ~he zoning on the property had • a resolution of intent, this would only be an extension of an existing ~~~ us e . Mr. Burgess noted that one of the conditions of the proposed zone was street dedication - however, this had been accomplished on their property. Mr. Slaughter noted that ~ander the General Plan Circulation Element dedication would have bee:i required regardless of the zoning established on the property. '. Mr• Burgess then noted that he was interested in obtaining more property .but would hold off because he did not feel the manufacturing business position would be secure in this area. ~Commissioner Allred inquired whether there would be any traffic problem to his property if Pacific World would become an actuality. ~Commissioner Kaywood inquired of Mr. Burgess whether or not he planned to expand into this area in the near future. Mr. Burgess, in reply to Commission questioning, stated that it was possible that Pacific World traffic would create a problem for both their employees and trucks attempting to gain access to the property since he already had trouble when a baseball game was scheduled at the stadium. Furth.ermore, . because of the rather unsatisfactory economic conditions in 1970, they had not expanded, but it was their intent to expand in this area as soon as more activity occurred, and since the railroad was on the east of the property, the only manner in which they could expand would be to the south. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired of staff whether or not Mr. Burgeas could expand the existing M-1 operation. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts replied that if the property to the south were zoned M-1, he would be able to develop. Chairman Herbst then inquired what steps would be necessary if the exieting zoning were not M-1 - what would happen if there was a resolution of intent to C-R on the property. Mr. Raberts replied that the same steps that were required where any change in zone was propoaed, the petitioner would have to have to file a reclassi- ficaton petition to the M-1 Zone and have it approved. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commisaion was of the opinion that with both the stadium and Pacific World established or proposed Eor this general area, a pattern had been established and eventually the entire area would be developed for commercial-recreation uses - however, the property encompassed in the area described by Mr. Burgess might remain as presently developed, or eventually this, too, could be developed for commercial-recreation uaes; that the Pacific World proposal had created this present problem; and that the parcel east of the Southern Pacific Railroad had not developed for industrial uaes although it was zoned M-1 at the present time. Commissioner Farano noted that aince there was so much industrial develop- ment surrounding Mr. Burgess property, there should be no problem in retaining those properties not developed for expansion of the existiag H-1 property. Aesiatant Development Servicea Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the property owners along Anaheim Boulevard might wish to take into coneideration the fact that the State Division of Highways was currently in the designing phase for the widening of the Santa Ana Freeway in this geaeral area. ' ~.- _ z. .:..,.~, , .T - ~ ~~ ,,-fs~r _~p_ ~ ` °' ( ~~_ _. ~ ;: . /' - _ -- _ _..._- i I ~ (~ ;I • ; . i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 `._~ 71-122 ; Mr• Burgess then stated that if this were to happen, at least he would be ! very well compensated Eor acquisition of the land presently developed with : j industrial uses. . i Mr. Thompson noted that the reclassification procedure beEore the Commission i was a means of alleviating processing individual reclassification petitions -., ,,~ _.~ for C-R zoning in the future. ..p. . z+ Commissioner Farano noted that perhaps in saving time for the Planning Commission for other than zoning petitions the City was doing a disservice .~~ to the property owners and lessees of a given area, such as this• , maybe the City was creatin some t , that ! 8 ype of a monster since if the expression ' , of Mr. Burgess was typical of property owners and industries the'se indus- ~ tries could see their plans "going up in smoke" with the proposed C-R Zone. ~ Mr. Thompson noted that this was not the intent of the proposed reclassifi- 1 cation, but because it was designated on the General Plan for commercial- ' recreation uses, it was staff's intent to alert the people what the City's ; thinking was. ~ ' Commissioner Farano then noted that perhaps this was desirable for those k ~; people wanting C-R zoning, but people of any established industries ~ located in the area, their future plans for expansion presently on the board said, they did not want these plans "to go up in smoke" - however, : the City would look favorably on any requests for C-R uses for the area. ~ !i Mr. Thompson noted that by meeting the conditions of ~~he resolution of ~ ,~ intent for C-R zoning, where a prospective developer, because of financing f 3nterests, wanted to develop not in 120 days but within a few weeks in ' - :~ order to benefit from the tourist trade, by meeting these conditions and ~ having an ordinance read, this procedure would take only a few weel;s - ` but from what staff had stated, it was not the intent of the City to remove ~ ,:~ any of the existing privileges which developed property had. , l Commissioner Farano then stated that perhaps something ahocld be done to :~ preserve the existing zoning of the properties. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that this would give the property owners an additional .' tool for developing the property either M-1 or C-R. ~.1, Mr. Burgess noted that when he came to Anaheim from Santa Ana he was some- what sensitive to any zoning because this properCy was not.zoned, and within : fifteen minutes after a meeting with Keith Murdoc2-., Mr. Murdoch had straightened out any zoning problems, stating that the City needed smaller industries to balance the larger industries coming into the city; and after a number of telephone conversations with various city departments, - Mr. Murdoch had told him exactly what Anaheim could do for his business, -'? even to a amall item like lucation of a fire hydrant - he was given a choice _ as to its location - and this impressed him considerably. Commissioner Farano then noted that the City had not changed very much from that attitude, and the Commission did appreciate Mr. Burgess' remarks since it was not the City's intent to hang out a"not welcome" sign. - Mr. Slaughter noted that by establishing a blanket resolution of intent in ` given areas, the City had saved thousands of dollars and many hours of ` City Couacil, Planning Commission and employee time because it cost $600 to $700 just to process one petition. Commissioner Farano then inquired how many industries had the City caused to change their plans and leave the city because of the General Plan - the man was an industrialiet, not a planner. ~; Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that staff had had a number of ineetings with a number of the various industries in the area, advising them of the ~~ intent in the same manner as was discussed.at this public hearing, in which the City s position was explained. .~kt , , _ '~ - : r:; ~ - ._..'". , . ~ ' ' r1. .. _'. _;.~r C ... ~t" .. . _ ya \ _, ~ + ' - __ , ~; _.__.____... . .. --- . . _ _ 1 I ` _) ~ ) __ . ; . ; . ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March g, 1g71 ~ 71-123 ~ Mr. Arthur Baines, Manager of International Harvester Truck Branch at 620 East Katella Avenue, appeared before the Comniss'ton and stated he understood '' ~ that the existing parcels y g preaentl havin M-1 z~ning would not be changed, ; but his company was concerned as to what this proposed zoning would do to their operation as to reatrictiona - what effect this zoning would have on i their property; that they realized their zoning would be retained, but what - ~_1 would happen if the ad~oining property were developed for commercial- ~T--• recreation uses; and that he would like this explained so that he could ;~.:, inform his superiors what this would entail. ^:~: Commissioner Farano then explained the existing zoning on tlie ro ert Process again as to maintaining the , the property owner requested sameandFurthermore~nsomewoflthenvariousguses permitted in the Commercial-Recreation Zone were quite similar to uses permitted as accessory uses in the M-1 Zone, such as motels, restaurants, and service stations. " Commissioner Gauer noted that if Pacific World were established on the property, the uses in this complex would be similar - however, they would be under control by the operators in not permitting incompatible uses on their property. Mr. Baines noted that since their facility had been developed on Katella Avenue, there were considerable benefita derived in the development that had occurred which had upheld the City's zoning on Katella P.venue. `~ Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission and interested persons in the audience that if the properties in the area were not developed or did not. have C-k ~ zoning applied for, this would tell the City that the C-R Zone was not vi desirable even though the General Plan indicated this area for commercial- .i recreation uses, and if anyone did want C-R zoning at the present time, ,,,~, there would be a 120-day period for processing and for holding public =~ hearings before any development could occur - however, the petitioner usually wanted to develop as of yesterday, `: ii '; Mr. Charles Frank, 1616 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission "'. and noted that under a previous General Plan amendment there were plans for ''{ dedication of a strip of land 90 feet wide for the extension of Convention :~ Way easterly across the ~anta Ana Freeway, Did this proposed zoning ,41 preclude any R-3 zoning. `'':~ Chairman Herbst noted that apartments were not permitted b~+ right in the C-R Zone - therefore, the property owner would have to request R-3 zoning. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission had not permitted apartments to be developed in the C-R Zone in the past. •.;', ~ Mr. Frank advised the Commission that the was presently developed with a mobilehome property he was concerned with to decide what ahould be done with the P81~ - therefore, he was trying property he greaently had. Mr. Thompson~noted that when Pacific World was approvad, their engineers 'i and the City s engineers reviewed this proposal to extend Convention Waq across the freeway to the Pacific World property - however, these studies had not been completed, and there was a possibility that Convention Way , would not extend across the freeway, but it might terminate at Haster Street ± or the freeway. , - Mr. Bill Dwyer, repreaenting the "Burgie" (Falstaff) property, appeared before the Commission and noted that when all the usea which could be established were read, he wondered if the lessee and not the owner af the property wanted to develop industrial uses, could these uses still be ~ eatablished. . The Commiasion advised Mr. Dwyer that since the zoning was still M-1, the M-1 use would be honored, and that it was.only the intent of the City to * place this resolution of intent on the property so that no further reclassi- ,t,t fication action would be necessary if and when someone wanted to develop the property ~or commercial-recreation usea. ;, i -- -_ .. . ._.._.. _.___----.. _. . ~. ~ ! ~ ~ ' 1 , J ~ '. ~ ~ i -• i MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1g71 ! I 71-124 ~ Mr. Charles Harrison, repreaenting Zero Cold, inquired whether or not there I I would be a problem if an industry decided to expand and the ad~oining ~ I property was zoned commercial - would it be possible to expand the industrial 1 use with the proposed zoning on the property. . Chairman Herbst noted there would be no ~ _ from a contiguous property already zonedpM~llalthouch the expansion woLld be ~ t~Fti•' °i" would have to be filed and approved on said g Proper zoning ~ .• ': ~ property. ~ ~~ . ',~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~- Discussioa was held by the Commission on the manner in which subject petition could be recommended for approval and still retain the existing zoning on the - property if existing industries were not desirous of exercising the C-R Zone; whether a recommendation should be made to the Ci.'.y Council to write a letter to this effect or whether or not the City Manager should undertake this ~ reassurance to the established industries; and/or whether a resolucion of intent should be sent to each property owner indicating what the Commission was recommending to the City C~uncil. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that he would consult with the City Attorney to determine what steps could or should be taken. However, the proposed zone did not affect any properties in the area unless the property owner requested an ordinance be read reclassifying the property to the C-R Zone - therefore, there would be a double benefit for these properties. ~ Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-41 and moved for its ~ passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ~ Reclassification No. 70-71-34 be a intent to the C-R 2one on sub ect Pproved, establishing a resolution of ~ further provided that the Commission~rerty' 8ub~ect to conditions, and :~ advising and explaining in a letter to eacheindustrialyproperty ownerdthat _~ the existing zoning would remain on the until such time as the property owner requestedythedCWRuZoneot be changed ~~ Book) (See Resolution ;; On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: 'I AYES : COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ~'.;y NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. , . The Commission directed the Commisaion Secretary to mail copies of the resolution to all property owners covered b the r i o n orde Y osed P r that th P reclassi e fic mi atio h n Y g t be apprised of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 •_ RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 2156 (Dr. Edward H. Abram~) - Request for extension of time - Property located on the west side of Dwyer Drive, approximately 430 feet south of the center- line of Westmont Drive. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses eatablished in cloae proximity, and the requeat for an extension of time to meet the.conditions established in Resolution No. PC70-25, approving Variance No. 2156, and that ataff recommended a one-year extension of time be granted, to expire March 17, 1972. ~ Commisaioner Allred offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for the completion of conditions under Variance No. 2156, said , time extenaion to expire March 17, 1972. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. R, . .,kt .~ ~ ~ 1 ; ~, f _ ~ ~ MINIITES, C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 8, 1971 REPORTS ANA - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION. N0. PC71-12 - ROIITE 39-BEACH BOULEVARD FREEWAY. ~ 71-125 Assiatant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the ~ommission that Commissioner Farano had requested review of Plsaning tommission Res.olution No. PC71-12, which recommended approval of the Route 39-3each Boulevard Freeway, to delete any reference to "be urged to" in the Commission's recommendation, and the resolution before the Commission indicated this now had been corrected - however, this would have to be done through a separate motion te amend said resolution. Commis.eioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-42 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Planning Commission Resolution No. PC71-12, Route 39-Beach Boulevard Freeway, by the deletion of any reference to words "be urged to" in the Planning Commission's resolution. (See Resolution Book} On roll call the faregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES:~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Raywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSI~JNERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ITEM N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 662 (Laurence and Abilene Allen) - Termination of said petition to establiah a semi-automatir carwash north of the northeast corner of Dale and Lincoln Avenuea. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that in their approval of R-3 zoning for the property north of the northeast corner of Dale and Lincoln Avenues, a small semi-automatic carwash had been approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 662, Resolution No. 1477, Series 1964-65, and since R-3 zoning had been approved, the Commission might wish to terminate said conditional uae permit since the ase had never been exercised. Commissioner ICaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-43 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 662. , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farana, Gauer, Herbst, Raywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further buaineas to discuas, Commissioner Kaywood offered a motioa to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Farano aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~~ ~e..., ANN RREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Plaaning Commission < ~ a~~T_M~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ . 1 F t .:,K ~ ,4 t ~ k ~ I ~ ~~ Y S ( ~ `7 1 ~. ~ ` 1 / ~ ~ ~ v~). . '~ ~ ~ • Sz~ 1 F.] r r .tY ? - ~ 7 ~ ' ~ ~ 9 ( rz k ` T'~ ~ ' " ~ Y ~: n \ 1', ~ ~ t.. f 7 `~'.~ . ~ • ~"5. .. ........ _C~j . , ' t: ~ P ~~ .-. } ~zr=, ~ .y`„ fy,j .V }~ rY C S ' ~ L T 1 < , h ~ '~>~ x Y ;i r l ~ ''r . : ~Z 'ci t ~.: 1. ~ll L' 9 } :: j ~' Y ~ ~. 1 ~ ~ r ._. .. . ._ . _'i . . . . ../'.i Y . f~...:.~~.. . .. ~~~1 ( y. L .• ... ~ . ~.,+'~ s fi~ 1 Ln: 'a fi t'~' ~CS~''.u 1 4 ~~~ 4^~2 2 ~ ~ ; , . ~~.:. . . .. .. ... ~ .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . i . , t. ~ . . . ! =~ _ ..~ .,, . . . . . ;. ~ . ~, ~ _.. ~.. .. . . . .. ~ ~ .. ' ~~ : . ... ' . . .. , . ... .: . . '~-. . ~ - ~ .~;~..~ . . ..- .. . . ..~ , .:... . .:~. .. ~, ~.... .~ ~: ~:~. :. .~. .. ~..: ,..: :.~...~ ,_~, ...;, . y . .. ....... .: . - ..~ . . . ... . ., .- . ... _ ~ .., ._. . . . . , . . . . . ., . ~ . . . ~ .~.5~.. . .. ~ _ ":y ~ '- ~ i .S 1. .... .. .. . . _ . . .. .. . ~ . . . .. . .. ~. . .. .. . . . _ -. .-!_i!. ` . ~ .. . ~