The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1971/05/17F.. . . . ~ . ' / ~ . . I ~ ~ ~ - + ~'.. ~. , ~ .. ' ____'~.~ .'_'T~ f + ~ ~ I - (~ ~~ ~ ~ r~ 1 ~ ~ ~. ~ Cit~r Ha1P ' `' Anah~?im, California ` May 13, 1971 , ~' ' _ i ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5~013 i ~. ~ ' ' ~ i ~• REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning ~ommissiqn j , MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2e90 P.M., a ~ k quorum being present. S ,-.\ h~. ~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbsfi. ~ .~ . ~` •r' . '~. - COMMiSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, ~ Seymour. ; ~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. a 1 PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Tho~pson ~ Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry 1 Office £~s~ineer: Jay Titus ; Zoning Supervisor: Cha~les Robert.s Assistant 2oning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter ~ Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ~ PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Alleqiance to ALLEGIANCE the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of May 3, 1971, were approved with THE MIN'_TTES the following corrections an motion by Commissioner Seymour, a seconded by Commissioner Kavwo~A, and M~iTZ~N CARRiED. ` Page.71-233, paragraph 9, line 3: name should be Millet, ~ ~ King. . _~ Page 71-244, paraqraph 13, line 4: word, "change" should be ,+ "charge"; line 6: word should be "rates" not "ra es". ;} Page 71-251, paraqraph 4: delete. _~ Page 71-255, paraqraph 1, line 4: Commissioner Farano was " absent. ' Page 71-256, last line: delete last three words. , `! VARIANCE NO. 2244 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EUGENE E. LA MERES, New ' England, North Dakota, Owner; WILLIAM J. LA MERES, . '-~ 1570 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, .~ Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMSER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF AN EXiSTING MOTEL on property descr~,bed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ' 175 feet on the west side of West Street, having a maximum depth of ~ approximately 300 feet, and beinq located approximately 290 fee't north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1759 South West Street. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Subject petitiun was continued from the meetings of April 5 and 19, 1971, for the petitioner to compile additional data. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, existing zoning, and the petitioner's request to waive the minimum number of required parking spaces to expand an ex.isting motel, noting that the original motel had been one-story construction however, the original plans indicated construction of additions equalling '.2 units, and this had been reduced by the revised plans which indicated ~4 units with 56 parking spaces; that after staff had analyzed the plans, it was determined sevezal of these spaces would not be usable since adequate emergency ffre vehicle access was necessary. 71-275 ~ ,;.. . _ . s~.. , ~ ~~~~c.. _ . ._.-. v_.. . . ~ . . . . ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ , .. _ _ _ ;;&~, ~e. -- ~ - .. . ' ~ ~~) C~ t _~ ; . ~ ~ MINUTES, CI~Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-276 ~ , VARIANCE NO. 2244 - Mr. Willi.am La Meres, agent for the petitioner, ~ (Continued) appeared before the Commission and stated that the ` Report to the Cominission was quite a sur~rise to him since there were 52 garking spaces gresently on the ~ property and room for 4 additional spaces - therefore, he could see no i reason f~r the staff's commen~t; that after construction was complet~d and ~ the parking lot laid out, they discovered that th~ amount of available ~ spaces was 56 -'there£ore, he h~,3 amended his request; and that the waiver o€ 8 spaces would appear not to be ~.,o extreme a request. ~ ^ Mr. Roberts advised the Commis„2on that the driveway on the site was not of ~ ~~~`~'. ~ sufficient width to accommodate emergency fire equipment, and this was ~i``?~~' staff's reason for stating several o~ the parking spaces on ~he plan were ~ not acceptable. ~ ~~~. ~ ~ w ~ _ Commissioner Seymour noted that staff could meet with the petitioner's i , agent for an explanation, an~ the C~mmission could defer further considera- ~ tion unt~l la'ter in the meet~ng. 4 Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcc~lm Slaughter advised the Commission that ~ ~' staff had ~ssumed there were two drivewa s and no cano ~ Y py; hawever, after the Fi•re Chief had visite3 ~tke Property earlier in the day, it was deter- mined that one c~rive would not be available because a canopp did exist and ~ a standard radius •return would have to be provided on the property itself ' because of this fact; and t~iat access to the property was co~isidered ~ crit3cal as it pertained to fire and trash vehicles. ~ I Mr. La Meres noted that the same situation existed prior to construction of ; the additional 17 units. i ~ ;'~i Mr. Slaughter, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the plans i ;~ did not indicate a canopy, and staff did not have time to visit the place ~ ;~ prior to preparing the Report to the Commission; therefore, after the ~ =, inspec~3on of the property earlier in the day, these further facts were ~ - determined. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to defer consideratibn of subject 1 _ petition until later in the meeting so that the agent for the petitioner "j could review the prablems with staff as to what wou13 be acceptable to the ~ ~ Commission regard~,rig the problem staff had just presented. Commissioner Farano °econded the motion. MOiION CARRIED. (See page 71-283) ~ '' r ~ ,.:{ VARIANCE NO. 2254 - CONTZNUED PUSLIC HEARING. S.V.D. CATHOLIC IINIVERSITIES, ~>~ INC., 7807 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORP., 11Q0 North Main Street, bos Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS AF (1) MAXIMUM ` SIGN HEIGHT, (2) MAXIMUM SZGN AREA OF A FREE-•STANDING SIGN, (3) MAXIMUM r AGGREGATE SIGN AREA, (4) MAXIMUM AI2EA OF A WALL SIGN, (5) AOOF SIGN `!' LOCATION, AND (6) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETS•:EEN A ROOF SIGN AND A FREE-STANDING :+ SIGDt TO EST?1BLISH A ROOF SIGN AND A FREE-STANDING SIGN on procerty described ? as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ~ 120 feet on the north side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 183 feet, and being lacated approx.imately 294 feet east of the center- ! - line of Magnolia ~:venue, and further c~escribed as 2561 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAI, COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 3, 1971, in order that the ~~,plicant might consider other sign solutions ~for the property. r: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the waivers ;~!' ' reguested to establish a 35-foot high, 265-square foot, free-standing sign - ''~~~ howeve,r, because of existinq single-family residential uses immediately to "°. the north, oaly a 25-foot high sign would be permitted and a maximum 120- square foot sign. ;~ . . - Mr. Slaughter further noted that subject petition had been continued from the May 3, 1971, meeting to allow the petitioner time to consider other ' sign solutions, and the revision indicated that the petitioner proposed A~ ' .~c ; ,~ , i ! ~~. , - F.. . iY"~.. _. , - . . ., . . . . - . . ~~ . . .._ _ ~5...~.lS` '!` .. . ~ - .. ~ ~ ~ . . _ ~ ' ' (~ ~ . . , r . . ~ . . - . . / . ~ ; , / 1 .T' .~~~~__~.. ..... __.__._~~~ . . ~..~~.~ _ ~ h......, ';~I. !'R` . , 1 : ~ I ~J MINUTES~ CfiTX PLANNZNG COMMTSBION, May 17, 1971 r~ 71-277 VARIANCE NO. 2254 - to delete the massive superstructure on top of the (Continued) building, thereby eliminatiag two of the o~iginal aalvers reque~ced~ In addition, the petitioner sti11 proposed the 57-bquare foot wall sign, whereas Code would permit only a 44-square foot sign. Mr. Charles Riffe, representing the agent for the petitioner, Federal Sign & Signal Corp., appeared before ~the Commissior. and noted that both the free-standi;zg sign and the wall sign were used throughout the proposed lassee's other operations in Southern California and were their standard signs. C::airman Herbst no~ted that the Commission was more ccncerned with the free-st:~ndinq sign than the wall sign since the free-~tanding sign would affect single-family homes; and that many petitioners camg in requesting approv<<1 of nationally-advertised, standard, free-standing and wall signs - however, when the Commission requested substantial compliance with the Sign Ordinance, revised plans were presented that were more ir. line with Code requirements than originally submitted. Therefore, the statement that these were st<.ndard signs would appear irrelevant. Mr. Riffe, after further discussion with the Commission, stated that the pecitioner would be willing to reduce the height of the sign, and there was e.lso a manner in which the size of the sign could be decreased. ' 'Loning Supervisor Charles Roberts and Commissioner Farano reviewed with the - agent for the petitioner the manner in which he proposed to reduce the size of the free-standing sign, and after discussion, Commissioner Farano noted that the agent had indicated the sign would be the height required by Code - ~ I:owever, the size still would be 225 square feet, and by removing the block ~,~~ below the identification portioa of the sign, this could further reduce the '~ size to 180 square feet. Mr. Roberts noted that a variance still would be needed for the area of a free-standinq sign, as well as the wall sign. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ::ommissioner seymour inquired as to the reason for requesting waiver of the area of a wall sign and why couldn't this be brought within Code require- ment; whereupon Mr. Riffe replied that the sign was already manufactured - therefore, they felt this was sufficient reason for requesting waiver of the Sign Ordinance. '_~~ Commissioner Seymour then noted that this waiver could only be based upon economics and not on any other hardship basis. THE HE}1RING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour noted that the applicants indicated their willingness to comply with the Sign Ordinance for a portion of the request - however, it was clear that the justification for requesting these signs was merely that the signs were made up in quantities, therefore, the applicant would save some dollars if the variance were approved as requested, but an economic justification was not considered a clear demonstration of hardship, which was a necessary prerequisite of a variance for Planning Commission considera- tion, and approval of subject petition would set an example for similar requests from other nation-wide companies having standard signs to request the same waivers. '_ Commissioner Allred noted that the petitioner did stipulate to meeting the sign height limitation. Commissioner Seymour further noted that even with the reduction proposed at the hearing, the free~standing sign still would be 62 square feet greater than Code would permit, and the wall sign would be 13 square feet greater; ~ however, there was no evidence demonstrated that a hardship existed even to consider granting these waivers, other than economics. ~ . ---> _ ' ~ _~ , _ . y a 1, / ~ ~ ~ ~ - , (;J ~,lJ MINUTES, CITY PLANPIING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 t, 71-278 VARIANCE NO. 2254 - Commissioner Allred then stated, just to keep the (Continued) record straight, would the petitioner stipulate to maintaining the free-standing sign at 182 square feet; whereupon Mr. Ri~fe so stipulated. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-87 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variancz No. 2254 on the basis that the petitioner did not demonstrate a hardship existed to grant the waivers requested; that the petitioner did not submit evidence that he was being den3ed a privilege enjoyed by others in the area; and that approval of the proposed variance would establish an undesirable example which would encourage other people having standard, pre-formed signs to request similar waivers. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NO. 2252 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARILiG. RONALD H. AND CHARLOTTE RHODES, 9301 Thistle Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; California, Agent; requesting WAIVEREOF MINIMUMWDISTANCEoSETWEENuA,ROOFhein, S3GN AND A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 45 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 88 feet, and beinq located approximately 120 feet east of the centerline of Topanga Drive, and further described as 3136-B West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. ~ Subject petition was continued from the :Nay 3, 1971, meeting for the applicant to explore other signing alternatives. ~~ 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the waiver from the Sign Ordinance ,;.;~ being requested, notinq that the petitioner had erected an illegal roof ;, sign only 30 feet from an existing free-standing sign, and the request before the Commission was to legalize the existing roof sign; and that ~ subject petition was continued from the May 3 meeting for ~he applicant r~ to explore other signing alternatives. However, the applicant had advised ~;:; staff that she had discussed this matter with the landlord and the tenant ,'"~ having the free-standing sign, to work out arrangements whereby she could incorporate her sign into said free-standing sign, but the conditions ~ ~ imposed by the other tenant apparently were too burdensome to the applicant. i~rs. Charlotte Rhodes, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission ; and in zesponse to questions by the Commissioners, stated that the•tenant having the free-standing sign - Herbert Interiors - was the only tenant ~ occupying this buildin for ten the size of their operation and thersquarewfoatageiofyleasedgspacey rAsuaed 2 result of this reduction, two other stores were now in operation - one '~ which she operated and the other, the flower store, by Mrs. Lopez - further- -;?i more, Mrs. Lopez had contacted Herbext Interiors, the outright owners of .;_f the free-standing sign, as to adding her sign to their free-standing sign, rl but the conditions imposed were outrageous. ~" The Commission discussed with the petitioner the problems which might '' result with additional requests for free-standing signs for future tenants. i. Commissioner Seymour noted that at the time the free-standing sign was erected the owner of the free-standing sign occupied the entire building and was the only tenant - however, now he had reduced the size of his leased operation, an~d this was a self-created hardship since the property ~~ owner should have had something in the new lesGe a•rrangement when Herbert Interiors reduced their leased space to permit other tenants in the balance ~. of the building to have equal signing on the free-standing sign - however, this was a hindsight s~ggestion. ~~ `..,1kke ':; ~ r .,,, . i_ ~.. . .t ~ : . '~ _ , ~ I ~ ~ ~ i `y.~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, rlay 17, 1971 ~1_z~9 VARIANCE NO. 2252 - Mrs. Rhedes stated that the roof sign was an attractive (Continued) one, and although the Report to the Commission indicated approval would establish a precedent, there were other signs in the azea having similar conditions but were allowed to erect a new sign. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the length of time Mrs. Lopez' lease had; whereupon Mrs. Rhodes replied an addikional three years. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ,_.~ . Y.< "~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-8$ and moved for its passage /~ and adoption to deny Petitior for Variance No. 2252 petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship existed tonwarrantsgrantingtthe - requested waiver; that the petitioner c?id aot submit evidence that he was being denied a privilege enjoyed by others in this general area; that if a hardship did exist, it was self-imposed since the property owner did not ~. require a reduction in size or make space si.gning arrangements for addi- • tional tenants at the time the owner of the existing free-st<;nding sign reducedthe square footage of leased space; and tha,t agpraval of the roof sign would establish an undesirable precedent for si.milar requests from small shopping centers faced with the same problem throughout this gen•_ral area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ,j seymour. NOES: COMMISSI ;; ONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSI ;~ ONERS: None. ~ VARIANCE NO. 2258 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALICE ADELL BRADY FIV,4 AND ~3ARBARA . ;~ JEAN HIDLE, 12802 Garden Grove Bouleva~~d, Garden Grove, ...;_i TENTATIVE MAP OF California, Owners; WILLIAM J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach ;~ TRACT NO. 7088, Boulevard, Suite W, Westminster, Califc~rnia, Agent; REVISiON N0. 1 requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MSNIMUM FRONT SETSACK, (2; - MINIMUM STDE YARD, AND (3) CODE REQUIREMENT THAT A HOME REAR UPON AN ARTERIAL STREET IN A PROPOSED ~i SINGLE-FAMILY TRACT on property described as: An irre ularl of land consistin of a 9 Y-shaped parce.l " 4 pproximately 14 acres having a frontage of approxi- ,~`;ti mately 825 feet on the east side of Rio Vista Street, having a maximum -,~ depth of approximately 807 feet, and being located approximately 390 feet _ north of the centerline of Hempstead Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRTCULTURAL, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER; WILLIAM J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach ` Boulevard, Suite K, Westminster, California. ~` ENGINEER: RApB AND BOYER ENGINEERING COMPANY, 14482 Beach Soulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract is proposed £or sub- _ division into 71 R-2-5000 and 6 R-1 zoned lots. ~.; Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action considered by - the Planning Commission in March, 1971, and the proposal to construct zero ;- side yards incorporating the 5 ieet from one side yard into the opposite ;: side, making a 10-foot side yard for each property; that if this were approve~i, the Commission might wish to consider conditions impose3 on other zero 3o,t line subdivisions; that one lot was proposed to side-on to Rio Vista Street, an arterial; that front yard setbacks for the R-1 lots along „ the ~ast property lir.e were proposed to be 15, 17, and 20 feet - however, 25 feet was required; that the plans also indicated that the subdivision =j would be designed in such a way that Dutch Avenue would be extended from its present terminus westerly after one jog at Jeanine Way to Rio Vista - Street, thereby providing additional east-west circulation from the existing _ *':: . .~.~i! ,. ~ 1 . '... . ~'^ ... . '-.: ._ .: .. . 1~ '~..-_ . , ~ . . - . . . .. . . ~ . ~ ' ' ' 1. _ .. .. ~ ' . ` ' ~ . i M.i' ~ . ~ '~ r I 1 ~; ~ ~. { _ ~, . '~.. 7~ ^f. ~' . *. .~c ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, M'ay 17, 1971 ~ _) 71-280 VARIANCE N0. 2258 -:.ubdivisions to the east; and that although the report indicated the petitioner desired to develop the side- TENTATIVE MAP OF walks adjacent to the curbs throughout this tract, this TRACT NO. 7088, request was now withdrawn. REVISION NO. 1 (Continued) Mr. George Bolton, rep.reseriting Showcase Homes, developer of the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and noted that the zero lot line concept was one of the newest plans in land dFVelopment; that they had positioned the home on one lot line, giving each property owne:: a 10-foot side yard instead of the rather small, 5-foot side yard on each side, which was unusable, and this concept allowed for a great deal pf flexibil?ty fpr layout of the interior of the house, developing a more desirable landscape area, and locating the living room, family room, and some bedrooms away from the lot line since the garage would abut this lot line; that only onc lot was proposed to side-on an arterial, and it was very difficult to 3esign a tract while still extending Dutch Avenue across the property from the east to Rio Vista Street, and if this were changed, to have the lot rear-on to said street, it would create drainage problems, although the drainage could be provided, there would be some difficulty as to an easement at such time as maintenance of the drainage system was needed in the £uture. Mr. Bolton further noted that they proposed to have a minimum of 10 feet between each house for the zero lot lines, and as to any unharmonious color, it was their intent to have plaster walls in this area, and a color coordina- tor would determine the colors of all these homes, with any change being governed by the CC&Rs required. Therefore, there should be no dispute on the wall since this would be part of the package submitted to any prospective buyer, and arbitration would be through the CC&Rs which they would be required to submit to the City Attorney for approval; that although they were desirous of having the minimum setback to be similar for all lots in question in this tract, if the Commission so desired, they still could provide for the 25-foot setback on the R-1 lots since there were adequate rear yards - however, they preferred to provide more recreational area in the rear yards with the set- backs proposed; and that originally they had planned to provide the sidewalks adjacent to the curb when a narrow street was proposed, however, the City Engineer indicated this width of street would not be allowed - therefore, their sidewalk request was being withdrawn. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the walls betwEen the homes would be frame-stucco and would they be color coordinated; whereupon Mr. Bolton replied that the homes would have separate colors but would be of muted, earthy tones similar to two tracts now being developed in Westminster and Brea; that they had never experienced any problem as expressed before, nor had complaints been received from any prospective purchaser - however, there would be two different colors on each home, and t?•.,~ CC&Rs would limit the property owners from having a change in color withou~ approval. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry expressed doubt that this could be eaforced by the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not this was true, even i,f a condi- tion of approval were to require neutral shaded masonry walls rather than a frame-stucco. Mr. Lowry stated the Commission could require the developer to provide a color scheme, but when the home was purchased, there would be no way to enforce architectural standards since the City did not have an architectural committee, and if a property owner wanted to purchase one of these homes and enter into a voluntary agreement between the adjoining property owner, this would be a civil macter. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not permission would have tc be granted to have access to the adjoining property owner's property at such time as repairs or painting was necessary; whereupon Mr. Bolton staced this was part of the aq=eement in which the purchasers of these properties wauld allow access over the adjoinin^ property - this also being part of the CC&Rs. _;~, . ~-- - ~'~ ~•_.,.. ~ ~+ ° _.- .;ig; r t - _ , 5 - 0 / V ~ ~~ ~.J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~IMISSION, May 17, 1971 71_2gZ 4AnIaNCE ~IO. 2258 - Mr. Bolton, in reply to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated that there was a similar side-on lot • TENTATIVE MAP OF situatior. on the west sidE~ of Rio Vista Street such as TRACT N0. 7088, they proposed. REVISION NO. 1 (Cont~nued) Commissioner Allred inquired about the manner in which water run-off was being :~andled on the zero lot line - would the roof structure be constructed in such a manner that no water would run off onto the adjoining property? Mr. Bolton replied this was handled with the parapet treatment, and roofs were mainly flat, which would keep the water toward the front and rEar of a home where a gable was provided to draw the water away from the adjoining properties. `~ Mr. Bolt;on then presented colored render.ings of the zero lot line treatment, indicating garages would be along said lot line, and then, in response to ~ questions by the Commission, stated that some front gables were proposed to hide +_he flat appearance of the roof, and this would dress up the front, ~ qiving it a"hip roof" appearance. Furthermore, both tracts in Westminster and Brea were very attractive, if the Commission wanted to view this type of treatment. ~ Commissioner Allred noted he Y.ad passed a qroup of homes in San Bernardino '~' which were adjacent to the freeway, all of which had flat roofs but did not ~' w have the gable effect proposed by the developer - however, these flat roofs ;,; did nothinq in appearance; whereupon Mr. Bolton replied that on their pro- `.,~~, posed de~elopment, this flat roof appearance would not be visible because .:~ of the size of the gables proposed. Com~issioner Allred further noted that this flat roof appearance would not ~~: ~ be desirable ter viewing by the adjacent ;~ treatment ¢n the west side of town which he~didtnot feele there was a similar attractive a presented a very ppearance; whereupon Mr. Bolton replied that there wouid be `, k complete privacy in this layout because these homes would all be single- f: :;, story, whereas this would not b~>, so if there were two-story homes. ~`~ V'~ Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the age of the tract in Westminster; f`~ j;.~ whereupon Mr. Bolton re lied that it had been started six months ago and NYi P ,,._ would be completed with 127 homes in August or September of this year. ~. ~: ,'~~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~~ ~' Y THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour, in response to Commissioner. Allred's question on whether or not fla'~ roofs were detrimental in an area, stated that the homes in the west end of town known as "The Cliffs" spoke for themselves - they were passable but not necessari.lp bad - however, the Commission had approved `:' zero lot line~ before, but he would prefer seeing the Westminster develop- ` ment before he would take any action on the variance. The•refore, he would 'j recommend subject petition and tract be continued to the June 2, 1971, _ meeting so that the Commission could visit the developer's project in Westminster. Mr. Bolton, in response to Commissi.on questioning, stated that because of the City of Anaheim's ordinan•se, t:,e size of the structure was increased over that in the Westminster tract, however, they would be similar in Y1'.. ~' design, these homes being 7,ocated at Springdale and Westminster Boulevard, t known as the "Villay~ West"; that the homes in westminster were priced between $29,OQ0 and 530,000, however; and that the homes in Anaheim would ~y„ . be slightly higher. Cha:,rman Herbst was of the opinion that it would not be necessary to continue subjeet petitions since the Commission had approved zero lot lines before, '~ even though he was not necessarily in favor of them. Commissioner Seymour noted that his only reason for asking for a continuance , was that he did not recall approving zero lo'_ lines for R-2-5000 lats, and *; the last time he could recall was in the Westmont area - however, there were ; .~c ~~. ~:~~~=--;,^~,.:r.~~ . . • . - _ '~..~ ~' i, ~ _ ` - ' ~~ , ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINU~'ES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, May 17, 1971 ~_~ I ~i-ZSa ~ VARIANCE NO. 2258 - more than enough problems with the R-2-5000 2one, even though it was being approve@, therefore, he wanted to TENTATIVE MAP OF be assured that this type of home on the smaller lots TRACT NO. 7088, would be attractive to the City of Anaheim because with REVISION NO. 1 the combination of small lots and zero lot lines it was (Continued) impossible to determine their effects on the area as a whole. Furthermore, if the Commission held some controls over this particular acreage, it would give the Commission the opportunity to approve or disapprove this and other requests. Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the City had been faced with any problem as it pertained to zero lot line developments; whereupon Mr. Roberts replied that there were none in Anaheim, but in other cities there had been •~~.mage to the walls on the zero lot line and problems as to who was responsible for the repair of the wall which may have been damaged by the adjoining property owner. Furthermore, there was also the problem of n~ise being created if this were not required to be a solid wall, particularly when children bounced balls and rocks off the wall - he wanted to present these possible problems to the developer. Mr. Bolton stated it was his opinion that the plaster v:all would be adequate if there were double construction - however, if the Commission required a solid masonry wall, they would comply with it. Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioninq, stated tF~are were two tracts, one known as "Century 21", south of Ball Road on the east side of Brookhurst Street, and the other on South Street, east of State College Boulevard which had zero lot lines. The Commission then noted that the Commission should also look at these developments to determine if this was a successful approach to take, and the property owners should also be queried as to any possible problems. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2258 and Tentative Map of Tract Ncn. 7088, Revision No. 1, to the meeting of June 2, 1971, to allow the Commission time to review other similar developments to determine whether or not this was the right approach to future development in the city and to determine from property owners of these tracts whet;~er or not any problems had been experienced due to the zero lot lines. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Herbst voted "no" and stated that this delay would add expense to the developer, particularly since the Commission had approved zero lot lines in the past. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: FRANK H. AYRES AND SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, TRACT NO. 74'l2, 6000 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California. REVISION NO. 1 ENGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., 9092 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. Subject tract, located east of Imperial Highway between the 3anta Ana River and Esperanza Road, containing approximately 45 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 236 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the proposal, noting that the developer had submitted a request for a two-week continuance of time in order to revise the tentative tract map, and that staff would recommenc said continuance. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422, Revision No. 1, to the meeting of June 2, 1971, as requested by the developer. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ^ . F~ 4.~. . ~, ~ ~ . ~ ; . . . . . . .,. _ ' . . . . . 1 ' ~ i ~ ~_ :. .: , .. ':: ~,-- `J ~ 4~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-283 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted (Continued) that in his discussion with Mr. La Meres, it was determined that it was possible to have an area cut • out in the canopy which would permit fire vehicles to gain access to the property. However, there were still 53 parking spaces proposed for the 64 rooms. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of units the motel had prior to the recent addition; whereupon Mr. La Meres replied there were 46 units. Commissioner Gauer noted that according to thp figures presented by the ~ analysis of staff, approximately 858 of the parkinq would be provided, and j the analys?s made of the parking at the Lamplighter Motel indicated 87.58 ' was the hi hest ! g parking in August - however, a subsequent report also ~ indicaLed almost a 508 differential; therefore, he felt this would be in ~ conformity with the parking requirements. ~ `~ ! Commissioner Seymour inquir~d of the petitioner, if subject petition were approved with only 83$ of the required parking, what did the petitioner ' plan to do if this parking facility were filled; whereupon Mr. La Meres replied that it would be the responsibility of the manager to provide park- ; ing for the guests, and they did not want the problem of having the guest ~ unhappy - if there was no room to park his car, he would not stay at the _ motel. ~ 'S ~f <; ,.,.. ~< ' , '~ s .,_:> t L, ~, ,~ . w. .+f;! Commissioner Seymour then stated that if the parking spaces were filled, would the "no vacancy" sign be hunq out; whereupon Mr. La Meres stated that since the guests would not be a13.owed to park on the street, if this happened, management would have the duty of valet parking and providing parking elsewhere. However, they did not anticipate doing this. Commissioner Seymour then noted that the management would have to drive the guest's car either to Katella Avenue or park it in the Disneyland area; whereupon Mr. La Meres stated that as the motel became larqer and an increase in rooms from the original 22 to 64, the car parking vacancy would become greater because they would be able to capitalize on the airlines' special offer because they required motel units having a minimum of fifty before any business would be given them. Commissioner Seymour then inquired what percentage of parking was approved for the Ivanhoe Motel; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that this was 66-2/3$. Mr. La Meres, in response to a statement by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that after having left the last meeting he required his clerk to accumulate the information as to whether a car was owned or rented or whether they intended to rent one, and these figures in the statistics reflected this inquiry. Commissioner Kaywood then noted that at the previous meeting Mr. La Meres had stated he could not provide any previous records - however, it appeared this was possible; ~Thereupon Mr. La Meres stated that approximately 35 to 40 hours were usEd in creating the record since they had to go back ani. select the registrations for the August portion, and the registrations were filed alphabetically. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mr. La Meres was a member of the t~isitors and Convention Bureau, and if so, could he ask tham to provide the Planning Commission with this type of data on all motels in general, similar to what was done by Mr. La Meres and representatives of the Ivanhoe Motel in order to justify these particular problems; and that since staff was unable to conduct this survey, the V& C should do the study, which could be one of the first of many of this type of request. Mr. La Meres replied that they were not a research agency and would nut have this type of information - all they did was gear their promotions toward obtaining conventions. ,; ~. - ,y~ '`4 :~ ~ , E ._b . . . _ . ~ . . :~ ' . . ~ . . .. . . . . ' j+~~ . , ~ ' . C,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 t~ 71-284 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - Commissioner Seymour then inquired about the Motel (Continued) Owners Association; whereupon Mr. La Meres stated that the association in Anaheim was not a very active one. Commissioner Seymour noted that his inquiry as to having outsiders do this was to eliminate the necessity of having the next petitioner submit a similar report. Mr. La Meres replied that since he was managing four different motel operations, they could do the study for these motels, and they had planned to do this anyway at tha Park Vue in order to obtain a long-range picture of parking requirements. r; No one appeared in opposi.tion to subject petition. ;~. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ; Commissioner Gauer observed that Mr. I,a Meres had certainly furnished the ~~ Commission with sufficient data; that this data indicated there was a ' 1 certain relationship between the persons arriving by way of air travel and people arrivinq by automobile, and since this data had indicated a small reduction could be permissible in this particular instance, subject petition should be granted. ;::;r;; i ;~'; Mr. Slaughter inquired whether or not the Commission was desirous of includ- ing a condition that a~dequate fire access be worked out with the Chief of _ the Fire Depart:nent; whereupon the Commission stated that this should be a ~ ' condition of approval. ! S~ ( F 1 . c:;~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-86 and moved for its passaqe ~j and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2244, waiving the required 3 ,! number of parking to permit 53 parking spaces, subject to conditions, with ~ 'I the added condition that adequate fire access be provided for in accordance _ with the requirements of the Chief of the Fire Department. (See Rpsolution ~ ;:t Book) '';~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired what would happen if the motel lost their ;~ contract with the airlines; whereupon Mr. La Meres stated that the existing .t _:~ figures presented to the Commission did not reflect any airline cantract. ` ,; ';',t On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ;~? '~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. `?~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Kaywocd, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. Commissioner Seymour requested that the petitioner solicit statistics from the motel industry in the area so that the Commission could take a more { intelligent approach in the future in considering similar requests; where- -= upon i+lr. La Meres stated that they woulsi be very happy to assist the City 'i in preparing such a report. r '':.Y VARIANCE NO. 1074 - READVERTISEMENT. PUBLIC HEARING. EAST ANAHEIM METHODIST CHURCH, c/o Warren Schutz, 914 West Lincoln ''~ Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; GORDON HAHT1, 1605 ~ ;`~ Spurgeon, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE ELEMENTARY CHRISTIAN DAY SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING r,? ; CHURCH on property described as: An irre ularl t y 9 y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.35 acres located north and west of the north- W_ west corner of Romneya Drive and Acacia Street, havinq a frontage of ~: ~-" approximately 297 feet on i:he north side of Romneya Drive and 178 feeL on the west side of Acacia Street, and further described as 1457 East Romneya Drive. Property presencly classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. t' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slauqhter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning action on the property, noting that the Commission, in 1968, approved the original application for private educational classes, including classes ~'' for the mentally retarded, in the existing church facilit ,~; ; y, and at said _ __ . ~~ ~ . ~ ' . ~ ~ a :. . ~ . ~ ~ . ' _ i +%-, ~ ':: _ 1- ~' . .a. 1 i f ~ ~~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM2;ISSION, May 17, 1971 ~..~ 71-285 VARIANCE NO. 1074 - hearing e~~idence was presented to the effect that a (Continued) maximum of 12 students would be attending the facility; however, the Planning Commission in their resnlution this fact, the appl3cantnwas1requestingutherPlanningeCommissionntoldetermine how many students would be permitted by the original application at the May 3, 1971, meeting - however, the Commission was reluctant to grant a school of increased size without a public hearing. Mr. Slaughter noted that the petitioner was proposing to use the existing school for private elementary, Christian day school classes in conjunction with the existing church, with classes from kindergarten through sixth grade, and the applicant in his letter indiaated they planned to start the school with approximately 35 students, envisioning an enrollment up to 100 students within the first two years, However, no estimate as to the ultimate enrollment was stipulated. Therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed use was appropriate, and if the use were found appropri- ate, the Commission might wish to establish a definite and certain number of students which would be permitted in the facility at its ultimate development; and that in the event the petitioner, in the future, desired to exceed this number, he would have to apply for a new conditional use permit. Mr. Warren Schutz, Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the United Methodist Church, appeared before the Commission and stated he would like to Pmphasize that the church did not want a confusion to exist between them and the school; that he would like to point out that it was their understanding they had a legitimate conditional use permit and had entered into escrow on that basis; that Reverend Diehl had spent considerable money for both escrow and improvements and commissions - thus the church and the school were in a quandary as to what to do; that their conditional use permit to establish a church at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Wagner Avenue had been approved, whzch would have a combined member~hip of the East Anaheim and the First United Methodist Church and had made application to the lending institution - however, because of the cloud existing on the conditional use permit on subject property and with the property being in escrow, this had placed the church in an embarrassing po5ition; and that the protests made regarding the proposed school were not based upon £act. Furthermore, Reverend Diehl would explain the proposed school facilities, but if he did not feel the conditional use permit before the Commission was not a proper permit, he would not have gone to the City Attorney to obtain clarification, and that the school envisioned not more than 85 students. Mr. Norman Hahn, 1230 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and noted he was the real estate broker for the sale of the church; that he wanted to give a little background as to the position of subject property and the quandary both the church and the prospective buyer were in since about two and a half months ago he had shown Reverend Diehl and several of the members of his church to see the facilities, and they had decided that the facilities suited their needs - however, they had asked him to investigate whether or not the usage proposed was permitted under the existing condi- tional use permit since they intended to have a Christian day school in addition to the church; that he had checked with staff regarding any restric- tions as to the number of children and had determined there was no stipula- tion in the conditional use permit - therefore, he had advised the prospective purchaser accordingly. However, during negotiations he was again asked about restrictions and was requested to again ascertain from the City whether or not there were any, and, again, staff had advised him there were none - thus the escrow negotiations were entered into by the Anaheim Christian School and the East Anaheim Methodist Church to purchase this facility with $5,000 collateral being posted without any contingency attached, such as to any zoning action. During the past month, the neighbors had circulated a petition which made some very erroneous and unfortunate comments, thereby arousing the neighbors, such as the school was going to be eight stories and have an enrollment of 300 to 500 students, and if he were a neighbor, he would also be concerned with statements such as those; that as a consequence, on May 3, 1971, they presented their problem to the Commission, who advised thEm that the matter should be presented at a public hearing so that everyone would be aware of what was proposed for the property. k-` ~ . ~. .;~.~~~~,~~~~;•; . . . . . . ._ - _ -__`~ _ e . . _ . . ' ~ ~ -"~'~~y l.u..~Y';'' ~~~ . . ... . .~ .. . . ' t ' _6 ~ ~ 1 I ~ f ~ l~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 ~.~ 71-286 VARIANCE NO. 1074 - Mr. Habn then presented a petition signed by 321 persons (Continued) (some signed both the opposition and the in-favor petitions) generally from people in the area, which indicated they were not opposed to the school. Mr. Hahn then reviewed the survey he made of other private schools approved by the City as to the number of students per acre where no limitation of number of students was indicated in the approval of the conditional L~e permit: these ranged from 80 to 233 students per acre. Further~ore, the elementary school on the east side of Aca.;ia Street in this neighborhood had 700 students on a 7-acre site, or 100 students per acre. In addition to the number of students, the question of increase in traffic was also brought up - however, it was hoped to gain students from this general area who would be attending this school, and most children coming from outside the area would be the only ones generating traffic into this area; that traffic would be no more than was normal for Romneya Drive - the area which would suffer the most from any increase in traffic - said street having 68 homes and 14 apartment houses between East Street and State College Boulevard, and he had the sianatures of 57 persons living on Romneya Drive who indicated they were not opposed to the school due to possible increase in traffic. Furthermore, Romneya Drive would be the logical street that would generate the traffic and not the back streets on which some of the people present in the Council Chamber lived; and that in his opinion the petitioner should not be required to appear before the Commission since the conditional use permit granted the use. Commissioner Kaywood inquired of Mr. Hahn, of the five schools which he had made reference tU, were all approved to be built as schools and was the Metho:3ist Church building only an incidental scr,ool use? Mr. Hahn replied that some of the schools were approved in conjunction with church operati~ns, but the Methodist building plans, when approved, indicated classrooms, and that the State regulated private schools as they pertained to day nurseries only to assure that there were adequate restroom facilities with restrooms directly connected to the classrooms, and this was also required of all schools from kindergarten tkrough third yrades, but above third grade, a restroom was only necessary on the same floor, and that in the proposed school, four af the seven classrooms had connecting restroom facilities. In addition to the four rooms having restroom facilities, there were two additional rooms each for men and women which would eliminate any shortage of restroom facilities, and in the future he would thoroughly check any conditional use permit on property and request clarification if schools were allowed under said petition. `y Chairman Herbst noted that if subject request were approved, the State requirements would have to be met, and that the church should have known - ?; exactly what they had requested in theii original petition in 1968, although ? there was no specific number of students set forth in the Commission's resolution of approval. ^ Commissioner Farano noted that Mr. Iiahn had stated the petitioner should not ~' have been required to appear before the CommissiGn because there were no = restricti~ns imposed. Mr. Hahn replied that there were no restrictions; whereupon Commissioner Farano noted that according to a letter on file in the petition, from Mr. Lauderbach, a maximum number of students was indicated - therefore, it was his opinion that the Ca~nmission approved the petition on that statement, > which was a self-imposed zestriction. `:;. ~" ~ Mr. Hahn further noted ttiat in conditional use permits approved in Anaheim ~,; and in other cities, the law governed only what was stated in th resolution passed and not on statements made in tne petition, and this was also the only basis on which he could make any assumptions. ~'` Commissioner Farano indicated he was on the Planning Commission at the time subject petition was originally considered, and his vote was predicated on ' the fact that the petitioner had indicated there would be a maximum number * '..f~c : a _ • ,~ ~ .. ~ . ' ~ . . " ~- .~h'~~YL _ . ` E _y ~ .~_r~.- i ~ . , ~J ~ -- ------- --- ---- ~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-287 1 <<::..~ i t,. '.: . . ;~' ~~ ' : . Z `i * `` .~t VARIANCE NO. 1074 - of students - therefore, he would prefer having no more (Continued) statements made to the effect that the Commission indicated no specific number ~f children. Commissioner A11red inquired as to the number of children the operators of the school intended to have; whereunon Mr. Hahn stated that they would be adhering to the public school reguiations which would permit a maximum of 30 students per classroom, or 210 students. Commissioner Allred then stated that Mr. Hahn had not answered his question - how many was planned for the school - not how many would be allowed by State in the classroom. Reverend Fred Diehl, 1616 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission to answer Commissioner Allred's question and stated they proposed to abide by State laws, and since there were seven classrooms, this would mean a capacity of 210 students, wYich would be all they would be allowed. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that there appeared to be a misunderstanding as to which agency governed the maximum number of students - therefore, for clarification, staff last Friday contacted the County of Orange and the County of Los Angeles, as well as the State of California, and posed this same question as to any restrictions by the various agencies for these types of schools, and the answer from both the County and State was that there was almost no jurisdiction over a private school, but they did indicate that the~e schools would be governed by the health and safety codes as well as the uniform building code - thus, under the uniform building code which would apply in this instance, it states that for each student there must be a minimum of 20 square feet of class- room space. Therefore, some of the rooms in the proposed school would accommodate only 20 students, rather than the 30 as stated by the petitioner. Chairman Herbst noted that the petitionEr still had not answered as to the number of students proposed for the school. Reverend Diehl stated that they proposed whatever the capacity of the rooms would permit. However, some of the rooms were larger than 20 x 20 feet. Commissioner Farano then requested that the number of students be specified in a clear and concise answer since he did not want anyone to be misled, as had been indicated before. Reverend Diehl indicated he also did not want to commit himself - therefore, whatever the code or the State law would allow was what they were requesting. Mr. Schutz again appeared before the Commission and noted that the square footage of the building was approximately 10,000 squarE feet, which included the chapel, and then in response to questioning by the Commission, stated that they did not intend to use the chapel for classrooms, nor were there any plans to expand the number of classrooms - all they were interested in was to get this school started. Mr. Roberts indicated that the plans before the Commission were the same as previously considered by the Commission in the original request under Conditional Use Permit No. 1074. Commissioner Farano then noted this would be calculated to approximately 150 students - howevex, staff should atLempt to figure out which rooms were to be used for school purposes. Mr. Jerry Moore, 1141 North Acacia Street, appeared before the Commission and noted that Acacia Street carried more than 5200 vehicles per day; that the original petition had indicated the exact number of students, namely 12, and two instructor~ wi;hin an existing church - however, none of the pro- ponents had indicated a church was also proposed; that the homeowners in the area had also done a great deal of checking regarding the requested use as originally proposed, and a specific number of students was indicated in the requestj that one of the Commissioners had mentioned under the original , " ' ~ ~ ~ _a i ~%' i ---•-- ----• ~I~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 r _~ 71-288 VARIANCE NO. 1074 - variance approved the church facilities, future plans (Continued) indicated two to seven buildings - however, now it was stated there was no plan for additional buildings; that Reverend Diehl had mentioned complying with State laws, however, upon checking with the State, they also were informed that the State had no jurisdiction over private schools except for the fact that the City of Anaheim had approved the use - together with the health and safety requirements of the State and the building code would permit up to 150 students; that in the Report to the Commission in 1968, the number of students proposed was set forth - and then read from the report. Mr. Moore stated that there were several questions that still remained unanswered which he wanted answered for the record: 1) What would be the ages of the children attending school; 2) what classes would be taught; 3) what were the school hours; 4) why was the East Anaheim Methodist Church the petitioner and not Reverend Diehl; 5) how would the children be screened who weuld be attending the school and would there be any problem children since the letter from Reverend Diehl indicated possible problem children - then read from this letter; 6) were there any programs planned to combat the drug problem as set forth in the letter; 7) what was the name of the new church and how many were in the State of California; S) would the sanctuary be used for classrooms; and 9) what would the hours of the church services b e? Mr. Moore indicated that these qupstions had to be answered since this proposed school had been a"thorn in the sides" of the residents of the area, and the answers to these questions would determine whether or not the people were opposed tc the proposed school; that since there apgeared to be no information on the church itself, it would appear that this was proposed primarily for a schooJ. and the church would be an incidental use since the school was a means of making money. Commissioner Farano noted that the opposition had not presented anything sahich would indicate why the school or church should not be allowed. Mr. Moore replied that the petitioner did not state the exact number of children proposed for the school, and the Commission had to drag this information out of the petitioner; that letters in favor of the petition indicated Anaheim schools were filled to capacity - howewer, he had checked this, and it was noted that the schools presently had approximately 26.6 students per classroom; that their primary concern was traffic on Romneya Drive, and then presented pictures showing the children on the streets and the vehicular traffic around 3:00 P.M., noting that because Romneya Drive was only a 38-foot wide street without sidewalks in many areas, the children had to walk in the street. Mr. Moore then quoted figures of traffic counts for both Acacia Street and Romneya Drive which had been obtained from the Traffic Department and represented the latest figures as of March, 2971, furthe~ noting there would be considerable traffic added to these streets at the time the apartment complex at R~mneya Drive and State College Boulevard was completed; that Romneya Drive also had a severe flood problem during the rains, and parents drove their children to school because of the flooded condition since their children could not cross the street when water was over the curb; that although there was a four-way stop sign at this intersection, many vehicles ran through the stop sign, particularly during the rainy season due to wet brakes, and since children usually walked to school, any increase in traffic flow would be of concern to the neighborhood since this would be adding to an already difficult problem; that a further concern was the chainlink fence since from an aesthetic point of view this was unattrac- tive - tharefore, regardless of the use that would be permitted, the opposi- tion was of the opinion that a 6-foot masonry wall should be constructed around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Moore then submitted a petition signed by 173 per~ons and stated that although the proponents had presented petitions signed by 320 persons in favor of the school, these people evidently were not residents in the immediate vicinity or people who did not reside adjacent to subject property . -- q~`~ir~G; . , , ~ . , ~ ... ._ ~ -. ~ ~ ` _ ~ _a . ... ; 'i r . . . ' ''J~. . .. . .. ~I. . ~ ~ MINUTF.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 i 3 J 71-289 VARIANCE NO. 1074 -<`~.:r.{~ residents of 52 homes living within 300 feet of (Continued) rl~,;: ~~Xoperty had signed a petition of opposition; and -~:x ~TMt were not opposed to the church or school but z.c~ :r-. :::~ssible size that could be permitted. Commissioner Ali: r= ~;,;.: ~;, ;;.~~,ti zed of the opposition how many students he felt should be ~..; ~:;~ ~.:_,:;.-, ~an,~reupon Mr. Moore reglied that since the petition original':~;~ *4-XV ti~ii;r~ved for 12 students, that would be the number they would consider acceptable. Commissioner Farano noted for the Commission and interested persons that the church was there as a matter of right, and the City Attorney had ruled that they were entitled to a reasonable number of stndents, and it was up to the Commission to determine what was a reasonable number. - Mrs. Jane Pippenger, 1504 West Beverly Drive, appeared be or he Com iss~ n ,~ i~dfa~r_gf_~ubject petition and read an editorial from ~~~~j~- F.i~4.~ /v~Gw~aC.~C.. ~ 1~~9~`~ va t~ -~- s c h pp 1 s~ d.G. .~w./.h.alw.[ a+,.Z ~.w~t.~L~aJ a.c.u+~s....L ' c..~.J ~r=~._= ~ ~. Mr. Schutz, in response to Commission questioning, stated that a representa- - tive of Reverend Diehl would answer some of the questions presented by the opposition. Mrs. Lee Dewoody, 5610 Tustin Village Way, Tustin, appeared before the ~-~nmission and stated she would bp the secretary of the proposed school; t the ages of the children atts• '~ng would be 4~ to 12 years; that the '; grades would be kindergarten thror,;h sixth grade; that it was hoped to give the children an excellent education, together with physical education and ;;a Bible teaching; that they would not be a day care center as such, but would have approximately 15 students who would be braught to school at approxi- mately 6:45 A.M. until 8:50 A.M., when classes started, and some childr~n would stay after regular school hours, no later than 5:45, at which time . the children would be picked up by their parents and taken home, and these children would be well supervised and would be kept within the confines of _ the facility, although sometimes they would play with the playground equip- ment out of doors. Mrs. Dewoody, in response to questions by the Commission, stated that it was I their plan to have bus service in the future for the children - however, for the present it was planned to have parent carpools to deliver the children to school and pick them up; and that although the brochure indicated children '" of all ages, these would be children from kindergarten through sixth grade. ': `~";` Commissioner Far~ano inquired of either Reverend Diehl ~r,z Mr. Schutz to clarify the statements made regarding pQ~tential sale. Reverend Diehl r.eplied that they were obtaining this property and planned to become a community institution for the development of the children in the _ area to give them a better education, better facilities, better training, and better objectives *_o the best of their ability, and then in response to Commission questioning, stated xt was their plan to utilize this facility for church purposes outside of the sencal hours, and the church service - hours were also in the brochure. Chairman Herb~t inquired as to th~ speci£ic name and affiliation of the church; whe:ceupon Reverend Diehl replied that they were non-sectarian and would be as;soci.ated with the Christian teaching of the Bible and the word of God, a:~d, therefore, a school for children whose parents wanted them to :;.. attend this type of school for the many Christian advantages it would afford ;' ~ them. "« Mr. Bert Dodd, 1146 Louise Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated ~hat he was somewhat shocked by Mr. Moore's statement regarding opposition to the church and school proposed since it was ,sr. imgortant asset to the area, and he had seen a great improvement in the last few months; that tax ~ wise, it would take some of the burden off the taxpayers since additional schools and teachers would not be needed; and that Mr. Moore brought up items that were irrelevant. ~ ~~ . ' . . i._<,. ._. _ ,.. . . . . . ~, . ~~ ~ . . .. . , - ... ..> . .. _ . .. „_, . . . . . . i ~, ._ T~_. _ .. . _ + 5 ! I ~ ~,:~', _ . . 'i ~ ~J a MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 t._) 71-290 VARIANCE NO. 1074 - Another gentleman who did not give his name indicated (Continued) that he was against the proposed school. TFiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred noted he was not against church education in the schools or to a church in a neighborhood, but he felt the Commi.ssion should limit the size of the proposed school even though he knew there were many schools in this area and in other cities which did not provide adequate facilities both inside and outside, and that he would not be opposed to limiting it to 150 students but limiting it to only 12, as the opposition stated, was un- realistic. Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the figures quoted by the opposition had been verified; whereupon Mr. Ro~erts stated he had given these figures as they pertained to traffic to the opposition after having obtained them from the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Farano then noted that the traffic on Acacia Street was indicated at 5500 per day, and on Romneya Drive 3500 per day, and with the present size of the streets, would these streets have the ability to handle an increase of approximately 25$; whereupon Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the City did not take into consideration the total traffic count but peak hours traffic, and these figures had also been quoted - however, these streets had been designed to have a 40-foot travel way with parking lanes on both sides, and a traffic lane could carry up to 800 vehicles per hour, and then in answer to Commissioner Farano's question in particular, stated there would not be any particular problem to handle this increase in traffic under normal conditions - however, there could be problems, such as on rainy days, and that this intersection was a four-way stop. Furthermore, where the street was developed to the designed width, on-street parking was permitted. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or nc,t the picture would change substantially if the apartment project were completed at Romneya Drive and State College Boulevard; whereupon Mr. Titus replied that this had been taken into consideration in quoting the figures - however, it would be difficult to determine what direction traffic from this complex would take. Commissioner Kaywood asked that Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry interpret for the Commission what would be considered a reasonable number of students that would be allowed. Mr. Lowry stated that the City Attorney did not specify the number since it would be up to the Commission to make this determination. Mr. Schutz advised the Commission that when he attended the meeting with Mr. Geisler, he stated that 75 or 80 students would not be considered unreasonabl.e - however, he did state that the Commission would have to be the determining factor. Commissioner Seymour observed that it was unfortunate that the land use of the property was being bantered around; that it was a controversy rather than a problem since the Commission would have to determine whether or not the land use was proper; that the conditional use permit approved in 1968 was for 12 students since the petition so indicated that number; that since land use was the prime consideration with possible problems of traffic which the use might inject, it appeared that most of the people who were objecting were located to the north of the property where the area was relatively traffic-free, except for the traffic which they created themselves; and that because of these reasons, a reasonable number of the proposed Christian day school would be 80 students having a time limit of two years, after which time if the applicant were desirous of increasing this number, a new public hearing would be scheduled so tha} the Commission might review any new evidence. _.. ~ . . . . .. . .'- -~c• _ - y --q°a~r . - e [ ~ ~ ~ , `:~ . ~ :~ s ... . . - , ~.~ , i / ~) ~ ~_~ i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, May 17, 1971 71-291 ~ VARIANCE NO. 1074 - Chairman Herbst noted that he had resided in this area (Continued) for nineteen years and traveled the streets daily; ! __ that Romneya Drive presently was not overloaded with vehicular traf~ic since he had traveled the same street from the time it was constructed; that one o£ the problems affecting this area was the fact that some tracts were developed while under the juris- diction of the County and were not required to construct sidewalks - he, too, had a daughter who walked to Edisaa School every day - and usually this could be remedied if the property owners of those homes would install ~ sidewalks so that students would not have to walk in the street; that ~'i Romneya Drive was generally known as a flood area, for which he could vouch after seeing three feet of water going through the red house, but this was all before Carbon Canyon Dam was built and during the rainy season the water j was still curb to curb - however, this was typical throughout Anaheim; that the use requested was not unreasonable since a church already existed there; and that the facilities were used by outside activities, such as the Boy Scouts, therefore, he felt that 125 students should be permitted. Commissioner A?.lred noted that there was not quite a happy medium between what he had suggested and what Commissioner Seymour had suggested with the proposal by the Chairman for 125 students. Commissioner Seymour stated he wished to clarify the reason for proposing I 80 students since it was apparent there was considerable opposition to the i use, but it was also apparent that the City Attorney took the position that ~" there could be some latitude in the number, and it was unreasonable to ~ assume that 12 students shoiild be allowed; that the City Attorney had con- veyed the idea that 75 to 80 students would be reasonable; and that the ~ , City Attorney had requested the Commission to make this determination as to what was reasonable - therefore, it was his opinion that 80 students ~ should be permitted. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that a finding should be made that ~ the use had been established since an elementary school was already in this k area. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-89 and moved for its ! passage and adoption to grant use of subject property for. a private, ; Christian day school for a maximum of 80 studen~ts in conjunction with a church, with any request for reconsideration of an increase to be made ~ at the end of two years, said consideration to be made at an advertised ~ public hearing, and subject to conditions, with a finding that the use had been established for this area by the erection of a public elementary school. (See Resolution Book) The Commission inquired whether or not it would be reasonable and proper to attach additional conditions for the use since this was only to consider establishing a given number of students; whereupon Mr. Slaughter stated that since the original conditional use permit was based on a maximum of 12 students and 2 instructors being permitted, any increase would warrant any reasonable conditions to be attached accordinq to thE ruling of the City Attorney. Mr. Titus, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that if 80 students were permitted, this would mean a maximum of 80 vehicles in the mo.rning and evening, and that would be added to the existing traffic on the streets. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Commissioner Gauer stated that upon consulting with the City Attorney, the City Attorney had advised him to abstain from voting since he was a member of the United Methodist Church. _ 3 7 ;1 ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~__~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANDTING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 ~1_Zg2 RECESS - Commissioner Seymour moved for a ten-minute recess at 4:45 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:55 P.M., all Commissioners being present. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM NO. 70-71-34 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East L3ncoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing tk:,': property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 437 acres bounded generally by Haster Street on the west, Katella Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, and Orange- wood Avenue on the south be reclassified from the M-1, LiGHT iNDUSTRIAL; C-1 AND C-2, GENERAL COMMEZCIAL; C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL; AND R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONES ;:o the C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings c>f March 8 and April 19, 1971. ~l : 1 Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the lccation of subject property~ existing zoning and development of *he area, the reason the Commission had initiated the petition in order that the zoning on the property would reflect the indications of the Anaheim General Plan - however, after the Commission had taken action in approving the C-R zoning for the prorerty, the City Attorney's office determined that the procedures followed in that zoning action were not proper, and based upon this, staff had recom- mended that the Planning Commission follow one of two courses, either ; rescind the C-R resolution of intent in its entirety or adopt Resolution ,_~~ No. PC71-41 as to the R-A zoned properties, the Anaheim Stadium, and Pacific .~, World project only; that sub~-~uent to this being returned to the Commission i,i for further consideration, ,ussion by the Commission evidenced some concern - ~ regarding the C-R zoning on chat area east of the Santa Ana Freeway, and "7 there was some thought expressed that this resolution of intent might deter industrial development wh'ch might otherwise occur in the area, and in light '~tf of this discussion and in light of the Cit Attorne 's rulin -'~ Y Y g, staff would suggest that the Commission reconsider their zoning action to determine ~_, whether a different recommendation would be appropriate. ' `c•l ? Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry, in response to Commission questioning, stated that it was his suggestion that either the Commission retain the :`;i present zoning of the property or that the resolution originally drafted by the Commission be re-drafted to recommend C-R zoning on the R-A parcels only, and because of the difficulty in locating each of the R-A parcels, it was further recommended by the City Attorney that the previous resolution be • rescinded en toto. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the reclassi.fication had been continued from the April 19 meeting in order that the property owners could be re-notified ? and for more property owners to be present to indicate their desires. However, from the most recent information submitted by the City Attorney's `: office, it appeared that the Planning Commission must rescind their original ~'r action and start over again. Mrs. Margaret Haas, 1850 South Anaheim Boulevard, appeared before the '~ Commission and noted that she was present at the previous meeting, at which time the Commission considered her request to continue the petition to allow her time to contact other property owners; that she had worked on '; t:iis since then, and the only two pieces of property that she was aware of ~' that would be adversely affected by re~cinding the resolution would be the w ones she would be representing - however, they were in the minority since ~;r the other property owners she contacted were either not interested or ?:.: preferred that the zone on the property remain as it was; that she wished to commend the Commission for their foresight in making things easier - however, there were a few questions she still wanted cleared up for her: 1) That this entire area was considered C-R potential use; whereupon t Chairman Herbst noted that this was a correct assumption - that this was C-R potential. Commissioner Gauer noted that The Orient started the ~ ~ :;r !~ ,; _ '"` ._ . , ~f ' r .. -...~ , ~ ~ ' ~•. , ~Y,: . _--~~.+-:~.. i . ~ y * ~ 1 : ,. - _ _ _ -- ---- r ~-----~------ - -. _ ._._. _. . , t,-~ ~:) l..? MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-293 RECLASSIFICATION - C-R thinking, and the stadium continued this thinking. NO. 70-71-34 ,., ." . lContinued) Mrs. Haas noted that perhaps Pacific World would not materialize, and the properties would remain in their present state until something else ~vas proposed. • 2) Would the property owners who wanted C-R zoning be required to submit their own petitions; whereupon Chairman Herbst noted that if the Commission rescinded their previous action, this would be the procednre to take. 3) If someone wan~ed the C-R zoning and met the conditians of approval, _ would the Commission recommend the C-R more favorably? Chairman Harbst ':;~-` '` noted that if the property were adjacent to M-1 property and the M-1 property ~;., owner was opposed to C-R, the property undoubtedly would be held to M-1 zoning. `~ Chairman Herbst further noted that if t :1 he use were nonconforming and the - use was not compatible with the adjoining property, in all likelihood the C-R could be denied. ~ Mrs. Haas then noted that sb.e had a conditional use permit pendinq on her ~~ property for commercial uses - however, it was not her intent to use tne ~ - property as originally proposed. ,' ~ Chairman Herbst noted that motels were allowed in the M-1 and C-R Zones, _ and if Pacific World did get off the ground, this would influence develop- ment of this entire area; that it would make a complete traffic change to the area since C-R uses and M-1 uses, traffic-wise, were not compatible; and that it was quite possible that any C-R zoning requested would be considered more appropriate. However, as long as Pacific World was ques- tionable, this still left development of the area in limbo. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that amendments to the General i~~;xn ,~~ were made at advertised public hearings zn the event the Commission deter- mined they would revert back to the M-1 designation on the General Plan, and residents or property owners in the area would be notified. However, ~{ this was a courtesy of the City to notify property owners involved. ?i Mr. Wade Curran, representing the Orange Empire Heat Treating Company, _ 1000 East Katella Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that ~•; he was in favor of the City Attorney's recommendation that the resoluiion j be rescinded since the properties were developed in this area for M-1 uses, .`~ and the previous action taken by the City to designate this area for commer- ,; cial-recreation use was ir. error since the Commission could consider this later when more 3efinitive action was apparent, and to consider C-R zoning ' for this property without any indication or proof o£ need would be setting ~~ a precedent - therefore, he would recommend that the Planning Commission rescind their action, however, retaining the symbol on the General Plan and require people to submit their requests for C-R zoning wk.~:h would then be evidence of the desires of the majority. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :.; ~ Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that rescinding the Commission's previous act=on was not in accord with the recommendations in the Commission's previous actian. Chairman Herbst noted that the City Attorney had advised the Commission that their previous action was not leqal, and his recommendation would be for the Commission to rescind their action. Commissioner Farano inquired what alternative did the Commission have if the Commission's previous action were rescinded? From what he could deter- mine, it was either rescinding the entire action or establishing the zoning on the R-A parcels - however, further information from the City Attorney's office was the fact that the R-A parcels were difficult to separate at the present time; whereupon Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that these ' ` steps were correct - however, the Commission could later consider processing ~ I~ ~ the R-A parcels at such time as the legal description had been determined. ~ 9 , ~.~ ~.~.'e. ;~~ ~. ~'~ ~. , .. wr' I ~ 1 e ~ 3! 1 I~~n 11 o I~ ~_._Y. _ -_ . . . _ ~., ,- .S ~ .,y _. ~~-. .i' ' ~ " .. . ~ ~ ~ . ~n~-. Si+~~~~a~fu•« ,. ~. ~ ~b . . . . .' , . , . ~ , .. . f , . .~ . ' ' I . _ f ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 ~~.~ 71-294 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour noted that when the Commission N0. 70-71-34 took their action in recommending approval of subject (Continued) petition, it was thought this was the best possible way to go. Commissioner Gauer noted that since the Attorney had indicated the Commis- sion's action was not legal, any further d.+.scussion on what should or should not be done for the area was irrelevant, and offered Resolution No. PC71-90 and moved for its passage and adoption to rescind all action taken by the Planning Commission in recommending approval of Reclassifi- cation No. 70-71-34 in ?tPSOlution No. PC71-41 dated March 8, 1971, on the basis that the City Attorney ruled the action was not legally possible. (See Resolution Book) ~ ,:.i `ri -: ~~-~~ ~ ~ Z * .rkt : On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Further discussion was held by the Commission on what action should be taken regarding the C-R potential indicated on the General Plan, Commissioner Seymour offering a motion to proceed with identifc-ing the R-A parcels as soon as possible, and staff then to report back to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not these properties should have C-R zoning. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that this should be determined first since the General Plan designated this area for C-R, which could be dune for the R-A zoned property - either the Commission feels this property was C-R and perhaps a positive step should be taken, or the Commission should state that it should remain as is or try to promote or recommend that this property revert back to its original designation. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that all this property was not all M-1 or all C-R. Commissioner Herbst noted that most of this area was either zoned :7-1 or had a resolution of intent to M-1, even though it was still R-A. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that at the time the Commission took the action it was his feeling this was a boon to the property owners since with a minimum amount of effort the property owner could accomplish whatever zone he wanted for his pr.operty - either M-1 or C-R - however, the Commission could reverse their original thinking that this was C-R and amend the General Plan or leave its potential designation as it was. Commissioner Seymour stated he did not feel it was the intent of the Commis- sion when the C-R was recommended for approval since he could recall that a number of Commissioners felt this step was a great one - now these property owners could go either way, and if this is what the Commission thought at that time, then this tells everyone that the Commission was not sure which way they would go. Chairman Herbst noted that the only C-R potential was Pacific World, and if this did not develop, then the area would still be good industrial land because of two railroads and a freeway, and if anyone wanted C-R or felt their property had the potential, they should apply for said zoning. Commissioner Farano noted that just to zone the R-A parcels would be a futile effort. Commi.<,sioner Seymouz indicated he d~iie~ wanbQto depend upon the City Council to g?ve him guidance as a Commis~ioner - yet he did not want to vacillate, thereby creating a further hodge-podge of the area. i ~ F ~ f,' y ~ - . ` ~} . , ~ ~, r _. L~ ~ t: ) , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-295 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst then stated that if the City Counc~l NO. 70-71-34 in their consideration of the next request for an (Continued) extension of time by Pacific World would tell them either to get it developed or pull out since this CUP had created a cloud over the entire area and was deterring any further development for the area for either C-R or M-1. Commissioner Farano then stated that perhaps the strong recommendation to the City Council that this be designated either for C-R or remove this and `.~ permit it to be developed for M-1, removing the C-R designation from the General Plan, or that the City Council give the Commission direction on ~,_:;:, r,r,, ' which way to go and proceed accordingly. ,.., .~ ~ Commissioner Gauer stated that this entire area had been M-1 for a long time, ,4! and because Pacific World had a colditional use ;~ permit, even though the property was zoned M-1 as was most of the area, the Commission never felt ~ that the commercial-recreation would go across the freeway or the railroad. ' Commissioner Rowland noted that with the establishment of the stadium by the ~. City Council in the M-1 Zone, this, in his estimation, introduced C-R zoning into the area. Chairman Herbst noted that he would agree with Commissioner Farano that it ;; would be up to the City Council to make up their minds since the Commission was somewhat tied down - however, the establishment of the stadium did nothing to the M-1 area since the traffic patterns were different than M-1 because the games were held at night or on Sunday. However, if Pacific World were + developed, this would introduce commerci,al-recreation traffic during the '; daytime hours into the M-1 area, and since the CUP approving Pacific World the area had remained in limbo, and after havtng discussed this situation _ with two representatives of the railroad, they stated there would never be any increase in industrial uses in this area so long as the Pacific World ' conditionai use permit was active, and this has been on the books since October, 1964, when the first Orient was approved by the City Council. Commissioner Farano stated that the Commission should make a recommendation `;. to the City Council if there was sufficient unanimity among the Commission :; ~'`- to request guidance from the City Council, and when studies were made, then ~'~`'~'`''~. thQ Commission could hold ' public hearings uocordingly. ~ -c ; I~ II~ Mr. Slaughter inquired whether or not this recommendation to the City Council ! could include that the Planning Commission was concerned about the azea and `;:_~'o felt the area was in need of some study to make a determination so that the `~,~~ Commission could recommend to the City Council what should be done or what was appropriate - in other words - direct the staff to study it and let the Commission determine after said study what type of recommendation to make. Commissioner Farano stated that the Commission had gone about as far as they could since the property owners themselves, as Mrs. Haas had indicated at ~ this hearing today that she was in the minority, which would appear that she ' '?; canvassed most of the property owners and had determined that by and large these property owners were in favor of retaining the area as industrial. The only thing a study might bring out would be to determine what kind of C-R uses would be appropriate, and studies were nice but he did not feel `, they would tell the Commission anythinq that they did not already know, and if the Commission felt it was industrial, then the Commission should make a strong recommendation to che City Council that it be treated as ~ industrial and ask for their instruction or guidance as to instituting the ! proper procedures to change the General Plan. However, he would agree with ; i, } ~ Commissioner Seymour that the Commission should straighten this indecision - ;i out either by putting a stamp of approval on the existing designation, ' '~> letting the property owners know where the Commission stood, or to retract it and give the area a fresh chance to grow since it has been held in limbo long enough. j Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the area presently designed on the General Plan east of the Santa Ana ~ . , - .. " • _ ;' - ' , '~ . . ~ '~I ~ ~ ` -~ -------------- ,~ - ~.~ 1 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 l~ 71-296 RECLASSIFICATION - Freeway, south of Katella Avenue to the Santa Ana River NO. 70-71-34 revert to industrial designation on the General Plan ' . (Continued) and that the C-R 2one be removed from the General Plan, and further request permission and instruction from the pursue the matter alongytheseclines andWwhether~ornnottthoCommission should ~ hold public hearings to determine whether or not the GeneraloPlansshould~bed amended. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. On roll call the foregoing motion was passed by the following vote: - .~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. : NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ;Caywood, Rowland. ~i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ;,~ Chairman Herbst left the Council Chamber at 5:30 P.M. Chairman pro tem Farano assumed the chair. ~ AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE iNAHEIM CITY PLANNING PLAN N0. 107 COMMISSIpN, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider circulation and access for an area on the ~ south side of Broadway, east of Loara Street, to the +.- ~'• Southerr Pacific Railroad tracks. ; ~. ~ ~;.. ~ , . ~'i .; r.. ~~f.. . f . : ,~t ~ ~: Assistant Zoning Supe.XVisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property and the reason for initiation of the area development plan, noting that a study had been made to determine the need for local vehicular access and circulation system for the area; that the area was comprised of 20 acres located on the south side of Broadway between Loara Street and the railroad right-of-way which was designated for medium density residential development on the Anaheim General Plan, and it was anticipated that upwards of 600 units could ultimately be developed on this property; that with this anticipated dwelling unit density for the remaining parcels, an estimated daily volume of 6500 vehicles would be generated; that the Traffic Engineer stated that the existing Broadway volumes were 15,000 per day and Loara Street had a volume of 4200 vehicles per day, and on this basis, it was his opinion that there should be a collector street connecting to Loara ; Street to accommodate a portion of the generated traffic; that an exclusive { exit to Sroadway only would cause extreme congestion during certain hours, ~ and with the normal growth of traffic, it would be most critical to move- ment on Broadway in the future; that staff had formulated Area Development Plan No. 107, Exhibit A, which indicated a local street with an ultimate width of 64 feet extending easterly from Loara Street and returning northerly to Broadway - such a street would provide needed east-west and north-south circulation in the area and would prov3.de additional means of access to these properties. Furthermore, Mr. Roberts was pointing out these locations on the exhibit and would explain further, and the Traffic Engineer was also present in the event the Commission desired answers to any questions. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the only additional discussion on this matter was the manner irz which the streets might be physically installed: while the exhibit indicated the majority of the north-south street would be taken off the easternmost parcel, it did not necessarily mean it would develop in this manner - all it indicated was that if this parcel developed immediately and the adjoi~.iing parcel to the south- west not for months or years, thpre still was a necessity for a full street, and this could be accomplished by the provision of a 54-foot right-of-way off of the easternmost parcel, and at such time as the parcel to the west developed, dedication would have to be made to provide for a 64-foot wide street; that a 1-foot holding strip would be held by the owners in order to recover the cost of land and improvement for the portion which was developed; that the property immediately to the south was owned by the school district and was planned to be developed with a junior high school - however, in the event the school district decided no school was needed and the property was sold, if the purchaser decided to have residential use, then the east-west street would provide this additional circulation for that property. _-,:'~'~.riY/ 'k..r_r9; e . ~ _y ~. - ' ~-~ -- -~ • . . . . .. ' .. . . . . . . , / . ' ~ ~ ' 1 . . .. % . 1 ~ W ~_~ MINUTES, C2TY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 ., 71-~97 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Mr. Richard C. Booth, 4333 East Live Oak, Arcadia, PLAN NO, 107 representing Fairfield Homes, owners of a 5-acre (Continued) parcel at the southeast corner of Loara and Broadway and the president of Fairfield Homes, owner of the 10-acre parcel immediately to the east of said 5-acre parcel, appeared before the Commission and stated that they were in the process of selling their property for development; that while they were developers, they were not planning to develop the property themselves but were negotiating with another developer whose plans he did not know; that after having been informed of the proposa~, he met with Mr. Slaughter to determine what was being proposed; that a representative of the prospective purchaser was also present - however, he did not know how confiscating land for streets would aEFect the sale of the property, but he would suggest a continuance of the proposed area developmeat plan so that the prospective developer could meet with staff to discuss plans; and that the 30-acre school site had been obtained from them through condemnation proceedings - however, he could not see any reason for providing a street for circulation of the school property which might develop in the future - therefore, the Commission should require the proposed east-west street from that property at such time as it was developed. Mr. Roberts noted that the street was not being proposed to provide additional access for the school property in the event it was sold for other than school purposes, but the Traffic Engineer was of the opinion that such a street sys::em was necessary due to the amount of traffic that development of the properties to the north would generate, which could mean approximately 600 dwelling units. Mr. Dean Mauch, land planning developer, representing the Larwin Company, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, appeared before the Commission and noted that Mr. Snow, director of land acquisition, had advised him that they were considering entering into escrow for the property at the south- east corner of Loara and Broadway, as well as the property east of the north-south street; that ne was not in objection to the area development plan bct was requesting a continuance in order that they might meet with staff to determine how this would affect the planning of this particular parcel since there was no precise plan for the property, and the location of the street would be of vital importance, although they were aware that a street would be necessary. ;;,;~ Commissioner Rowland inquired tvhether or not a four-week continuance would ,~:;~j be adequate; whereupon Mr. Mauch stated that this would be adequate. <,; ';:'i' Mr. Slaughter noted that if the properties were all to be under common ~'~ ownership, the location of the north-south street would become a little more flexible than if it were under separate ownership. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Area Development Plan No. 1.07 to the meeting of ~~~ne 14, 1971, in order to allow `` time for the propertp owners affected by the proposed circulation plan to i; review the proposal and to submit plans for development of these properties, ~ as requested by the representative of the owners of the properties. - Commissioner Kaywood seconded tha motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIr^ICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC MOTORS CO., INC., NO. 70-71-43 H. R. Mc Neil, President, 325 South Atlantic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; DONALD F. BUHLER AND ;, M. L. BOWER, 4001 Rirch Street, Newport Beach, ; California, Agents; requesting that property iiescribed as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 90 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 644 feet, and being located approximately 991 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the ;.; R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. t Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 19, 1971, to allow time for the preparation of an area development plan to provide circulation _ for those properties located south of Broadway between Loara Street and ~ the railroad tracks. „kt ; . ~ t~ ~~ y t` _. ~ - rf _ - {.:.,,:,'= P " .. , . , L r - ` --~ ~ . ._ ~ r ,--- .. :-_------ C~> ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 l~_~ 71-298 RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted for NO. 70-71-43 the Commission that a letter was on file requesting (Continued) continuation of subject petition for anot:her thirty days since plans were not yet available for review by the Ccmmission. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-43 to the meeting of June 14, 1971, as requested by the petitioner, to be considered following the area development plan. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HUB CITY CONSTRUCTION CO., NO. 70-71-45 12053 Paramount Boulevard, Downey, California, Owner; J'AMES K. SCHULER & ASSOC., 1095 North Main Street, VARIANCE NO. 2249 Suite S, Orange, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 900 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 230 feet, and being located opposite the terminus of Frontera Street at La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of April 19, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, noting that these getitions were continued from the meeting of Apri1 19, 1971, in order that the petitioner could consider alternate land uses for the parcel - however, in contacting the petitioner's representative, he indicated they were still ~iesirous of proceeding with the petitions as presented to the Commission which requested approval of R-3 zoning to permit the establishment of a 90-unit, two-story apartment complex developed in two sections, with aacess provided by a 700-foot long, private accessway. Mr. William Pl~elps, 1.095 North Main Street, Orange, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that after considerable study subsequent to the last public hearing, and recognizing the Planniiig Commission's feelings that there might be some extenuating circumstances regarding environment problems, they ha3 spent a great deal of time and research as to the type of use that would be appropriate for the property; that each time there were more problems which were built into the property - therefore, they felt they should go ahead as oriqinally requested; that they had spent considerable time in soul-searching and viewinq the ground, but they still felt this was a good use of the property. _ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. `e' '^ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . ~ ~.,,`c ., Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission as a body at the last meeting • made themselves very clear on the proposed use of the property. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not come up with any particular use suitable to him - therefore, the Commission had no choice in the matter but to recommend denial of the proposed reclassification. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-91 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-45 be disapproved on t:~e basis that the proposed residential development of the property would be undesirable due to the close proximity of both the freeway and arterial streets which would create noises and odors detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the prospective tenants. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~~ ~ ~ ! _r .. j , f Ii 1 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 l, ) 71-299 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-92 N0. 70-71-45 _ and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition ' for Variance No. 2249 on the basis that the underlying _ VARIANCE N0. 2249 classification was recommended for denial; therefore, ~•. (Continued) the variance would not be applicable. (See Resolution ; Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywoorl, Rowland, Seymour. --.:~~.-_ ,,..K,,,;_ NOES : COMMISSIONERS : None . _ '~?~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. : i3 ~ i'; - ::iM ' ' :'.F. ~i.: r::: ._ ~t ~ ,:, - 7i1 :' . , ~'r :' ~ REC7,ASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. R. SPEHAR, ,7. LIBERIO, R.ND NO. 70-71-53 H. BUDLONG, 1681 West Sroadway, Suite 1. Anaheim, California, Owners; ANACAL ENGINEERING C~~MPANY, 222 TENTATIVE MAP OF East Lincoln Avenue, Agent; requesting tha~ property TRACT NO. 7419 described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 45 acres, having a frontage of aprroximately 1,540 feet on the north si.de of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth cf approximately 1,340 feet, and being located approximately 2,000 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT AND CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: RAYMOND SPEHAR AND J. LIBERIO, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject property is proposed for subdivision into 240 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Subject petition and tract were continued from the May 3, 1971, meeting at the request of the petitioner. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the fact that the peti- tions had been continued from the previous meeting, and further noted that the petitioner had indicated they were proposing to increase the area encompassed by the rezoning and the tract map - therefore, in view of this staff would recommend an additional two weeks' continuance, to June 2, 1971. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassi- fication No. 70-71-53 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7419 to the meeting of June 2, 1971, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HEL~:N G. MC CURDY, 203 New NO. 70-71-52 Avenue, Anahein, California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a VARIANCE NO. 2251 frontage of approximately 116 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, havinq a maximum depth of approxi- mately 127 feet, and being located approximately 793 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further described as 2204 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION; R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINSMUM FLOOR AREA, (2) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARDS, (4) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, AND (5) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY W,71LL TO PERMIT A 5-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of May 3, 1971, in order for the applicant to revise his plans to conform more closely to the R-2 standards. ~ ~s .. ,;.;..,.,, .: ~ . _ _ . , - --- ._. ..: : .,Fk.; e. - _ .. :. , f ; - ^, v. r: : . y . . ; .. ~,,. .' _ . : _ '-- __,..~,~ . _ ~ . - ": e _. ,, ~. -' _. ~ . - . .. i, ~ , , ~ C~ ~J MINUTES, CZTY ~LANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-300 RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed NO. 70-71-52 the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, noting that the previous waivers VARIANCE NO. 2251 requested by the petitioner were no longer necessary (Continued) since the revised plans had eliminated them - however, the revised plans now established a new waiver, that lbeing waiver of the minimum required recreational- leisure area wherein 1800 square feet were required and 1600 square feet were proposed; that the revised plans still indicated a total o£ 6 dwelling units, one unit toward the front of the property with the balance of the units located to the rear of the parcel; and that the p.lans indicated private patios would be provided along the southerly boundary of the property - these patios were proposed to be a minimum of 10 feet deep and would meet the minimum area requirement for private patios, however, the total recreational- leisure area did not conform to Code minimums. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission reviewed the revised plans, Commissioner Kaywood being of the opinion that if one unit were removedy this would provide for the needed recreational area. Commissioner Rowland noted that the size of the three-bedroom units could be reduced and a portion of this recreational-leisure area could be accomplished. However, this might create a limited environment, and many people who lived in the older sections of town had less recreational-leisure space than was presently proposed. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-93 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifi- cation No. 70-71-52 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On xoll call the foregoing resalution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-94 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2251 for waiver of the minimum required recreational-leisure area only since the original waivers requested were no longer applicable with the revised plans, on the basis that the amount of shortage per unit was minimal and adequate recreation space was being provided, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Ii~a~, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~kayu,osa ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. UNI4N OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, PERMIT NO. 1237 P. O. Box 7600, Los Angeles, California, Owner; SHERMAN NINBURG, 8125 Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park, California, Aqent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AMBULANCE SERVICE IN A RESIDENTIA:, STRUCTURE WITH WAIVER OF THE FRONT LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA LOCATION on property described as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 61 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 99 feet, and being located approximately 150 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 513 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. --' S " °,~ "~'' ° r ' -' ~ ! -~ ' ~ _~ ~ ! ~ .. r, - . .._ .._. . - ..-._ ...__ _____~_'____'__. _-- `-~ ~~ l,J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-301 CONDITIONAL USE - 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location PERMIT N0. 1237 of subjen!: property, uses established in close proximity, Y (Continued) zoning action taken on the property, reclassifying it to the C-1 2one, originally limiting it to business and professional offices only - however, this had been , deleted by the City Council in May of 1968, allowing a full range of C-1 uses, and at the same time approving a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of an existing service stat-on located to the south; that this conditional use permit had never been exercised, and the existing structure _ on the property had been utilized for some time for a real estate o£fice ~-~ ~= and more recently as a base for an ambulance service; that the waiver -~ '~ requested was to permit commercial use of a residential structure, waiving ~"~'"'': the required landscaping and requiring all parking to be to the rear of the structure since the front yard of th•~ parcel was already almost totally 'a:. paved, and parking was being utilized in the front yard for the ambulances; and that the applicant had indicated in his petition that the existing house wou13 be used as a residence for personnel operating the ambulance service, and no cor.~truction or alterations were anticipated. Furthermore, complaints had alrea~ly been received from neighbors ~oncerning the noise created by the ~ ~~ ambula!1ce siren, and the front yard of this existing residential structure was totally void of landscaping, making a most unattractive appearance. Therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether an ambulance service operating out o£ an existing residential structure would be an appropriate use for ti,a neighborhood or whether it would create a nuisance in terms of noise and traffic to the immediate area. Mr. Sherman Ninburg, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ` and noted that he represented Southland Ambulance who were located at 1244 ~` North State College Boulevard; that they had taken over the ambulance service ' previously operated at 630 South Euclid Street and had relocated to their ra present address; and that to his knowledge there had not been any complaints brought to their attention. Commissioner Gauer inquired when the siren was started - was it upon leaving ~ the parking area or when the vehicle was approximately a block away, and did they use a woofex° _ Mr. Ninburg replied that it depended upon the traffic situation - if the vehicle was unable to enter the traffic flow of Euclid Street and whether or not it was an extreme emergency. Furthermore, they had never had a woofer on their ambulance. Mr. Ninburg, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the residence would be used for the personnel on duty who were there, both the driver and attendant, on a 24-hour-a-day basis, but would not be ~ased as an actual residence, although one of the drivers presently lived with his family in the existing residence and was planning to purchase his home nearby. Furthermore, the qarage had been converted into living quarters. The Commission then inquired whether or not the agent for the petitioner was intending to improve the appearance of the front yard; whereupon Mr. Ninburg stated that the entire front yard was paved by the previous tenant, the business school, and they had leased the property as it presently existed. ~ Mr. Ninburg noted that in the conditions of approval a 6-£oot masonry wall was being required; however, according to his view of the property, a .~ masonry wall already existed. ~: Mr. Roberts advised the Commission and the petitioner that the 6-foot ,,,.. . ~ ~~ masonry wall was a normal requirement to separate the commercial from the residential use, and if a masonry wall measured from the highest finished ~„ grade level was already in existence, then this condition would not apply. Mr. Ninburg, in response to questioning by Commissioner Seymour, stated that since subject property was already zoned commercial, it was his assump- '~ tion that the ambulance service would be a permitted use in the commercial zone, whereas the property on the east side of the street had been approved in a single-family, R-1 Zone. ti._ ._ . ~i ' ' - t` ~~ ~, _. , , ~ U s~~ ~ ; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 c) 71-302 CONDITIONAL USE - Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter, in PERMIT NO. 1237 response to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated (Continued) that the area development plan did not include subject property since it originally was part of the service station when the conditional use permit to expand the service station had been approved. Commissioner Kaywaod inquired as to the number of ambulances located on subject property; whereupon Mr. Ninburg replied that there was only one at this location - however, they had ten ambulances located at seven different locations; and that in almost two years they had never had a complaint brought to their attention. ,, Mrs. Robert Brkich, 434 Falcon Street, appeared before the Commission in .`; opposition and noted that the appearance of the property could be vastly ~1 improved; that the completely concreted front yard was also undesirable; that the curtains on the windows were ripped to shre@s, and there were all types of people going to and from this facility; that they had found ; wrecked cars in the front of this property; that there were masonry walls ~ in there, but at the time the reclassification to the north on the Tolar property had been approved, they were required to develop the 6-foot masonry wall at the highest grade level; that a tPlephone call had been received from the adjoining property owner complaining that cars and ambulances were using his property; and that there was undue noise from the siren. x The Commission inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to improve the appearance of the facility and would there be any landscaping planted; whereupon Mr. N3,nburg stated that in order tn plant landscaping in the ; front setback, it would bE: nec~ssary to tear out some of the concrete. i'i .,;, Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that sub'ect ' brought into conformance with the site development standardsSOfuthebC-1 ~1 2one. ~ . '~ Mr. Roberts advised the Commissioi: that if the front area of the residential ;i structure zoned for C-1 uses was used for parking, a minimum of 3 feet would ;.~ be required for landscaping, such as had been required by the Commission in other cases. !.i ; Mr. Ninburg replied that if landscaping were required and the concrete would have to be removed, they would have to obtain permission from the owner to "'`'? tear up said concrete. - Commissioner Gauer noted that this would be a condition of approval of `~ subject petition. ~ -~~ Commissioner Seymour expressed concern regarding how subject property would be affected ~y the area development plan which had been approved for tl:ose properties to the north, and since the service station was not expanded, perhaps the area development plan should also encompass subject property. Mr. Roberts noted that perhaps the petitioner was intending to exercise the conditional use permit in the future an@ expand the service station. However, as to the area development plan, the secondary access indicated a hammerhead which would be provided on the northerly boundary of subject property. Commissioner Seymour noted that the City was being extremely d=.-;criminating in requiring that the property owner to the north of subject property bear the brunt of the hammerhead as it appeared on the area development plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the area development plan could reflect the return to Euclid Street by relocating the access along the north of subject property. Commissioner Seymour inquired why the area development plan should be imposed on the properties to the north while not imposing it on subject property. i ~~~ - ^F r: .. .,....~ ~ . . ~,~. ~: :_. ~. ~ .. . - ~ _~ . . ~ _ . . ~ - . . . .. . . . . . . . . . - . .. ~ . _ ~_ . ~~ ~ ~ . . w. '. ~. . .'} _.~ ~ ~ ;:. ~ ' ~ ~. ;~: fii '.' i .~~ . ,, :Fi.'. ~ ~,'. ~:; ,i M:~, ; :~ 4' i<"` ' = ~;. `. ~t. '; ,' 1- , ~ .:.:• ~._' ~ +~:~.:. :~ - ~.~ '~J/ DIINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 t. ~ 71-303 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Roberts then stated that the exhibit regarding PERMIT NO. 1237 this area development plan could be reviewed again by (Continued) the Commission - however, in order to include subject property, the area development plan would have to be readvertised for the meeting. Commissioner Seymour then stated that subject petition should be considered in conjunction with said area development plan. Commissioner Allred noted that since one of the neighbors had appeared complaining about the unsightliness of the property, he would suggest that the petitioner do something to improve the appearance of the property. Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Mr. Ninburg whether he was fully aware of the implications of the area development plan if it included subject property, to which Mr. Ninbcrg replied negatively. Mr. Ninburg further stated that it was not their intent to remain at this location permanently since they planned to purchase some property and move to a new location. Mr. Roberts no*_ed that in connection wi.th the area development plan, if the third alley return were relocated along the north end of subject property, this would provide parking to the rear of subject property. Commissioner Farano noted that he would like to have some expression from the property owner regarding the outstanding conditional use permit and whether or not he was planninq to exercise it; whereupon Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that he would attempt to contact the Union Oil Company to determine the status of Conditional Use Permit No. 1015, Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1237 to the meeting of June 2, 1971, direct- ing the staff to readvertise Area Development Plan No. 95 to encompass subject property, said area development plan and conditional use permit to re considered along with the reclassification for the animal clinic. Commissioner Rowlan3 seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WEST COAST RENT-A-CAR SYSTEMS, INC., PERMIT NO. 1238 Suite 1205, Union Bank Building, Orange, California, Owner; ORANGE COUNTY YOUTH FOR CHRIST, INC., P. O. Box 3553, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN OFFICE USE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING HEIGHT on property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Haster Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 187 feet, and being located approximately 562 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1733 South Haster Street. Property presently classi- fied C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a headquarters for the Orange County Youth for Christ in an existing structure; that under the ordinance an office use was permitted in the C-R Zone provided the building was a minimum of three stories in height and had frontage on an arterial street or highway; that the building was originally constructed to house the California Highway Patrol facility and was subsequently zoned C-R and approved as a car rental agency under Conditional Use Permit No. 1122 - therefore, the Planning Commission would have to determine whether there was justification for waiver of the Code height requirement for an existing building and whether the proposed use was appropriate in the Commercial-Recreation Area. Furthermore, the applicant should be advised that when the Anaheim Boulevard-Haster Street overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway was completed, there might be serious access problems for this parcel. ~-.^-5;':*,~ ~ _ - ,~ .'~ r . . . . , . . . _ . . . . . . ~ _ C. ~..,x~,~.~..,,s P~___~ :.-.A,~s` _...... ' ~ . . ~ ~ .. .. ~ ~ G ~ ~ . . . . . .. . . .~ ` 's . .. f . ~ _ , 4 ~ I. ~ % I . _' .__._._~.:...:.'____ ~ ~~_ ~ J (~ ~~ , MINUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-304 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Jerry Clippert, 1055 North Harbor Boulevard, PERMIT NO. 1238 representing the Orange County Youth for Christ, (Continued) appeared before the Commission noting they were an interdenominational organization active in the County for the past ten years, working with high school young people on 24 campuses; that they were desirous of locating in the center of the County and were now expanding their program, moving into this area which would give them a larger headquarters; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated that they wer.e desirous of utilizing the existing siqn because of its proximity to the freeway - however, he wished to assure the Commission that this would not be a youth center where young peogle o~ould be congregating but would be a headquarters office. Mr. Slaughter noted that existing signing was permitted by right in the Sign Ordinance. >i Mr. Roberts noted that the sign was erected at the time the car rental agency was approved. Mr. Clippert, in response to questioning by Commissioner Seymour relative ` to a long-term lease, stated that it was their intent to purchase the property, and they were aware of the potential problem as it pertained to the overpass of Haster and Anaheim Boulevard. However, they had discussed this with the Traffic Engineer, and he had indicated there appeared not to - be too great a problem. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that this overcrossing was tentatively scheduled for 1973-74, depending upon the availability of ; funds. However, he did not know if any additional property would be ~~ acquired that would affect subject property. .1 Vi No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i ±;:, . : i:.. :'s: ' i '*, ;'.4c ? ~ ~. ~ ;~,1^,wy! Commissioner Kaywood noted that there was a gas pump located on the rear portion of subject property and inquired whether or not the petitioner ' intended to utilize this; whereupon Mr. Clippert stipulated to removal of ~ said gas pump; that *he buildings were all one-story and they planned ' to improve the building; and then pr.esented plans to the Commission ! indicating the future appearance of the building. However, since they were attempting to purchase the building, the improvements would be constructed at such time as further funds were obtained. The Commission then inquired whether or not this could be accomplished within 180 days, or would more time be needed. Mr. Clippert replied that there would be a great deal of lmprovement to ' be done on the interior of the building first. Mr. Woody Johnson, site selection chairman for the Orange County Youth for Christ, appeared before the Commission and stated that they would like to complete the exterior appearance of the building as soon as possible - however, completion was dependent upon funds which they had to obtain from interested citizens, and the nresent funding was intended for the purchase the property. After further discussion with the Commission, Mr. Johnson agreed that the 180 days would be sufficient, provided, however, if the requested addi- tional time to complete this facade could be granted upon request. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-95 and moved for its passage ! and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1238, subject ' to development of the facia of the building in accordance with the render- ing submitted at the public hearing within a period of 1B0 days from date hereof, and the finding that the petitioner stipulated t~ removal of the . F~ ' . ~ : . ,. . . . . . . ry ,_ _ ~ . . . __: u . . . . ` .. - ~:~:..ti,>- . . . . . .. . .. . . ` . .' ' A' - ~ , V ~ : i ~ ~ •~ , . ~`~ ~ ~ MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-305 CONDITIONAL USE - gas pump on the rear of the property. (See Resolution PERMIT NO. 1238 Book) (Continv.ed) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gau~r, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENi: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~ VARIANCE N0. 2256 - PUBLIC HEARING. LE CHATEAU MAJORCA, 410 Soutin Euclid Z~' Street, Suite 5, Anaheim, California, Owner; TAx ~ ADVISORS FUND, 410 South Euclid Street, Suite 5, ,~' Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT ;a. YARD SETBACKS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 14 acres located on the west side of ~ ~" Kraemer Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately 1,100 feet on both sides of Temple Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 285 ~,~ feet. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. =~ Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter raviewed the location of ':~ subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request of r:~- `"~ the petitioner to grant the waivers requested in order to obtain final ~ building inspection of the property wherein a 391-unit, R-3 apartment complex was built, and at the time of construction the approved plsns reflected the minimum required 15-foot setback along Kensington Avenue - ';~i however, as built, a 6-foot fence was located within that setback area ,~~j 10 feet behind the property line, and one of the carports was also built :,~ within 10 feet of the right-of-way line, whereas 15 feet would be required. ;I Mr. Gale Goodmansen, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared ""j before the Commission and noted that the plot plan indicated Temple Street ~~ to end in a cul-de-sac and Kensinqton Drive was proposed to be a private drive - however, after the loan had been recorded, the City had changed ~;,::::,:{~ the designation of Kensington Drive, making it a public street and extend- ing it northerly so that it would provide access for the property to the ''; ~,~ north; that no development was proposed for the north side of Kensington a~'.''`:~~ Drive, therefore, in the development they could have reduced the carport ~°'?~ number by one or develop it in accordance with the way the plans indicated, r ; which was within 10 feet of the sidewalk on Kensington Drive; that one of ± the important things to remember was that in order to rent units, tenants ~:"~ .~, needed some privacy, and these plans indicated this sinc;e Kensington Drive ~'~t was considered a private drive, he did not feel this would infringe on anyone because no development would occur on the opposite side of the wall. ~~~ However, after the wall had been developedr.the City of Placentia required them to tear down a portion of the wall in order to provide for natural ` drainage which the property in Placentia .had before the wall went in. ~.~ -~:.~;~ No one appeared in opposition to subjeot petiti~n. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. F Commissioner Rowland noted that if the plans had been presented to the " Commission originally, in all likelihood it might have passed in its ;",~ present form, except for the carport areas where 20 feet would be required, but on the face of it, the petitioner's representative was correct in 5. ~j, stating that no one would be affected by the wall, and it would provide a better living environment for the residents of this apartment complex. R •' `°` Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC7I-96 and moved for its 3i; passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2256, ^~ibject to ~; conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~• AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ' ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ` ~'~ i ' _ ~ . . . .. . . , . . , . ~ ~s : ~ . - c~c ~ - .. ~ .. . - . ., - . . ~ ,i . ~ r~ :._ ~ ~. `= . .. .... ~. .~ • •~:.-_ _. ,t: ~ ~~. , _;: 4 , =;,, . •~ V ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMh1ISSION, May 17, 1971 ~~ 71-306 VARIANCE NO. 2257 - PUBLIC HEARING. ADOLPH W. LEMKE, 12522 E1 Roy Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owner; HALL & FOREMAN, INC., TENTATIVE MAP OF P. O. Box 11667, Santa Ana, California, Agent; TRACT NO. 7426 requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH AND (2) THE REQUIREMENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS TO PERMIT A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT PROPOSED TO SIDE-ON SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approsimately 9.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 459 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,054 feet, and being located approximately 900 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue. Property presently c].assified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into 39 R-1 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the requested waivers, noting that the applicant proposed subdivision of the property with lots ranging in width from 60 to 64 feet; that the ordinance would require a minimum 70-foot wide lot; that the petitioner was also proposing cul-de-sac lots having kidths running from 45 to 54 feet wide at the set- back line, whereas Code would require a minimum 60-foot width, and although the lot widths were less than Cc3e minimums, all lots exceeded the 7200- square foot area requirement; that the applicant was prcposing one side-on lot along Santa Ana Canyon Road where the ordinance would require a rear-on lot, and staff had an example as to the method a tract could be designed to remove this side-on lot and lot width proposed because of the adjoining property; and that Wasatch Drive would be extended easterly to the junior high school property line, then extended southerly along the school boundary to Gerda Drive. Mr. Jack Hall, civil engineer, 2530 Ranchview Drive, Santa Ana, represent- ing the developer, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the comments made as to the right-of-way adjacent to the Santa Ana Canyon Road, noting that there was a drainage canal adjacent to this area - therefore, they felt that this lot would not be siding on Santa Ana Canyon Road or an arterial; that the alternate design submitted by staff could be lived with, but they preferred remaining with the tract map as submitted to the Commission. Mr. Slaughter noted that since the Planning Commission had adopted the Santa Ana Canyon Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone requiring a 60-foot setback from an arterial or 50 feet of alternative wall, berm, or landscaping plans were proposed, this was the basic reason for the proposed tract map change. Mr. Hall noted t.iat they had a slope problem since this was a wide lot in the rear with a slope o£ 10 to 15 feet; that they intended to extend the 60-foot drive to Gerda Street; and that it was his opinion that there was no need for a 64-foot wide street since two streets would be coming to the same point, providing better than twice the c:apacity for vehicles to get to the same point. Commissioner Kaywood inquired when the petitioner expected to hear from the school boar.d regarding "B" street. Mr. Jerry Kline, 111 East Third Street, San Dimas, appeared before the Commission and stated that the school board had indicated that it would be two to three weeks before action would be taken. Commis::ioner Kaywood then noted that perhaps the Commission should consider continuinq subject petition and tract until it was determzned where the street would be located and to obtain action of the school board. Mr. Kline then stated that the Commission could approve the tract subject to the school district's approval of the street location as had indicated the board would appear to be favorable as to this location; that they felt the school wanted the location of the street where it was proposed, ~ x~^: - -- ~ ... .L + x?..... '~ _- ' . , ~ ' _s' ~~i..~ l ~ r- ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 r l„~ 71-307 VARIANCE NO. 2257 - however, they had not discussed this with them; and `.,`:: that after discussing the street problem with Mr. Plant TENTATIVE MAP OF of the Orange Unified School District, he had stated TRACT NO. 7426 that having the street adjacent to there vrould be (Continued) considerably better. Mr. Kline further indicated that they were unaware of the scenic corridor, and until they had met with staff and got a feeling of what the Scenic Corridor ~verlay Zone was, there was no s<;enic corridor consideration .~_w _ since the Commission had only passed it a.zd the Council had not taken Mr. Slaughter noted that the (SC) Zone required 150-foot lot depth, but there was some leeway in the event landscaping, wall, or berm were provided - then only a 50-foot setback was required. Commissioner Farano notea that if the (SC) Zone were adopted, this would mean that the tract map before the Commission would be invalid. Mr. Slaughter advised the C.ommission that if conditions were attached to the tract map, they would be subject to these (SC) 2one conditions. ~'urther discussion was held between staff and the Commis§ion regarding the (SC) Zone and the applicable conditions attached to subject petition and tract. ~'•';;14~ Mr. Roberts noted that if the (SC) Zone were not adopted by the City Council, ,:;,,,:~ the developer could submit a letter to the City Council requesting these conditions be deleted. r ~I -`-;'? • Mr. Kline noted that the City was restricting development of the lot by `;~ limiting building of the home on only 45 feet of the depth of the property. ;cf ~ . , , ;i i: s..' !: ~;'* . ~:_: : , " ' ~ .~c. j-,:t action; that since the existing street pattern of Wasatch Drive was there i .,. i I i i ! ~~• Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the width of these lots presented ; any problem in the event the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was adopted. ~ ;;:;'F; and because of the limited amount of time as it pertained to escrow, i.~ •~' the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone were not applicable, then he could see r~ no reason for imposing the setbacks since this would create some impossible lots along the Riverside Freeway; and that they had no opposition to provid- ing screen type walls, etc. - however, to require a 50-foot rear yard and a 25-foot front yard, this would leave very little left on which to develop the actual home. Mr. Slaughter further noted that a 150-foot depth was required unless an alternative plan was presented for the properties adjacent to the freeway which would permit reduction of the lot depth to 120 feet. Mr. Kline stated he would prefer that the Commission not impose the (SC) Zone conditions since this zone did not exist on the records, and their properties were bordered on both sides by developed single-family homes; that the existing street pattern v:as there, and if they were to meet the (SC) Zone within the existing street pattern, this would create a hardship and create hardship-type lots. Commissione•r Seymour inquired whether or not it would be possible to realign Wasatch Drive - then two or three of the lots along the freeway could meet the (SC) Zone. Mr. Hall stated he did not feel anything was being accomplished, but a drainage problem would be created; that they would attempt as much as possible to setback according to the (SC) Zone and provide dense landscaping. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts noted that another point to consider as it pertained to the (SC) Zone was the fact that the (SC) Zone was being considered by the City Council on May 18, and from all indications, favorable action would be . - ` , . ^ y , ..,.~'<_ 6 ~ ., ~. ~~- 71-308 , VARIANCE N0. 2257 - taken on it - therefore, this would be decided one ~ way or the other, and if held over for two weeks, TENTATIVE MAP OF durinq the two-weEk period the developer could look TRACT NO. 7426 into the possibility of redesigning the tract to (Continued) conform as closely as possible to the (SC) 2one, and ~ where certain lots were unfeasible to meet Code, these could be advertised for the public hearing for these I waivers. _.Y :`; Commissioners Farano and Kaywood noted they preferred having this held " over for both the school board and Scenic Corridor actions. I`~~ ,.~ Commissioner Rowland noted that he had no reservations i:i approving subject petition and tra~t subject to thE .'~enic Corridor„ This would get them + two weeks down the line; that he ~es..onally wnuld take the same stand as the Commission had on the Scenic Corridor 2one, since the Commission had worked very hard on this and would attempt to maintain it subject to the ~ ,` City Council's concurrence; that he would not back off now to any signifi- _ cant extent; and that Mr. Roberts had explained that where a lot might be • difficult to 3avelop, after redesign o£ the tract this could be considered a hardship case and would be considered accordingly. Mr. Hall then requested consideration of approval of the tract map if the variance could not be approved at this time; whereupon the Commission was of the opinion that the tract was dependent upon the variance, and one would not be good without the other.. ~~ Assistant Development Services Director~Ronald Thompson noted that he `'~ could see problems if the Commission took action today - it miqht cause _; the applicant more tinie in processiag tne tract, but if contir~ued for two } weeks, these waivers could be incorporate~. ,;j Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue ~~~ consideration of Variance No. 2257 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7426 to ;~` the meetinq of June 2, 1971, in order for a report to be received from ~'i the Orange Unified School District, for action to be taken by the City `"; Council on the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and for the petitioner to submit a revised tract map. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i VARIANCE N0. 2259 - PUSLIC HEARING. PHOENIX CLUB, INC., 1566 Douqlas Road, ':`~ Anaheim, California, Owner; requestinq PERMISSION TO HAVE ON-SALE LZQUOR SALES TO THE PUBLIC IN AN EXISTING PRIVATE CLUB on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres, havinq a frontage of approximately 337 feet on the east side of Douglas Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 281 feet, and being located approximately 740 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1566 South Douglas Road (Phoenix Club). Prope`rty presently classi•fied R-A, . AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter advised the Commission that the City Attorney ruled that subject petition would have to be readvertised ~ as a public dance hall; therefore, any consideration at this hearing should be continued for said readvertisement. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Varianc~ No. 2259 to the meetinq of JLne 2, 1971, for readvertisement. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 658 (Trinity Lutheran Church) - Located at 4101 Nohl Ranch Road - Request for clarification of uses. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts preaented to the Commission a request from the pastor of the Trinity Lutheran Church for clarification of * permitted uses under Conditional Use.Permit No. .658, approved by the c: Planning Commission on December 17, 1464, to establish a church and a Christian educational facility; that the petitioner was proposing a ~. 100-pupil, Christian day school for qrades one throuqh eiqht in the present facility, and a question had arisen as to whether it was the , ~` ;- ~ ~_.~~_., .; , " . ~ ,.r, ~ ... ~ „ ,,.,. _ : . - . ~:~ -._,_,,,,,,,,,,..,.( . a., s,...,.,_,.. , , ' ~ ;~ _ ~ - ; ~ ~. .~ _ i .l l,_ J ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 ~ _ _ __ i -, . . --- ---- ---- , ,, ~ -- ~ u c~~ ; --___ . .J ; I MINUTES~ CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-309 i , ~ ~ REPORTS AND ' RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) i Commission's intent to approve only a 5unday school in conjunction with ~ the proposed chuzch or to approve a daily educational program as a primary ~ use; that analysis of the minutes and the resolution was vague as to i exactly what was approved at the time tne original conditional use permit i was granted, and in view of this, tre applicant has submitted a letter requesting said clarification. i Mr. Roberts further noted that a representative of the church was present =~ in tMe event the Commission requested answers to questions. :' Reverend Willard L. Conradson advised the Commission that the master plan for the church and school facilities indicated an educational facility; that under normal practices in the Lutheran and Roman Ca.tholic Churches ~ wherever they are established, it was assumed that Christian education would mean regulation school classes in conjunction with Christian teaching; that in his estimation they were not imposinq on the neighbors - as a matter of fact, an acre of green qrass was used as a neighborhood play- qround on the church site; that a public elementary school was now under '~ construction on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road; and that the member- ship of the congreqation was of the opinion that the children should be educated - therefore, they were proposing the proposed day school. The Commission noted that they hdd previously considered a similar request from the East Anaheim Methodist Church, at which time the Commission determined a public hearing was necessary in order to clear up any possible misunderstanding; therefore, the request before the Cor~mission should be handled in the same manner. Commissioner Rowland stated he could see many applications beinq presented `i to the Commission in which they had previously approved educational facilities without questioning the extent of the Christian day school; j however, the question was never raised in his mind as to whether or'not ' this was a day school or a Sunday school operation. =j Reverend Conradson, in answer to Commission questioning, stated that there ' was proposed to be 30 pupils under.,one teacher; therefore, they could not ~ go beyond 120 students in the existing facility, and a two-story structure Y~~ would be necessary for additional enrollment; that it was their intent to start classes with kindergarten through fourth grade and adding grades five and six later on; that they had 36 square feet ~er pupil in the exist- ing facility; and that the church and its location was somewhat isolated, and future plans were to have the second story for additional classrooms. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to set for public hear3ng considera- ' tion of Conditional Use Permit No. 658 for clarification purposes as to `I the intent of the Commission in approvinq a church and Christian educational facilities, said public hea+:ing to be set for June 2, 1971. C~mmissionez Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1197 (W. D. C. Services, Inc.) - Request for amendment of masonry wall condition for child care nursery located on the . north side of South Street, east of Sunkist Street. Zoning Sugervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the location ~ of subject property, noting that the conditional use permit was approved i for a child care nursery requiring an 8-foot masonry wall along the north I and east property lines adjacent to sing2_-family homes (Condition No. 8); ,~ that the child care nursery was completely constructed, but due to an error on the part of the contractor, only a 6-foot masonry wall had been ~ constructed in those locations, and the applicant was requesting that this condition be amended to require only the 6-foot masonry wall as presently constructed since it would be necessary to completely destroy the recently- . completed wall in order to build an 8-foat wall. Furthermore, the applicant had submitted letters from the two adjoining property owners who would be ~ affected by this wall, which indicated they were agreeable to retention of ~ the 6-foot height since an 8-foot height would be rather undesirable. Commissianer Rowland offered a motion to accept the 6-foot masonry wall in lieu of the 8-foot masonry wall zequired under approval of Conditional * Use Permit No. 1197, on the basis.that the adjoining single-family property ,~ owners affected by said wall had indicated their approval. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIrD. `, - - ~t ~_ . ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; ~~: R: .f:t '; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 17, 1971 71-310 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS COND3TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1218 (Donald H. Yoder) Request for approval to establish a music and art studio at 1401-F Kraemer Boulevard. Zoniag Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the existing zoning, noting that in April, 1971, the Planning Commission approved said petition for the establishment of retail distributing firms and service business firms, including business and professional offices primarily serving commerce and industry, with only incidental service to the general public, and as a condition of approval, the Planning Commission required that any proposed use be reviewed by the Planning Commission in order to determine if such a use would fall within the Commission's intent when they granted the conditional use permit; that the petitioner was propos- ing a music and art studio in one of the units of the industrial complex; that the petitioner indicated they intend to teach all musical instruments and voice and art on the premises; that instruction rooms would be provided for this purpose; that retail sale of accessory supplies and instruction books was contemplated; that the applicant indicated approximately 508 of the building space would be used for electronic repair of all types of ~.electronic musical instruments - therefore, the Commission would have to ~de.termine whether such a use fell within the scope of the activities which the Planning Commission intended to permit under said conditional use permit. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the proposed use, it being determined that the music and art studio would be consistent with retail service businesses, whereas the use e~ould not be a primary use serving commerce and industry, and that the proposed use of 50$ of the building space for electronic repairs would fall within the category intended by the Commission in Conditional Use Permit No. 1218. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to deny the request to establish a music and art studio, but apprave the request for the establishment of electronic repairs of all types of electronic music equipment in Conditional Use Permit No. 1218. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Alired offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p,M, Respectfully submitted, . ~~~~ .~.,~. ANN KREBS, Secretary ` Anaheim City Planning Commission i ~ . ~. ~~i '~ _ .~.r~. ~~~ I M,~ ~~~~,ri~~1Ch'S k"~i-" ~~~~.sM1' u ~' r . '~,~'~'''~+~,y~rvr'~4Y~''+ er ''~~~'~3 4'~'t~if ~r~} ~. ky~~+'t'{x ~. ~'~~~~ L"n ~ ~ `~:~ s~ ~,'T w ~ ,+"~' L iY hr^" ~ J'~r i~~x~.rd ~1Y,'}, !~ yY`~'* ~ rF ~ ~xt,~~N,~, ""~,~ ry.''*~4 ry,aS,`-sy'_l5 ~a'. ~~k. '~'~'; 7~.~ ~L.7 ~t .~ w y{ ~`~. V!S )~', n 5 .~.«~ ~,,y"Y.'1 . , l. .. ~ ~T / ~f ~N. ' J.~~7t'~ ,~ ~.~ ',; ~°.c ~~ `~i. .:nl;t S ~tt ~-:} ~:: ") ~~, ~ x ,a ~,i~~ t ,: ~'-'~ i >~`~i . ~.; .t ! l~ ^ Y i r~ t y' ~ y c t k ~~ ~ ~~~ r 1 ' ~.r ~~ : i 1 c : a' ~, f ~ ,, ~4 ~ ~ ~; ~ ~nt r~. ~,t s + F h ~.Fi. F 4 s . ' i f ~ , ' ~ ,~ ~ Y ~., ~ ~ ~ ~ `- ~ t ~ . ' ~'f, f ~ .~ f t ' ~ ~ ~~'%~14oy"h1 t.'~'Cf:. q 44 . ~ '' ` n:. ~ .S, ~ +~ l ". r. ~: N R~ ~. ~ ., ti ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ x~r +al [ { ~~~ ~~-- i a; i L+,~ ,. + w ~ ~ ~~~ ~,. . ~t . ~, z . U~ N 4.~~'~ `° ~t ~ ' _ i. i . ' ~ ~jArr ~ _~ / ~ ~ ~ f . ^a r ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ^ _ r~_ t k, , , . : , , .. ~ ~~ ~. . ..~ ~ ~:: . - ~ ' - . . 5 f s.* r .':~ x F ~ Y ~ .~ ( _;. : ~ ' ~ . '~: ' ~ ., : :. ~'-' ...' .. ~ .. . ... ..~ '.. i- .~';~ '. ... . .... .~ • ..., .. .. . .., .. .. .'. _ ~ ... .,. _+ .. ' . 7 1 I ~ • ' _ ' 'L ? . ~ q ~~ ~, ~ I ~ > F _ _ ~ . ` . r ~ .