Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/06/02, `' ,. ~ ~~:- ~' Q ~~~. ~ ~~~ ~~- ~~ City Hall Anaheim, California June 2, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission ' MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:p0 P.M., a `~M..'.: , ..:: . quorum being present. ; , : ~4? ~,:: r, PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. • ,~. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, ,~ Seymour. :, ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson ti Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry _ Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter ' Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs F '~ PI,EDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to .i :i ALLEGIANCE the Flag. ~~ APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of the meeting of May 17, 1971, THE MINUTES was deferred to June 14, 1971. ;; . g` i,-' - ,.. lti~ . `'.~t :~. ~,' ~,~ . ~ ~' - '. ;:~; RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. A. D. AND id. A. STRAND, N0. 7C-71-48 840 West Grove Avenue, Orange, California, Owners; DONALD F. BUHLER AND M. L. BOWER, 4001 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximateiy 2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the narth side of Cerritos Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 63Q feet and being located approximately 462 feet west of the center:.ine of Knott Street, and further described as 3531-37 West Cerritos Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 3, 1971, in order ta alldw time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, existing zoning, and the request for R-3 zoning, together with the fact that the petition was continued to allow time for a possible land assembly and the submission of plans. However, no revised plans had been received, and a telephone conversation with the representative indicated that the petition might be withdrawn, but no decision had been made; and that the General Plan indicates this area as being appropriate for R-3 - therefore, the pxoposed reclassification was in conformance with the General Plan - however, because of the size and shape of the parcel, it would be extremely difficult to develop a desirable apartment complex. Mr. J, E. Childers, 2951 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated that t~r. Buhler, agent for the petitioner, had advised hi.m this date that he was still interested in developing subject property and was planning a neu proposal; therefore, he has requestiny a four-week continuance. Commissioner Gauer inquired of staff whether or not subject property could be developed in a similar manner as the property on South Street had been developed for R-2-5000 zoning. ~ 71-311 ~~ _ - ^ . ~~ ~ ' ;, . 'y a _ ` _ : ~ ~ ` ,. ~ - ~' ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 ~~ 71-312 RECLASSIFICATION - 2oning Supervisor Charles Rcberts advised the Commission NO. 70-71-48 that the property was sufficiently wide enough for a _ (Continued) similar type developr~;nt; however, the General Plan indicated this arc„ :or medium-density development - -, therefore, if the lommission were desirous of having this developed for R-2-5000, it would ti:ean a change in land use policy. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-48 to the meeting of June 28, 1971, to allow '~ time £or the petitioner to develop rlans. Commissioner Rowland seconded ~y,~i..~ "~'`" ,, the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ 7 `,f _ V{ : .t't .~:_:~ ;'.` ;: ~ ~: " x~,~ !~~: - 'M ~~ ~l ,. ~ '; ~.ke i: ~ r ~.. ~ , TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: FRANK H. AYRES & SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, TRACT NO. 7422, 6000 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California. REVISION NO. 1 ENGINEER: Valley Consultants, Inc., 9092 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. Subject tract, located on the east side of Imperial Highway between the Santa Ana River and Esperanza Road, containing approximately 45 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 237 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slauqhter presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422, Revision No. l, to the Planning Commission, noting the location of the property, the proposal to subdivide the 45-acre parcel into 237 R-2-5000 zoned lots; that stub streets were proposed to both the east and west for future traffic circulation through the area; and that the setbacks required by the SC Zone were being provided along La Palma Avenue and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa ~'e Railroad tracks. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the number of trains that passed this property daily, and whether or not there were regulations which required sound proofing of those homes adjacent to the railroad tracks. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that there were no zoning regulations governing sound proofing of structures; and that the AT&SF RR representatives recently stated that 30 trains travel these tracks daily, and they had plans for doubling the track which could mean double the number of trains. The Commission then requested staff to indicate on a map those tracts ~ appro~:ed by the Planning Commission or to be considered shortly in the area between Imperial Highway and Shorb Wells north of the Santa Ana River. ' Whereupon, Mr. Roberts reviewed previou.s zoning action for the various parcels within this area, concluding by stating that subject property was located in the center of the area map between three tracts up for considera- ti~n later in the hearing and four tracts that would be considered at the Junp 14, 1971, meeting. Commissiuner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422, Revision No. 1, subject to conditions. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. The motion failed by a 5-2 vote. Commissioner Seymour noted that it was aoparent that the Coinmission had moved from a position of approving tract maps in this area to a position that the Commission would not approve any, and the problem appeared to be one of water and flooding; that his reason for voting "no" was that he, too, was becoming increasingly carcerned with the potential flood problems in this area, although he had stated before that he did not believe it was within his domain as a Commissioner to determine the safety aspects of the flooding of this area, since he did not have the technical background, but his concern was for the safety and welfare of the residents who would be living in this area; that he would be in favor of approving this and any futu.re tract n=ps if there were some assurance that some agency that was quaiified to determine the flood hazard cou13 make this assurance; and that the Commission could approve this tract subject to the Orange County Flood Control District giving the City ot Anaheim this assurance that there would not be any problem of flood. 1 , =:~-~'~ . . . .., _ , . _ . , ~~ ~ ~ - ~ , ~; ' i: "~:r' ~ , 'y . d ~ , ; r i , - -~____. ' ; ~ ~: ~" . ~~ ~ ~:J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C:OMMISSION, ~une 2, 1971 71-313 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not such a TRACT NO. 7422, satisfactory flood hazard letter had been issued for REVISION NO. 1 these properties in the flood area. Whereupon, Office (Continued) Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that he did not knorr of a letter as stated except that the OCFCD and the Corps of Engineers had stated that the improve- ments being put in by the County were adequate to handle a 100-year storm. Commissioner Farano then stated he concurred with Commissioner Seymour'a statement, but he hoped he was not making a mistake by voting against this tract, and if he were the developer, he would do everything he could to get a positive answer since in all the time he had been a Commissioner, and the ~ flood hazard question was raised, he could not recall anyone o£ authority giving a positive "yes" or "no", there appeared to be only a"maybe" or a "perhaps" becaus~ no one wanted to be considered wrong, yet no one hesitated to criticize the Planning Commission for approving these tracts; and that he would not vote in favor of a tract now or in the future unless someone had enough knowledge to assure the Commission that there was no danger in the canyon from flooding that could endanger the lives of the prospective residents there. Mr. Roberts noted that in recent correspondence from the Corps of Engineers, they indicated the channel was now capable of handling a 100-year flood, but floads greater than that would be disastrous to the area; and that they anticipated their studies would be completed and a report made by fall of this year. Commissioner Farano noted that the last thing he could remember receiving from the OCFCD was a letter stating they could not issue a favorable flood hazard letter - had they changed their minds - it would appear so in view of the position oriqinally taken by the Corps of Engineers after many years of study - but after pressure had been brought to bear, there appeared to be a changing of minds and it was now safer than it was in the past, even though the OCPCD still stated they could not issue a favorable flood hazard letter. Mr. Roberts then noted that the OCFCD has submitted a letter to the Planning Commission in response to a copy of the map sent out to them, an~ pexhaps this letter should be read - whereupon Mr. Slaughter read pertinent excerpts from said letter (on file) which indicated that the existing levees recently constructed were satisfactory to take care of a 100-year flood, but the Corps of Engineers still maintained there would be disastrous results if a standard project flood were experienced - furthermore, the OCFCD had submitted suggested recommendations if the tract were approved. Mr. Ron Winterburn, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission :; and stated that their firm had received similar letters from the OCFCD for t other developments, particularly in the Huntington Seach area which was also z part of the flood plain, however, these letters indicated or,ly that the area '~ was safe from a 100-year or less storm but not a project flood; and that FHA had investigated the site and had given theiY tenta~ive approval for financing ' the site under consideration. t `;, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422, Revision No. 1, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, subject to conditions. Commissioner Seymour requested that a finding be made in the motion for I:,. clarification purposes since the action taken by the Commission appeared to ; be contradictory, however, his action in seconding ttie motion was based on ~`"~'. Y the fact that the City of Anaheim was in receipt of a letter from the OCFCD =: '~ stating the area was safe from a 100-year or less storm, and he would be ;;, willing to go on record to approving tracts with such letters, but if that `~' area is wiped out by something less than the storm indicated, he did not feel that the onus of that destruction should fall upon the Commission. Whereupon, Y Commissioner Gauer accepted this finding, namely, "That although the action r taken by the Planning Commission may appear to be contradictory, it is based '~ on the fact that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a letter from the OCFCD stating the area was safe from a 100-year or less storm, and that the onus for any destruction in the canyon area that would result if a l0U-year _ R~ or less storm occurred should not be placed upon the Anahetm Planning - Commission". The foregoing MOTION CARRIED (Cau~missioners Farano and Rowland '~ voting "no"). ~`~ ' I • .. _ ' . ~.. ... . ~ .. . . . . . . . . . . : ~ .. ~."~ ~µ l . . . . . . . • . `. ' .~A ~ i r ~~~ ~ (. ' I i c~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 2, 1971 ~~ 71-314 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Commissioner Farano noted there appeared to be contia- TRACT NO. 7422, dictory statements in the letter from the OCFCD and _;;,wz,' REVISION NO. 1 asked for an explanation; whereupon Mr. Slaughter 3 (Continued) explained the difference, and Mr. Titus further explained that one paragraph discussed draining of water from the tract to the river since design-wise, the property would . have to be high enough to get sufficient head to get this water into the river because the property was lower than the river - this would mean build- ing up the property to an acceptable heiqht, and Condition No. 12 would ~' cover this problem. However, the second paragraph was referring to the '^•'~ river channel itself which could handle a lOG-year storm without any over- '~~ flow onto the property from the upstream water coming down the channel. ,,~ . , ~ ;i, ~ _ ~:: ~ ' .~kc 'r~ . t_ Mr. Roberts noted that another point which the Commission should consider was that based upon recent discussions with representatives of the Placentia Unified S~;hool District (PUSD), and staff would recommend an additional finding ba made: "That in the approval of the tentative tract map the developer of the tract be advised that he should contact the Placentia Unified School District to discuss phasing and timing, etc., of the develop- ment so that the school district was fully aware of the impact that develop- ment of this property would have on their school planning." Mr. Roberts further noted that the PUSD had indicated there was a need for at least one and possibly two elementary schools in this arez, and it was important that they know all the most pertinent data. Commissioners Gauer and Seymour concurred this should be a finding. For clarificaticn purposes, the Commission Secretary read the motion as follows: Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422, Rev.ision No. 1, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following findings and conditions (Commissioners Farano and Rowland voting "no"): FINDINGS: (1) That although the action taken by the Planning Commission appeared to be contr~.dictory, it was based on the fact that the Planning Commission was in receipt of a letter from the OCFCD stating the area encompassing subject tract was safe from a 100-year or less storm; and that the onus for any destruction in the canyon area that would result if a 100-year or less storm occurred, should not be placed upon the Anaheim Planning Commission. (2) That in the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422, Revision No. 1, the developer of said tract be advised that he should contact the Placentia Unified School District to discuss phasing and timing, etc., of the development so that the school district was fully aware of the impact that development of the property would have on their school planning. CONDITIONS: (1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7422, is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-25. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiv- ision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (3) That the vehicular access rights to La Palma Avenue, except at street or alley openings shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (4) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos. 1 thru 6 and 190 thru 202 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall; - ~ - . ~.n;'~..-~~.~.w~~'3;,°z:~~- N _.. .. ~ ~ . • -- _ a~ i_ . .. . .. .. .I . . ' .. . . :~ . . . . . . . . ` yi _".._..'___"'___' ^..~~._.__ - -_.~_.._.--_"___'. U C~ cJ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 2, 1971 71-315 TENTATIVE MAP OF - p]:ans for said landscaping to be submitted to and TRACT NO. 7422, subject to th,e approval of the Superintendent of REVISION NO. 1 Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and (Continued) .~cceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the ~ i:esponsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (5) That all lots w:~thin this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (6) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and ` approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of ° ' the Orange County Recorder. ",;, ,;: ^~,'.- =rf;'`'' ~~~.~ ~ - (7) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior ; ;~ :~:'' to approval of a final tract map. ~~ (8) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to -~ be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. ~. (9) That drainage of Tract No. 7422 shal] be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. Drainage facilities of the tract must be adequate to accept drainage from any upstream tributary area. ti;.' (10) That a five-foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the ;<;,, south side of La Palma Avenue in accordance with requirements of ~~; the City of Anaheim. `'? (11) That reasonable landscaping including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for ;~ said landsaaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval - of the Parks and Recreation Department. Following installation and _ acceptance, the City of Anaheim will assume the responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping. ~` ~. VARIANCE NO. 2258 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALICE ADELL BRADY FIVA AND `'-"''`~: BARBARA JEAN HIDLE, 12802 Garden Grove Boulevard, TENTATIVE MAP OF Garden Grove, California, Owners; WILLIAM J. KRUEGER, TRACT N0. 7088, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite W, Westminster, California, REVISION NO. 1 Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, Iy: i~ (2) MINIMUM SIDE YARD, AND (3) CODE REQUIREMENT THAT A ~? HOME REAR UPON AN ARTERIAL STREET IN A PROPOSED SINGLE- _'~ FAMILY TRACT on property desaribed as: An irregularl•~-shaped parcel of '~ land consisting of approximately 14 acres having a frontage of approximately 825 feet on the east side of Rio Vista Street, having a maximum depth of 'r approximately 807 feet, and being located approximately 390 feet north of '"'? the centerline of Hempstead Foad. Property presently classified R-A, ,>~~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. )e •.: .: ~ '-r TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: WILLIAM J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite K, Westminster, California. ENGINEER: RAAB AND BOYER ENGINEERING COMPANY, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract is proposed for sub- division into 71 R-2-5000 and 6 R-1 zoned lots. Subject tract was continued fro~ the meeting of May 3, 1971, in order to be heard in conjunction with the variance, and the petition and tract were ~. : ~"' continned from the meeting of May 17, 1971, to allow time for further study. _ - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, pending zoning, and waivPrs requested as set forth in the Report to the Commission, noting that the petition was continued so that the Commission could view other similar tracts of homes in surrounding cities. 't` , :;a Mr. Slaughter noted that the plans submitted with the application indicated the subdivision was designed in such a manner that Dutch Avenue would be ~*: extended from its present terminus, and after one joq at Jeanine Way, would ];:~:' proceed westerly and intersect with Rio Vis+a Street, thereby providing additional east-west circulation through subject property from the existing i .: ..:i. - ... ~ ~ .. , . ., ~ ;. . ~ ~ .. - ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ' ~- . ~ . . . . . - '_ _ . ~~ . ' ~. ..~:Y. ..S`-~~ .. ` . _ . . . ~ . M1 ~ . ~ .. . ~ ~ ` . . .. , i M y:~:, ...:. . ~..1- • ~ ~^~ r i ~) Q c`) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-316 VARIANCE N0. 2258 - subdivisions to the east; that the plans further indicated that the applicant proposed to develop TENTATIVE MAP OF several homes in such a manner that there would be no TRACT NO. 7088, side yard on one side of the house, but a 10-foot side REVISION NO. 1 yard would be provided on the opposite side of the (Continued) house; that such a r~iver had been granted for at least one subdivision in the past, however, in approving that requested waiver, the Commission imposed two conditions as set forth in the report. Mr. George Bolton, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that at the last public hearing he discussed the advantage of the zero lut line concept, and since then the Commission had had an opportunity to visit their tract in Westminster - therefore, he would only summarize the advantages by stating tha± the unusable 5-foot side yards would be eliminated and combined into one side yard that would be usable, and from comments from residents who purchased these homes, there appeared to be greater approval for this type of concept. Furthermore, they were proposing no windows on the zero lot line side of the house; and that the side-on lot proposed was to eliminate drainage problems which this lot would have if required to back onto Rio Vista Street. Furthermore, within a few yards of this proposed lot on the west side of Rio Vista Street, the City had approved a similar situation of a side-on lot. Mr. Bolton also noted that waiver of the front setback was proposed for the 6 R-1 lots since it was felt that the balance of the tract was being devel- oped with 15 and 20-foot front setbacks, and this would make for a better development. However, i.f the Commission were desirous of maintaining the R-1 setback, they would so comply. Furthermore, as to the unharmonious colors which was brought ~ut in the Report to the Commission, he had a copy of the language used in the Westminster CC&Rs approved by F.H.A. as it pertained to the landscapiag and wall along the zero lot line, which indicated that the owner of the property facing the wall had the right to decorate and landscape the area, but he did not have a right to drive nails into said wall, etc. Chairman Fierbst asked for further clarification relative to being able to pa?nt the adjoining neighbor's wall; whereupon Mr. Bolton replied that this was part of the agreement since this portian was an 8-2/3-foot high wall near a garage, and there were no tw~-story structures considered at this wall, and although a bedroom was proposed, there would be no winda~; because all windows would be to the rear of the structure; that there would be a fence or a wall connecting the garage to the other hause, which would tend to cut the view of this wall - however, tne wall would be under common ownership. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the CC&Rs could only be enforced by the citizens and not by the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Seymour noted that he had visited the westminster site to view the zero side yard concepc, and it was very clear to him when the City of Anaheim first took on zero lot line, color combinations as well as materials were taken into consideration - however, this was not done in the Westminster development; that it was also clear it was not uncommon to have batten, stucco, or conczete, and a combination of all ~:hree types of mater~als used, but there appeared to be an attempt to have color harmony, but the ar~earance of a batten board f:nce which ran into a stucco garage wall did not lend itself well to color harmony and was not the best view as presented irom the street. Therefore, it was clear in his mind that Commissioner Roaland's concern and in his experience that the zero lot line concept was a fine concept, but it would be necessary to have a uniform material as well as uniform color. Furthermore, in respect to the development at Westminster, the concept was great but the disparity in colors and materials was very evident. Mr. Bolton stated that he would be very gla3 to work with staff regarding this problem presented by Commissioner Seymour. ~ ' ~_ ~ t: ~ _~ .. . .~ ~ - . ~ .~ ; i~. I. ~ y ~ ~J ~ C~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 3nno Z~ 1g71 71-317 VARIANCE NO. 2258 - Commissioner Rowland noted that the possibility of color control and materials as such being administered by the TENTATIVE MAP OF City would be a very difficult area, and he did not know TRACT NO. 7088, whether this was an area in ~:hich the City belanged, but REV=S=ON N0. 1 the Commission's original concern was that sir.;:e this was (Continued) a permissive use on the part of the Cit to Y provide zero side yards, then the City could ask for special considera- tion of the problems from a community standpoint in helping to selE.: colors since no two people saw colors in the same way - therefore, the requirement of the material, such as a masonry wall, with natural co:.or being used, wculd be required for the major portion of the buildiny - thus, eliminating •che color co~ordination suggested by the devel- oper would be obviating future battles that could be traumatic to the community. Therefare, he was not interested in color coordination as such, but was interested in having the color something which everyone in the community could live with -therefore, natural materials should be used. Mr. Bolton stated tha•t he would agree to a masonry wall if the Commission ~.` ; required it, but what he was r,oncerned with was that they had not shown „~; cement or paint or. their plans, however, F.H.A. had marked up the plans and insisted that this be painted. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not F.H.A, was the reason for t~ie batten board on the Westminster project; whereupon Mr. Bolton stated that they wanted this painted for protection purposes. Commissioner Rowland noted Lhat the !~ity of Anaheim has had experience in working with F.H.A. before, and if F.H.A. understood what the City was trying to do and they felt Anaheim wac the place to build, this would be demonstrated by the proposal before the Commission, then the requirements of the City would be recognized. Commissioner Rowland, in response to other Commissioners' questioning, stated that the wall should be of natural finish at the e:ero lot line, and that the fence goinq forward and across the front of the lot was a different action - however, the Commission could, if they so desired, make that also a condition of approval. Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that it would be far better to have the same material and coloring extended from the zero lot line across the front. Mr. Roberts inquired of Commissioner Rowland his intent as to the zero lot line; whereupon Commissioner Rowland stated that cohatever was a portion of the main building was what he referred to as the zero lot line. Mr. Bolt:.n noted that they were in the final phase and we.r.e most anxious to get favorable action on the tract map itself; that they had outlined many reasons that this was a good concPpt on the zera lot line; and that if appxoval of the tract map was dependent upon the setbacks or the side-on lot, they would withdraw either or both in order to obtain the zero lot line conr.ept and approva2 of the tract. Continued discussion was held by the Com~nission regarding the type of ;~ material and possible coloring that should be provided alonq the zero lot line, the type of roof materials proposed; wnereupon Commissioner Kaywood 1,i inquireci whether or not the petitioner Kould stipulate to providing shake roofs for the front portion of all roofs of this subdivision. Mr. Bolton replied that two of the elevations were designed for what they called dress rock and were considered one of the most popular designs in their westminster tract - howev~r, he would be glad to stipulate to shake, but would like to add that they would have to disregard two elevations which. were considered •~heir most popular elevations. Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the Westminster tract and the Mission tile and pipe used on some of the homes. ~ _ ~.., ~ r.~..,.. - -=:~• ....... . , __ ~ .~ .-. , ~ ^~ . ` . , . i , ~ -~'v f + •w .---, ~ ~ ~ ~ ' .~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 2, 1971 71-318 ~ 1 I i VARTANCE NO. 2258 - Continued discussion held by the Cor~mission on the zero lot line and materials, and after considerable --° TENTATIVE MAP OF discussion, Mr. Bolton noted that the Commission TRACT N0. 7.088, had been discussing the front yard, whereas he had REVISION N0. 1 agreed to providing the same materials on the rear ~ • (Continued) yard area. ~ The Commission noted that it was more important that ~ the front yard material be of the same as that on the zero lot line to _ present a more harmonious effect. ~ ~~;M ~~ Commissioner Seymour noted that he would prefer that the Commission not ~ .I~, , spend as much time as they had in discussion of the actual materials; that ~ this should be straightened out with staff - whereupon Mr. Roberts requested _a. further direction from the Commission so that staff could work intelligently ; with the developer as to the type of treatment the Commission intended for ~ ~,~ the fence and wall. .~ Commissioner Seymour then noted that since the Commissi~n was approving the ~ ~.;: zero lot line concept, it was his intention to have the garage wall, as ~ • well as the front setback wall, the same as the adjoining property owner's in order to eliminate ,the appearance, as it were, of batten wood, concrete, ~ 'i or stucco that were used in an intermixed manner. +~ Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-97 and moved for its r:.~ passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2258 on the basis ~ ,~ that the petitioner had demonstrated that he wou13 be d~niQd a privilege -,~ enjoyed by the developers of other tracts in the area if the side-on lot ~;~ of an arterial high~~ay were not approved; that varying setbacks had been granted in this general area in the past, which had resulted in rather attractive homes, therefore, waiver of the required front yard was granted ~ on that basis; that waiver of the ininimum required side yard was granted ~ on the basis that the proposed method of development would provide more ~ 3 usable side yards and still maintain sufficient separation between buildings; ~ that the petitioner stipulated to providing a minimu:n of 10 feet between the ~ main structuse and the side lot line for the side yard opposite the zero lot line; that the petitioner had stipulated to providing a solid masonry ~ ;i wall of thenna ural color and material as the wal.l of the main structure along j ,_,,E the zero lot line from the rear lot line to the main structure and scross ~ the front yard at a permissible location of the adjacent parcel to tie in ' ,;^± with the structure on that parcel in order that a continuity of color and # texture might be maintained; and subject to conditions, with the added ~ condition that all lots shall be developed with a minimum uf 10 feet between `.;~~ main structures on adjaceni lots, provided, however, that this requirement '~ is not intended to preclude an unenclosed patio roof from being constructed in the required 10-foot side yard as long as the support members do not ~ extend closer than 5 feet to the side lot line, as stipulated to by the + ~ petitioner; and that the main structure wall along the zero lot line shall ~ be constructed of a natural masonry finish and shall remain unfinished to preclude unharmonious colors which would face the adjoining property, as ' stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ i, ; On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the fol:owing vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, i I Seymour. J NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ; ~+ ABSENT: COMMTSSIONERS: None. ~ ;: i y ~ S i ~• ~9 7 ! w .+f7[ ~ ~ ~, a, _ _ "~;.~ •,. .,.. a '~~. ~ ;; :~ ~ : '."ty:~ ~ t . -- Y ~ _ .. .,.;:.~:r ~ ~ . ~ , ~ - ; _ , l ~ c~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-319 VARIANCE N0. 2258 - Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, secor.ded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED, to approve ' TENTATIVE MAP OF Tentative Map of Tract No. 7088, Revision No. 1, TRACT NO. 7088, subject to the following conditions: REVISION NO. 1 (Continued) (1) That the vehicular access rights except at street and/or alley openings to Rio Vista Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ::.^ ` (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7088, is granted '"~~' `t;,~ subject to the approval of Variance No. 2258. ~ ~ (3) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, T~. each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative furm for ~c approval. ~ (4) That in accordance with City Council olic p y, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be cons~ructed along the west property line separating lot Nos. 1 and 67 thru 77 and Rio Vista Street, except that for corner lot ~:,: No. 1 said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inches in the required front yard setback, and that a 6-£oot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east line of Lot No. 11. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be 4: ,I; installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway :~ the full distance of said wall; plans for sai3 landscaping to be =~ submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of p, Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City a of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said ~;,:~ landscaping. ~ (5) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground '.~ utilities. '~ (6) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of. the Orange County Recorder. (7) That strerst names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior ~' to approval of a final tract map. ` (8) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim ~~, the appropriate park and r^creatior, in-lieu fees as determined to '~; be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time '~;;~ the building permit is issued. (9) That drainage of Tract No. 7U88 shall be disposed af in a manner - that is satis~actory to the City ~ngineer. (10) That the tract developer shall improve nutch Avenue and Jeanine Way adjacent to the parksite with stree*. pavement and standard curb and `~ gutter. `;:i ' r :s (11) That the existinq sewer and easement across the tract shali be abandoned and a replacement sewer shall be constructed as required by the City Engineer. ;i ~~ (12) That all streets in the tract shall be constructed in accordance - with Standard Details on file in the office of the City Engineer. ~p'` Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution Nn, PC71-98 and moved for its .'` passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council termination of all <". '.' :i `` proceedings of Variance No. 2230 on the ba;is that the developer of the ;~ tract did not intend to exercise the variance granted in part. (See '"'` Resolution Book) 'j 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. ~ I i i ~ I t;y, .> , i~._,~. - ,, . _-- a ~ ~:. ~°;. , , ~ - . ..~ , i * - ; ~ ~ .._.._. __-- ~ - 1 ,. _ ~ ~ l ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-320 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. R. SPEHAR, J. LIBERIO, AND NO. 70-71-53 H. BUDLONG, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California, Owners; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 TENTATIVE MAP OF East Lincoln Avenue, Agent; requesting t:hat property TRACT N0. 7419 describe3 as: An irregularly-sha ed . consistin of a P Parcel of land B pproximately 45 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,540 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,340 feet, and being located approximately 2,000 fe~ ~ast of the centerline of Imperial Highway, be reclassified irom the Cl',,..~TY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT ~"~~" AND CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL• 20NE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ~`,':.: ;'.:; 20NE . ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: RAYMOND SPEHAR AND J. LIBERIO, •° 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California. x f ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 F:ast ~7 ~ Liacoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject 9 propert•; is proposed for subdivision into 240 ~ R-2-5000 zoned lots. ~ ~ - Subject petition and tract were continued from the May 3 and 17, 1971, f meetings at the request of the petitioner. ~ Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of i' ,: subject property, uses established in close proximity, and che proposal, noting that subject petitions had been continued from the May 3 and 17, 1971, meetings ~n order that the applicant might revise the tract map, and in view of the fact that the applicants had indicated the area encompassed ~ by the rezoning and tract map was to be revised, subject petition should '; be continued an additional two weeks. ~ ; ~ ~~ Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition I '; for Reclassification No. 70-71-53 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7419 to ~ the meeting of June 14, 1971. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. 1, MOTION CARRIED. . ~ :`;a VARIANCE NO. 2257 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ADOLPH W. LEMKE, 12522 E1 ~:j Roy Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owner; HALL & FOREMAN, TENTATIVE MAP OF INC., P. O. Box 11667, Santa Ana, California, Agent; ; TRACT ,Np, 7426 requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIP.ED LOT WIDTH ~`; AND (2) THE REQUIREMENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES ;fi;. REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS TO PERMIT A SINGLE-FAIdILY `,,~ LOT PROPOSED TO SIDE-ON SANTA HNA CANYON ROAD on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land cor,sisting of approximately 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 classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. s~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: L. A. COUNTY LAND COMPANY, 111 East Third Street, San Dimas, California. - ENGINEER: HALL & FOREMAN, INC., 2530 Nor•th Grand, Santa Ana, California. Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into 39 R-1 zoned lots. ii ;:~ Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, ~;ses established in close proximity, and noted that the petition and tract had been continued from the May 17, 1971, meeting for , City Council ~7etermination of the SC 2one proposal and to allow time for the ' applicant tc ~vise the tract map. However, at the time of preparation of ,~,. . the repo:~c, ,, revised map had been submitted; therefore, staff would sugge~~.`_ •_hat this item be continued for two weeks in order that the Inter- departmental Committee might consider any revisions. ; Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance No. 2257 and Tentative Map of Tract No, 7426 t~ the meeting of Jure 14, 1971. Commissionar Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. .- --..,:_..., `~,q ~.....w,,. S . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 ` `J 71-321 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, 420 Fernhill PERMIT NO. 658 Lane, Anaheim, Cali~ornia, Owner; re uestin to ESTABLISH A CHRISTIAN DAY SCHOOL FOR KINDERGARTENion THROUGH EIGHTH GRADE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Nohl Canyon Road and Nohl Ranch Road, having approximate frontages of 341 feet on Nohl Canyon Road and 477 feet on Nohl Ranch Road, and further described as 4101 East Nohl Ranch Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ,,;,~..., Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the background of +~' the plans ori inall . a 4 Y pproved, notinq that in 1964 the Planning Commission approved the church and Christian education facilities; that recently the ~ staff had received a request to establish a day school on the property and submitted this to the Planning Commission to determine whether such a use _ was contemplated in the granting of the original conditional use permit - however, the Planning Commission determinecl that the item should be set for public hearing so that notice c~uld be given to the surrounding property 1 owners; that the petitioner wa^ proposing to establish a Christian day school for approximately 100 students in the kir.dergarten through eighth grades, and it was their intent to establish the school use in the present facility - therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether the proposed use was appropriate for the property, and if so, the Commission might wish to establish a maximum number of students that would be permitted, I thereby precluding uncertainty as to how intense a use had been approved for the property. '' Reverend W. L. Conradson, 420 South Fernhill Lane, Pastor of the Trinity '-' Lutherar, Church, appeared before the Commission and noted thati the church was on a 4-aare s~te and was insulated on three sides by streets and on the ~~ fourth s:.de by a steep bank and a masonry wall; that there were three build- ',-; ings totaling 7200 square feet on the property; that part of the lot was ; blacktopped for parking of 106 vehicles; that there were basic regul3tions ,.~ which required educating the children, but the manner in which it was to be •;~ done was not stated; that some of the members of the church felt that the church should establish their own Christian day school, and if they met the ~__) requirements of the tJniform Building Code, requiring 20 square feet per 1 student, they would have more than adequate space for the number of students they proposed since they could provide 36 square feet for 120 students; that on the master plans filed in 1964, there was a two-story classroom building, j and from past history of both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic Ch:_rches, ' their master plans proposed schools in conjunction with the churah facilities; ;~~; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated that the masonry wall was on the northeast side, abutting the R-1 proaerty. Chaa.rman Herbst noted that Reverend Conradson had mentioned 120 students - however, the petition before the Commission indicated 100 students, and requested clarification of this. Reverend Conradson replied that in accordance with the building code, there would be ample room for more than 120 students. Commissioner Allred then inquired how many students the church intended to handl~e; whereupon Reverend Conradson replied that it was their intent to have a maximum of 120 at this time, and iL was not their intent to exceed that since this would require additional buildings which would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. : Mr. Lewis Roepke, 426 Fernhill Avenue, appeared before the Commission and ?, noted he had a petition signed by 40 residents in opposition; t::at these residents all were in the i^_+m=diate vicinity of the church; that it was "" the residents' understanding that further use of the property would enco:: .~s +_he main sanctuary which had 560 seats - however, when these homes were ~ sold in this area, the master plan indicated the usage of the property on ~:ohl Ranch, and the only school that was proposed was the public elementary ~r sr_hool, ai:d no private school was indicated on the plan, this being the only inform3tion available to the buyers at '•~e ~.ine they purchased their ~ ~~~ ~ ~ , i. ; ~ _ s. ~ . .. . ~ . : . . .ii . .. . . ' .. . , ; . ~ ~ ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-322 , CONDITIONAL USE - properties; that in discussion with a staff inember, PERMIT NO. 658 it appeared the facilities were a (Continued) school and church, and there was norindication ofnday regular day school facilities having a capacity of 120 students; that a brochure had been printed which indicated what was proposed and the fees that would be charged; that elementary sahools in this area were 3eveloped as a neighborhood concept so that children would not have to be bussed to school, and the new school now under construction would eliminate bussing to the school; that the school brochure indirated that private means of transportation to the school would have to be provided, and he was wondering whether the majority of the member- ship would be from the neighborhood, or would the student body be composed of children irom northern Orange County; that there were other Lutheran schools which had nat only Lutheran students but other denominations, and if there were to be 100 children transported to the school, this would mean an additio;nal 30 to 50 vehicles in the area at the time pedestrian traffic of children going to school would be affected; and that because of the shortness~ of time from the publication date or notification date of the residents of the area, he requestefi a continuance so that they could meet with other ' property owners and present a more concise and meaningful opposition. ~ Mr. Andre VanySseldyke, 4125 Church Haven Wa f and noted that he was directl o y' aPP~ared before the Commission ~ y pposite of the church; that Mr. Roepke had '- brought up the fact that there aas such a short notice on whicY: to base a i solid op~osition, and since he was out of town, he would request that the Commis^<on consider further continuance of subject petition. Mr. Van ~Sseldyke, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that there appeared to be considerable confusion over the fact that the church originally proposed this as a regular private day school, while the property owners were not given this information when they purchased their properties. Mr. Robert Solerno, 4128 Church Haven Way, appeared before the Commission and ~ noted that he had received his legal notice on Friday, the 22nd of May - however, he still felt this was inadequate time since the matter should be brought up to the Nohl Ranch Homeowners Association for discussion. lllc-., f,t;,~ ~ Mrs. Aad~Q Van~seldyke, 4125 Church xaven Wa and noted that she was Y~ aPPeared before the Commission particularly concerned as to the traffic from the f church which was considerable on Sunday, and this proposal would mean twice as many cars, which would be harmful to ihe safety of the children. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not Mrs. Van Iseldyke felt this was a hazard to the area; whereupon she replied that since the church had opened up the new driveway to Church Haven Way, there was considerable traffic hazard to the children on the cul-de-sac street since the children were used to playing in the street. Chairman Herbst noted that the original plan had indicated that a driveway would exit to Church Haven Way, and the plans at that time were dated January, 1969. Mrs. Dorothy Chatham, 4111 Church Haven Way, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that in addition to concurring with the other state- ments made, she would like tc pti.nt out that at a general meeting of the Nohl Ranch Homeowners Associat~~r. in the Trinity Chiirch no mention was made of the school - therefore, it hott~i appear that the church withheld this information without regard to the yieighbors' feeliags; that she regretted that the church had so little faith in the neighbors, which was evidenced by the fact that they had no regard for what the residents of the area thought, and that they further did not care. Chairman Herbst noted that the purpose of the public hearing was to present all the arguments, pro and con, for the proposal. ! 1~.~ ' : . '~ \ , ~ ~ L~ ~ ASSNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 2, 1971 ~ 71-323 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. Chatham noted that all those present felt suffi- PERMIT N0. 658 ciently strong about the proposal to take time off (Continued) from work, many withou~ pay, since when they purchased their properties, the brochure indicated this would be only a church and there wz~ no mention of the regular day school; and that if the church had considered asking for cooperation from the citizens of the area, the public hearing would not !~ave been necessary. Mr. Fred Schmuck, 427 Fernhill Lane, appeared before the Commission and noted that there was one prablem to consider, and that was the speed limit on Nohl Ranch Road which was 35 miles an hour - however, this was not en- forced and would not be until someone was killed on that road, and the only time a radar control was placed on the road, one of the neighbors had suffered by being clocked above the speed limit; that the location of the school at this intersection would add more problems to the children from Black Oak Road and the other streets farther north and east since the only sidewalk was on one side of the street, and school children would have to cross Nohl Canyon Road, Nohl Ranch Road, and Church Haven Way to get to the public school; and that children were unable to judge the speed of traffic when going across the streets. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not there would t,e any signalization at that intersection; whex:eupon Office Engineer Jay Titus replied that he had no information regarding signalization, however, if the traffic warranted it, this intersection would be signalized; and that the speed limit in school zones was 25 miles per hour during school hours only. Reverend Conradson, in rebuttal, stated the posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour on Nohl Ranch Road; that when their original plan was approved, they were denied access to Nohl Ranch Road - howevex, the new public elementary school had only one access and that was to Nohl Ranch Road - main street - therefore, this would necessi:ate a traffic signal for that intersection; that Church Haven Way did not exist until three years after the church had built their original plan; that the petition of ogposition did not cover all people residing in close proximity; that there was no secrecy intended in proposing the school since the workings of a typical congregation was talking about a given project, and the congregation still was in the talking stage; that their doors were always open for neighbors to come in and obtain information - the churh even serving as a meeting place for the Nohl Ranch Homeowners Association and the Soy Scouts - although only six persons from the church were members of the Boy Scouts; that their original petition indicated a church and Christian education facilities, and this left it open for a Christian day school; that he regretted that their Sunday traffic bothered the neighbors, but these neighbors also enter- tained considerably, and their overflow parking would be in the church parking lot; that some of the ladies even borrowed tables and cha.irs when they were entertaining; that the additional driveway was installed during the last construction stage, however, the driveway apron was in considerably longer; that the statement made that they "did not care" was erroneous because they could not give .information out on something they did not know themselves since he did not know there was so much interest in the conqrega- tion until very recently; that they were neighbors of these Nohl Ranch homeowners and had a great deal at stake since their investment to the present time was over $3Q0,000; that he was somewhat chagrined at state- ments made by the opposition; that one of the neighbors had dumped rocks on the church lot, however, no complaint was made and the members of the church just picked up these rocks ar_~ ::auled them away; that another of the opposi- tion had relatives attending parochial schools in another city - this also added to the traffic problem; another of the opposition had complained about traffic on the street, however, he was one of the persons who had to be asked to leave the church parking lot after he was riding his motorbike all over the parking area; that many of the people living on the street had four vehicles which could also be considered adding to the traffic problem, that the major traffic problem occurred late Friday afternoon when people were all trying to bypass the freeway jam on the way to the river; that he !vas the third person to reside at that intersection, and as a clergyman, he ! ~ ~ } t ~ ,~ ' ~ .~...~..~.:;,....;;~ -- ~ ~ MINT~TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 t~._~ 71-324 ' CONDITIONAL USE - would not abide by creating any problem; and tben in PERMIT NO. 658 response to questioning by the Commission stated that (Continued) the students hope~uiiy would come from the Nohl Ranch area, some from the Orange area, and some from the Peralta Hills area; that they did not plan to bus students to school since it was felt this was unnecessary; and that they had space for 106 cars in the parkina area, and he diii not feel any of the parishioners parked their vehicles on the street but were using the parking lot. ,' .,r-- i:,; Commissioner Seymour inquired whether cr not Reverend Conradson was the ~?;';;,„r original applicant; whereupon Reverend Conradson stated he was in the Air ~; Force, but the arrangements were handled by a division of the Church 4~ f;: Missions Committee which established si~ty churches throughout the country, ;a and about two-thirds of these churches had schools, not immediately but . ~p, eventually. Commissioner Seymo-ir then inquired whether the parishioners came from the same area which had been mentioned as possible areas from which school `~,~ children would emanate, and was it like other parochial schools. Reverend Conradson replied that the parishioners came from the same afore- ~'r mentioned areas, and this was not the type of operation that would go beyond ~-;.,;v~. the scope of the parishioners to attract students, however, his experience ~, was that 50~ of the students were members of the church, and many of the ~' balance of the students' parents were non-members who attended the church. ~~ Commissioner Seymour then noted that ingress and egress, which one of the *~. homeowners had stated was a new access to Church Haven Way, was not parti- culariy desirable s_nce this was a cul-de-sac street and inquired whether or not the City would gzant the church access to Nohl Ranch Road if the Church Haven Way access were closed. '4i Mr. Tit~is replied that he did not know the basis for denying the church right to have access to Nohl Ranch Road, but he personally could see nothing particularly objectionable to granting them access. Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Reverend Conradson whether or not he would be willing to seal off the access tu Church Haven Way if access were permitted to Nohl Ranch Road; whereupon Reverend Conradson replied that they would be glad if someone would reimburse them for the few hundred feet of - paving put in. ~~ Mr. Titus noted that there could be a oroblem as to grading if access were permitted to Nohl Ranch Road. ~ Commissioner Seymour inquired of staff, what appeared to be the intent of r,, the Commission in 1964; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the minutes -.``% indicated the petition was for a church and Christian educational facilities, and that the developer, Mr. Lusk, presented this as to architectural features ~~. of the building. Reverend Conradson noted that they were proposing a 4-acre site for approxi- mately 120 students, while the elementary school being built on the south ,;~ side o~ Noh.l Ranch Road took care of 600 students on an 8-acre site, so that `~ their school would appear not to be out of line. Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the proposed hours of classes; whereupon Reverend Conradson replied the hours would be 9:00 A.M, to 3:G0 P.M., however, <`" r if there appeared to be any conflict with the school across the street, these hours could be changed, and they would be cooperative. ;;.: THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymottr noted that this was a prime example of a very natural ~j thing - when someone was proposing a new use, everyone became frightened and concern~d about how this would affect their living environment or the value of their 2iomes, but, quite frankly, he couid not see where 50 to 60 cars ~" ~ . , _ _ _, . :_ ..-,~ax-.-.._ :_. `- . , ~ • - -. :~ - , ~ y~ ~ , U ~ MIr'UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 f ~ 71-325 CONDITIONAL USE - twice a day would be any problem - this was only a PERMIT NO. 658 "drop in the bucket" traffic-wise when one analyzed (Continued) traffic reports and studies; and that what appeared to have happened and why there appeared to be so many in opposition was the lack of communication. Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion th~.t all plans from 1964 on indicated classrooms, and Mr. Lusk had made the presentation. Furthermore, the surrounding properties had developed since that time; therefore, the church and school would appear to have had prior right, and he would state there was no misunderstanding as to what the church intended. Commissioner Seymour noted that the misunderstanding would have been the same if the Commission had lived in the area and had assumed the approval was for a church and Sunday school. However, it now appeared that a school with 120 students was also approved, but in his opinion, it was the int2nt of the church to operate in the manner that they now propose since this was typical of churches of this denomination, but he was sympathetic with the residents on Church Haven Way, which formerly was a cul-de-sac, and he wished there was some way this problem could be overcome. Furthermore, he felt these were all community problems which could be overcome if neighbors and church representatives met to discuss their differences - therefore, he would like to see a two-week continuance. Commissioner Fa•rano stated that although he did not intend to vote because he lived in the neiyhborhood, he did not feel the Commission should take action on this, and he would strongly recommend that the Commission visit the property to look at the physical location and the topography of the land, as well as the manner in which the streets were laid out, bef.ose any further action was considered, although his recommendation did not conno~e either approval or disapproval. Commissioner Seymour aoted that his reason in support of a two-week continuance did not necessarily mean for the Commission to re~riew the site since from information presented, he did not see any traffic problem - the main problem was one of communication, an~ if these people had such a tight-knit group, then they should get together and discuss this. Cor~missioner Gauer was of the opinion that the church had a prior right since these homes had heen built after the approval, both in 1964 and 1968, of plans fc,r a church and Christian education facilities by the Commission. Commissioner Allred noted that the new access to Church Haven Way had beer. constructed since these homes were developed - however, the only problem he could see was the possibility of this school having an increase to more than 200 students; although they stated they presently planned 120 students, their plans approv~:d indicated a future development of a two-story building. Commis~ioner Seymour offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of. Conditional Use Permit No. 658 to the meeting of June 14, 1971, to allow the Commission time to view the site, topography, and street layout, and to allow time for the neighbors to meet with church representa- tives to determine what exactly was proposed. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a ten-minute recess at 4:00 P.M. RECONVENR - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:10 P.M., Commissioner Seymoer being absent. ~ ~ ~__`r~.,r,w_~.R_~Y"~~.~M~wr . .. ~~ .~I` Y,. .fia`- ~" . : ~ ~ (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 ~.~ 71-326 VARIANCE NO. 2259 - PUBLIC HEARING (READVERTISED). PHOENIX CLUB, INC., 1565 Douglas Road, Pnaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DANCE HALL AND ON-SALE LIQUOR SALES TO THE PUBLIC IN AN EXISTING PRIVATE CLIIB on properL-p described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 337 feet on the eas*_ side of Douglas Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 281 feet, and being located approximately 740 feet north of the centerline of Kacella Avenue, and further described as 1566 Douglas R~ad (Phoenix Club). Property presently classified R-A, AGRICIILTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewPd the location of subject property, uses established in close pr~ximity, and the prorosal, noting that the present club was run solely as a private club and was licensed only to sell alcoholic beverages to members; that the proposed ABC license would permit on-sale liquor to the general pL,blic; that dis- cussions with the applicant further indicated that the front rortion o.°. the building - the location of the bar - would be open technic~::ly to ti~e public, while the dance hall section would be open only to membr;.rs; tha.*. the petitioners further indicated that it was not their inten.;: to encour~gr~ non-member usage of the building; and that it was their intent to continue to operate the club in the same manner as in the past. However, because of technicalities of the ABC regulations, a change in the J.iqnor liaense classification was required. Therefore, the Commission woL:ld have to determine whether the proposed use was appropriate and whether there would be any advantage to the City to restrict the club's oactivities to its present method of operation, which would preclude a public dance hall with on-sale liquor in the future should the property be sold or the operation altered. Mr. Anton Dumhart, 13920 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, attorney repr~senting the petitioners, appeared before the Commission a~id noted the staff had correctly summarized the position of the Phoenix Club; that there was no intent to change the manner of aperation, and the reason for the application was because of technicalities of ABC who stated a public license would be required instead of a private club license; that the dance facilities were not open to the public; and that any assurance the Commission would r~quire to guarantee that the club would be operati,ng in the same mannex aC in the past would be given upon request. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not it was the club'~ intent to convert to a public restaurant; whereupon Mr. Dumhart r.eplied that thez would, in no way, solicit public admission, but they would permit the public to come in to the restaurant portion but not to the dance area, which could be closed off. Commissioner Farano then inquired whether or not the club was pze~ently 1.icensed by ABC, and if so, what was the problem at the club which inter- fered with ABC regulations. Mr. Dumhart replied that it was a violation to sell alcoholic beverages ;;o a non-member, and during their large dances ii a member brought a guest who wanted to purchase a drink from the bar or waiter, under the present license this was not permitted, and the only alternative they had would be to bill all charges to members - however, they were not equipped to operate in this manner. Mrs. Donna Scarbrough, 1474 Douglas Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated she was the co-owner of the mobilehome park immediately to the north of subject property; that they did not oppose the private club in its original form, but policing of the non-members and on-sale liquor to the general public would invite additional traffic to the area and increase the already unbearable noise now present when large crowds gathered; and that although the agent for the petitioner indicated there would be no change in the present operation, this could change if there were a change in officers. Furthermore, there was inadequate p.arking ; l.. _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ,' . .~: . ~: ;; i °`.i -':I r~ ..i r~ ~ :,.~t _:;I , '^~ t„~ MiNUTES, C2TY PLANNSNG COMMISSZON, June 7., 1971 ~_~ 71-327 VARIANCE NO. 2259 - m4ny times when ~eorle ~arked on t:,1s very n.y;rrow (Continued) street, particula.rly w~r:;~ che dances were i~r~+ng held. Mr. John Wells„ t,~C~ S~uth Douglas Road, appeared in opposition and stated 'c:iat 2;~ cvas p~~:,~•nti: g a petition signed by approxi- mately 92 of the 100 resid~;nts o. i:hc. mt~hilehome park, concurring in the opposa.tre~>n previ.casly presentQd; ~l.iat the residents were yery unhappy witii the preswr.t 5±tuation, and if perR~:°:•;,ed to have on-sale alcoholic beverages to the gen..ral public, thzs waulZ ~~;.npound an already und,~sirable situation; and that it was not a goc~d s3tuat:ia7, for residents of the ?iobilehome park who planned to reside the~re for s~~me time to come. ~ ~ i ~ ~ i A letter of opposition from Mr. H~.rl~ert Dovglas, 106i1 Douglas Roals, ~r:ner of the large agricultusal narca:.. t.o the wesc, wa~ z<_~.ad to ~he Commi~•_?~~. ! Mrs. Caroline Scarsbrough, 140U S~uth Douglas R~iad, appeared before the ~ Commissi.on in opposition and stai.ed that she was one of the ~riginal I developers of the mokilehome pa•r.'k, and they wo.~alr3 have baen hesitant t, open ~ their facilities if they thr~~;ght. t;:e priv3te club wouJ.d be permitted ;:o be open tc th~~ public. ~ Mr. Robezt Long, 1400 Sruth Douglas Road, appeaz•en be£ore t:ie Commj.ssion in opposition and sLated tha.t one thing which was not brou3ht out was the fact ~:hat the mobilehome parY: and the private clsb were developed whila the property was under the juri~diction of the Count~~, and the County did :~ot require street lighting. *.?owever, because of thE: narrowness o.E the r~ad and the amount of traffic, particular~Y ::!~en one considered the fact that just north of the club there was a%' ;,tle bend in the road, anc' t~;:r.ing a rather dark night maay cimes he had come home arid almost run over sevtxal peoplP ~eca.use the area was not lia ted. Commissioner Seymour enterea the Cou..cil Chamber .at 4:25 P.M. Ch~.irman Herbst notE;d thaL _t was rather unfortunate these comolaints wera~ bein~t present~d, but at the L1T:R rhe County was co::;idering the pe~ition for {!-ie ~nobi~elac~me park, th: ~?.;nning Commission anci C.i`y C~uncii had made :'2rY '•''r l'~~g zecomme:ndai3ons 'chaL• rs~i dential u~e~ wese r3ot comgatible with this .~i•ea. F]oweve.i:, the, Cou_zty chose to ignore these recor.:mez~dations, and now ~hat the prope~:ty was in the City, these prablems seemed to be appear.- ing more f•re~uentl}~ - this was something that tlte City of Araheim inher.ited. Mr. S2aughter advis~~d the Commission that one of the cor.dit?.cns i-ecomme.nded by the Interdepartmental Committee if subject petiti~n were ~pproved was tne installation of street ligh•cs. Mr. Lumhart, in rebuttaY, n~ted that all but one of the opposition were from t'he mobilehome park, and when the.cond?.tional pe.rmit was considered by the OrangE~ County Planning Commissi'on, they, too, had voiced verj strong oppos3tion, indicating that it sesidential uses:were approve6, one cc,uld expect c~u~plaints Since the 2hoenix Club sele`~ed this site `.~cause tI12kQ were n~ residential n:ses in close proximity ~, ~~cept ~or the agricult.ural ar~_a, which suited 1_heir purpose:s, be.ause there was nr, -aap t~ curb noises from cars and pers!,ns attending the club'`in `the late hours. However, the County Planr.ing Cummission approved it anyway ahd stated that since the Fhoenix Cit~b was already established as a prior use, any cctnplaints ~rom subsequenic residents there would h,~ve n~ beari.ng. Furthermore, he felt that the l.egal notice was.somewhat in error.since iL was not their intent •to operate a public dance hall, and th~y wr.uld so stipulate; that he had dis- cussed t:ii~ ma;:te~• with the City Attor;•.ey, who advised him ther:~ was nothing in tY..-t:Anan~im Munic_pal Code that governed the operation of the Phoenix C.luh since 't d~.d not flt the inte~~.retation of a public danae hall oge•ra- tion; that it was ttieir inteat to ~perate in the same mannei as they had in the pa~t. bu•,, n~eed~d this clarification of a different ABC license, even thouai~ tiiey stiil in'_ended to operate as a private club, ABC required a different licer.ise. Then, in respons~ to a questiou by the Commission, statsd he wou:d stiaulate that this fa~ility would continue to be operated as a private club, and that ti~=s stipulation would not block them from obtaining an A»C license, althougi~ they would have to permit the public to the restaurant porti.on, and there was no other requirement by ABC since the dance area had ne+er been open to the public. r i_ '~ _ ` ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 l~l 71-328 VARIANCE N0. 2259 - Commissioner Farano then noted that since the petitioner (Continued) had indicated they would be required to open the restau- rant to the public, th~a could present a problem and inquired whether or not there had been any policing problem in tne past. ~ Mr. Dumhart replied that the clul~ had been in operation since 1965, and the only pro!~lem he could recall was the parking on the mobilehome park property. However, since a wall had been constructed, there was r.o longer a problem. C~mmissioner Farano then inquired what gave rise to this new petition- appli.catiun at this time if the club had been operating all this time; whereupon Mr. Dumhart replied that someone had complaiaed to ABC that the club was operating a commercial establishment serving the general public, and an inspector from ABC had obtained admission and was sold some liquor without being required to identify himself as a:rtember - thus ABC advised them the club would have to obtain a different license in order to operate; and that there were 5000 families having membership in this club. Coma~.issioner Gauer stated he would be opposed to opening the restaurant to the general Fublic since there were certaia. requirements the Commission had where the qe~.eral public was admitted: 1) having the bar separated from the dining area; and 2) a given number c,f ~q~are feet devoted to the food preparation area. Mr. Dumhart s~tated that it was not their intent to serve the general public, but the P,BC license might requz.re the club to a3mit the public, and that a physical separation of the bar and the restaurant from the dance area was possi.ble but no•~~ between the bar and the dining area; and that he did not know wliether the food preparation area~would meet the Commission's require- ments. Commissioner Allred inquired whether oz not membars could bring guests and would the memb.ers be able to purchase drinks for their guests or vice versa, and woul& there be any violation. Idr. Dumhart replied that so long as a member purchased the drinks, there would be no violation; nowever. whe:i the guests attempted to purchase a drink, then they wo,il;~ be in violation under the existing license. Commissioner Farano was of the opi.nion that the Fetitioner was trading one oolicing and a~3ninistration pr.obiem fc~r another, and the latter would be more di;ficul~ to police since this :.ould be a possible zoninc violation wh._ch the City w~uld have to police; ~.nd fihen i.,qu:red wt;en the club was cited for this vioiation; whiareu.pun Mr. Dumhaxt replied approximately three months ago - however, he did not knosa w'r,o complai,~ed, but lie would assume it was from a commercial est~Y:lishment. However, there were no inside disturbances or problems. Mr. Dumhart then in response co a~uesticn by tne Commi~sion as to whether or not the club would be sble to operate if subject, peti.tio:i were denied, stated that they would be for:ed 'r~ y~o <o a charge system, and at tne oresent time they were not equippced to handle this since they had been operating on a cash basis. Chairman Herbst was of tne o,~inion that approval would mean a general public restaurant, b;.t t.he members could establish their own controls by advising their guestR that purchases by them ~~ere prohibited, and if this could not be accomplished, i:hen this would be cunsidered an open facility. Mr. Dumhart replied that members could bring guests, and the membership cards were checked. fiowever,. un a ~iance night there was a constant stream of people, and while the membershi,p cards were being checked, people could walk in behind the menbers. E .. . , `-,-___ . . . . .. . ~. j ... '_ _ ~~n..~ % ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMDSISSIOh, ~une 2, 1971 { _~ 71-329 VARIANCE NO. 2259 - Commissioner Farano inquired of the ability to police (Continued) a public use of the dance hall facilities in the event tbe restaurant were open to the general public and a general license was obtained - the petitioner would be trading the policing and administration of one restriction for another, and that sounded more significant and more difficult to him. Mr. Dumhart stated that they would have the same restrictions since the dance hall was separated and only members were admitted with their guests to the dance facilities. Therefore, there would be no greater problem than presently existed. Chairman Herbst noted that he would not be opposed to a restaurant since this f~'`~'".'~~ was a permitted use ia~ the M-1 2one, however, the petitioner would have to meet the Commission's reauirements for restaurants, but he could see no `.~ .` reason for a ,.~; pproving on-sale liquor with a general license. ',? Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the club leased out their facilities to other organizations, and °_f these facilities w~re lea~ed out, ~ would this mean they would be automatically allowed to use the bar facilities, ~ and was it possible to have a bar set up in the dance hall facility. Mr. Dumhart replied that they rented out some small rooms for wedding receptions, and the bar facility was part of the catering service, however, the main dance facility was never rented out to the general public or to clubs. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that he would rather the petitioner have the responsibility of policing and administrating this problem as to membership rather than making it a duty of the City, since if the petitioner were forced to do his own policing, he would do it to preserve his very existence; that he also belo--ged to private clubs and could understand why pe~ple would wan;: to purchase drinks, particularly when they were guests and wanted to impress someone - however, he was not willing that the City be given this policing problem of checking at the door to determine whether the person was a member or not, and he could not vote in favor of this petition unless there was some restriction on the use of the dance hall since it would appear i•k:is facility was beginning to lose its character as a private club and was taking on the appearance of a public dance hall. Furthermore, he would even like to r~strict the leasing portion. In addition, if the City were required to check all identification cards and verify the membership, this could be a considerable burden which the City could not undertake, but if this were not done and approval were given for subject petition, this would permit this to be a hide-open operation; that there appeared to be no problem if the club would establish rules that no drinks were to be sold except to members; and that the members should so advise their guests. ;~. = : ' i::. :,A - ~ ~' " r ~ . .'~ ~:. , .~! .'? THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolstion No. PC71-99 and movs': for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2259 on the ~asis that while the petitioner indicated that the front portion of the building where the bar was located would be technically open to the oublic while the dance hall section of the building would be open only to club members, the granting of subject petition, even with these restrictions, would place a rather difficult burden upon the City in terms of enforcing said restrictions; that the use praposed would be a public dance hall that could be administered without ~arious types of controls and restrictions which are normally inherent with an operation of this type; that the petitioner proposed this to be a public restaurant, however, there was apprehension on the part of the C~mmission that the kitchen facilities would not meet the requirements set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code, nor that the bar would ~e a separate entity from the restaurant as had been xequired in the oast by the Commission; that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the requested variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed t .... ` ! ~a '~;~.~ . _ _: ~ ^ 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~,~----- ~ - , ~-~ fl t._) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, ~une 2, 1971 71~330 VARIP.NCE NO. 2259 - by other property in the same vicinity and zone and (Continued) denied to the prcperty in question. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing zesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONEZ.S: None. ~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. '-. c_. ,~ r. Commissioner Sey.:.our in3icated his abstention was based on the fact that ~~ ,~. ~ he was not present for the entire hearing. 1 Ve'~RIANCE NO. 2260 - PUBLIC HEARING. LONNIE M. DUNN AND WILLIAM C. SANGSTER, 2718 South Grand Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK AND (2) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 288 feet on the east side of State Colleqe Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 205 £eet and being locatea approximately 28D feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. Assistant 2oning Superviscr Malcolm Slaughter noted the location of subject property, uses estab"iished in close proximity, and the request of the petitioner to withdraw the variance based on the fact that other uses of the property were undi:r consideration, and staff would recommend approval of said withdrawal. _ ' Commissioner Farano offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on i Variance No. 2260 since the petitioner requested withdrawal of the petition. .1 '`~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. :~ ..~ , VARIANCE NO. 226~ - PUBLIC HEARING. ALFRED W. MELIN, 345 Dania Street, Buellton, Califor~aia, ~wner; SAUNDRA L. COLLINS, 2167 +=~ West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; ! requesting WAiVER OF MINiMUM REQUYRED PARKING TO PERMIT ONE COVERED PARKiNG SPACE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ;~,,~~ having a frontage of approxi.mately 63 feet on the north side of Katella - Avenue, havj.ng a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, and being located `: approximately 240 feet east of the centerline o~ Brookhurst Street, and '•'':' further described as 2167 West Katella Avenue. Pro ert fied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. P Y Presently classi- Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the requested wuiver, noting that the petitioner was attempting to legalize the conver- ; sion of one of the required garages to a workshop/workroom - however, y under the or3inance, a two-car garage was required; and that the room was beinq used as a dental lab, a permitted home occ:upation, therefore, the Planning Commission would wish to determine if ther.e were justification - for the waiver requested. ~:~ Chairman Herbst nated the electrical wiring was constructed in this building ~ without having received approval for it. : Mrs. Saundra Collins, 2167 West Katel:.a Avenue, agent for the petitioner, ~: appeared before the Commission and noted it was her intent to continue the dental lab operation in the existing facility, and th3;: they had need for only a one-car garage. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the agent for the petitioner would ~ stipulate to conversion of the workshup/workroom to a regulation two-car `~ garage structure in the event the use was terminated; whereupon the agent for the petitioner stipulated that this would be done in the event the property was sold. ~ ~ i~;. ' .~c .,1., ,' ; ~ ;~ i l~ ~-_ -~~-~.«~-~, s, ~,~, , ~:- ~ ~::~rE~=~--~::..~~- - . - ~~. . . ti ~ ~~ r~•:, .:.:i.._,~.:,,~.,,,,"y ,r ~ - , ~ . . . ~ .'. . . ... ` . ~ -.s~ . _ . 1 . _ E .i . ~ ' . , ~ ~ , ' I ; --- - ---- ' ~;~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 'L, 1971 ~~ 71-331 VARIANCE I;O. 2261 - Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the (Continued) conditions of approval, it being noted that consider- able money would be expended to permit the use estab- lished to be continued. ' The agent far the petitioner then stated that although she was the agent, she did not have authority to agree to dedication, street lights cr street tree fees, or the sidpwalk improvement. ~,,,~ Mrs. Collins further noted, in response to Commission q,uestioning, that she °t:;;; wnrked in the workshop and resided in the home - howeve:r, there was a ,!-:" '!~ possibility that eventually she would have a partrer wY:o would work with ~ her, but there would be no emplopees at any time. ~~,; _, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Further discussion was held by the Commissi~n relative to the requirement ~~ of street dedication, and Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not this could be a condition of dedication subject to offering of said street dedication at such time as Katella Avenue was to be widened or upon demand of the City; whereupon Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that this could be done. ;'~ ~-~ Office Engineer Jay Titus stated that the dedicatiar. would not become effec- '~ tive until such time as conditions occurred whereby street widening was ;:`. .'~ necessitated - then the City could demand said street dedication; whereupon ,,, the agent for the petitioner agrcced to said requtrement. :~ The Commisston then inquired whether the agent for the petitioner would p~~st a bond to in~ure conversion of the existing workroom to a regulation garage ~ at such time as the lease was terminated or the residence sold; whereupon :~ Mzs. Collins so stipulated. ;,-A Commission~r Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-100 and moved for its passage ~ and adoption to yrant Petition for Variance No. 2261, subject to the owners of subject property conditionally dedicating to the City of Anaheim a strip ,`~ of land 50 feet wide from the centerline of the street along Katella :,venue ~ at such time as street widening took place or upon request of the City; that r„ a bond be posted to insure conversion of the workroom to a garaqe when the use was terminated; that the existing structure be brought up to minimum ;~, standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, .~ Electrical, Housing, Mechanical, and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim; that the property shall be developed substantially in ar,cordance with plans and specifications on file with the C~.ty, marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; and that Condition No. 1 shall be complied with withixi sixty days, or such further time as the Planning Commission may gra.nt. (See '';,; Resolution Book) ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, K~~~wood, Rowland, ~ Seymour. NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: None. ;. ABSENT: ~OMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ' ,' .., ~ 4: ;, ~ ?; 'f VARIANCE NO. 2255 - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN HOPKTNS, 711 Central Avenue, Seal '' ~~~~ Beach, California, Owner; EDUARDO ESTRADA, 932 South Kenmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California, Agent; request- ing WAIVER OP' PERMITTED USES TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL TIRE STORE on property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth ~; . of approximately 260 feet, and being located approximately 334 feet west of ~' the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~•. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of `~">` subject p.roperty, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, `~`.; noting that the applicant was proposi.ng a 3800-square foot building having : ~ ('+r ` i'; ~ , . . ' . ~ .. . ~ . . , , . . . . . . ~~f. .. ~ _ ,.y:.:i n,~ ~~_a.Rf'.~_ , . . .. . . .. . . . ~ ~ . !~ . ~. . . . . ~ . . . ~~ ~ . ~ ' ~ ~~~ i ~ b.y's ' ,...-.~..T~~. : , ~ i ,~ 4 . ~ ~ ~_ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 2, 1971 ~J ~.l~ 71-332 VARIANCE NO. 2255 - a sales room and five automobile service bays; that all (Continued) site development standards nf the C-1 2one were being observed, including the required 35-foot setback along Lincoln Avenue; that the plans indicated a proposed pole siyn located approximately 32 feet from the westerly property line, whereas the ordi~.ance wou13 require the sign to be at least 40 feet from that property line; a!.: that given the surrounding land uses to the east and west, the proposec: use would not appear inappropriate - however, the Planning Commission might wish to inquire as to the proposed use of the rear 120 feet of the property. Mr. Ed Estrada., agent for the peticioner, appeared before the Commission and submitted a drawing of the propose.d building, noting that the property to the east was zoned C-3, and the property to the we~t had a restaurant on it; that it was proposed to establish a Uniroyal tire facility; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated that the rear 120 feet was plar.ned to be left vacant for future developmen~ of a covered storage area since there would be no outdoor storage prop~sed, therefore, this would eventually be developed as a warehouse. ~~;_ Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner w as aware of the location of the sign; whereupon Mr. Estrada stated that the w ;;; y ere unaware, however, they would relocate the sign in accordance with th ,;'(j e Sign Ordinance. ; +~ 6~f ~,: Nu one a eared in o PP Pposition to subject petition. .. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ; . i ~ ~~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-101 and moved for it L ~ s passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2255, subject to conditions (S R . ee esolution Book) 3 :.~, : ~ ,..,:_; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following v~te: , ~ . ~ AYES: COMMiSS20NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, S ; eymour. ;~ +s ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. "r ~;` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. uRi'. . ~~VMj ~ ,; , VARIANCE N0. 2263 - PUBLIC HEARING. KENNETH E. SARVAK, P. O. Box 2880 ..~ , Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM ~^. ^~' REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS on property descr?bed as: A rectangularly-shaped arcel f l ~' ~~ p o and having a frontage of approximstely 74 feet on the south side of Lin l ;~ co n Avenue, having a maximum depth of appxoximately 200 feet, and being located I ~ approximately 654 feet west of the centerline of Dale Street, and further describ d ~ e as 2840 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMi;RC2AL, 20NE. a Zoning Supervisor Charles Rob'erts reviewed the location of subject pro ert nses .,,~ .S p y, established in close proximity, and the waiver requested, noting that subject ro t ` ~ r' ~h. -r p per y was zoned C-1 under Reclassification No. 70-71-16 as part of a zoning action l _ rec assifyinr the property to the east to R-3; that subsequent to th ~ e approval of ti ^ C-1 zonir.;, the applicant received approval of a varianc t ~ g ' i e o permit u5e of the existing residential structure as an office with parkin in th f ~ ~' g e ront setback area, this having been approved in January, 1971; that the applicant n ` ~ ' 1 ' - ow proposed to completely remodel the facade of the structure and construct t ~ ~' ' an ex erior elevation extendinq from the easterly property line to the westerly ro p perty line, and due to the R-3 zoning on the property to the east, a minimum 10-fo t ~. ~ ; o setback would be required along the east property line - however the - ; ~, , car ports for the R-3 property were abutting the easterly property line, therefore th ' , ;,.; J c,. , e applicant s proposal to extend his walls to adjoin the car- port walls would ,, a.. _ :;~ not appear objectionable. ? ~~ Mr. Ken Sarvak, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the were tt . ; y a empting to convert the ugly building into a professional ; appearance; that they had spent considerable money on the inside of this 1` .+; ~ property; that the development to the east was a three-million dollar development and th ° ~;;' , ey we ~ attempting to tie ?n their development with :.~c •..' ;. s , .. . y: ~ `~ - <m:: ~.,..;~_ v~` : , _ . ~__, _'~ ~ . I ,~i- . ~ --- -- 4 ~ , , . ~ V r"~ ----- ---~ ~ ~+ `~.J ti MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSIpN, ~une 2, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2263 ~1-333 - this adjoining property; and then in response to (Continued) Commission questionin g, stated that it was their intent to provide landscaping, however aqreement with the contractor of theyapartment complex to the east to install the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, etc., but they did not realize this would be a six-months' proposition, but it was their intent to landscape the area. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, PC71-102 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2263, subject to conditions, and the stipulation of the getitioner that landscaping would be installed upon installation of the sidewalks and curbs. (See Resolution sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ur. ASSENT; COMMISSIONERS: None. ~, VARIANCE N0. 2264 - PUBLIC HEARING. STANDARD SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2415 South Manchester Avenue, Anahei "' ~ m, Ca23fornia, California, Agent; requestingCWAIVE e y San P d M 4 G . , e ro, R OF SIGN on MAXIMUM PERMITTED property described as: An i HETGH'T OF A ROOF < ~i rregularl a frontage of approximately 184 feet on the w having a th r d es side of maximt~m depth of a Manchester AVenueg mately 1 100 f o B f d , eet north of the being located a centerline oxi- of Cha~man described as 2415 South M Avenue , and further anchester Avenue. Pro ert C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, p Y Presently classified ~,,;~d ' ' 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed th~. uses established i locatio ` ;~ n close proximit n of subject property, square foot roof si n on th l to establi h a g ~~ , s e existin a 220~ office buildin sign would be 43 g feet, 5 inches above g% that the tcp of the O ~=~ rdinance the maximum sign height aboveround level; that under ths Sign to th r ~, '~! 4 aund Ievel would be 35 feet due e proximity of. residential land uses to th Commission ` '.v e west therefore, the would have to cietermine whether there w the waiver r ~ ;t as an equested, y justification for `a x' i Mr• Paul Ta lur Y , 10605 Dixie Drive, representing the a indicated his r ? p gent for the esence to answer questions. petitioner, ' ~ y Chairman Herbst inquired why the petitioner could not inq the sign i i, ; comply with develop- n accordance with the Sign Ordinanc ~ ~ e. Mr. Taylor replied that the buildin w d .,~ g an as 25 feet high and 100 feet long, the aagle of the building was such tha the si n if h t one 3 w would not be ahle to see e were close to the buildin grade, said sign w l ~ h h "~ ou d disappear from view within t above southerly approach 300 feetwf ,,' . rom the } ~ ;. ';~ Commissioner Gauer noted that a similar pool company had 1 h .~ r requested a sign; whereupon Mr. Commission that althougk RObertsradvisednth th e ~" ~ ;: a , e e Commission had denied the pool si n City Council had allowed the petitione 5. the ~; r. r to go above code requirements. Co i ~' ; : mm ssioner Farano inquired what the lettering on th the readerboard ~ ;. = e sign meant in area, and then the ~ g was to desi nate wnxch Petitioner s a ent explained th g jobs (~~ ~~~ at this and locations were under consideration ,, . No one a ppeared in opposition to subject petition. THt HEARING WAS CLOSED. _ - ,`~~ ~,"~r `,' • -„ .. _. i~ ~. _ - _l _ . ;- V . ~ ~ 4:~' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, ~une 2, 1971 ~ ~ ..J 71-334 VARIANCE NO. 2264 - Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the (Continued) varyinq sign heights in this area, and it was then determined that the pool sign was 50 to 60 feet high, - while the trailer park had been approved for a 60-foot ~'~' height. Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether or not the location of the trailer - park was the reason for the sign height limitation; whereupon Mr. Roberts _. replied that this, in addition to the R-1 properties in the City of Orange to -:~-~= the southwest, limited the height of the sign. ~""`~~ Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether or not the City of Anaheim was required to protect residents of another city when they were not protected `~'.~ .~` as much by their own signing ordinances when one looked at the Holiday Inn ~`_ :~ sign in the City of Orange. ', Mr. Roberts, in response to a question by Chairman Herbst, noted that if there were no residential uses within the area, the sign height could be 1 75 feet; however, it could not be any greater than the distance from the . point of the sign to the centerline of t;ie street, and Manchester Avenue ~ was a 30-foot half-width - therefore, this tvould also be a controlling factor, and the 75-foot high sign would not be permitted. :;I' ; ~. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-103 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2264, based on the fact that .'~" a precedent had been established by prior action of the City Council in approving both the pool sign and the trailer park sign, however, denying the ~ request for the readerboard sign as projected below the main identifying ~ sign area since he would be enjoying a right not enjoyed by other property -''~~ owners, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ±~~~:'''" ';' Seymour. i,'~`<,;-;-~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. 1' '.I VARIANCE NO. 2265 - PUSLIC HEARING. BEULAH MAY CALLAHAN, ET AL, 2067 Narth :--~ Cambridge, Orange, California, Owners; AUGUST VILJAK, ~ 511 North 2eyn Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; ~ requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED `Y RECREATION AREA, (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED TRASH STORAGE AREA, AND (4) VEHICULAR ACCESS LOCATION REQUIREMENTS on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approximately 54 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 112 feet, ` and being located approximately 90 feet south of the centerline of La Verne ;_> Street, and further described as 846 North Zeyn Street. Property presently ~; classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. >ti ' Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, -"'-i~ uses established in close proximity, the waivers requested by the petitioner, ~, and the proposal to develop a two-story fourplex on subject property with 41 a sufficient number of ~arking spaces to meet code; that access would be difficult to all of the parking spaces provided from the alley, as required by code - therefore, the plans indicated that one garage would be located _ on the front of the property with access directly from Zeyn Street; that the ~~ applicant was also proposing to locate the garage walls on the side prope•ty _ line toward the rear portion of the property - however, under the ordinanc.e :'' a minimum 14-foot side yard setback would be required due to the fact that ~~' '''. these garages were part of the main structure; furthermore, this partic:ular "~; waiver had been granted to the agent for the petitioner in the past on another parcel located in the downtown area; and that the other two s?de yard waivers related to the distances between the apartment units and the ;t side lot lines. In addition, the applicant had not made provision for a _ standard trash storage enclosure, but had indicated that trash cans could _" be provided along one wall of the garage area, and in discussing this with the Sanitation Division, they had indicated this was not a particularly ~`, desirable situation - therefore, the Commission might wish to determine ~c ? i ~ ~ . .. .. .r . ;-=`•r".. -~_: .. .._, . . t. ,w. - ~ , _ .. . . . , ~. . ' . . .. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ • ~ _... - - - ~ . . ~ . . . ' '._-`-'- ;w~-~~ . . . -. ~ . . . ~ . . , ~ ~ ' ~ , i ~ ; . ~~: . f N> ,~ ___.-.,_ -r f ~ V U ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-335 VARIANCE NO. 2265 - whether this type of arrangement would be satisfactory (Continued) or whether other arrangements should be made. Further- more, the applicant indicated 'ne had a total of 883 square feet of recreation-leisure area, and if this square footage were provided in areas where minimum code dimensions could be satisfied, it would meet the minimum requirement for the R-3 Zone, but it would appear that the dimensions of the ground floor recreation areas did not meet code minimums. Therefore, the Planning Commission might wish to determine whether or not the side yard areas should be included in the overall calculation of the outdoor living area. '~~''~"~- - Mr. August Viljak, agent for the petitioner, noted that a similar situation ,s_~~,,"~` existed on La verne Street wherein the east side was commercial, having a ~ 18 to 20-foot high wall and the north side had a one-story apartment build- t' ing; that it ivas necessary t~ provide one parking space having access from ~~~ ' 2eyn Street; that a similar variance had been granted two years ago - however, at that time only one and one-quarter parking spaces were required, ~~ whereas now the q q ~ parkin re uirement had been increased to one and one-half; that he was proposing garages rather than carports; that everybody residing ~ along Zeyn Stre?t kept their trash cans in garages and moved them outdoors ~., to be pick~d up on the trash pick-up day - therefore, for the number of people that wculd reside in this development, the location of the trash area, as proposed, woLld appear to be adequate; and that from his calculations, the required recreation area was being met since there was a space of 11~ x 11~ on the north side and an additional 6 x 14 feet on the south side. _ y: Chairman Herbst noted that he did not feel the carport or garage waivers ;~ were of importance, but he was somewhat concerned with the trash storage areas. ~ <;< `'~~ ;.'-~, No one appeared in opposition to sub ect ;:~,~ j petition. - PHE HEARING WAS CLOSED. - Commissioner Seymou:c noted that the request made by the petitioner should - not be construed as having set a precedent since this could apply thxough- out the cit1; however, in this particular area under consideration where the Commission had recommended R-3 zoning, th„re were special pr.oblems, and -~ special problems required special consideration. r~~ ~~ Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-104 and moved for its ~,,, !~: passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2265, subject to y; conditions, on the basis that subject property was a problem parcel because ,~ of its size a;~d shape, and the petitioner had demonstrated that a hardship ,,;;~ would exist if waivers were not granted. (See Resolution Book) ' fi On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote: ~. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, HerY,st, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. %;`~< NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ?;~ti ABSENT: COMMISSSONERS: None. y_. ,' CONDIT2~NAL USE - PUBLIC HEARI.r'G. SAMUEL L, BRYANT, 114 Willowend, ; PERMIT NO. 1241 .~ Houston, Texas, Owner; DICK RHODES, c/o Ashwill-Burke & Company, 8100 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, - California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES z'- TO PERMIT AN ANIMAL CARE CENTER FOR THE TEMPORARY HOUSING AND CARE OF LOST _, AND DISTRESSED ANIMALS IN INDOOR QUARTERS, INCLUDING TRAINING CLASSES ON i~'` ' CARE OF ANIMALS on property described as: A rectangularly-sha ed ~ ' p parcel 'r- located at the northwest corner of East Street and Lacy Avenue, having frontages of approximately 140 feet on East Street and approximately 138 a'' ' ~ ; , ;';~ feet on Lacy Avenue, and further describ~d as 1039-1041 Lacy Ave. Property ':- pre=ently classified M-i, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~. ~ ' 2aning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, ,~ uses established in close proximity, and the request of the petitioner to esfablish a headquarters for the Humane Education Animal Care Center and ; temporary housing and care of lost and distressed animals in an existing ~,:; industrial building; that training classes would be held for humane officers, ',~;- animal control officers, and other persons engaged in the Eield of animal i i , ~} , _ _ .. :a: - ' y' ! . . ~ ~a ; ~~:~. ,. .is'~, , •~~ ; ~ ; { - ~- ~-~ ~j ~,_) ' MINUTES, CxTX,PLANNING COMMISS'ION, June 2, 1971 71-336 CONDITIONAL USE - welfare and controlj that c~asses in pet carP would also PERMIT NO. 1241 be provided; and that the Planning Co~mmisciun would wish -~ (Continued) •to determine whether th~ proposed use was appropriate - and whether any special conditions or xestrictions should , be imposed to insure compatibility with the ~urrounding land uses. Mr. Dick Rhodes, authorized agent for the owner, appeared before the Commis- sion and noted that the concept that was proRos~d would be explained by the - operator; that they had spent almost two and one-half months in preparation of this pefition, however, there would be a great chance that the conditional i` ~'~ use pezmit might not be considered favorably because of misrepresentation '!. since whenever anyone stated the "Humane Society", they automatically conjured ;~; < a picture of a dog pound - however, the Humane Society of the United States _~~ headquarters were working in cooperation with the local Humane Society since there were no facilities similar to this in southern Orange County, and the only other one that had a similar situation was in Marin County; and then in response to Commissioner Rowland's question regarding funding, j stated that this was a non-profit organization. ~ Mr. Herbert Martin, Executive Director of the California branch of the Humane Society of the United States, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was in charge of carrying out this program for a headquarters in Southern California; that funds came from contributions of inembership, wills, and legacies; that they had fallen into a sizable sum of money, and the board of directors directed them to e~tablish this facility; that they had committed themselves to purchasing this property, and this was the type of buildinq in whi~h they could conduct the first phase of their progr.am - however, the humane education could not be conducted fully since they would need an additional 15 acres; that the facility as envisioned on subject ~i property would be totally indoors, similar to a veterinary establishment ':.;~ since this facility would also contain ones that there would be offices and -`;Y} holding areas for sick and unwanted animals that would be held for a given _.~ period of time; that they would be proc~ssing animals through there, and t from a survey made it was possible that they would be processing 20,000 to ! 25,000 animals per year - which would be considered surplus animals; and j then in response to a question by Commissioner Gauer, stated that if they ,:i had a lost animal, it would be handled in a different manner - however, these animals would be primarily unwaated, surplus animals which could he brought to them, and they would determine what to do if they were sick =! cr diseased or problem animals, and if the were y problem animals, these wculd not be put in the community but would be put to sleep; that the proposed use was only fiiling a gap needed in the community, and it was felt the ". ~~, facility would be adequate for at least three years, which would give them further time to develop their center concept; that they had several separate rooms which would have a~oustical ceilings; that the rooms would be baffled and air-controlled; that everything would be totally contained within the building; that the exterior of the building would be left as it was, only that this type of facility would save the City maney; rhat their greatest -~ problem was dealing with people, not with animaZs; that he had been in "ti this field for eighteen years, and they planned to use this facility for ',=:i a training ground for humane and animal control officers; that only three to four persons at one time would be attending classes to work with an i,~structor; that there would be no large classes or school-type operation; that pet care classes would be conducted on a small-group basis, and their experience in the past indicated that people would come with two to three station wagons at a prearranged time to give the children, such as Girl - Scouts and Boy Scouts, training; that most of the educational programs would be conducted in park orograms in school classrooms wherever they ,~,., would be allowed to do so. :+F".' Commissioner Farano inquired whEther or not this organization was engaged in th~ ~~~dical experiments of animals, raising, training, or selling them for commercial uses such as vivisection; whereupon Mr. Martin replied that this was against their basic national policy; that they had worked very t. closely with cities and counties where similar problems occurred, and in cities that would allow this type of operation where there would be problems in the animal control. ~ Commissioner Farano then inquired whether or not it was planned to retain .fGe . the diseased animals in kennels, or would they be taken to Orange County; whereupon Mr. Martin replied that they would put the animals asleep them- selves on the premises. ~ a. _~ ~ ', ~ ._~.. .t .. ~ . . ..1f ' _ . . . ~ / ~ I . . \ ~ ~~ ~~1 ~ J MI~?UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-337 CONDITIONAL.USE - Mr. William Pollack, 1231 East Hampshire Avenue, appeared PERMIT NO. 1241 before the Commission in opposition.and stated that his (Continued) concern was the same as was expressed earlier in the day, namely, that anytime something new entered the neighbor- hood, it.aroused the neighborhood - however, ia his investigation of the conditional use permit petition, it appeared to him that there were some deficiencies, a primary one to consider was off-street parking; that the representative of the Humane Society who had presented this had stated classes would be for no more than three to four persons, however, at another point it was indicated they would have training facilities "" ~" " for groups of Boy Scouts, etc., and one of the requirements of off-street ~, parking was one parking space for each seat in the classroom, or one per ,,; 10 feet of classroom space - this did not include service vehicles which ~f. '); would be planned in addition to the off-street parking - therefore, the .c petitioner must have sufficient space for each vehicle to be stored on the property; that his major cencern would be the manner of disposition of the animals since the petitioner was talking about disposing of 20,006 ~ ~ to 25,000 animals, although he could not believe that they would be dQStroying ":~ that many animals since the County had a disposal area; that the plans ~: did not indicate the area in which these animals would be disposed of; that he would assume they would be attempting to find a home for good animals, or if they were not good, to destroy them; that no met.hod or type of manner. in which these animals were to be destroyed was indicated, and if gas were ;: considered, this would be considered dangerous to the outside - therefore, 's`~': all residents in this area were concerned with the manner in which the animaTs would be destroyed. Furthermore, how were the dead animals to be taken care of after they were put to sleep since they would have to be taken away immediately to prevent obnoxious odors getting into the neighbor- hood; that odors and noises from these animals was also a concern, and ~, further elaboration of this as to control should be made; and that, finally, •;~ he would like to note that the nearest R-1 area had 21 single-family lots ,";~ in the tract, and as the result of a concern of the neighbors, there were ~ 24 signatures on the petition indicating the property owners were not desirous of having this facility in close proximity. , ~,., .j Mr. Martin, in rebuttal, noted that the opposition questioned statements ~;j made abo±it the type of operation, however, since this was completely foreign ;~ to any concept anyone knew, most people expressed doubt; that there were only three areas in California having a similar operation; that the noise and ! odor was also important to them since they would have their offices there, :.~j and they would maintain proper sanitation and eliminate outside odors since "..~ they wanted to keep this as a show place, they would not be permitting any odors to enter the outside atmosphere. :~, Commissioner Seymour requested that the agent be more specific as to the ,`'~ precautions that would be taken; whereupon Mr. Martin noted that the interior - ;' of the uil ing would be divided into rooms, each room would contain fiber- glass for different types of animals in the holding area while they =r were being processed in cleaning and keeping these animals; that in a clean - > environment all the refuse would be picked up, not flushed down the floor _' or out the building; that only one drain was in the building and a 4 x 10- ~i„ foot gutter would go to the common sewer which would be so de~igned that _ it would accommodate collection of animal waste before going to the sewer y system; that this was an outstanding system and was approved by the Building `' Department as to disposal for waste; that they wouJ.d have someone on d.uty on ;i a 24-hour basis, at least one person would be there at all times, and one :`~ person on emergency call at night; that the method in which they woulcl be eutha$ i'~~d~fthe animals, they did not use qas but would be using sodium pent , d in the cases of litters of kittens and puppies which made ';: up a large percentage of the animals coming in, they would be using chloro- ~~: form and placing them ina high altitude chamber,~which was a vacuum-type ;' chamber in which sev nimals at a time woul~d be taken care of, where ~ the air would be~ slmu ate~ -~-^~~~~= ;g, an altitude of 60,000 feet in 55 '' seconds, and at that altitaee death occurred in a very few seconds; that no pain was incurred in Lhis method; that they di_d pot approve of the IIISihfirl '~ of loading the chamber but would have the anima~s in separate cages. Mr. Pollack then inquired, what was his method o€ applying the chloroform; whereupon Mr. Martin replied that they used a spec3al type of box and then *- transferred them into a small carrier - this eliminated a need of taking ~,;. them from one box and putting them in a chloroform box; that the chloroform ; ~ . ~ . .... _ - _ . ~~ - _- r.. ~ ~ "~ .. .. _ .~,. . ' , ~ ` '~ i / _ r. .. . . J ~ . . ~ . . . ~~. ~ , . . I .. ~ . . . . .. ~_/ V MINUTES, CITY FLANNING CAMMISSION, June 2, 1971 \ `} J 71-338 . '~ CONDITIONAL USE - was used in a measured amount prepared by the vet for PERMIT NO. 1241 the number of animals, and the chloroEorm fumes could (Continued) be likened to the odor of paint; that there was a very small amount of chloroform used and this would clear out of the room within fifteen to twenty minutes after the Y.ox was opened; after riyor mortis set in, they would be transferred to plastic bags, then to a plastic container, and placed ia a cooler and frozen and then taken to the processing plant in Vernon - therefore, there would be no reason for any types of nuisances to the outside; that there would be no classrooms, as such, for small children - therefore, one could liken this particular use to a light manufacturing plant when children were brought from school to visit the various plants; that they would discuss with a small talk and teaching aids what to do with animals - hawever, there was no intention of having any classrooms, as such; that they c~uld also not be considered a trade school since they would nee3 larger facilities, and when these larger facilities became available, then they wou2d start their trade school; that there would be a maximum of ten employees, some on split shifts, but the maximum at any one time on the premises would be eight, and the only company equipment they would have would be two emergency vehiclAs in and out, but not parked on there all the time; and that there were 16 parking spaces proposed, with 3 part-time spaces available when the trucks were out. Mr. Pollack noted that Chapter 18.52.060 stated that if this wer•e to be a training ~enter, there would be at least one space per student required 3n addition to the equipment on the property. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the parking shown on the plans met requirements of the City. Mr. Martin noted that there might have been too much emphasis on the trains.ng center, however, this was one portion of the program that sold the idea on this principle since there was a need for a training center of humane and animal control officers, and there were.no such programs in Southern California - therefore, as a training center, this was a misnomer, at least while they were located in this buildinq, since they had no intention of training more than four people at one time, and these would be people who would be coming in from various cities and could be considered as part of the working force. Mr. Pollack asked for further elaboration as to the number of people who wouYd be coming in to see these animals and what type o~ traffic would be generated. . Mr. Martin replied that they did not anticipate the amount of traffic since they would schedule visits.by school children at their own convenience, and these visits could be spread out over the entire day. Others that might be coming there, that might be generating traffic, would be people coming to look for a pet to adopt or brinq in their sick animals, but he was sure there would never~be an increase of traffic into the area of more than 60 to 70 cars per day. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-105 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1241 for a period of three years, subject to a maximum of four trainees on the premises at one time, as stipulated to by the petitioner; that the use of the property as proposed was for three years, and at the end of said time limitation if additional time were requested, this should be considered at an advertised public hearing, the expense to be borne by the petitioner; and that existing landscsping would be replaced, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMTSSIc;NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. +~ r•. ~ '`i" ... , . . .. . . . . . . ` i l i~ •: -- • .~s;„ :. ~w~u~..~df I~. - ~ ~' - . ~~::Y,. ~~~ S:'.w: t ..: .~~J 'i ~ L . ...~rai.~! M1 i . G i i ~ '~. ~J ~ MIAUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, June 2, 1971 'J 71-339 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: J. W. KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., TRACT NO. 7137, 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California. REVISION NO. 4 ENGINEER: Millet-King & Associates, 1335 West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California. Subject tract, located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana River channel and east of Imperial Highway, being a portion of a 90-acre ~arcel, is proposed for subdivision into 278 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7449 and 7450. ~" ':?'. Zoning Supervisor Charies Roberts noted for the Commission th~• location of ~ subject property and the proposal to subdivide su~ject propert,y into 278 ~; I.'~ R-2-5000 zoned 7.ots; that since the tract had been approved greviously, the ~' ;j proposed subdivision merely divides the original 90 acres into three separate - ~ tract maps; and that all the conditions previously requlred were still i; '~ applicable. ~~~ Mr. Jeff Millet, representing *_he engineer, appeared before the Commission _ and noted that the park and recreation fee had recently increased and inquired whether this would apply to subject property since the tentative tract map :~ad been filed prior to the increase. ~ Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the engineer ~ and the Commission that the City Council's action became effective January 1, _ 1971, and that in order to qualify for the lesser fee, a building permit would have to have been issued prior to that date. The~efore, since the property still was not zoned and no building permit was issued, the increased Z fee would apply, however, there was nothin<T the Commission or staff could do since this was a Council act.ion. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the previous discussion '~ held by the Commission regardinq flood hazard problems in this area, and Mr. Millet, in response to Commission questioning, stated they had a flood ~~„ hazard letter. I?~=E:'-`ci The Commission then determined said letter would have to be a part of the tract file; therefore, a condition of approval should require the submission of a favorable flood hazard letter from the Orange Counf:y Flood Control District. ~' Offire Engineer ,7ay Titus inquired whether Mr. Millet was familiar with the VTN report; whereupon Mr. Millet stated they were fully aware of the report "~! since this would mean $180,000 worth of storm drains they would be install- ing, and they were now trying to determine whether the County or the City of Anaheim would participate in the cost of these storm ~lrains. Mr. Millet then inquired whether Condition No. 14 regarding Lot No. 278 could not also be met by the filing of a parcel map; whereupon Mr. Titus stated ;:;'~ this could be done. '3 "`~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. " 7137, Revision No. 4, seconcled by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED {,~ tCommissionexs Farano and Rowland voting "no"), subject to the followinq conditions: (1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 4, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-70-25. _---" (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- ;: division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative ~:~ ~~ form for approval. (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall ~ shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot t Nos.7.6 thru 38 and 148 thru 155 and La Palma Avenue; that a 6-Poot 1 i, .. -.: ;:. ._ ~ e-~-,:. - ..._.. .. ~~ a. . .. ...~ ,..v:~.- . ~. ~ . . . .. .. . ~ ~ ~ . .. .. . . . ~~ . " . ' - - . . . ~ . . _ ~ . . . . . . , . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ' . ~ ' S 0 , ' ~ • , ~~ _s ,~ . ~ # ~ o' ~ ~ ~: ~i, _ ~P - ;:r~ A,l `'~ ti 'si: `-_-~:, s~~ ~' ~ ~'~ ~. • . ~3 ,'~ i ' .q~.• , ~.i'.'~ 4i;. .~~9, i ' 1 y ::R't~ ;~~;~1 ~; r- ' 14~•::1.. ~'~.~1 ~~',' . ' -- ~,. ~ ; ~.~ ~ ~ J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS~;ION, June 2, 1971 71-340 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7137, REVISION NO. 4(Continued) masonry wall shall be constructed on the property line (toe of the slope) between Fairmont Boulevard and Lot Nos. 11 thru 26 and Lot Nos. 38 thru 55. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed•in the Lncemented portion af the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parxway Maintenance. Follewing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (4) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (5) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (6) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (7) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (8) That the alignment of La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (9) That the tract developer shall place the ultimate embankment for Fairmont Boulevr~rd, and install reasonable slope landscaping, including irrigation facilities, in accordance with the require.- ments of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Fo~lowing • installation and acceptance the City of .Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (10) That a 5-foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the south side of La Palma Avenue in accordance with City of Anaheim requirements. (11) Tha*_ reasonable landscaping, includinq irrigation facilities, shall be installed in tHe south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation Department. Follow- ing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (12) That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Drainage facilities of the tract shall be adequa"te to accept drainage from any upstream tributary area. (13) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Counr.:il, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (14) rhat Lot n:,. 278 shall be included in a contiguous tract, or that a parcel map shall be subm?tted to and approved by the City Engineer for said lot. (15) That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, ~rom the Orange County Flood Control DistXiCt. ~.~~::"~~:~~ . ~'~ ~~~~'. ' ~ . ~ ~ ~: . ...~ -:~ .. ,.. ' ~-:~-~1 . ul'. u.~.- . . .. ~ .. . . , . . . . . ~ ~ . / . .~ " • _ "' , _ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ . . _. . . . . .. . ~ . ~ . .'} _ ~ .~:~L ~_ • ~~ ~ ~ - - ~% _ ~ ; - ~.,._ ~ , ,; . { _ i (l ~ ~_) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-341 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Subject tract, consistin P TRACT NO. 7450 proposed for subdivisiongintoag2~Rt2~5000 zonedrlotsis =~ ~ Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Tract Nos. 7137 and 7449, ~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, secondefi by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Farano and Rowland voted "no") to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7450, subject to the following conditions• r ~~ ~, ; ~;~t x .-' .. ~ z f,,. } ix. I~..,. .,, , i' ~~' ' `! ,~ ,ii! ~`;~ . . . ~ ~, a, t_::' (1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7450 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-7p-25. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than nne subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos.l thru 19 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installPd in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the zpproval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following instaliation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (4) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings ~o~-LanEalma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (5) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (6) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (7) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (8) That a 5-foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the south side of La Pa3.ma Acenue in accordance with City of Anaheim require- ments. (9) That reasonable landscaping, including irriqation facilities, shall be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation Department. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscapina,. (10) That drainage of subject tract shall be dispos,ed o,f in a,manner satisfactory to the City=Engineer. ~Drainage facilities~of the traat shall be adequate to accept drainage from any upstream tributary area. (11) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (12) That the alignment of La Palma Avenue shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (13) That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control District. ~~„" . ----- _ __ ...__. _.. .._... ~^ . . . . ~ . . ~ .. ___..._......_r1---_•... . .... . _.. . ... ~~ .' . . , ` ~ , ~ ;~" ~ i ~a ~ ~ . . . . . ; , ~ ~ . , ~ ~ _ . ~ . . . . ~ . ~ ~~~ " ....__.~ . . \~ ( ~ `. ~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIG:~, aune 2, 1971 71-342 ~ ~ TENTATIVE MAP. OF - Subject tracL; consisting of a portion of 90 acres, is TRACT N0. 7449 proposed for subdivision into 73 R-2-5000 zoned lots. ' Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Tract Nos. 7137 and 7450. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Farano and Rowland voting "no") to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7449, subject to the following cpnditions: { ~ (1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7449 is granted subject ' _ to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-70-25. ~ ' ~ ' _yM~4 I (2) That should this subdivision be d~veloped as more than one subdivision, ' ; ~ each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative £orm for .~ ;~ ,, approval. :4: I (3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos. 1 thru 10 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion ! ~ of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans ' for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval ~ i of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation i - and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. (4) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. ~u (5) That all l~ts within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. : ~ (6) That a final tract map of subject propertv shall be submitted to and - ~ approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of ~ the Orange County Recorder. •; ~ ;~ (7) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to t~ approval of a final tract map. ~ ~ ~ ;<'~ ,,,,,'y~ ~ (S) That the alignment of La Palma Avenue shall be subject to the approval `~i*?. ''' ~ -:..;-~~i . , of the City Engineer. ~ ,i* ~' . . ~ I I . c yl (9? That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall ?''r 1 " be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said '; ,,;~ landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the ' _ Park and Recreation Department. Following installation and acceptance, ~ `' ~ the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance s `" ~ of said landscapinq. y ;~ (10) That drainage of subject tzact shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory `:~ to the City Engineer. Drainage facilities of the tract shall be adequate ~ : to accept drainage from any upstream tributary ar.ea. ~ ' , . _ (11) Tliat the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Councll, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. $ (12) That the developer shal7. obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, " acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control District. s!' '', ~' ''~' ADJ'OVRNMENT FOR DINNER: ~ ~ Commissioner Seymour of~ered a motion to adjourn the meeting for dinner. '~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOT20N CARRiED. The meeting Y adjourned at 6:07 P.M. = RECONVENE: Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 7:40 P.M., Commissioners Allred and Rowland beinq absent. ~~;. '',~f;! :: ' , ~ _ ~,. ,_ -__ _ __ . .__ , . . _.-. _,_,~~~._,__ , x- _y:- ~ __ ., ... , ~Y- ,,~,~,y „ , _ - °- - . ~f a'. . . . ' . _ L t. ., ° j.. , . . . . . . . . . . ..«.1 . . ~ I - ~ ~ ~ _ . _ . ~ _ . . . ~ .. ~ . ~. _ _a _ I ~ ii . ~ 'i I ~~J ~ MTNUTES R CfixY ~I,p~NN~NG COt~M~~S•S•ZON ~ rTi~1~e 2~ ,1971 ~~_~ 71-343 AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING FLAN NO. 95 _ COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, -1, California; to consider modification of the originally- ~'~' adopted secondary access points for properties front- ing on the west side of Euclid Street between Oranqe Avenue and Broadway. REC,LASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOE Y. LEMONS, 1808 West NO. 70-71-54 Chalet Avenue (Parcel A) and WALTER A. DIEHL, 1731 South Euclid Street (Parcel B), Anaheim, California _ _ CONDITIONAL USE :.. ~,: ii~. .,!'~ ,~~ '~ :;f 'R?i~~~r:~.~`z ,: Fj; - ~~' r~: >~c`., _ x._ o; - Owners; F. EARL MELLOTT, 810 Avocado, Brea, California, PERMIT NO. 1236 Agent; property described as: Parcel A- A rectanqularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately VARIANCE NO. 2253 170 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 111 feet, and being located approximately 330 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Parcel B- A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land havina a frontage of approximately 66 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, and being located approximately 494 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 439 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE for both Parcels A and B, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-A~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (PARCEL A); C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCEL B). REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN ANIMAL CLINIC ON PARCEL B. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR PARCEL A. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of May 3, 1971, to allow time for the Commission to advertise the area development plan and for the petitioner to submit revised plans. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUHLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPANY OF PERMIT NO. 1237 CALIFORNIA, P, O. Box 7600, Los Angeles, California, Owner; SHERMAN NINBURG, 8125 Orangethorpe Avenue, to ESTABLISH AN AMBULANCE SERVICEaINfArRESIDENTIAL STRUCTUREgWITHmWAIVER OF THE FRONT LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA LOCATION on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 61 feet on the west side o~? 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 prese~ztly classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject peti,tion was continued from the meeting of May 17, 1971, to be heard in conjunction with Area Development Plan No. 95. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that item Nos. 18, 19, and 20 were interrelated, and 19 and 20 were dependent upon the outco:ne of the action on item No. 18 - therefore, he would review al: items at one time. Mr. Roberts then reviewed Area Development Plan No. 95, noting that the area under consideration was located on .*,he west side of Euclid Street between Broadway and Orange Avenue and was one of seventeen areas designated for front-on conversion to office and professional or general commercial uses in "A Study of the Problems of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways" which had been considered and adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council about three years ago; that in order to implement said Front-On Study, the Commission initiated Reclassification No. 67-68-99 proposing C-1 zoning for parcels in the study area of Area Development Plan No. 95, said reclassification and area development plan had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission but denied by the City Council - however, in July, 1970, the area development plan was readvertised in con- junction with a reclassification and variance petition for C-1 zoning to permit the conversion of an existing residential structure into a real estate office on a parcel midway in the study area, and, again, the Commis- sion recommended approval of both the area development plan and the reclassi- fication since it was determined that a secondary access was necessary but it need not necessarily be a dedicated access system - since this access would serve only a limited number of parcels, it would remain a private access; i~A:..~i~'~' - ~ . _ _ - ~ -'-.~~. - • : ~ _ ~ _• - i I ! . ~-'~ ~.a~e . . , ~ `; C~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 2, 1971 71-344 AREA DEVELOPMENT - and that the City Council subsequently approved the PLAN NO. 95 area development plan, reclassification and variance as recommended by the Planning Commission. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-54 Mr. Roberts note3 that Area Development Plan No. 95 was CONDITIONAL USE again advertised after the Commission considered a PERMIT NO. 1236 conditional use permit to establish an ambulance service VARIANCE NO. 2253 in an existing residential stsucture on the parcel immediately to the south of the study area, noting that CONDITIONAL USE the parcel was originally excluded from the study area PERMIT NO. 1237 because a conditional use permit (1015) had been (Continued) approved for the expansion of a service station at the northwest cornez of Orange Avenue and Euclid Street. However, the oil company had indicated they had no immediate plans to exercise the conditional usE permit and, consequently, decided to lease th e property for other commercial activities - therefore, it was hoped a repr esentative of the Union Oil Company would be present to clarify this aspect of the area development plan. Mr. Roberts then reviewed Exhibit "B" prepared by staff which reflected the relocation of the center access to the southerly boundary of the property considered under Reclassification No. 70-71-3 and the northerly boundary of the property under Reclassification No. 70-71-54 and had further relocated the southerly access to the north side of the southernmost parcel - that portion formerly considered and approved for expansion of the service station site, and now being used for an ambulance service - however, it would appear that so long as the existing structure was located on the property, it would be virtually impossible to provide the necessary 10 feet or to implement the proposal until the structure was removed on said south- ernmost parce].; and that the Commission wculd have to determine whether Exhibit "B" represented a more desirabie methad of developinq the secondary circulation system for this area. However, staff would advise the Commission that the conditions originally imposed in their approval of Area Development Plan No. 95 would be sufficient except that reference be made to Exhibit "B". Mr. Roberts then reviewed item No. 19, Reclassification No. 70-71-54, Conditional Use Permit No. 1236, and Variance No. 2253, noting that said property was immediately to the south of the property considered under Reclassification Na. 70-71-3 in 1970; that the petitioner was requesting a variance to permit an R-A parcel of less than an acre to remain after the northerly portion was reclassified to the C-1 Zone; and that an animal clinic was not a permitted use by right in the C-1 Zone - therefore, approval of a conditional use permit would be necessary; that the revised plans under said conditional use permit indicated a 1200-square foot building along the Euclid Street frontage, with parking provided to the rear and access to the parking would be provided from the access point indicated in Exhibit "B" of the area development plan - however, because a building abutted the R-A parcel to the south, a building setback waiver was required, but given the commercial designation of the parcel, said waiver could be considered technical; and that the revised plans appeared to be a far better solution in the develop- ment of the parcel than the original plan - therefore, the only question for the Commission to resolce was the appropriateness of the proposed use. =I Mr. Roberts continued to review item No. 20, Condit~onal Use Permit No. 1237, in which a request was bef~re the Commissioz to permit an existing ambulance service as a conforming us:, wherein the frc~nt yard was being used for the parking of the vehicles, while Code would require the use of an existing " rea.idence for commercial uses to maintain the front area fully landscaped ~; and all parking required to the rear of the structure; that complaints had ~' been received from neighbors concerning the noise created by the siren; that the front setback area was almost totally void of any landscaping; and that ;^ the front yard was paved and presente~i a rather unattractive appearance - therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether an ambulance service operated out of the existing residential structure would be an appropriate use for this neighborhood or whether it would be r_~eating a ;~ . nuisance in terms of traffic and noise to the immediate area. *';` ~/~.'! `-' i '_~ ~f . __ .,.r', r~, dP . . . ..,. ~. ._ . - _ ' `~ I ~:~ .. .. , ~ ^ ~ ~,; ~ i O l.L, (,~ MINUTES, CI~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 2, 1971 71-345 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Dr. Paul Lindstrom, 444 North Euclid Street, appeared FT,AN N0. 95 before the Commission and noted his questi~n pertained - to the fact that if Exhibit "R" were adopted rather RECLASSIFICATION than Exhibit "A", how binding would the new exhibit be. N0. 70-71-54 Furthermore, if he opened an office in the northernmost CONDITIONAL USE residence in the study area, his rlients would have to PERMIT NO. 1236 go through an alley to gain access to the parking area VARIANCB NO. 2253 of his parcel rather than having direct access from Euclid Street. -- ~~ CONDITIONAL USE ~ PERMIT NO. 1237 Chairman Herbst noted that the purpose of the area ;~t;~;:;°': (Continued) development plan was to eliminate individual lot access from and to Eu~clid Street at the time the properties 5:~. were developed for commercial uses, since this would present too many conflict poinits along a heavily-traveled street. However, ` the exhibit before the Commission indica::ed a typical alley, but its location i ~ , was not fixed, and it might even be moved - however, he felt something should be done to remove the hammerhead from the northernmost lot - therefore, the -,"; access could be moved to be located between the two northernmost parcels and '` eliminating the hammerhead, but still providing access to the parking area, " but this would have to be approved by the City Engineer. ° ~'~ r'; Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the p y pro osal b rri `"~ Chairman Herbst would appear to be agreeable, however, it would depend upon ,,,~ who developed first and tne need for circulation. ryG., ° Mr. Roberts then read Condi.tion No. 1 of the Planning Commission's resolution ;.M.. ±µ{ recommending approval of Area Aevelopment Plan No. 95, Exhibiti "A" and noted V y~ ` , that this would mean it wovld be up to the discretion of the Traffic Engineer ._ ,j a as to where the precise locations of the accessways should be. ~ ~ Commissioner Seymour noted that this could present a problem since, as °v" ~ Dr. Lindstrom stated, everybody naturally would want the return on their '' property so that their clients might have easy access to their property, and ;%.~,:;;a it would appear that the last ones to develop would suffer from having in- ~;~. adequate access to their property. ~ Commissioner Farano noted that by including the lot on the southerly end, ~ ~~ this eliminated the hammerhead and alley. ;1 .~~ Mr. Hal Tolar, 42~ South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and j~~ noted his property was immediately north of the center access on Exhibit "B" ,;.,r:~ and that in order to obtain tk~e C-1 zoning on his property, he was required `"-~- to dedicate the northerl 10 feet of his p y portion of his ~`F Y pro ert where a '..;;;i- parking presently existed, and he wondered whether or not the 10 feet for ~ the south si.de would be an additional 10 feet. ;~,~ Mr. Roberts noted that the 10 feet required for a private access on the north ~ side would be eliminated if the Commission approved Exhibit "B" providing ;- ` i' the access on the south side, and then inquired of Mr. Tolar what the distance ``~ was between the southerly property line and the wall of the structure; where- _ upon Mr. Tolar replied approximately 20 to 25 feet, and that the alley to the north now came to within 5 feet of the oroperty line - therefore, ~ ~ it might be necessary to provide parallel parking. ~ Mr. Roberts then noted that although he did not view the property, from ~ photographs it would appear there was more than 20 feet, therefore, by re- ~F orienting the parking, providing approaches toward the northwest, Mr. Tolar l~;'- ' could still provide angle parking along the accessway if it were relocated a.. '. s to the southerly boundary of his property; anci that although Mr. Tolar ;~ ,:" indicated he had dedicated the 10 and 20 feet for alley purposes, these ~~; ' ;-;~;~; were private accessways and no dedication was required to be made to the -' ~ City. Furthermore, if subject accessways were private, each property owner A;;- ~,'~ in the study area, upon rezoning the property, would have to file mutual Y access agreements over the alley system. I ~: _ Mr. Tolar inquired why the alley could not be extended from street to street, as was evidenced adjacent to the R-1 south of Orange Avenue, and why wasn't ` ' Union Oil required to provide this alleyway as all the other property owners ; .*y~ in this study area were required to provide it. In addition, why was the City ::fil: ~~ ;'1 'i i }~, ',~:;,, , ~~. _ ; :.1.. ~ ' ~ . ~.". . ~. -..;- , .. . . ,.. `~ _ '~ . . 1 . ~ j _. , , ~: ,:;.~ .. :' ~ ------------ - ~~~ +~~ , ~ ---- - MINUTES, CZTY ~LANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-346 AREA DEVELOPMENT - requiring this traffic to enter and exit on Euclid Street PLAN NO. 95 since it was his assumption that the City was trying to get the traffic off Euclid Street. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-54 Commissioner Farano noted that it was the City's intent CONDITIONAL USE to eliminate the many individual access points to Euclid ' PERMIT NO. 1236 Street by concentrating them to three given areas, and VARIANCE NO. 2253 .it was not the City's intent to filter this traffic to other streets by providing a through alley to Orange . CONDITIONAL USE Avenue - this would still allow these smaller, single- ~~.:::.`_;- - PERMIT NO. 1237 family lots to develop or utilize their existing t ; (Continued) structuras. i' Mr. To~ar indicated he was not opposed to Area Develop- ~r ment Plan No. 95 but th , ere were only 10 parcels compared with the 14 parcels `0' on the east side of Euclid Street, many being 220 feet dee not required to provide an alley - therefore, it would a P' and they were ~` less traffic from the smaller PPear there would be side; and that he preferred thatrthesalley extendhallatherwayeto~Orang~east ~. Avenue, giving him only access from Orange Avenue. The Commission noted they were trying to avoid such a situation; that the City was attempting to eliminate as much blacktop in the front setbacks as =;s; possible on the smaller parcels on the west side of Euclid Street, while ~g those parcels on the east side had depth to provide their access and turn around to the rear of the buildings. Commissioner Farano then inquired of Mr. Tolar what advantage there would be ~~ to providing only access via an alley to these 10 g ~~`:"',~'` whereupon Mr. Tolar replied that if all these Parcels from Oran e Avenue; ~j dump more traffic onto Euclid, and by extendingathelalleyeto OrangeyAvenue, ,~ ~' this would eliminate some of the traffic to Euclid Street; and that there was ,~ a possibility that the southerly access might interfere with gettinq into the ~ left-turn pocket at Euclid Street and Orange Avenue. ti~ Mrs. Cecile Gough, 421 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission y and read a letter of opposition (copy on file) and then inquired why the area development plan was passed without any opposition in 1970 when all "'~+ the neighbors were in opposition in 1968; and that she had ' %~ polled 33 of her ,r neighbors who had stated none had received a legal notice at the time the „i area development plan was considered in 1970. ~,:? ?;'<~i 1~ , I Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 8:20 P.M. ,',. Mrs. Gough continued that the optometrist's office which Dr. Lindstrom had :-;~ planned for the northerly parcel several years ago would have been better r than what was now happening at that home, which was rented to "hippies", and there was anywhere from one to fifteen persons there every day; that the ~ police blotter would indicate what was going on at that home; that although the Commission stated they did not want parking of vehicles in the front `,;h t setback, they should see this parcel whnre anywhere from 12 to 15 cars ` f parked on that front ~etback every night; that she would agree there were ~;`~' many cars on Euclid Street, but after having made a count of vehicles going in and out of the Taco Bell across the street, sne had counted 210 cars in ,' and out in one hour; that the Tolar property did not have anywhere near that many vehicles in a day; and that she pleaded with the Commission to reconsider Area Development Plan No. 95 by denying it. ~•' ` Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that according to records wherein duplicate *,r , ~' lists were maintained in the file, over 100 persons had been notified in 1970 ~:: regarding the area development plan. 31~~. C.~mmissioner Gauer noted that he could not recall ever considering these purcels without someone being present, and from his recollection, there were many people present at all the hearings, and that in the many years he had y- been a Commissioner, this was the first time that he had every he-3rd no one Z. had received a legal notice. ~.... ti.": S~ f.= 1 ~~- ,:~~_+ i_~ r:.i`~ ~.. ~ ~~7~?~` _ _ - . ~s _ . . . ~ - .~ , ~. ~ .. ~ _ . . . . ~ '. • . . . . .. ~ ~ . ,. . ~ _a I M.> >. ;~b.• ; ~. L ~; -.'4 ~ :~~ ~~ S:: ~h ;t ?. ~~.~ .;. ' . Y`' _ ~,' ~ .i:c '~. 1: i ~ '. 1 ` 1„1-~-~~` ~ `, , ~J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 cj 71-347 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Commissioner Farano noted that according to the minutes, PLAN NO. 95 as far as he could determine whether or not the same procedure had been followed, in every instance where RECLASSIFICATION peopJ.e had stated they did not receive a notice, upon NO. 70-71-54 investigation from records staff maintained, all were CONDITIONAL USE sent a notice and none were returned - however, the P~RMIT NO. 1236 City had no control as to whether or not the VARIANCE NO. 2253 delivered them, and as a Commissioner, he felt~theoffice Commission was attempting to help the residents of these CONDITIONAL USE homes on Euclid Street, but from some comments it would PERMIT N~. 1237 appear perhaps this area de:°~?:~pment plan should be (Continued) scrapped; that one of the reasons for an area development plan was to encourage land assembly since these lots were too narrow and shallow to be considered adequate for commercial uses of any substantial development, particularly when one considered the setbacks that would be required and parking required to the rear; that the Commission must view any proposal as it would affect the general public welfare, and he would never act upon a proposal that did not have a good traffic pattern or planning factor - what prospective developer would consider purchasing a piece of property for a suitable and reasonable development that did not have good setbacks since it was his experience that development occurred in a nezghborhood which would enhance the property, therefore, these setbacks were required. Commissioner Seymour stated that the problem was one that these lots were too small individually so that they would not be attractive to an investor, and there were not too maiiy uses which could be placed on these small, individual parcels unless there was land assembly. Commissioner Farano then stated that if by chance the Commission did not reverse themselves, any future alignment for alleys would not be considered, these beinq proposed now should be the last, and properties would have to be developed in conformance with the area development plan exhibit approved so that the last parcel developed would have at least logical circulation, and if a flexible plan were considered, these access points could be shifted as each parcel was being developed, thereby creating a hardship.for the last parcel to develop. Mr. John Lemons, 1808 Chalet, advised the Commission that he owned a parcel in the study area and stated he was not in opposition to the area development plan but requested to be notified if any future consideration were made. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission and the property owners that the list of addresses of people acvised was taken from the assessor's parcel listing, and Mr. Lemon's address was indicated on a copy of the persons notified. Mr. Russell Gray, 409 South Euclid Street, advised the Commission that the ~irst he had heard about the requirement of a 20-foot private accessway to the rear was when his neighbor advised him her property was up for sale, and the prospective purchaser had advsied her that the 20-foot private accessway j would have to be provided - therefore, the neighbor lost a prosp~ctive purchaser because of this. ~ Mr. Tolar inquired whether or not the singlE-family homes to the west would ~ have access over this accessway, and was informed that since it was a private f accessway, there would be no public access from these homes to the west. ~ Mr, R. B. Franks, representing Union Oil Com an ~ and stated that when the conditional use permitywasPaeared before the Commission on which the ambulance service was now located, it wasptheir intenteatathat time to rebuild the service station, expanding it to the northerly parcel - however, because of curtailment of budget and capital, nothiny was done, but they were still studying the property and would make recommendations to management in the very near future as to their intent to rebuild the service station. Then, in response to Commission questioning, Mr. Fr~nks stated that according to the agenda, they were the owners of the northerly parcel on ~ which the ambulance service was requesting to be approved - however, the ambulance service was the lessee, and he was present at the public hearing to make sure that the company did not lose the rights granted under the "~h-~ ~.R"' :.. . . . . . . ', ' ~ ' ' . ! ~. T .1~!'- ,,'~'~! ~ /( G ` ~ -'.,.~1 . _ .~ AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 95 ,r RECLASSIFICA~ION N0. 70-71-54 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1236 VARIANCE NO. 2253 CONDITIONAL USE :~...~~`' - PERMIT NO. 1237 . _,~ ~'; (Continued) cJ 71-348 ~ - conditioaal use permit for expansion of tr°~ `~~:>„vice station site, and he would not concur w`~: ~; a~tproval if it would conflict with or remove the -i~~;~r:t:~:~ r. ~,;~d.i- •1 tional nse permit for expansion of the 3:es~f? ~;~ +r .;;~y.on site. Chairman Herbst then inquired as to the . _~_ , . .,^~Y?.~any's opinion for extending the private alley :r. „: '~,-., z•;• t,p Orange Avenue; whereupon Mr. Franks repl~~•: ti~l~t 'vecause of the required setback, any additional requirement for alley would eliminate a service station at this inter- section. Dr. Lindstrom asked to be heard again and stated that ' the residents of his home were not "hippies" but were ;~ employees of the U. S. Post Office, and just because people had long hair :y did not necessarily mean they were not good people; and that the Commission stated they were attempting to help the own~rs of these parcels by placing the access to the rear - why couldn't access to each parcel be permitted since a building already was on there. ~ The Commission noted that if this were done, there would be another Brookhurst Street, which the City was trying to avoid. s;;, Dr. Lindstrom then suggested that the existing residences be removed and a regular commercial structure built. 7+ " p, ;.: The Commission stated that this would be the logical.way to take care of thir, ~'''".': problem, however, the Goughs appeared to be in o :~ since they wanted to convert their existinq residencetinnthe futureituation ~~ ,`3 Mr. Wayne Gough, 421 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and .,,~ noted his property was to the north of the Tolar property and stated that '.~! the City had estab~ished a precedent for the properties across the street - R~ therefore, he could not see why the properties on the west side should be -;kj pena lized, prohibiting front parking, since this would be cansiderably _g better in appearance. ~~ _;;._, Chairman Herbst noted that plans before the Commission under the next item ~~ gave an indication of what could be done with these parcels if one reall~ ~j wanted to design a worthwhile structure with proper landscaping, parking, etc. , ~: `.~~'~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;:~i >,>.,~ ',~'•~?.~~ Commissioner Gauer was of the opin+.on that if these property owners wanted • `?.; their properties to remain residential, then the area development pl:an should :~;,.~~' be null and void; however, one of the persons speakinq stat~ed ::hat 20 feet ` was taken away from them, but this was not so since this 20 feat would be for private accessway only at such time as someone wanted to use that property i `' for commercial use rather than the existing residential use. ': .` ^: "% ,~,' ,.,;,;: _ :~,;. `.f~! . ;i ~~ ~~: .' -.~. _ Chairman Herbst noted that one parcel already had developed under the area development plan, and another was being considered after Commission action on the area development plan - therefore, said plan could not be scrapped since it had been implemented already; that everyone had a right to request rezoning even though there was no assurance that each application would be approved; that in the past when small parcels such as those ir. the study area were considered for rezoning and area development plans had been approved, most times these parcels did not develop individuall; or at all, and unless parcels were combined for future commercial development, there was always the possibility that variances would be requested. Commissioner Farano noted that he would agree with Commissioner Gauer except that as Commissioners they should do some long-range planning, and perhaps the area development plan should be declared null and void and devote more time and study to another plan, enlisting the cooperation of the property owners for development of a better plan since he did n~t feel the Commission or staff had the market on better ideas, but as a Commissioner, he felt it only fair to explain his position that he would not consider a situation where a property was left to develop in a haphazard manner not consistent with good development policies and which would be in derogation to t}~ neighborhood as a whole. This was not the way to do it. ~~~ ~ .. ~ .. . . ~ ~ . ~~ .. . ~ . . ~.. . ... . .~, . Y . . _ , ~ . ~ . .. 'i : ~ AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 95 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - N0. 70-71-54 ~ CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1236 - VARIANCE NO. 2253 ~ _ CONDITIONAL USE ;.,. ~ PERMIT NO. 1237 (Continued) ~~ 71-349 - Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission as to whether or not the area development plan should be "scrapped"; creating of spot zoning since certain properties were already considered for commercial zoning in the study area; creating a plan that had proper circulation which would be acceptable to everyone; whether or not to consider any reclassification of individually zoned properties, thereby creating spot zoning; and that the City Council had adopted the area development plan, therefore, said plan could not be scrapped without recommendation of the Planning Commission by resolution to do so. f~ Dr. Lindstrom again requested to be heard and stated ;f that in 1968 the Planning Commission had voted en masse for the alley with ~ the stipulation that these properties be zoned C-1. However, the City Council voted this down when Mrs. Edwards and her friends on Falcon Street came in, ~ and with the City Council seeing the opposition presented, determined this was premature. ~ Chairman Herbst, in response to a statement made by Commissioner Farano regarding scrapping the area development plan, stated that one parcel already had been developed and two were under consideration before the Commission later on in the meeting - therefore, any zoning action would be dependent %:; upon wha•`_ action the Commission took on the area development plan. yi : Commissioner Rowland noted that one of the reasons area development plans : were drafted for single-family dwellings on arterials was to forestall the ~i ultimate development of all single-family residential lots as commercial, and if the Commission were to remove the azea development plan Erom this property, he would suggest that the commercial zoning also be removed, rev'erting the property to residential use since the things which made this ;;,. suitab3e for residential use made it unsuitable for commercial use, namely, lack of depth, putting all parkinq in the front; that it was not economical - because it was still subject to the setbacks, and there was no way the Commission would ~31ow that access to Euclid Street~be•tal:en with the amount of traffic already on that street, and if the Commission did allow this, they would be wasting th~ir time at this whole hearing; that at the present time it was proposed ta haue a 20-foot alley access along the rear with an additional 25 feet for accessibility to the individual parcels for parking, and if parking wer.e permi.tted in the front, there was still the setback to ~• ~' be considered in addition to a turning radius, all of which was necessary '4~ for vehicular parktng fAr the front of the property, and the only way he could see would be land asse~blX, and this area had been studied in great depth; and that although the people say they were not given notices, he was sure that °` these were sent out and he would not vote against the plan since this would have to revert to single-family residential uses if the plan was declared - null and void. ~K Commissioner Farano indicated he would not be in favor of reverting to ~;`; residential uses, but he would like to have this area restudied to see if there was a much better circulation plan and inquired whether or not the Commission would be in favor of continuing the area developme.nt~plan for '- four to six weeks to see if the neighbors had a~bet-ter,plan since the Commission had studied this in great depth. Commissioner Rowland noted that the reclassifications before the Commission, one approved and one to be considered, both conformed with the area develop- ment plan, and those properties farther north were much shallower than those `~ that had been considered by the Commission previously; and that he could not °- see that there was any change in the area, except for the rezoning petition before the Commisston. ,~,: Mrs. Donald Edwards, 424 South Falcon Street, appeared before the Commission and noted the reason why the "Falcon Street gang" was against the proposal was because they were told anything could be developed on the C-1 properties, ,?_ ' and that was what they were unalterably opposed to. Mrs. James (Ingrid) Gower, 412 South Falcon Street, appeared before the Commission and stated she lived behind "Weber's World" adjacent to the *f~,' "good doctor's" property and noted that the "Falcon Street gang" would be in favor of anything that would be a good use fo~ the property; that they ` .~e `,- ' ; ~ , . -- ~ r ::.`:` "~ -, ~~ f':. - . ' . . - . ~ r, { , . .. ; - ~ _ ., . ~ • '~ ~ ~ . . ... ~ .. ~ .... .. . _ . . ` . . . i . . ~~~: . ,.._".:.1~ ~ + ~~:v L ,. ' ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ 1~ ~ ~ _ ~ .. . 1.. ~ ___ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 2, 1971 71-350 AREA DEVELOPMENT - had no quarrel with the people behind them, but they '. ~~ PLAN NO. 95 did have some quarrel with the post office workers on " '~ the doctor's property; that the residents living to RECLASSIFICATION the west of the Tolar Realty property advised her that NO. 70-71-54 they were great neighbors; that what most of the people CONDITIONAL USE on her street w2re opposed to was an alley, which in PERMIT NO. 1236 her opinion was a rather nasty business; that Mr. Tolar VARIANCE NO. 2253 had mentioned an alley going from one street to another, and since she had formerly lived in an area where there ~;,~_ CONDITIONAL USE was an alley, she could vouch for the fact that an alley °~~; PERMIT NO. 1237 was an eyesore; that more fights were fought in alleys; `~'`f~~~' ~ ' ~-~~: ~ss (Continued) that it was a breeder of vermin and was one of the most x ~ miserable things that one coa.:.d cohjure up when one spoke ',_ of alleys . Chairman Herbst noted that the proposed accessway would provide additional 3' space between the business and the single-family homes. ,•r Mrs. Gower noted that Weber's World had an area the width of an alley that ~ they used for storage purposes, and there was no truck traffic which most of the residents on Falcon Street were opposed to or concerned about, and that everyone on Falcon Street would be more than happy to consider a good c plan but were unalterably opposed to an alley which they considered a very "' ` poor plan. ~: ~5 !~~ ,~ Commissioner Rowland noted that he would personally recognize the area ,,:~..:~;;~;; development plan utilizing either alleys or no alleys so long as the access s s; to Euclid Street was limited to three access points - this would give all ' the flexibility that was necessary, and that since the City Counc~.l had ~ stated this was to be a private alley, it should remain that way. .~ d ,x~ Commissioner Farano offered a motion to terminate all action on Area Develop- ;;~;:;:'>'~.'.~ ment Plan No, 95 until such time as the residents of this area presented an ~;;',-:~ alternate plan acceptable to the City of Anaheim, and that the existing area ~''i~~.~"'° development plan be restudied for the purpose of establishing another plan 3?;ir.':. _ ~<:?~ ~~^;;~,..,. for a good traffic pattern, overall development not in derogation to any of ~~F`° '~ the ro erties in the stud area. c::~ P P Y ~n :~~ Commissioner Farano then withdrew his motion after considerable discussion '~~ "<i;: by the Commission. C ;~ ~ Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of Area -~~ Development Plan No. 95 for six weeks to allow time for the property owners °"'~~S'~; in the study area and staff to meet to review alternate plans in an attempt ~,`~ to arrive at a better circulation plan than the existing area development >;;-:y: plan proposed. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. On roll call the motion lost by a vote of 4 against and 2 for. -'..;~~;~ Commissioner Seymour noted that he would agree with the Commission and the ';'';~ property owners who indicated this was not the ideal plan, and the staff could come up with a better plan, but if the Commission were planning to ":;;~ continue this matter to make a decision favorably on~ei.ther of the two - t'.:a matters scheduled later, he did not want to have any part.of that since it ;<c~~ was more important to come ~lp with a£irm plan before the Commission app'iove3 anything else or studies ir~dicated there was no need for a plan. Chairman Herbst noted that property owners who wanted to develop their properties had presented plans that were in conformance with the area ~ development plan, and if anyone else wanted to develop his property and s?::,, had a better plan than the Commission presently had, then this could be y _ considered at a later date - however, the City already had an adopted plan ~4~'..?';~: before them, and he did not feel the Commission should reverse their position L•;-.:~~x since the alternate plan was considerably better than the original plan S;>!'_r approved, but to rescind and make null and void any area development plan was ~~"`_ not acceptable to him; that all the Commission had stated that only three - access points should h~e permitted, and nothing would be gained by postponing ~~f this, even though the pra,~erty owners might come up with a better plan. _, "; ~N•. Mr. James Botsco, 413 South Falcon Street, requested to be heard and noted ~ that the homes between the study area and those to the west consisted of *:~ several rows of single-family homes with approximately twelve homes on each r+'~ ~' street running between Broadway and Orange; that many times these property a ~ ~ 6~~ ' ' . - - '~ y ~ . . . ~ . . .. ~ . - ~ - - . . .. . . ~i ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~~ . y~ .~ . ti •.1 y ~~ ;r., ~, _ ----------- ; . r ~ C~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 2, 1971 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 95 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-54 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1236 VARIANCE NO. 2253 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1237 (Continued) ~~ 71-351 - owners had come down to City Hall to defend their Property, and whenever one home was taken out of the tract, this reduced the size of the tract, and he was not desirous of seeing a shopp3,nq center like that already existing on the north side of Broadway - this was the reason for the single-family homeowners coming down en masse; that one property owner had a chance to wasemore desirousdofuretainingshisuhomeiforrresidentialr purposes; and that most of these homes were not walled in, therefore, the longer they could forestall ultimate commercial development of these homes, the better it would be for the City and for the residential uses to the we:st. ~r '~j Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the Commission was faaed with the a' fact that the area deve3o ment ~ P plan had been ado ted ' it was adopted by the City Council subject to conditions Was in effect since y proposal y ;:: before the Commission was subject to the provisions of saidnarea development ,, plan. 1~ , Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission did not have the ' power to revoke 4' the area development plan - they couJ.d only recommend that ' this be revoked. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-106 and moved for its passage ~ ~r~; and adoption to recommend to the City Counail that Exhibit "B" of Area i' Development Plan No. 95 be adopted as providing a more desirable way of developing a secondary circulation system for the area; ' however, that all ~ conditions originally applied to the adoption of the area development plan YY~ under Exhibit "A" be applied to this. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ Prior to voting, continued discussion was held re ardin possibility of 'v eliminating the hammerhead at the northerly end of the study ar•ea, with the r~ possibility of relocating the northerly access between the norcherly two r parcels - this still would permit access to the northerly p~rcel but would '-'~ eliminate removal of so much extra =4 F property to establish said hammerhead. ~= The Commission further inquired of Mr. Franks whether or not he would be ~ '~ amenable to providin ~-.~.. 4~; boundary of che ro g 10 feet for the private accessway along the northerly ~' ~ whereu on Mr. P Perty considered for expansion of the service station; ~ y. P Franks stated he would so stipulate. Mr. Tolar stated that he would be agreeable ~o relocating the accessway to ~ the southerly boundary of the property. :; : ~•~ 1, a;~: ,: Mr. Earl Mellott, representing the property owners under Reclassification No. 70-71-54, advised the Commission that he was the architect on the dog and cat hospital, and if the alley were proposed to be at the n~rtherly end of the property to the north, the revised plans that he had designed would become null and void. Commissioner Farano then amended his motion proposing that Exhibit "B" revised to relocate the northerly access to between the two northerly be __ parcels and the elimination of the hammerhead. „ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer ;; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ' Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~:,'. .. ~1 '~ Mr. Earl Mellott, architect representing the developers under Reclassification ;,.. No. 70-71-54, appeared before the Commission and noted that the revisions were made to the plan on recommendation of the Planning Commission at their public hearing four weeks ago; that in this plan the alley was the north and parking would be directly off, the alley; that theylhaddreduced ~ :~ : the square footage of the building so that it would meet ~ requirements; that additional green area was proposed whichdwouldkadd to ' the appearance of tl:e development; and that in his opinion the revised - _ t~~ E;>;- ' A ,~-_~' ,,., r~ . . _ :u.{~ f ~ .. . _ - ' ~ . , , ~... _.; ,., ::...,_ . . . . .~...1. ~ . ~t ~1~~ ~ ~ . . ~~ ' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ 1 ~,P' ._--- ___ J_ ~ I _ , ., o m ~J MINUTES, CITY PLAldNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-352 ~ ~ AREA DEVELOPMENT - plans spoke for themselves, although an additional PLAN NO. 95 variance was required since the building was relocated '' to the southerly boundar ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION R-A Y. making it too close to the parcel on the south; and then in response to the _ , NO. 70-71-54 Commission's questionin , CONDITIONAL USE would be immediately adjacenttto thetTolarcpropertycto` ' PERMIT N0. 1236 tte north, and that they had made the building as sound- VARIANCE NO. 2253 proof as was possible in accordance with State require- ments. CONDITIONAL USE *~,'N~. - PERMIT NO. 1237 Mrs. Gough then asked what would happen if there were (Continued) several dogs brought in at one time - liow would the ~ ~ #~ barking be minimized. Mr. Mellott replied that the veterinarian :~n` was present; however, from his understanding~pthere wouldVbe~a this property ~ set up so that only one animal would be brought in at one timepsincemthis `1 ~ would be a rather small facility capable of handling a maximum of ten anima2s, ~~ and that there would be little or no overnight maintenance of the animals. 1 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. r~. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-107 and moved for its passage ;'~ ~; and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- ~ tion No. 70-71-54 be approved for Parcel B, subject to conditions and devel- - opment in accordance with Area Development Plan No. 95, Exhibit "B", (See "` Resolution Book) ,G ;.` ~'~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: 4_,,,. ,.;;~ COMMISSIONERS: None. R~;~„:;;;;', ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ; ,. ;~ r, ~ar ;* Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-108 and moved for its passage ~'~t.. and adoption to grant Petition for Varianr.e No. 2253, subject to conditions. a{ (See Resolution Book) ~ . ~ ,F' ;~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ d r 4~k ~ s AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ' x~ ;~, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ( a ~; =~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Allred. ~ y ~.~ " Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-109 and moved for its passage i; . ~~+;~ and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1236, subject + to conditions. (See Resolution Book) i' , ~:' ~ On roll call the„foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 'zr, , ''~ ~;" `~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. '~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSEN/T:~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred. r: v Mr. 3a Ni~ -__ .. • .: ~ g, representing the Southland Ambulance Service, appeared +. ,~ before the ~ommission and noted that they were requesting permission to }° ~: continue operation of the ambulance service at this address; t'~at since ~~,.. .F the property was commercially zoned, they were operating by right, but it { ; appeared they were wrong, and ap~roval of a conditional use permit was h_ '= necessary, and the use existing was compatible with the traffic on a highly- ?=: ~ -:•.:-;~?; traveled street. ~'.:,; µ ~ E'~ ~ Chairman Herbst noted that there had been complaints received regarding the :~, noise of this operation; whereupon Mr. Ninburg replied that they had never "• received any complaints during the two years they were at this location. ~ ,~ Mr. Don Kline, 1023 North Main Street, Orange, appeared before the Commission and requested answers to certain questions since it was his understanding >` that the operation was in existence for two years in the C-1 Zone, and :. } according to the Anaheim Municipal Code, approval of a conditional use permit 1 ~ ~J ~` ~'~ was required - therefore, it would anpear that the petitioner was in violation - '.Y . ... _. j Z ^ .~1- T r,~, ~ ~- - •. . . . . ~ . . y ~ . t~. . ' ~ N r, . _ n_5..~ . .. ~ - . . . . . i . / . ~ . ... . . ~ 1 . .. .. _... . . ' . . .. .. . . .. . . ~. . . . - _ ~ ~ i . ' ~~ . . . _ l . 1 . :1 ~ - • ~~..,.~.~~~ ~ ~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 ~ ~ AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 95 _;.,. ~~ ~ - _ ... ' ;;c C : v ~; , ',i;c ~;~ .~t' :` ~ . RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-54 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1236 VARIANCE NO. 2253 CONDITIONAL U°E PERMIT NO. 1237 (Continued) ~ 71-353 - of the City'e ordinances, and the City Attorney stated that this was a misdemeanor; that the petitioner was only requesting a conditonal use permit after having been in operation for two years; and that since he was also in the ambulance service, he knew that it was necessary to receive approval of a conditional use permit before operation. Chairman Herbst noted that eventually the arm of the law would catch up w~;.:i them, and the Commission had no enforcement on this but must consider any request for land use presented to Ehem. Mr. Kline stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Lowry, and it would appear there was some ambiguity on this particular petition. Mr. Lowry noted that investigation of a use was only made when complaints were received, and the City could only proceed or act on a violation when this was found. Mr. Kline stated that this was a misdemeanor and was punishable by a$500 fine. Chairman Herbst noted th•at as a Commission they were concerned only with land use and not with the enforcement of the An~heim Munic±nal Code. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that Mr. Kline would be given the same courtesy that Mr. Ninburg had received if the City determined that a violation had occurred - any violator is advised of same and tols to rectify this violation by the proper legal steps, such as in this instance the filing of a conditional use permit. Mrs. Cecile Gough, 421 Euclid Street, stated that she had made a similar inquiry regarding this ambulance service as to why it was allowed to continue, and someone stated that Union Oil did not know what was going on on their property a11 of the time; that many of her neighbors were present, but it appeared none seemed to want to speak up in opposition to the proposal, but since they cvouldn't, she would state there was considerable noise; that three to four campers were always parked on the front of the property, and the drivers lived in these campers - therefore, if the single-family home- owners who wanted to convert their properties to commercial were required to have parkinu in the rear, to grant the requested waiver of the required rear yard parking to permit front yard parking would be granting him a privilege not afforded the adjoining property owners; and that she was definitely opposed to the ambulance service because of the manner in which the use of the property was made, as well as the noises created. Commissioner Farano inquired whether Mrs. Gough would be opposed to it if the Commission required that the property be maintained in a more orderly manner; whereupon Mrs. Gough stated that the Union Oil Company owned the property, and everyone must make sure that they agree with everything that ' was said - otherwise Union Oil would not go along with it; that it took two years to catch.'up with this ambulance service, and she did not want to wait one second for fhem.to water another tree - therefore, she would appreciate requiring that•this propert.y be tidied up, whether or not the use was approved for an ambulance s,ervic'e. Mr. Joe Lemons, 1808 Chalet, appeared before the Commission and stated that he represented the adjoining property owner, Mr. A. B. Cox, who was 85 years of age and was unable to be present; that he had been at Mr. Cox's home when the ambulance started up, and the siren started behind the sidewalk, creating a considerable hazard since motorists jammed on their brakes, wondEring where the ambulance was coming from while it was still parked on the lot; and that this was not an area in which to permit an ambulance since there were too many residential uses in the area. In rebuttal, Mr. Ninburg stated that no valid complaint had been presented at the public hearing; that he had been advised that the petition would be continued to allow time for advertising an area development plan, and he could see no reason for improving the property if the use might not be permitted. Furthermore, he could not visualize a better place for the ~'~: ~ . - . ~ :,-f ~s . ' y d i ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~._~ MINUTES, CITY PLAN NING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-354 AREA DEVELOPMENT - use than on Euclid Street which had been widened because PLAN NO. 95 _ , it was intended that it be used for commercial purposes; RECLASSIFICATION and that the ambulance service in its present location, accordin to th P NO. 70-71-54 g e olice and Fire Departments, was an ideal location. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1236 VA I Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not Mr. Ninburg R ANCE NO. 2253 was satisfied with the month-to-month lease since there CONDITIONAL US was always the possibility that Union Oil would terminate E the use. PERMIT N0. 1237 (Continued) Mr. Ninburg replied that Mr. Franks had advised him there would be a decision made on whether or not the station would be expanded, at which time a longer lease would be considered. ` %:j Commissioner Farano asked fcr one good, valid reason why this should be ~ approved since the Unioa Oil Company nade the statement that they wanted the existing conditional use permit to remain in force, and to maintain it ~` in force, they would be opposed to the ambulance service if it meant losing _^' the existing conditional use permit. What incentive would the Commission have to approve this use if the ambulance service was on the property on a month-to-month basis. ?; Mr. Ninburg replied that they needed a place from which to operate. ~. ,,; Commissioner Farano noted that if the ambulance service needed a place, then ~ they should also be willing to make the proper improvements that would make ;.~ the use more accepcable to the neighbors. 5>a ?~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commiseion that a letter on ,,.~,;_~ file from the manager of real estate, Union Oil Company, indicated they gave ~.; '~; i~ their approval in having Mr. Ninburg as their agent in this application, and that the application was leqally filed. < . ~ ,r,';.,,,,`-~~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted that the reason the conditional use permit was before the Commission was because the zone would not accommodate this land use; that not every location was capable of withstanding the impact of every C-1 land use; that he felt the original location of the ambulance service on the east side of Euclid Street was just as dismal as this and i voted that way; and that there were not many land uses in the C-1 2one which could back up comfortably to R-1 -.therefore, these single-family homeowners should not be forced to endure this use. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-110 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1237 on the basis that the proposed use, although commercial in nature, was not compatible with the single-family land uses long established in close proximity; that the proposed use was considered one of the least desirable commercial land uses when established adjacent to single-family residential uses since the,hours of operation and noise emanating from the vehicles were disruptive and dist.urbing~to the health and general welfare of the surrounding area; and that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~":' `: !:Z''. - , . ~j, ~', ~! `i '~ ~ ~' . • - .- A.- ~., ~. ~ ' -5 • ," . f ~ ~ ,,,,.: _: . , ,. ~. . , , _ . _ _ _ i , VARIANCE NO. 2262 - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL ACKERMAN, 1146 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Owner; WALLACE WARREN, ~ 625 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Aqent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ALLOW A REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN A RESID~NTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, AND (3; MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel having a frontage of approxi- mately 86 feet on the south side of Hroadway, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 96 feet, and being located approximately 202 feet west of the centerline of Fann Street, and further described as 1718 West Broadway. ~- '~.,~„.--,, Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~~ 2oning Sugervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a real estate office in conjunction with a residential use; that plans submitted °~` `r were not satisfactor plans, however, these~revisedaplansVwere not receivedtin~sufficientVtime ~ for staff to analyze them; and that Area Development Plan No. 93 should `. also be considered in conjunction with said petition - therefore, staff ~. would recommend a two-week continuance. 1; ~: Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance ,~ No. 2262 to the meeting of June 14, 1971, and directed staff to readvertise Area Development Plan No. 93 to be heard in conjunction with said variance. ;,~1 ''ss~ Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~~ ~ Commissioner Kaywood left the Council Chamber at 10:15 P.M. ;'~; ~j CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EDWIN E. HEACOCK P, .`j~ PERMIT NO. 1242 California Owner; DAN EVANS c o, ~' Box 81, Anza, ' . / Coldwell, Banker & ~+ Co., 2333 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California, Agent; '~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE BODY r;,,,;,. AND PAINT SHOP on pro pert y d e s cr i be d as: An irregularly-sha ed -,~ ~,r P Parcel of ~;.;.;f:~, land having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the west side of Euclid ~h`;`~~ Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, and being located ~:,`~,:~~ approximately 190 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property t$~ presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. ,,a `~C~'1~ ;~y~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, ;';~~ uses established in close pzoximity, and the proposal to establish an auto- = r. mobile paint and body shop in a proposed 7500-square foot industrial building; ?,`.`., that said building would comply with all the zoning code requirements, and ' s{. the only question before the Planning Commission was whether the proposed use ``'~' of the structure was a '~"` ppropriate; and that if it were determined that it was •. appropriate, the Commission might wish to inquire as to where the cars would be stored before and after painting, since outdoor storage was required to ,~ be enclosed with a 6-foot masonry wall. ''~ ~' ~ Mr. Raymond Utin, 3224 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, appeared i,efore th Commission and not d e e that the reques't before the Commission was for a and body shop, all~done indoors a d i ' u , n m nor repairs would be done elsewheret that the proposed operators were availabl ' >? r e to answer questions; that he had represented the applicant in other simil ~ ~ ~ ar areas; that as to storage of any cars, the car driving out would be almost bett ,: ~ s~ er than what was being driven in, and he would re uest 4 permission to allow parkin of th hi u ' ' g ve e newly finished cles outdoors; that they were in a r : : g eement with all recommendations by the Interdepartmental Committee p,, i except for Condition No. 3, which required underground electrical service sin t ~;; '; , ce here was a service availabler although he did not know whether it was from Anahei ~;., " k m or the Edison Company, he did not feel that an underground utility would be justifi d f ~. ~;_ e when others in the area had been permitted to have overhead utilities. ,r; A Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the position of the Cit matter was o if thi h ~~~~ Y` y , n s t ere was no need to place another pole to supply another parcel, no underground utilitie ~ _ s would be required, but if another pole were needed, then this waiver would not be ` ,.. ,:i~ granted. S w~Y ;~~.~:l.:-...'K' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v,;. : i ' ~.,'a' ~ : Y ; ~ ~' . , .. ~ . . . . . ~ .. . . r1 ~ . ._ f:i- . e ` ~ _'S~ ~~ ' - . _ . . ~ . . . . ~ .. . ~ ' ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ . . ; ' ~ .... . . ~ : . .~ -. .~... _ .. . . ~~ ~. . ~ . . ~ . . ~ r. ~ ~,T : ,. _ { _. , - ~ ~ . .. . . ~ .. ~ - ~ ~ - . _ ~ . ~ . t _ ~ _ ...\ ~ ~ ' ~ I i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-356 I CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Utin then ~tated that a former weldin and g painting ~ PERMIT NO. 1242 shop was located on this property years ago - therefore, --- (Continued) he would assume there was an available pole f.or these utilities. ~ , ~ Mr. Roberts noted that if the Utilities Division determined that the applicant's~ ~ request for waiver of this condition was justified, they would respond to a letter if submitted to them requesting waiver. . ~_ ~~ ~~KJ~ ~O:a~~y~, ~ ~ ~ ~ t e ~ • -,,f:. M Sven Harbe 21 EU S et a g , ppeared before the Commission and ' '"~ noted he owned this property for twenty years; that there never was a welding ~>::^;:'!~ or paint shop located there, south of him, since he had resided there until five years ago; that he was concerned about the paint smell since he had been ~ a painting contractor for many years, and there appeared to be no way that ~ : ;~ paint odors could be completely avoided; that each car would re uire a minim q um ~ -a of one to two gallons of paint, and 758 of the gases thrown out would be th ~ rown out into the neighborhood, and only 258 would be on the automobiles; that he knew of no modern equipment spray booth where the odors or fumes ~ conld be completely avoided, and he was concerned that these fumes would ~ ~ spread over the neighborhood, adding to the pollution problem; and that he ~ was opposed to any odors or smells that might come from the proposed use E since he was still residing on his property, ~ ~', Chairman Herbst inquired as to the number of homes that were still located ~ {{ in this area since it was already zoned M-1; whereu;~on Mr. Harberg replied ~ I f that there.was another home adjacent to him, and they did not know what they " u ' ~ ; wo ld :b e •facecl with if this use were approved. ., ; i ~ `' Mr. Utin, in rebuttal, stated that he was in error when he spoke as to the ! location of the property - however, since there were other shops and an {~ alley in this general area, and as to the t~posure and nature of the fumes ~ i _ A which the o osition was o PP pposed to, they had a 49-foot setback and were ! ~ `~ two-thirds of the way south and had an exhaust mechanism on the paint booth; _ that he was responsible for fifteen or sixteen of the Earl Scheib buildings, ~~i~ but in respect to installation of the booth, and all these facilities had ; ~ '' received approval of the Air Pollution Control Board; and that although j ~+ ?~ ~ there were other problems, none of them pertained to the odors from the painz. ! 3i~ r''~ ~ ~ Mr. George Norfall, 501 East Bethany, Burbank, appeared before the Commission i~ and re uested q permission to read a letter from a paint company regarding the xj ` latest results of paints and their approval by the Los Angeles APCD, which ':dfj ` was then read, and then noted that approximately 75 companies used these ;;,',~ ~ ,~ paints in their daily operations and no complaints had been received regard- ':;~' ing any paint odor; that their equipme~nt was the most modern and newest of ':E ` ~ its type with spray booths designed and approved by the fire code require- , !i ments as well as APCD - therefore, he would like to assure the opposition that the odors would be at a minimum; an3 that they presently operated at - four other locations and never had any complaint rega-rding odors of any kind. - v Mr "•NOrfall, in response to Commis'sion questioning, stated that the ' ~ ' vehic•les. would re, sto.r•ed'.toward the ~rear of the building, and the only cars ~~ " " V that would- b e outdoors would be 's"ix to eight painted cars waiting to be ; ; " picked up and were there for display purposes; therefore, any vehicles that were ready for painting would be indoors. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner would have adequate signing for his property since this property would be away from the normal view of the public; whereupcn Mr. Norfall replied that they ,•; proposed ~nly to have their name and price of the paint job; and that they i~_:. would comply with code requirements as they pertained to signing. ~~i Mr. Ricardo Uribe, proposed operator of the facilit , a e he P e ';;; oT Commission and stated he would like to comment regarding the parking r~" storage of vehicles, and if the Commission so desired, they would not have parking of the finished vehicles in the front - however, these would look ~`t ' better than the employees' or customers' vehicles parking in the parking area; and then in response to Commission questioning regarding obtaining germission from the Orange County APCD, stated that before they installed ; their equipment, they would have to apply to the APCD, and they also had ~:` to comply with all City, State, and Federal regulations which were very '~ ;. ~ ' strict regulations. : s ~ . ' ~` _ ii:~.r : : ._ _ -~:... aa ., ,r~. . . .. .i._, » ~1. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ^e , ' ,, ~ . . . . . .. . . . . ~~. - . ~T7.~,+~~ ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~. '~~ . . - _ ' ~ . . .. . . . ~ ~ - ~ . .. ~ _ CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Farano inquired as to the a PERMIT NO. 1242 the building and landsca in PPearance of , (Continued) that the entire buildingPwould~berofpconcretetwitheplate glass windows and doors and either stone or tile treat- would attempt to incorporatedthemtinto~thesbuildind any preference, they comply with code requirements. 9% and that the sign would Commissioner Seymour noted that he would not view favorably any request :, within six months for a sign 60 feet in height. . ~~.•_-. _ ! ~~ _ ~_ ,r `~< Chairman Herbst noted that since the petitioner stated there would be no fumes he wo ld r ' ~ , u not be opposed to the use, and from his own experience, the State law protected workers on the insid d ~~ ' e, an any fumes outdoors would be controlled by APCD since they were ° very strict and the technolo the paint companies had been improvin c i g ons derably since the APCD worked diliqently in suppressing obnoxious odors f , umes, etc. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1 Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-111 and moved for it assa p s ge and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1242 subject to conditio '; , ns, and the stipu].ation by the petitioner that there would be no parking outdoors ? ' except for finished vehicles which would be on display in front only; that signin w ld : g ou be in conformance with code require- ments; and that the regulations of th A ;,~; e PCD would govern any fumes. (See Resolution Book) fl" t` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote: ~ ' AYES: COMASISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour NOES . : COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. g~ Commissioner Farano, in voting "no", stated he did not feel a paint sho was a desir bl p a e use at this location. '~ ~ ~ ~ , ;~ CONDITIO:~AL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE E. DICKERSON, 252 South Elder PERMIT NO 1239 , , =' . Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROSERT SINGER 2692 ~ '~ , Main Way Drive, Los Alamitos, California, Agent; ~ ~" ';.:`~? requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE LI '' ti~' QUOR on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land having a fronta f `ti e o a 5 pproximately 371 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue havin a i ~ , g max mum depth of approximately 254 feet, and being located aporoximatel 780 f i ~ y eet west of the ceaterline of Cliffrose Street, Pro ert p p y presentl classified C-1 GENE :Y ~ ~ RAL COMMERCIAL 20NE. ' - :,~~ ;,x ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject uses t b ~ property, es a lished in close roximit P y, previous zoning actio ~ n on the property, and the proposal to establish a 63-unit motel in conjunction with : = a 3000- square foot restaurant facility having on-sale liquor; that adequate park- ing was being provided th i ; at the primary question before the Commission was one of land use due to the locati on of single-family homes to the south, east, and west; that inadequate vehicul ' ar on-site circulation for trash pick-up was proposed; that it might be n 1 ^ ecessary to require location of the trash areas nearer the street for curb pick-up or t i , prov de internal urn-around areas - however, the latter method would b ~ e more acceptable; and that if the use were considered appropriate th C ~ ~ ` , e ommission could condi- tion approval upon adequate circulation bein and fi ~ e r ~ , , re protection, guzthermore, the applicant had been requ~rement th advisedP fk t y; ;, o a code a minimum of 258 of the floor area of the restaurant be devoted to the preparat3on of food d ` ; ; an that it was units with kitchen facilities - therefo s i l ` ~~. - < : re, the Commission m ght wish to question the petitioner regarding this phase. Chairman Herbst left the Council Chamber at 10:45 P.M., Commissioner Farano assuming the chair. *';: i .~. 1 ~' _ , _ .tr4~ ~ ~.' -- '4 a- , ~ • , :: , , , - . _ , ~ - , - ' , - - - . ~-~ - - • ~ - -- • - , ~t ..l . 4~» . l~ 71~358 CONDTTTONAL USE - Mr. Louis Miller, 403 East Wardlow Road, Long Beach, _},~:~ PERMIT NO. 1239 architect of the proposed development, appeared before ''i:: (Continued) the Commission and presented a colored rendering of the proposed project and proceeded to answer some of the questions presented by staff in the Report to the Commission, noting that there already was a motel immediately adjacent to ~subject property to the west; that tYiey would be glad to arrive at some method of ineeting the City's trash collection requirement without having the trucks making a circuit of the facilities since this would add more `"~~ ~•^'" blacktop, and they were attempting to provide screen landscaping for the }'~~~` R-1 in the area; that they would meet code requirement for the 25$ of square r~~ footage of the restaurant for food preparation; and that the plans before the Commission were only preliminary. Commissioner Farano noted that the plans did indicate that all units were proposed to have kitchen facilities; whereupon Mr. Miller replied that these would not be the reqular type kitchens but would be an efficiency-type previously approved by the City. Chairman Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at 10:50 P.M. and aasumed the chair. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not they would have regulations that any kitchen utensils would have to be oLtained from the management in order to utilize the kitchen facilities; whereupon Mr. Miller replied that since so nany people had families visiting this area, all equipment would have to be ubtained from management. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission in the past had a maximum of 258 of all motel units with kitchen facilities, while it appeared that the petitioner was also proposing 1008 rooms with kitchen facilities, and this would lend itself to a bachelor apartment-type facility. Commissioner Rowland stated he was not opposed to the land use - however, there were some problems in the project which would have to be worked out between the petitioner and staff, primarily trash pick-up and complying with code requirements for a Eood preparation area. Mr. Miller was of the opinion that it might not be possible to work out the trash problem with staff. Mr. Robert Singer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to answer Commission questioning regarding kitchen facilities in all the units and stated that since they were planning to cater to the family-type business, the units would have to have kitchen facilities; even though they did not like to have this type of facility, they were acceding to the wis.hes of ~the, pub,li•c. ° Commissioner Rowla•rid•noted that'either this was a mbtel or an apartmcnt development, and code parking requirements would have to be met if this were an apartment project, and parking as proposed would not meet code parking if this were considered an apartment development. Mr. Miller stated that they were slightly over the one-for-one parking for motels, while there was separate parking proposed for the restaurant. Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 10:53 P.M. Commissioner Rowland stated that the petitioner would have to make up his mind whether this was a motel, and if it were considered a motel, then only 25$ of the units would have kitchen facilities, but if the petitioner wanted to exceed this percentage, then the parking would also have to be increased. Mr. Roberts noted that the 258 limitation of units with kitchen facilities was not a code requirement, but a Commission policy; however, the Commission had given direction to staff to study this as to possible code amendment. Mr. Singer then noted that they would have to refuse any prospective customers if all the kitchen facilities were taken up. ',.~6c; :;; ~ ~:--, . ,~. ~ ...-. ~. , ~: .:,»..~ r : _ . ~ ~ . a ~_: . .- . , .. .. . ~ ;..~. . _ ~ . ~~. . _ . • r~ ». . ._ . . ' . ,.-~;, . . . ~ .. ~ ~ - ~ . . .. __.,. -:-. ~~a,M x.s`.;:. ~~ ~ :..~~. .,.. .. . . . .. . ._,, ._. ,~ . . . ~_ .... . ._ . - .. ' .. . .. .,..:.,. . ~ _ ~ ~ .. . - _ .. ~ . . . - ~ . . .~ , . .. . - ._ ; .. . , - : :. _ , ... . ~ . . ~ y ~..~.. ..,."~ ~ --~ - ~. . .~:. = ~ . ~ ~i ~..~ _. -~. .i ~ i +~ ~41~~~ ~ _.._""_"___'_ __'_. ""_"' _ _.'_"" __'"'_` _ ~ ~ ~ . ~) ,1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1971 71-359 CONDITIONAL U5E - Chairman Herbst noted that this facility could be used PERMIT NO. 1239 as a motel if il- abided by the motel standards, and (Continued) later could be developed and built for bachelor, sub- " standard apartments with substandard parking - therefere, he felt the petitioner would have to determine whether it was a motel or an apartment complex, and most of the motels in town did not have 1008 of the units with kitchens, most did not even ask for 100~ of the units having kitchens. Mr. Hugh Faulkner, 1631 East Oak Place, appeared before the Commission in -..~- opposition and noted that his neighbor had advised him he had contacted staff r,egarding the fact that parking was proposed along the east property ~~'-="`~~,;i line, and that only a 6-foot fence would be separating the parking from his e~.~ property - however, he had only a 4-foot, 10-inch fence on his property line and inquired what type of buffering was proposed. 1' ;~ `4" ' ~! '. J 3 1.. .. r.. :e : '.rZ ~. .L~1`. ~ !;~ . ~!<{ ; .+~e ' `; Mr. Roberts advised the:opposition that a 6-foot masonry wall would be measured from the hi.yhe,"s,t.•finished grade level, and it would be the responsi- bilit,~• o;f. ~tie applicant to 'ad•d additional courses to an existing wall to meet~bkiis 6 feet, subject to obtaining permission from the property owner. Chairman Herbst noted that the petitiorie'r was also propo~ing to plant trees adjacent to the wall, and down-lighting was re.quired so that adjacent properties would not be affected by the parking area lighting. Mr. Singer noted that they intended to comply with staff requirements, and that he had been the builder of the tract to the south of subject property so that he was familiar with the area. The Commission was of the opinion that the architect should meet with stafE to present revised plans, resolving the points of conflict presented by the Commission. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1239 to the meeting of Jur_e 28, 1971, in order to allow time for the architect and the agent for the petitioner to meet with staff to resolve problems. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Gauer returned to the Council Chamber at 10:58 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DONAVAN E. RODMAN, 323t+ West Orange PERMIT NO. 1240 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; CHARLES E. EICHLER, 6888 Leilani Lane, Cypress, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A NURSERY SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING SI•NGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel'of land having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet and being located approximately 428 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue, and further described as 3238 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity,~and the proposal. to eseablish a nursery school in an existing sin,qle-family residence; that the p~lans in'dd'cated there would be a swing drive for dropping off the children, and if the Commis- sion was of the opinion that the swinq drive was an appropriate method of providing access, they might wish to require that a swing drive be installed as a condition of development; that the Commission would also have to deter- mine whether or not this was an appropriate land use, and if so, to require a 6-foot masonry wall along the east, south, and west property lines to buffer the nursery school use from the anticipated residential uses in the area; and that the Commissio,i might also wish to determine the maximum number of students to be permitted should the use be approved. Mrs. Charles Eichler, 6888 Leilani Lane, Cypress, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed nursery school would be in accordance with the Department of Social Welfare requirements; , .;:-: - - ~;:~ ,x-. .:~,., _, _ _..:..x__~--~,::---~•. ->. , --- - s ' , s.~. . . . .. . _ ._ __. `T_ _ - ~_~ri: r_.~..... - . , . ^} { . ~~ i r ~~ ~ ., ~:~~, . . .- . i '. ~ ~ c..i . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju_^.e 2, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE - that they would comply with all conditions as set fortn PERMIT NO. 1240 in the Report to the Commission; that this school would (Continued) be for children up *_o eleven years of age, making it an extended day care school; that the Department of Social Welfare determined the number of children by the square footage in each building and the play area; that there might be additional construction later on - however, the present structure had add?tions, and these additions might have to be approved by staff; that they planned to have up to 40 children, and although they would like to have more, they did not feel they would be given permissic: for more; that the hours of operation were 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; that the number of employees would depend upon the number of children and their ages since the State also governed the number of teachers by age, namely, one teacher for 8 two-year-olds; one teacher for 10 three-year-olds; and one teacher for 12 pre-school chidren; that there would be no program for school-age children since they already had enough school, but they would only provide a place for them to plr.y after school hours. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner owned +_he Prc~erty; whereupon Mrs. Eichler replied that it was their intent to purchase the property and planned to improve it later on. ~~ The Commission expressed regret that the petitioner did not provide plans S~'•'`'" that would indicate exactly what was proposed, including the swing drive; since Western High School was located in close proximity, this would present a problem as to picking up and dropping off the children. Mrs. Eichler replied that the swing drive was almost manda+:ory in that area, ~:~':~ and the reason they had not submitted plans was because they were planninq to purchase the property, and the Department of Social Welfare must view the '~-`'' property to determine wh~ther or not the use requested would be permitted; +~;:'i',: that they were not purchasing the property subject to approval of a use :?~:=~1 permit; and that the building would remain as it was except that they would ~''~j~ `,~ have to put in toilets . ~o.e:::; s.,~:: :: ;,,. ,~,,>, ,... P-~~;:':;:{. Commissioner Gauer noted that the plans would have to indicate where parking ;~~''i~:,~~ was proposed, although he could see no problem in not permitting the use; a~=?'`?s.~'~ however, the Commission was more desirous of seeing exactly what was planned '~~' ~'~' for a child day care school. ~~ ;`~, ~ Commissioner Rowland expressed the opinion that if the pictures presented ~'~`'`'r.'"~' were indicative of what was proposed, ir. all likelihood the Social Welfare s,~;~~.- .~'. :;•;,r Agency would pass the place by, and there would be no way that he would vote r for an environment for a child in the community unless the development were brought up to date and a more detailed plar. of what was proposed was submitted " because he was sure the Social Welfare Department would never approve the property as it presently existed. '`~~' •Commissioner Farano stated that it was not necessary to go to the expense of :~~`>"r~ h~avirig"elaborate plans drawn if the petitioner could submit some type of ; ~;_'>~ plot p`lan that wou3~d•"expre,ss the idea of what was planned, and because the k:;` .: Departmerit of °S~oci°al W.elfare would have to approve the use, if the approval was not received, then the petitioner would not have to go to the expense ~•4_ of preparing development plans by an aschitect or designer. `? Mrs. Eichier stated that there were otlier schools of similar nature which %,, did not have the appearance of her existing structure; whereupon Commissioner '` ~~ Rowland stated that there were a numbez of nursery schools in Anaheim that ~ `i were very nicely 3ane, and the petitioner would have to compete with the ~r`~`'f existing anes, as well as the cost involved, and even in this particular area, N -~r; ~~ ,! the use wonld have to be competitively priced. kJ ~`~ Mrs. Eichler stated that she had received her degree in child education and ~2'~~ knew what children needed, and that 50+k of the children in the city were not a;. ~, - given the training they should have. ~''``~':~ Commissioner Rowland then asked what the Commission could do to assist the `? petitioner; whereupon Mr. Eichler advised the Commission that although the ~'"`' development did not look as acceptable as they would like, it was their plan '`~''; to refurbish it so that this would be =:ery nice school prior to opening up. ~~ :~ ... ~ ~ . _,:. _ y,_ C.~......• . . _ ,. . ' _ _ ~ +~ . __M.-a v. ,~ l iri.~ . :.: ,~ ~, ~ ( _~ 71-361 _ CONDiTIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowland then stated that before the PERMIT NO. 1240 Commission could commit themselves as to the land use (Continued) the petitioner must demonstrat~s what they proposed, ....,; • and a condition in the granting of the conditional ~ use permit would be development in accordance with {~ plans -however, these plans had not been submitted to the Commission; and that the Planning Commission was an advisory body to the City Council, therefore, complete documentation should be submitted to them. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not the petitioner would have :,_, sufficient time to submit plans within four weeks and to contact staff for ~~'~~• •- guidance as to the specific plans that should be submitted. ~i~ ... Mrs. Eichler replied that after June 2A, they would obtain the services of a builder who could then draw plans for the proposed refurbishing of the buildings. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motior. to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1240 to the meeting of June 28, 1971, in order to allow time for the petitioner to submit development plans of the proposed use, Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE NO. 1791 (3164 West Tyler Avenue) - Request for a two-year extension of time. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented a request by the petitioner under Variance No. 1791 to grant a two-year extension of time for the use of the single-family residential structure as a professional writer's office; that Resolution No. 2024 dated May 6, 1966, approved the use for a period of two years; that the last extension of time expired May 6, 1971, and, therefose, since no complaints had been received regardizg this use, staff would recommend that the two-year extension of time be granted, to expire May 6, 1973. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to grant a two-year extension of time for the use of property at 3164 West Tyler Avenue as a profes~~ional writer's office, to expire May 6, 1973. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTTON CARRIED. Commissioner Rowland abstained. ITEAf N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 622 (Knott Avenue Christian Church) - Property located on the west side of Knott Avenue south of Lincoln Avenue - Request for approval of revised plans. 2oning Supervisor Charles Rob:~rts presented revised plans to the Planning Commission indicating that a 9600-square foot, two-story classroom build- ing was propose.d; that unde,r Cond'itional Use Permit No. 622, permission to erec't a new .sanc.tuaxy in an exis~ting•~church complex was approved, and the proposed addi'tion 'was designed in accordance with a new master plan of the complex which would be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval at a later date; that the plan included recently-acquired property to the south, and in the interest of time, the applicant requested approval of the first phase under Conditional Use Permit No. 622; that 32 parking spaces would be displaced by the proposed addition of the classroom build- ing, and this addition would not increase the required number of parking spaces - however, sufficient parking to replace those lost spaces should be provided. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of the revised plans subject to providing the 32 parking spaces displaced at another location on subject property. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to approve revised plans of Conditional Use Permit No. 622 for a 9600-square foot, two-story classroom building, provided, however, that parking spaces displaced by the proposed addition be provided elsewhere on the property. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~. ' ~i , ----.. __ _ . ~_. . , _- _ a` .. , ,~~ , ,.__ .. , . ~ ~h,~.: . ~ . ; . ' -::. . . .,. .:-- . ~. ~ . .. . , . . - ., . . . ~. ~ . . . , . , f . •~ ~.. . ~-~.. . ,, .... . .: ',~ , ^ .~ _._ . -- ~ -~_. ~'', ' ~ ~ ~~ ._ - , ~ . . _y . 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented a request for approval of revised plans under Conditional Use Permit No. 961, which approved a pre-school nursery in an existing residential structure in September of 1967; that the applicant had submitted plans to double the size of the school building - however, he had indicated that no more than 45 students would occupy the expanded buildinc, and the Planning Commission approved 45 students originally; that a field inspection indicated that the neces- sary street improvements and swing drive which were required as a condi- tion of this zoninq action have not been completed, nor had the existing school received final building insuection; and that staff, in view of the fact that the applicant would not increase the number of students on the property, would recommend approval of the revised plans provided that the necessary street improvements and sw~ng drive were installed prior to final building inspection for the expanded structure or within ninety days, whichever occurs first. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve revised plans of Conditional Use Permit No. 961, subject to providing the necessary street improvements and swing drive to be installed prior to final building inspection of the expanded structure or within ninety days, whichever occurs first. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MpTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~72~li./ ~~~/ ANN KREBS, Secretary ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION , . .~ ,~ _ ~,,.~-,-_ ,_ ~ _,. , y, ~ , _:. . ,. ~ ~ ~.. , . ,.: ~ ~ s•.~° T,~1~. -- ,~ 5 ; ~" ,~'°`„ . . , Q ' ~ ' -" ~ L I ~ 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~\...i c `:; ~ ,,:~ ~ _ I A ' ~ i . ~ ~ ..' -~. ~ ~ ~F,r ,_ I ~/ ~+et ~ $~t €~«~ ~~-y ~,~ ~z~,~ ~'~' •"~'^.~.`~i'~~ ~`+~~F ~,~r.~' ~ ~547r !'N " 7 ^~ ..~~ . ,,_, iS u ~ y4 ~n7~ ~~~ ~t~ ~ ~"~'~ ~ ~ r . i ~~' ~ ~~~~~'~~ l..~x4~.,~s ~~,~hv~"~,t+y,DJ~ p?,r,Y~~x ~ ~ ~ SS ~ ~t . , ry ~zJP~ ~^. W ~'~~~ r~P' ~";~ :~ i t~ a '. ~~'~~~;'#~kti~F~i~~+~~~", ~~,~. ~, . Y.~, ~ _ ',~. .,~~t„~Ir. ~~~°F'~ .:.~' ~ h y4' fi ~ .,~ ~~,~,.~~c~. . ~ n~ ~ Ywa u~~. 3 3 ~' - < ~' ~ ~' ~ r~E' ~, ~fi ~ i~ ~k c ~~~~ rp~~ sn ~~ ~ ~n dt~ ~~i4 -n~}.`r< }c .t ~ ~ * ~ ~ . ~ h ~,,^,a , ~'r q r h r~ -~ ~7~Y.tt x`v -Y , r 3E.r .~;. saa ~}(~ 4 a~'~~f-r'~17~ ta ~.F~fY n h~ti r~~Jk'~~ ~tk<va~,~, ud'~~ , .~z+K - ~'A'~f, ~~' Y 7'R~~~SN` ~ ~nS'~ra ~~'a. ~, ~h w 1,ta d°, .~~.y,.'~~':~,yr ~`'.M u-~, -7 1 ~y 4+~ C l,y ~7Q x ] k ~~~ ~ R. 5. ~4r.~.a"" .. ~~~Y~~~~'S~ '~tr~`~y{;„~~,{'Jy~„'hn ~~~1,~„`~~St.~_k~3i;y~tz~~`. '~~,~a4ltty~a.r~°~f~3~,~~i~i~'i~ `~',~~,bi "Yti?Sy,r u r~. „~ }c~ r ~!^ , ~ ~~~~"' ~ r'P ~i J~~~ K~a ~ ~'~~'~,~`S`F"' .1~ b~~', PF r~i"S, . ~ ~ s ° ,~.. ~i~ r i ~~,lqb ~~, ~ P ~ G l.~~•~ ~",~1i .,t'rtiur+' I$'{~ a+~r ~ Tr r'l.'~ ~p'y. . ~ i 4~~"~~' le.. ^~ .J t~r i2~.y,~ 71 7.~ '~' .~n ~ y as tf4 ~t°i` r~ x. ~ ~ ]-n#..w..~s v,~ t~ { .o-k 1 4~,C ~ `j~~~J~ ...~` ~ .i.Fu (yV. ~ ~ ~.'~ Nk 'i43 ~„~ffi ~#'t idcr ~ . o h . ., ~ ~T ~t ~S~ p~ 7 „`~`" ix ~;+ A ~~ ~ ~ c r ~. r ~~ , 11r`.. fj q<h`` .. /j. t r ~ ~y~~y. a~y~ ~' ~ ~~ m .~ -~72. ~ ~ . hx .. < 9 b~7 ;~l~u~~Y~`5j~~~ '~7,"~ "+tY t('~ ~~F ~ _ , h l~.vr F~ ~~ ~ a '~ }~; { at ~ { ~^ 1 . y.+.J , .~ ~ ;.,~. ~ ,w} ~,'~L ~ hy 1 F~ ~ .. . ~. J*. Lr~ ~..~r y ty~ ~ ti~4 k tti ` ~ y~`~ - `t~Sy-,cS~~"~ ,n~£` '0-~,~+ i +t '^~'~...tkr~ ~d n1 ".~R ~~ 4' yt m t r '~ a r ~,r y~ ° k J> za Z~ 1i i} -~ ~ i 1 ! ~ ye 5 r'~U. 5~~ !~h 1i; 4( Y 4 1 t f1 ~ . . fl~.~r's~ lf~ ~t~r" y1 1~ J~~ .L"`y;~ ~.a~ a~ . 3 ~'ayf~Ft 3"5.t y ~4 ~ ~~ . ~,~St4L'y ~ ~a~t~ ~~~C'4.'~ "''~;'~~rF~~'"^'~'~^ "'~ r ~:~~, i ~f . ~,rr.qr~G. 'r ~ f :- r ,~a , ~ .s+~ ,-{ J}~ ~~~i t~ ; l~'~ r fd' ; ,y'~ ~'.~'~" , z3K' ~~'Ff~,"r~f'f yu ~'i`~~h'vY''~'krd c~ ~ 'r. 5 1 ~' ~'4~~' r~rvYt ~.: 14s " ~ c ~ r~ r.~~~ :b~ ~ '+.4 ~` ~...'j.~-ur r P Y "~ *~ '~il"~ h f. ~ Jn ~' ,t a ~ N ~'~i- ~t~ . ~ Y a~'a31~p e ~ i h~ t i~'a~''~ s~',+ X'~`~K i f ".2 ~c Yw E~' ~ 7 ~( t~ ~~' K l t8 S ' .. "P ,: ~'~,``t?feq+. .J~k~4~~y ~ .y ~T N~ `~ifrT ,~krY..~r ~q~ 'F`~~1~ ~.li r r rctMy ot ;. ' .t ~ g. $nC'~Y^v`y'~ ~.~~ J. 7 ~~ F~~ k. 1 I y l,7 R N aR' t 1"th ~~ ik . ~~ ` r . ,dak d- 2~ ~: n y~~1 ~`~ Y!~"~ t~~}r f~d L 4,a,.~~y ~. ~,~ f "r 2" dne~c i i i f1 r ~ r 1 , ~.t f k ~"~ ~'4 4 ~s h o- 7 f'~S~9~y i„~_ r"'~ ,~ _ ~. ~ f ~ r ~~ r x~ a i a~ '~+`' f'e r tf + ~~s-~,~ ~ ' ~'~ .~ st't~Yx~1-~ }~ aia„ ~3w{ t R~ ~ f o~.+ ~~. z v~ ~ B t~ k~ ~ ~ Y '~ ll a v.F~ ~ 54 .'^4' L W~~ S /.~L`r -v. ~' t t ~ i q't6" ~, r ~ ''~. { ~ ""~~rF~~y~'y~~..''~~hCF~~}}-~"S .~R ~y."h2~1~~~ 3i~ . 3' t~F ~x.~ i, `F r~CS ~-~' 7' ~~~ ~ (-~ ~' ~~~ t ' T-~} y~ S` "r[~+}:~. 1 f~,i~ i t~. :~~ ~-. ~' i` i.. l r 7 ~. i ~ t ~~ ~ a y .. ~ F~ w K~r~ i • k Y ~~iy.~]G fti'r4 ,~t'~~~'{yN~~"~ Y / ! . 2 '~ Y'A ' . 'S~ ~ ~' }g~ t~4 ~y t~ ' r~y~ ~• ~w~ 4~dF' ~~r ~ y~'SY .!" ~ i f!2*Jr<^' ~* n~ '* ~+C" a.. ~ ~ YS"~ . fi a r in~, '~c~ ~ y~a7~'+~'4c d ~ ~~ t `~' ~ ~ s t ti ~~.t~ ~~. r:~~ w ra.'1'Y r y_ ~~.it . r.^l i. A~ ~tc~i"~i}'~~ h ~~r , y~+~ ~~+'~W,~;`,~4~N~ ~~x~a~ti ~'`1"^rcet'~~ '~ ~t.r L r r~~ 1~,.. ~ 1~' `.: I `~ S~ ~r ~, s~"p, ' • o. ~ ~ ,.' j7cti,~t~"p ,~. V.+ A ~~ 11 ii ~, ~ ~ ,`C~ ~ ~~ V a ~.. ~ .rt ( ft, -3 } + ~ ~f~tix~ ~{ • U .14M y~ , ~',y)3r ,, a ~ +~ ,,w t 3 ~s °.o ~ v iv si '~ w 5.s v°~ . ' "'1' ~'"~ ~r~ ~~hj ~'r~ ~,.'~°r °1 ro ~~ ~y~.. i, ~ ~rC ~. ~${ . qc.t - :~t ~,.~h "#''r N 3 ~ ~ .~~. 2 . , mx t~~n~~ au t~! -.~_ ~,1 ~t a S'k ~~'"tri P<~.e-~m ~-Fr 1 ~~ r ~ I r y J r~~ V'*~Y~n~'S'~' " ~~ ~ ~ r M~S`~'~~t~~ ' ~ :d,~ p ~. a.. 1V ~ .. .~. ~, ~ w~, r r r ~-. 1 ~ a .~ ~, r . a ~, `+ 3 ...~' , .~ r fi i~ ~~ ,+ {1'~~~,~ i r' ~ % f a n i~ ~, ~~ a~' ~~.,~~~, ~% t~r e. a i s v ~~i s ~ ~ s r ~'~ 2'~ y_ ~ ~ ~.`~C! (y~ -~ '~~ ny, ~ 7n f 7 : t 6, <aw ~. ,~,. r ~ + ~ F ~ . ~4.7 ~ . 9i"`~4~ S '~ .. '~ ~~. +'C'~, ,~ . ~cFyt a J S n i' : r ~.~~ ..~ f y i ~ A *, .~. "'' » :C h ,~x ~t'F~ ~ ~. ~ 'ic`~~ J~,~~~W 4~'~t~ ~ k } Y ~74 ~~v'r- J ~ ~_ s i ?c ~ : ~.+ t iM S~ bi d y'~ + ~~ l 1 f F~S h .l '~ t J fl., ~ ~ f TNS C` (`~'S ,k~ ` E h s~ .~.N S' +fk ~c i 4.tlt ~,~~ ~;~4 ~ ~~ t ~. ~~ ~ .r r ~ +' ~ 1 S . Cl t ~f i r ~ '~d ~~~~'~ r~ ~'~t~.rtr .~i~ 3+3'~?~F~'~~ ~'~ t ~'t s t t~ ~ 4 v.. i il t t~ y 7sf T` ,~~ µ{^'o~~' N ~~ A~ ~ .1 v (f d r '~. I F '1 '. "~ :'~ 4 ~. Q 1 ~ :[~' n~' rZ ~ 1 w 3 ~ 5 u 3 r~ 1 rt A 1{le...~ c~i~' ,hrt,s ~ ~~ T j y,. }SN1 4, y ti '4 ~ 'f ~.S ~y Y ~~Y S~x. ~ ~q~~~ ~3~J.~04 "S~ r ~,. 4 i~ i.t ~,.s , y ~ ' 4iw~` ~ ~~'' ~, ~~~ ~' ~ r .i k ~~r~'' G ~. ~ .' ~ Yr na , 1' 9 . ~ ' : x # ~:' ~ 3a' t ,} ~++A'S`~ ~A,~~~~,+!1'~'>.~rC~+' ~.^P'k3`,Y'ti~~.~~~µ~ Fr 4~~~ 2 J ra ~:~- i ~r{ ~ , i ~ ' ~ C.. 5 ~./' ~t' vV~~~;,,~ ~~' d,~ '~.~xtx af~'~,~. r^`s?s f+., r S l vi ~ ` ; rz r ~''i4~h'N~i.'S ~ C~?~~4 ~ yy' i~~s ~,~ai~c.~n.h i ~ i i.~; t - - i'. S ! vCi~ ~'''~ '~'~ .F41~c4 rw?~ : c~.+,s' i~..: :~ ~ i x ~+~'~ '~i.~ -~, +~' ~.z F : t' x ~• , . ~i~Y~ 1 Cfn'ilyt '* r ~ )1 ' `jM1'& .~N .f.aY}Y. . ~'. F M1 .,, . :r. C~r '"~~Y6Y' ~k~H ~ 1 ~'~"~~~si~,~ ""' jsi ,~~-„ , ,~,y ~ ~ x'v , • .,f~y~ ~n!,~ n ~,~~5; ~ 1 ~ ~~~. ~7P ~ Y T 'T" _ r7 '~ ! ~ t I . ~ ~./~.y14 J .C ~ ~ } I t " k~~ ~r ~ . ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ti r ~ ., ~ .-:r ~ ', ~ ,j . : t ' : ' L~ . ..r.U~~'~c.~y . { ~ ,. ~ r.' . ~.' • ..~ ! ~' v' !f'< ' -k. ,1 x'4 : 5 1t~Y.Y~R ' ~ ''F ~ _ ~ y I :. !~ \ - ` ~. . ~y .. j .. ~ ,'y~~ 1SY f..~ ~ ~ , 1~ },~~,'~f *} 1 ~ °y21', ri.' ~:. ~ 7 "~`~'~' ' t ° ~ ~ ` ~ ~ , ' _ 5. .M'.. H ~. ~'* t$~P xs ~ ~ +t ~ r - ~ - yf~~~~ 5 ) . ~ ' y'[7 ~, ,~~ ,~ N f ' ~ .YL9 ~_~ ~' ~4 ~ 4 { '~" ~r1~. ~N, t t. ~( 't ,' ~ 2 ~ 'r' ~.:,x tr -~ t . 7 ~ ' ` , F~.1 ' ` s ~, pa `R~~ F,.,^ " f ~ t ~ . -t ' ` `' . ~ ~'s'~~ < - - ~ y ,~ ~ ` ~ / ff l { y . f ~ ,. ..'~f ' ~'-. 4 1 ;t,~L } e+,~ 51+ 4 ~ ~ .. A " C~ ~ !.; ~ ~~ ~ - > ~ 1 f ~ ~ Yt'' ~ ~. ~R 1 ~ 5 ,~. l-.1 3 ~ 1 ~. ~ ~t t~`r{y,a tt a r ~{ ~`) ic ,,tt f -; ~ ~} r ~ - - r ~ i t t a r J' ~' l, ~'~" lks ~~ i `Llf d c y s { ~ . .t--~~ .+' a '. S ~ r l '~i .U /. i ~ . ~ Y -, .~yY F ~ ~ i . ~7 ' r ~ r ~ i~~! S+ ~M'~ ~r . a~xp'~ '~ ~ Y~~'~i f I l F_ r~ ~.~~ i 1 rr S E i ~ . . ~'r ~ .~ ' ,.: t y. .. r i , ' .. , .. . _,. . ,_ . ... ~. ., . . .~ ~ _ . _ . .:. _. . .: ~... ~ ~. . ~ "~6..._.~,,.._ ' • - - ~ . ~ ~ * ~,',.'. ,.. . .. . ~ _.. pf. [