Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/01/31, ~ , ,~ ~ , City Hall '. Anaheim, Califor.,ia January 31, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim Cit,y Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:08 o'clock PoMo, a quorum being present~ PRESENT - --^'~~ ' C!iAIRMAN: Mungall~ ~ - +~~ ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowlande - ~ COMMISSIONERS: Perr , Y - PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~ I:. Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts ~ Office Engineer: Arthu* Daw ,,~ _ Planning Co~runission Secretary: Ann Krebs Zoning Division Stenographer: Carolyn Grogg 1 ~ PLEDGE OF : ~ ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago ~' APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of January 17, 1966, were a roved pP ~ EI THE MINUTES as submitted~ `f ~I ~ CONGITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARiNG.. VOGE, If~CORPORATED, 7601 Crenshaw Boulevard ~ PERM_T_N0, 804 , Los Angeles, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A ~~ DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT WIT!-! WAIVER OF: (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING '' described as: An SPACES, AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK LANDSCAPING on property irregulariy sha ed a cel f l d ~. Street and State p p r o an at the southwest corner of South Coll~~~e Boulevard, with fror.tages of approximately 290 feet on So th ' ~,' Street and approx ~ u imate;.y 160 feet on State Coilege Boulevardy and fu=ther described as ; ; 801-815 South Sta COMMERCIA te Colle9e Boulevardo Prooerty presently classified C-1, GENERAL ~~ - L, ZONE~ ~~ . ~+ ~ @. ` l s~ ~ E,~ ~e ~lr. Eilert Voge, the property owner. dpneared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed deveiopment, notirg that he had assumed when the plans were submitted that adequate parking was provided, and that ar, attempt had heen made to plot the layout of the proposed development so as to take advantage of the space available; that subj~ct property had restrictions placed on it at the time it was reclassified to the C-1 Zone - however, when the service station had been submitted for the Commission's consideration, the property owners adjacent to subject property, who also had C-1 zoning, had signed a petition approvin9 deletion of the deed restrictior.s, Mr~ Clyde Sharrocky 1203 East Adele Street, apFeared before the Commission and stated he represented the Calvary Baptist Church which was adjacent to subject property to the west, ard that they had no opposition to the drive-in; however, if a liquor li~ense was requested for use on subject property, the church would oppose such a license, Mr~ Robert Ko Matheison, 1915 East South Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion and briefed the letter of opposition he was submitting to the Commission and then noting the neighbors were happy the church had been established in the residence adjacent to subject property; however, the hard, commercial activity was not in keeping with the general development of the area which was basically residential along South Street and norther~y on State College Boulevard; that subject property had undergone a number of requests for uses, and the basic reason the deed restrictions were applied to subject property was for the protection of the single-family residences in close proximity;and t}~t the commercial uses proposed for subject property would generate an exceptional amount of traffic on a local street which would be detrimental to the safety of the children who played in the front yards of the single-family homes. A showing of hands indicated six persons were present in the Council Chamber in opposition to subject petitione 2905 ~ M:NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2906 CONDITIONAL USE - Mra Voge, in rebuttal,stated he was of the opinion that parking require- PERFAIT N0. 804 ments had been met and that no overlapping of the setback lines was (Continued) projected; that the increase in traffic along State College Boulevard reduced the argument which the opposition had presented, since a similar position had been expressed when the service staiior. petition had been considezed by the Commission; and that he had to police his property hecause of the intru- sion of the neighborhood children who played in the house and in the yard. The Commission inquired of Mro Voge how long he had been the owner of the prooerty, to which Mro Voge replied he had purchased the property four years ago, and that the small market which was being proposed had not submitted a request for a lzquor license; however, if it was requested, it would be off-sale beer and wine~ TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED„ The Comr,iission noted that the proposed type of commercial use was incor~patible with the residen- tial integrity of the area and should not be permitted because of the injection of heavy cortunercial tratfic on a lecal street; that the Commission should be 9iviny some considera- tion to the residential integrity of the property and to assure the property owners that this residential integrity should be maintained; furthermore, that the deed restrictions placed on subject property li:nited the use to business 3nd professional~which was the most appropriate use for the areao Commissioner Rowland noted that if the commercial traffic were prohibited from using the resi~ential street, and the traffic oriented to State College Boulevard, less opposition should be presentedo Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that tne residential homes were established in the area long before commercial zoning had taken place on subject property. The Commission again reviewed the plans in relationship to the requested waivers, and the suggestions made by Commissioner Rowland relative to orienting the traffic to State College Boulevard, and determined through questioning of the petitioner that the hours of operation of the Taco Bell would be 11:00 AoM. to 11:00 PoM „ and that the masonry wall required adjacen± to pa*king areas would have to be set back three feet, with land- scapin9 along South Street if subject petition were approvedo The petitioner then agreed to construction of a masonry wall and other requirements of the City, further noting that when the baseball stadium was in operation, State College Boulevard would be so heavily traveled that any traffic emanating from the proposed use would be minor. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that if the proposed uses were planning the sale of alcoholic beverages on the property, a new conditional use permit would be necessary to consider this because subject conditional use permit had not '~een advertised to consider on-sale alcoholic beverages~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit Noo 804, subject to dedication of access rights to South Street and a masonry wall along the west and north property lines, witf~ landscaping in accordance with Code requirements, since the wall and shrubbery were for the protection of the single-family homes to the north, and that the pians should be revised to orient all the traffic to State College Boulevard~ The motion lost for want of a second, Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No> 1921, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 80A, based on the fact that the proposed use would project commercial traffic on tu a Local street, creating a nuisance and hazards to children and pedestrians on South Street; that the petitioner had not proven a land use hardship existed in the development of subject property for the uses permitted when the C-i Zone was granted, which required business and professional uses for subject property as a means to afford protection to the single-family homes which were in existence at the time the property owner purchased the property, and at the time the property was zoned for commercial uses~ (See Resolution Book~) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungallo ~OES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perrye Commissioner Camp stated that in his opposition, he was not opposed to the other uses, but was opposed to the drive-in restauranto ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2907 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ FERNE M. KEELE, 829 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, N0~ 65-66-80 California, Ownerg WAYNE GOBLE, 10666 Westminster Avenue, Garden : Grove, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped VARIANC~: NO., 1758 parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the east side of Olive Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 125 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 557 feet south of the centerline of South Street, and further described as 846, 846~, and 850 South Olive Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ N~ULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF: (1) MINIMUM FUfURE SETBACK AREA, (2) MINIMUM DETACHED ~~, DWELLING FLOOR AREA~ (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK, AND (4) 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY ZONEe Mr~ Wayne Goble, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission stating that Guaranteed Homes proposed to construct two dwelling units after an existing structure - was removed; that the property to the west of subject property was reclassified R-2 and R-3; that the property immediately to the north, although zoned R-1, was developed with a duplex; and that the requested zoning would be in keeping with the development in the areaa Mro Manuel Serrano, 10666 Wes*.minster Avenue, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission : and stated that since subject property was larger than those properties immediately abutting it, which also had duplexes constructed on them, the proposed use of subject property was ' compatible, and that the request for waivers did not apply to the new structure but applied ~ to the existing structures under the new multiple-family zoning codee No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Mungall indicated that at one time the property owners in the area had requested ~ multiple-family zoning for the properties; however, those on the east side of Olive Street were not given multiple-family zoningo ~~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No> 1922, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that - Petition for Reclassification No~ 65-66-80 be approved, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungalle NOES: COMMISSIONERa: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No~ 1923, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1758, I subject to conditions, and a finding that the request for waiver of the 6-foot masonry wall adjacent to the single-family zone to the north was valid, based on the fact that although zoned for R-1 purposes, said property had been developed for multiple-family uses. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foxegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: I AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungalle j , NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry. ' RECLASSIFICATICN - PUBLIC HEARING. MOTEN M. DIZNEY, 100 Atlantic Boulevard, Long Beach, ~~ . N0. 65-66-82 California, and MAUDE A. DIZNEY, 518 Mary Street, Medford, Oregon, Owners; ROBERT H. LINTZ, Box 66, Los Alamitos, California, and CONDITIONAL USE J. TYSON ELLIS, 5715 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California, Agents; PERMIT N0. 805 propert;~ described as: An irregularly shaped parcel (containing approxi- r~ , mately 8~ acres) with a frontage of approximately 594 feet on the south ~ side of Ball Road with a maximum depth of approximately 660 feet, the easterly boundary o: subject property being approximately 407 feet west of the centerline - of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2828-2864 West Ball Road. Property presently ;~ ~ ; classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. `~ ~ ,{ I : ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2908 RECLASSIFICATIOPd - REQUESTED CLASSIF?CATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. N0~65-66-82 _ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT A 191-UNIT, 2-STORY, MULTIPLE-FAMILY CCNDITIONAL USE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVEk~ PERMIT N0, 805 OF: (1) Mr,XIMUM STkUCTURE HEIGHT WITHIN 150 (Continued) FEET OF R-A OR SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY, (2) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (GARAGES) ABUTTING PROPERTY LINE IN FRONT 75% OF SITE, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) LIVING UNITS MORE THAN 200 FEET FROM A STANDARD STREET. Mro Dwight Bennett, architect for the proposed development and representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the Froposed development for an 8~-acre parcel of land, noting that a luxury garden-type planned residential development was proposed. A colored rendering was also submitted by the architect for the Commissi~n's review (retained by architect)~ Referring to the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee, Mr. Bennett stated he had attempted to remain 150 feet from any R-1 property line; however, the distance from the R-A property line was considerably less than 150 feet, and that if the Commission required, he would stipulate to a dedicated 20~-foot alley around the perimeter of the property- however, the private drive would remain as projected. The Commission inquired whether or not the architect wouL9 also stipulate to reducing one of the units to one-story because it was within 70 feet of the R-1 p;operty to the east; whereupon Mr~ Bennett, upon consulting with his clients, advised the Commission he would also stipulate to the one-story cons±ruction on the specific unit that was not in conform- ance with Code requirements, Mrso Robert Cunningham, 2820 Ravenswood Drive, appeared before the Commission, stating her property was directly east of subject property and that she was opposed to any two-story construction wi;hin 70 feet of the R•-1 property to the east; however, since the petitioner had stipulated to reducing the specific unit within 70 feet of R-1, she would withdraw her opposition. However, she was also representing property owners in the City of Stanton who were opposed to two-story construction within 150 feet of their property, at which time the Commission advised the opposition the plansfor development of two-story construction were p:oposed for more than 150 feet from the R-1 property. Mrso Cunningham also stated she was oppose' to having the garages immediately adjacent to her rear yard since her home was near the rear property line, and the noise factor from the automobiles starting and stopping in the garages would be detrimental to her family's health, The Commission advised Mrs. Cunningham there would be more privacy with the garages than from any other type of development, Mr~ David Barnes, 2812 Ravenswood Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated his property was easterly of subject property, although not abutting it; that he had lived in Anaheim 2~ years and had assumed when he purchased his property that the R-A parcel adjacent to the single-family tract would be devPloped for a lesser ir.tensity than the proposed R-3 use; that Mrs< Cunningham had a petition signed by 34 persons, owners of 17 homes on Ravenswood Drive and S~~~liLL*ive; that the number of units proposed would indicate an additional school would be required, and they were recently planning to dedi- cate a new grade school in the area; that because of the general inertia of property owners in expressing their feelings to any objectionable type of zoning, not many people were present at the h~aring; that if subject petition were approved, no matter how attrac- tive the plans looked, they wuuld not give the same view to the s:ngle-family homes to the east; that the trash storage areas and Iaundries were abutting the R-1 homes; that consider- ably more noise would emanate from subject property because of the recreational facilities and the traffic due to its heavier density in use; that at the time the single-family home- owners had moved into the new tra~t it was not anticipated that commercial development woul.d be proposed to the east, or multiple-family development proposed to the west of the single- family homes, and this would greatly depreciate tt.e value of the homes, as well as destroy the residential environment of the area; that the 191 families proposed for the area would not be tax-paying landowners and possibly might not be the best type of residents for an area such as it was ~roposed to be located in; and that. the waiver of the requirement that the units be within 200 feet of a dedicated street might inflict hardships on the police, fire, and sanitary facilities the City might propose for subject property, and consideration should be given to requiring adequate protection for the area in the event the public facilities were not available. The Commission advised Mr. Barnes that the Interdepartmental Committee took into considera- tion all the problems inherent in the proposed development and had recommended safety pre- cautions; furthermore, that if subject property were developed for an R-1 subdivision, r. ~ % . MINUTES, CITY F~LANNING Ct,n4MISSION, January 31, 1966 2909 RECLASSII=ICA;ION - statistics hava proven that an R-1 subdivision would produce three N0~ 65-E6-82 times as many children as a similar use of the property with multiple- family residential development - in which ten acres of homes wou2d CONDITIONAL USE produce more children than ten acres of apartments. PERMIT NOo 805 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer stated that his estimate was that the proposed development would increase the number of children in the area by 143, based on the assumption that 3/4 of a child per apartment would be residing in the apartment development. Mr. Bennett, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development, in his estimation, had good planning principles; that he had attempted not to place people near any traffic; that a 20-foot alley, together with garages, separated the development from the single- family homes; that not all the automobiles would be using the periphery drive since there were three exits from subject. property; that there would be considerably more noise and speed in public streets than was proposed on a private alley; that the wall of the proposed garages would be 7~ feet high, which was 18 inches higher than a 6-foot masonry wall; that he had stipulated to construction of the units no less than 150 feet from the single-family homes in order to provide for privacy; that there were only 47 3-bedroom apartments, and _ after the financiers had reviewed subject proposed development, there-was a possibility the number of 3-bedroom units might be reduced; that the proposed development represented a 2-3/4 million dollar investment; and that the proposed development was his attempt at complying with the planned residential developmer.t regulations of the City of Anaheim. It was also noted the single-family homes to the south of subject property were not one story, but were more than one story, and that the degree of noise from the periphery alley would be negligible.. Three persons indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitions, at which time closeCunningham presented ±he petition signed by 34 persons representing 17 properties in proximity to subject property. 1'HE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commiss:on relative to requiring a 6-foot masonry wall along the south and west property lines where the garages did not abut the property line; the fact that the proposed development had a bettez• appearance than had been reviewed by the Commission on previo!~s occasions; and since the petitioner's representative had indicated by stipulation that a 20-foot dedicated alley would be around the periphery of the property, as well as the retention of one-story within 150 feet of R-1 property to the east and south, the proposed development was compatibleo Commissioner Allred ofiered Resolution No. 1924, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe 55-66-82 be approved, subject to conditions, and the requirement of a 20-foot alley around the periphery of the property and maintenance of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-1 zoned property, as stipulated by the petitioner, and in addition, a 6-foot masonry wali along the southerly and westerly property lines,and where the garages did not abut the property lines~ (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMM:SSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall, NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Perry: ,~ _ ,~I ~ .,1 ~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No~ 1925, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 805, subject to conditions, and the requirement that a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along the south and west property lines where the garages did not abut the property lines, provided that the plans submitted include a reduction of any structure within 150 feet of R-1 zoned property to one story in height, and that the proposed 15•-foot alley be increased to a 20-foot, two-way alley to provide adequate circulation. (See Resolution Booko) On roil call the forego.'~g resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CCMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Nerbst, Rowland, Mun9a11., • D10ES: CGMMISSIGNERS: None. ' ABSE^1"C: COMN~ISSIUDI[:RS: Perry, ~ l~.~--~ ~ - .4 . i ~~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 196ti ~ 2910 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINCi, WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL BANK OF PITTSBURGH~ PERMIT NOa 802 Pittsburgh, Pennsyivania, Owner; NORMAN SHAPIRO, 1107 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly VARIANCE N0. 1757 shaped parcel of land (approximately 323 feet on the north and south and approximately 660 feet on the east and west), the nort•herly boundary being approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue and the easterly boundary being approximately 360 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard; subject property includes land now occupied by the souther~y portion of Mallul Drive and the westerly portion of Wilken Way. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. (Resolution of Intent to R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE) REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 3-STORY, 248-UNIT, MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED ~"'"~$ RESIDENTIAL DEVEIAPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM DWELLING r? ~ , UNIT FLOOR AREA, (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (3) MINIMU!N '- ~ DISTANCE BEIINEEN BUILDINGS, (4) LIVING UNITS NOT WITHIN 200 ~~ FEET OF A DEDICATED STREET, AND (5) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKIr;~ ;, SPACES. REQUESTED VARIANCE: pERMIT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT5 IN A PROPOSED R-3~ MULI'IPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SIIE _, AR~A PER DWELLING UNIT~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter requesting a tNO- weeks' continuance of subject petitions was raceived in order to provide an opportunity for the petitioners to submit a revised site plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee. Mro Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, concurred in the statement of the letter submitted to the Commission relative to a request for a two-week continuance. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the public hearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 802 and Variance No. 1757 to the meeting of February 16, 1966, to allow the petitioner time to submit a revised site plan, Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIUNAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, HARRY J~1NG ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, 4025 Avalon PERMIT NU, 803 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; MEL GRIGGS, c/o Ralph Gray 8 S~n, 44 North Madison, Pasadena, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AU'I'OMOBILE RENTAL AGENCY ON AN ESTABLISHED SERVICE STATIGN SITE on property described as: A parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katelia Avenue, with frontages of approximately 135 feet on Harbor Boulevard and approximatelv 135 feet on Katella Avenue, and further described as 1777 South Harbor Boulevardo Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mre Ralph Gray, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed request, noting it would be part of the Union Oil station site at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevarde It was also noted that three to five cars would be operating on behalf of this franchise; that the proposed auto rental agency would be the fourth 13rge autc rental agency established by the petitioner's agent in the Southern California area; and, in response to Commission questioning, stated that a maximum of three to five cars would be located on the property at one time - however, it was his hope that none would remain, and all would be in usee No one appeared in opposition to subject petition, I'NE HEARINii WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1926, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 803, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone> ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry. ~ - ~~ p .~ ~ ~ •~ .i ~ .• •_ °, -- •-~ ~ MINUTES, CIrY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2911 RECLASSIFICArION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALICE A~ BRADY AND BARBARA J. ~IDLE, Executrices of NOa 65-6fi-79 ~ the estate of Alice Ea Brady, deceased, 12802 East Garden Grove Boulevaid, Garden Grove, California; WILIARD MILLER, 24i5 So~th Manchester, Anaheim, TENTATIVE MAP OF California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangulariy TRACT NOo 6138, shaped parcel of land (approximately 512 feet on the north and south and REVISION NOo 1 approxima•tely 825 feet on the east and west), the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 815 feet east of Rio Vista Street, the easterly boundary being approximately 134 feet west of the center- line of Kingsley Street; the southerly boundary being approximately 1,470 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to subdivide subject property into 25 R-1 zoned lots. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0~ 6138, REVISION NOo 1: Subject tract located approximately 1,320 feet east of Rio Vista Street and 1,450 feet north of Lincoln Avenue, containin9 approxim~tely 5,.8 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 25 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lots: Zoning Su~~ervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that when the reclassification was originally submitted with the tentative tract, it was noted the northerly portion, containing approximately 5 acres, had been proposed by the Park and Recreation Department for a public park adjacent to a school in close proximity, and that the petitioner had been requested to submit a revised tract, deleting the northerly portion, upon which the City was taking action for condemnation proceedings to acquire a park siteo Mr~ Don Greek, 2415 South Manchester Avenue, engineer of the project, appeared before the Commission and stated that most of the lots were oversize because of the park site,and that the revised tract had been submitted, and the developer had purchased the property subject to the City's condemning that portion of property for the park site~ Office Enginee_ Arthur Daw, in response to Comrt!~ssion question:ng, stated it was the intent of the City at such time as the improvements af the t=.~ct were submitted to the Engineering Department fo= the City to complete the nortF,esty po:tion of ~u+ch Avenue adjacent to the park. siteo Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the possibility of the City not developing the park site, or not proceed?ng with the condemnation for its acquisition, whereupon Mre Daw advised the petitiorer and the Commission that the City Council had given the City Attorney authority to file condemnation proceedings; however, this did not mean the City would accept the price established for the park site, and that perhaps the Commission might wish to have an additional condition that if the City did not acquire the park site, the developer of the tract would be required to present pl;ins to fully develop Diit.ch Avenue prior to the approval of the `i:~al tract map by the City Council. Mr~ Greek then stated that the developer pianned to conmence development immediately, and if the City did not decide to acquire the street, a revised tract would be submitted because it was the developer's desire to eliminate #tie two c~:l-de-saced streets~ Mra Willard MillerY the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated the condemnation action was proceeding in a friendly manner, and the price had been established; therefore, he felt any problem involved in the development of Dutch Avenue could be resolved prior to the recordation of the tract - however, if the City could not make a final determination relative to acquisition of the park site p:ior to the recordation of the tract map, this might present some problem~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that although the City Councilhad requested the City Attorney to commer.ce condemnaticn proceedin9s for the park site, this did not mean the City would accept the park site-if the price of the land was more than had been budgeted for the park site, there was a possibility the City might not app:ove purchasing it~ Mre Roberts suggested to the Commission that a finding be made that prior to approval of a final tract map, the City Council make final determination whether or not the park site would be acquired by the City, and if the park site was not to be acquired by the City, the developer be required to develop Dutch Avenue in its entirety, prior to the .recordation of the final tract mapo It was noted that two streets designated as Streets "A" and "B" on the revised tentative tract had no official designation of a street, whereupon the developer, Mr. Miller, requested that these streets be named after the original property owners, namely Brady and Hidle. Upon research of the street name file, it was determined the City already had a Brady Street, whereupon the developer agreed to naming of Street "A" as "Alice Street" and Street "B" as "Barbara Street". ~ i MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2912 REC[.ASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions~ NO.. 65-66-79 THr HEARING WAS CLOSED~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0~ 6138, Commissioner Rowlanc~ offered Resolution No~ 1927, Series 1965-66, and ~ REVISION NG~ 1 moved for it~.passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to (Conti.r.ued) recommend to che City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-56-79 be approved, subject to conditiunso (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolUtion was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSiONERS: None~ ~ ABSENT: COAM4TSSIONERS: Perry~ Commissio:ier Rowland offered a motion to approve Revision No. 1 of Tentative Map of Tract :vu, 5:3ii, with the following finding, and subject to the following conditions: 3 FINDING N0. 1: n -. ,~ That prior to the approval of a final tract map, the City Council is urged + to make final determination as to whether or not the park site shall be acquired northe*ly of Tentative Map of Tract Noo 6138, Revision No. 1, and if it is determined that the park site shall not be acquired, the developer should be required tc dedicate and improve the entire width of Dutch Avenue prior to the approval of a final tract map. CONDITIONS: 1.. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvale 2„ That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No„ 6138, Revision Noo 1, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No~ 65-66-79. 3~ That Dutch Avenue shall be a 32-foot half street. ~ 4~ That Street "A" shall be named Alice Street; and that Street "B" shall be ' named Barbara Street, as requested by the developer= 5~ That drainage shall be discharged in a manner which is satisfactory to the City Engineer~ 6e That. the minimum street grade shall be 0_20 percent grade. , Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. SO-GO ENTERPRISES, 9381 Bolsa Avenue, Westminster, N0~ 65-66-81 California, Cwner; J~ K. HAMAMOTO, 1236 North Ventura Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel VARIANCE N0~ 1759 of land with a frontage of approxima±ely 165 feet on the east side of Dale Hvenue and 'naving a maximum depth of approximately 294 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 329 feet south of the centerline of Ball Roady and further described as 1222-1224 South Dale Avenueo Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 'LONE. REQUESTED CLASSIfICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,. i REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF: (1) M.IN?MUM PARK?NG REQUIREMENTS, AND (2) MAXINUM BUILDING HEIGf~I'~ `~ Mro J. K. Hamamoto, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and revi=wed . the proposed development, indicating he was in accord with the conditions of approval of the Interdepartmental Committee~ Mr~ David Fo Barnes, 2812 Ravenswood Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition ; to the prouosed expansion of commercial uses along Dale Avenue, and the request for two- ~ s~ory consir:iction of a commercial development across the street from a single-family resid2ntial subdivision; that tile extension of commercial uses on subject proNerty would , set the pattern of development for the 1~23-acre parcel to the south of subject property to ;:he City of Fnaheim city limits ar~d the City of Stanton city limits; Chat the further ti~ ~ encroaciunenC of conunercial uses in close proximity to the single-family homes along ~ Ra•eenswood Drive and Dale Avenue would be detrimental to the assessed valuation of the :( _ single-family homes, and since thp Commission had previously approved a two-story, R-3 ~ .~ t ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2913 RECLASSIFICATION - development to the west of this single-family subdivision development, N0~ 65-66-81 commercial encroachment to the east would nullify the residential potential of those homes fronting on Dale Avenueo VARIANCE NOo 1759 (Continued) Mrso Joseph Kalley, 2816 Ravenswood Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that when they purchased their home three years ago, the area was entirely surrounded with homes; since that time commercial develop- ment had occurred at the southwest corr.er of Dale Avenue and Ball Road and at the southeast corner of Dale Avenue and Bali Road, and she was opposed to any additional commercial en- croachment into the area because this would reduce the potential resale of their homes; furthermore, she was of the opinion the area could best be developed for single-family resi- dential home development and would set a pattern for the R-A parcel to the south for a similar use because the City of Stanton had a single-family home existing immediately to the south of the City of Anaheim city limitso In rEbuttal, Mr~ Hamamoto stated it was proposed to construct a building which would be complimentary to the area; that commercial development had occurred to the north and west of subject property, and in his estimation, the proposed development would increase the : value of the single-family homes, rather than decrease it.. A showing of hands indicated three persons were present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petitiono ~ THE HEARING WAS CIASED, Discussion was held by the Commission relative to further encroachment of commercial uses in a residentiai area; that although multiple-family development occurred to the east of subject property; to the west and soutn single-:amily residential development had occurred; that the City did owe an obiigation to the sing?e•-family homeowners who had purchased recently constructed single-family homes, and to approve subject petition would create ' additionai probiems by sett:ng a pattern of development for the property to the south of subject property~ THE HEHRING WAS REUPENED„ Mr~ Barnes agsin appeared before the Commission and stated hi.s purpose in stating the value of his property wouid be decreasing was the fact that when people were looking for homes in a residentiai area, the char~ctez• of the adjoining properties was also taken into I consideration a r Y nd that the proposed comme_cial development would further deteriorate the newly established R-1 subdivision development or. the west side of Dale Avenue~ Mr~ Hamamoto stated that his residence was on subject property which was zoned R-A; that the public could not stop the prog:ess of the City, and a nursery coi~ld be placed in the R-A Zone which could detract considerably from the appearance; and that since commercial zoning had been granted to the property to the north and to the northwest, it was his feel- ing he would be penaiized by not granting subject petition. THE HEARING WAS AGAIN CIASED, ~ ~ ; i ~~ i ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1928, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No~ 65-66-81 be disapproved, based on the fact that the proposed com- mercial development would establish a pattern of development for the parcel to the south, creating strip commercial zoning for the east side of Dale Avenue, and that the proposed reclassification wouid be detrimental to the residential integrity established to the east, west, and south of subject property; that the petitioner was proposinq a substandard com- mercial development by requesting waiver of 20% of the parking requirement and an alley which is a requirement to separate residentiai from commercial uses, and height waiver within 150 feet of single-family homes; and that some protection should be afforded sinale- :amily homeowners from further commercial encroachment into the residential area. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1929, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance Noo 1759, based en findingse (See Resolution Book~) s3 • On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~ "~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst., Rowland, Mungall. ~;} ~vUES: COMMISSIOtJERS: None~ ~.; 1 > ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Perry. ~ ~ ~ ~ V f { Y MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2914 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECAMMENDATIONS Consideration of a revision to Home Occupation - Section 18.08.390. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the action taken by the Commission and the City Council on November 23, 1965, relative to consideration of an amendment to the Home Occupation section of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and that a discussion had been held with the City Attorney`s office and the recommended wording as submitted to the Commission for their consideration in their report and recommendation to the City Council. ~ • Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of a conditional use ~ permit or variance being used, noting that in recent actions taken by the Commission a hardship had to be proven on ;and use, not economics, relative to granting a variance - whether or not the uses could be handied administratively where the staff could deter.mine ~ whether or not t.he use was compatibl? wi+.h the areao Mr, K~ieger then stated that an amendment to the Code was necessary in order that it could be established in writing the uses which could be permitted: for example, music lessons given in the home could become a nuisance and could be considered a more innocuous use. Considerable discussion was then held between the Commission, Mr. Krieger, and Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, and at the conclusion, Mr. Roberts stated that regardless of the vehicle used, proof that the requested home occupation would not be detrimental to the peace, health, s3fety, and general welfare of the neighbors was necessary, and both the variance and conditional use permit required proof that these commercial activities were not detrimental; that the conditional use permit was a use established in a specific zone, whereas the R-1 Zone did not permit commercial uses, and under the variance vehicle the home occupation user would have to Frove a hardship existed and that he was not creating something that would be detrimental to the neighborhood9 since the home occupatio~ was an incidental use and not a primary use as might be establish=d under the conditional use permito Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that an amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 1799, Series 1965-66, dated October 18, i965, be made as follows: ' "Section 18,.08..390 - Home Occupation~ "An occupation carried on in the dwelling by the occupant of the dwelling as a secondary use in connection with which there is no display at or upon the premises, no commodity nor service sold at or upon the premises and no person employed,. Such home occupation shali not create noise, odor, dust, vibration, fumes, or smoke readily discernib:e at the exterior boundaries of the parcel on which sit.uated, nor create any electrical disturbance adversely affecting the operation of any equipment located in any other dwelling unit or on property not owned by the person conducting said home occupationo" , Furthermore, that consideration be given to the possibility of requiring the proposed ! home occupation applicant to file a variance to permit the more innocuous uses not permitted ~? under the proposed definition in order that more adequate control could be established for said uses~ Coa~missioner Herbst seconded the motion., h10TI0N CARRIED~, ITEM NG ~ 2 ~" Vari~nce No" 810 - Mrs, 1.aVeta Uom:no, 1721 South Harbor Boulevard - }. Consideration of establishment of a restaurant under the original ~ variance. ~' Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission a letter from Mrs. LaVeta i ; Don~ino, owner of the Magic Star Motel and former pomino Restaurant, requesting that plans {' submitted with the letter for the construction of a restaurant on the property originally approved for establishment oi a motel, cocktail lounge, and restaurant and gift shop be ~, zeactivated to permit the proposed us? to be established under said variance~ Deputy City Nttorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that under the present terminology of the time limitation of the varianc~, the Commission could reactivate the variance, provided, ~ however, that the petitioner comply with the site development standards of the C-l ~one which v:as established immediately south of subject property~ The Commission then reviewed the plans of the proposed development~, * ~ f y ; ! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar~~ 31, :~9b6 2915 REPORTS AND RECAMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0~ 2 - ~Continued) Mrs. LaVeta Domino, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed family-type restaurant and steak house, notin9 t~~at any technical questions would be answered by John Swint,the designer of the proposed development, and urged that the Commission approve subject request based on the fact that it was their assump- tion subject property had C-1 zoning, and that the proposed use to be established on subject property was in conformance with the uses established in close proximity. ;.-_~ Mro John SWint appeared before the Commission and stated that subject property was 200 by 60G feet in size, and there was more than adequate room to provide parking space if it was needed; that the sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and street widening had already taken place; and that the 50-foot setback along Harbor Boulevard would be complied with. In response to Commission questioning relative to the C-1 site development standards for subject property, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that where parking abutted the right-of-Nay, a 3-foot strip ~f landscaping with 296 in the parking area landscaped would be required, or a fully landscaped, 10-foot striF was rec;uired. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reinstate Variance No. 810 and approve develop- ment plans for property at 1?21 South Harbor Boulevard for a restaurant, provided, however, that all of the site development standards of the C-1 Zone be complied with, and that a finding be made that in order that the C-1 Zone site development standards were used as a basis was based on the fact that property to the south, extending to Katella Avenue, was already developed for C-1 Zone; therefore, the zone and its standards was applicable to subject property, Corunissioner Camp seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIEDa ITEM NO~. 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 797 - Approval of revised plans for restaurant located at the northwest corner of Kenwoud Avenue and East Streete Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented revised plans for the proposed restaurant at Kenwood Avenue and East Street, noting that the petitioner had acquired additional property to the north and was desirous of reversing his plot plan, orienting the parking area to other than chat criginally proposed. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve revised plans of Conditional Use Permit Noa 797 submitted to the Co~runission on January 31, 1966~ Commissioner Allred seconded the motiona MlJTION CARRIED~ ITEM NOo 4 Conditional Use Permit Noo 612 - Request for an extension of time Establishment of a church with educational facilities at 1749 West Grange Avenue~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commissi ~ =equest of the Reverend Pedro Moreno of the First English Mexican Baptist Chui. proposed to be located at 1749 West Orange Avenue, noting that the petitioner had compl~ed with the dedication of 32 feet from the centerline of Grange Avenue for street widening purposes~ had paid the street tree and street lighting fees requirement of Condition Nos~ 3 and 4; had dedicated a 3-foot overhang easement as required in Condition No. 5; and had posted a bond for street improvements as repuired in Condition Noo 2. Furthermore, that upon review by the staff, it was noted that ail conditions having a time limitation had been complied with, and in the estimation of the staff, had met all the re uirements of the conditi a ~~-~-`• on 1 use ,~~~ r... 4 ~. Commissioner Herbst offered ~ motion to grant an additional 180 days for the completion of the establishment of a church as approved by the Commission under Resolution No. 1318, Series 1964-65, September 10, 1964, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 612, said 180-day time extension to expire August 2?, 1906. Commissioner Ni1reJ seconded the motion. h}JTIUN CARRIED. .~x ;} j ; MTNUTES,'~ITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2916 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 5 RECO--- MMENDATI~NS ~onditional Use Permit No~ 590 - Request for an extension of time - Establishment of a motel at 1836 So~th Anaheim Boulevarde Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for the Commission the request of Mr~ Julius Nathan for an extension of 180 days for the completion of conditions of Resolution No. 1254, Seri.es 1964-65, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 590 on July 16, 1964; that two 180-day time extensions had been yranted by the Commission, the second one expiring January 5, 1966; and noting that the petitioner stated difficulty in obtain- ing financing until the Katella overpass was completed> Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant an extension of 180 days for the completion of conditions in Resolution No~ 1254, Series 1964-65, approving Conditional Use Permit Noo 590, said time extension to e;cpire June 14, 1966~ Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, ~~~ a ~ 'If ; ITEM NO o 6 Orange County Tentative Map of Tract Noe 6122 - Located north of Mountain View Avenue, west of Grand View Avenue, in the Yorba Linda area - Proposing subdivision of .?~1 acres into 8 R-1 Zoned lots~ Associate Planner Jack Chrisiofferson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract Noo 6122 to the Commission, noting that subject property was in the Yorba Linda area; that the water v+ould be served by the Yorba Linda County Water District and septic tanks for sewage disposal; that the lots were i/3•-acre size; and that the property was located north of the Imperial Freeway~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the proposed tract was adjacent tc the Yorba Linda Count*y Club, and that it was in conformance with the Yorba Linda General Plana Commissioner Camp offered a rnotion to receive and file Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No~ 6122, based on the fact that it was in conformance with the Yorba Linda General ?lan and was outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, MpTION CARRIED~ ITEM NO , 7 Termination of ConditionalUse Permit Nose 482, 634, and 694~ Associate Planner Jack Chrisiofierson advised the Commission that in the processing of petitions and determining whether conditional use permits and variances had complied with conditions, the staff had determined ±hat Conditional Use Permit No~ 482 had not complied with conditions, and upon co!itacting the petitioner, had been informed the petitioner did not plan to exercise the authority granted under the conditional use permit; therefore, the staff recommended that Conditional Use Permit Noe 482 be terminated~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1930, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to terminate Petition for Conditional Use Permit No~ 482, based on the fact that the p=titioner had stated he did not intend to exer- cise his authority under the conditional use permit granted by the Commission. (See Resolution Book„) On roll call the foregoing resolution was qassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perryo ~ Associate Planner Jack Christoff?rson advised the Commission that Conditional Use Permit No. 634, grantir.g the establishment of a 22-unit motel and manager's unit at 140 West Katella Avenue, by the Commission on October 29, 1964, and having a time extension ~ of 180 days, which expired October 24, 1965, was now past its expiration period, and upon contacting the agent for the petitioner, he had advised the staff no reyuest for an exten- sion of time for the completion of conditions would be requested, based on the fact that development had been inactive for the past few monthse Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1931, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to terminate Petition for Conc'•itional Use Permit No. 634, based on the fact that the petitioner no longer desired to request an extension of time for completion of conditions. (See Resolution Booko) ~ ; ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 31, 1966 2917 RER~RTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NOo 7 -_ ~Continued) On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perrye Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that at the time the staff had submitted a letter bill for the charges for street lights as a condition of Resolution .~~ No. 1601, Series 1964-65 by the Commission, and Resolution No. 65R-427 by the City Council "• on June 8, 1965, the agent for the 9 ;~ petitioner had advised the staff that due to draina e problems beyond the control of the developer, the proposed development plans had to be ~ abandoned, and until such time as said drainage problems were resolved by the City of '~ Anaheim and/or the State Highway Department, development would not take placee ~@:1 E.i Mra Christofferson stated that the staff recommended termination of Conditional Use Permit Noo 694, based on the fact that the petitioner would not exercise his rights grant~d under r;~ Conditional Use Permit No> 694. '~~ Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1932, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage ~.II' and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that fl Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 694 be terminated, based on the fact that the ~ agent for the petitioner stai:ed drainage problems caused a~~ndonment of the proposed ~\ development~ (See Resolution Book.) i ! ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Mungall~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo `~ : A9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Perry. i? •~i ~ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss Commissioner Allred `- '~I~ offered a motion to adjourn the meetingo Commissioner Camp ~ !,~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEU. ~ - !` - The meeting adjourned at 4:45 P,M~ i ;~ Respectfully submitted, c~~jz~z~~~__ ANN KREBS, Secretary ~ Anaheim City Planning Commission .}~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ .~x ~ ~