Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/10/10~ ~ ~ m -,~ ~ ~ z c~ ~ c v v r ~ ~ ~ O 0 < ~ 0 P c+ 4 cro m ~ ~s ~~ 0 r ~o 0 rno rn~ c+ H ~ ~ ti ti G H O C Z m O ~ d ~ O' "! ~ r ~ N ~ ~ •- ..~. .~ . / ' . - City Hall Anaheim, California October 10, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION j REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to osder by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. .'~ - ~ COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlar.d. l C~ ~ A9StNT - E COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~~ P~tESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~~ Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts ; Office Engineer: A;thur Daw ' ~ Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski I Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson I. Assistant Flanner: Charles Roberts i Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ~ INVOCATION - Reverend Stanley J. Herber, Pastor of Free Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - I Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. i APPROVAL OF - ' The Minutes of the meeting of September 2~, 1966, were approved as TI-~ MINUTES submitted on motion by Commissioner Rowland, seconded by Commissioner j I Gauer, and carried. I RECLASSIFICATION . - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. BUTLER 3 HARBOUR, INCORPORATED AND ADOLPH ~, ' N0. 66-67-i9 ~ SCHOEPE, 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; request- ing that property described a~: An irregularly shaped parcel of land , -~ TENTATIVE MAP OF ' with a frontage of approximately 1,020 feet on the north side of Orange- TRACT NOS. F989 thorpe Av~nue and having a maximum depth of approximately 847 feet the AND 5990 - , easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 110 feet west REVISION N0. 4 of the centerline of Boisseranc Street, be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-2, 5000 ONE-FAMILY, ZO~E to GENER.4L PLAN permit the subdivision of subject property into 120 R-2, 5000 One-Family, AMENDMENT N0. 87 Zoned lots. DEVELOPER: BUTiER d HARBOUR, INCORPORATED, 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Jennings-Halderman-Hood, 1833 East 17th Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana, Caliiornia. Subject tracts located northerly of Jrangethorpe Avenue and easterly of Lakeview, westerly of Boisseranc Street, containing approximately 25 acres, are proposed for subdivision into 120 R-2, 5000 One-Family, Zoned lots. Subject petition and tracts were conti~ued from the meeting of September 12, 1966, in order to allow time to readvertise the petition to inc!ude additional property. Mr. Merrill Butler, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that although the tract map had not expired,upon recommendation by the Staff, due to the present zoning and the fact that many variances from Code would be required, ar~d since the R-2 Code encompassed all these variances, the request for reclassification to R-2, 5000 had been made; that the engineer of i:he tracts had some comments to make regarding condi- tions; and that he would reserve additional comment until later. Mr. Hugh Halderman, representing tne engineer, appeared before the Commission to review Condition No. 1, noting that no definite decision had been made as to the delineation of the tract boundaries; that on a previous tract Rap approval, they were permitted to submit the Tot division map to the City Enyinee; on the portion to be z•ecorded; and that he would like an interpretation from the City Attorney's office re3arding this. R ,+itx 3212 d ~.SiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3213 RECLASSIFICATIOIJ - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that he had N0. 66-67-19 discussed this with both Mr. Halderman and Mr. Geisler regarding Section 17.08, Subdivisions, and 11554 of the State Subdivision Map Act, TENTATIVE MAP OF noting that the Engineering Department had followed the policy stated by TRACT NOS. 5989 Mr. Halderman when tha final tract map was filed on a single tract cover- AND 5990 - ing the ten acres on which only five acres had been developed at the time REVISION N0. 4 tne final tract map was submitted; however, subject tract map consisted of two numbe:sL without any trac2 boundaiy lines, and if the engineer GENERAL PLAN would indicate this as one tract number only, developing only a portion, AMENDMENT N0. 8'7 and the filing at a later d~te of another tentaiive trart map, no problem (Continued) would exist. Mr. Halderman then stated that the problem regarding two tract numbers should have been resolved prior to the Commission hearing since the City of knaheim was the only city of thirty cities in which they had developed tracts who required submission of a new tract map to the Commission and City Council whenever an original tract was sub- divided; however, rather than continue tne reclassification and tract maps ur.til problems had been resolved, he would suggest approval, subject to resolvi~ig any problems with the City Engineer and the City Attorney prior to consideration by the Ciiy Council, and that for the time being, designation of the tract map would 'o~a ~989 only, Mr. Halderman then reviewed Conciition No. 7 of the Report to the Planning Commission, noting that the terminology indicated the developer'give" property to the Orange County Flood Control District, and this woul~ be rather di;ficult since ttie flood control r.hannel had been built on a portion, and pla~s were tentati•re to construct an addit`_onal channel in accordance with the Orange County Elood Control District requirement; however, they did not wish to give them any land. Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, Mr. Halderman stated that the Orange County Flood Control channel will be maintained by the OCFCD in accordance with an agreement and co~tract, but that they would dedicate only the right-of-way, not give them the property. Mr. Butler again appeared and reviewed Condition No. 6 of the Feport to the Commission, referring to the requirement of a foot bridge across the ;lood con~rul channel right-of- way, noting that when the ori9inal tract map was approved, ~o requirement was made that the pedestrian bridge be built over the channel. Mr. Roberts stated that at the Interdepartmer,tal Co:nmittee :neeting the City Engineer's office had made a poir.t of bringing this to the enoineer's attention since the Flood Control District requested that a bridge be built because of the location of a school to the north- east of the tract. Coniinued discussion was held between the developer, the Commission and the Staff regarding the Interdeoartmental Committee recommendations as conditions to approval ef the tract - specifically regarding the foot oridge proposed, it being determined that the cost could vaz;+; however, the cost would not reach $15,000 unless an especially long span wi~~h steel beams was required. Mr. Butler noted that althouyh money was a concern in today's marketY he ~elt there was a principle involved which was not a concern when the tract was previously approved. Cffice Engineer Arthur Daw stated that the foot bridge was discussed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting on consideration of the previous tract approval, but no definite recommenc~a- tions were made at that time; however, after approval of that tract, a call was received from tti? OCFCD re9arding the cost and responsibility of construction of the bridge over the cfiannel since the GCECU did not f?el they snould be placed in a position of being required to build the brid9e, and they were desirous that this be part of the development of the tract. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that he had chec::ed witt~ the Bui1d- ing Department regarding the ccst of a similar bridge and had been quoced a price of $6,000. The Commission was of the opinion that regardless of who would be responsible for the provi- sion of a fcot bridge, the condition should be read that the bridoe be ;~~vided at no expense to the City of Anaheim since the State law required provision of a bridge be made where needed Mr. Butler then concluded that he felt it was the responsibility of tne OCFCD in providing for the foot bridge; however, they were willing to participate in the construction of the bridge. Mr. Daw stated thai the OCFCD built pedestrian and vehicular accessways across channels where roads had been in existence; nowever, these were not built by the OCFCD when raw land was being developed with a new road. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 321~ RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant Planner Charles Rober+.s presented Generak Plan Amenoment No.87, N0. b6-67-1~ noting that the area covered was situated generally between Lakeview Avenue and Orchard Drive, and (hangethorpe Avenue near the Yorba Linda r,~ser- TENTATIVE MAP OF voir; that theamendment had been proposed asaresult ofr:n appareni cnan~e in TRACT NOS. 5989 character of land uses within the study area; and that the presen:GenQral AND 5990 - Plan depicted indus~rial and low density r.~-sidential 'lsnd uses `or the ; REVISION N0. 4 area. However, in May, 1965, the City Council approved R-2, lc~w-medium density zoning on approximately 57 acres w~thin the siudy area. R-2 GENERAL PLAN zoning permits a maximum of 18 dwelling un,i;,s per net zeside~tial acre. AMENDMENT D10. 87 This approval ir,dicated that uses other than .I~w ~e:~sity, single-family . _ (Continued) subdivision were acceptable in the area; therefore, if it bvas to be the Tyj~~ City's policy to permit higher residential densit:es in the area, the ~2 General Plan should be ~. :nded to reflect this and provide a guide for ';~f ~ developers of the low-medium dens,ity developments. s ~.:~~ Mr. RoSerts further stated that one single-family subdiv:son with 5,000 square foot lots had already been approved and was under construction, and a similar request was pending I for the property immediately east of the existing subdivision. The density yield of this ~ type of developmer,t would fall withi:~. the low-r~edium density category of the General P1an. ~ Three alternative land use designations had been explored for this area, :irst indicating ~ the entire study area for lov~-medium residential development; that Exhibit "B" indicated ~, the majoriCy forlow-medium ~esident~al. development,and "C" indicated a minimum change of ~ the area which would include the approved and pending requests for the R-2, 5000 for the ~ area. ~'.~ The possible impact of the various exhibits relativ= to recreation and school facilities i was then reviewed. It was also r~oted that the Superinte~dent of the Placentia School District, which would service the area, indicated the facilities proposed would adequately ~ handle the increase in population; however, an increase o; 14 to 2 acres for recieation ~ purposes was needed. ~ Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that because of the fact that a single-family residential subdivision was located i~ the southeastern portion of the study , area and ~~as only approximatzly three years old, the low density designation indicated on ~i Exhibits 2 and 3 reflected this, whereas E;chibit "A" indicated the natural geographic boundari=s of the area. ~.~ - No one appea*ed in oppositiun to subject petitions. Mr. Cal Queyrel, Hnacal Engineering Company, appeared before the Commission and reviewed Exhibit "A", stztin~ he had been wcrking witn the Oranqe County Flood Control District in completion c.' their study; that Mr. Osborne had ~2C0,000 available for completion of the channel, pr~~i~ed thzt the property owners in close proximity would dedicate their property; that Mr. Ho~ard B~dlong, one of the property owners, had indicated an interest in the build- in9 of the :lood control channel, and he w~s representing him; that the R-1 tract located in the study area was to the south of the Budlong property - however, he was of the opinion that the necessary right-of-way be dedicated since the channel should be constructed in this area. II THE HEARING VJAS CL~SFil. Commissioner Rowland offered P.esolution No. FCo6-1Q6 and moved for its passage and adoption, secended by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- . ;ication No. 66-~7-19 b? approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolutiun Booki 'I ~ On roll call the fore oin resolution ~vz, i 9 g passed by the following vote: I ' ' AYES: COMMI~SIOI~ERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. „BSENT: CONddISSIONERS: Allred. ~;. ; I Commissioner Nungall offered Resolution No. PC66-107 and moved for its passage and adoptio~, ` seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that ~eneral P1an Amendment No. 87, Exhibit "B", be approved as an acceptable alternative to current policies as illus- tra~ed on the General Plan. (See Resolution Book) 7~~ ~ On roll call the fo:egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: RYES: COMMiSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ! ' NOES: COMI7ISSIONERS: None. ,~ • ABSENT: COMMI~SIONERS: Allred. : .~ f ~ ') "~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3215 RECLASSIFICATION -!dr. "derrill Butler, representing the developer, requested that the { N0. 56-67-19 numbering ui tt~e tracts be changed to one, that being Tentative Map e of Tract No. 5989, Revision No. 4, to comply with recommendations made ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF py the Interdepartmental Comrittee. TRACT NOS. 5989 AND 5990 - Con~issioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract f REVISION N0. 4 No. 5989, Revision No. 4, subject to the following conditions: i GENERAL PLAfd 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, AMENDMEfdT ?]0;_ 87 each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for . (Con*.:r.us>o ~ approval. T~`~ 2. That the approval of T=ntative Mao of Tract No. 5989, Revision No. 4, ;~ ~ is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 66-67-19. .; ~ ~ j: 3. That in accordance with the City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the southerly property line seoarating ~ Lot Nos. ~' ".~rough 71 and Orangethorpe Avenue, except that corner :~ Lot Nos. 70 and 71 shall be stepped down to a height of 30 inches in `~ the front yard setback, and except that pedestrian openings shall be '.I - provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highway ;i. rights-of-way line of an arterial highway. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, ~ pla~s for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the ap- :'i,i proval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following instal- I lation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsi- bilit}• for maintenance of said landscaping. ,i ;' 4. That tne vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings j to Orangethorpe Avenue shall be dedicateo to the City of Anaheim. 1 ,'I 5. That the pedestrian easements shall be imp:oved with 6-foot masonry walls, stepped down to a height of 24 inches in the front one-half I of the front yard setback and a height of 42 inches in the back one- haif of said setback, and concrete sidewalks. ~.~ ' 6. That a pedestrian bridge shall be constructed over the flood control a " right-of-way at no cost to the City of Anaheim, and the construction and design of said bridge shall be approved by the City Engir.eer and kCl the Urange County Flood Control Listrict. ti i~ 7. That tne ilood control right-of-way sha~l be deeded to tne Orange ~:~ County Flood Control District prior to approval of the final tract `" map, and a cnannel constructed as required by the City Engineer and ;~, the Orange County Flood Control District. ~~ `, 8. That Gle.~view Avenue, northeasterly of Lot No. 120, shall be improved !^~ as a standard 64-foot street. The developer may retain a holding ~, ~ strip, if so desirFd, ard if held, that a predetermined price for said holding strip shall be calculated and an agreement for dedica- tion eniered into between the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map. The cost of said holding strip • I shall include land and a proportionate share of the underground ~ utilities and strPet improvements. ~. ~ i Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ i- ~ : ~ i Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:56 P.M. ~` ' ' ` I. I ~~ E t t~~ ~ ' i; ~~ ~ :i i ' ;~ ~ . ~,.._~.-,,-.~,~-..,~: ,,.... _:,-.~_,....~.~..W...~ ...._.. ,.., __._,._,. y!~~ ~~ _ ~/ ' h . / , • ^ ' . ~v~ . G ~• .--^-'~~.~ d ~~ ~~ ~ ` 1 fi , ~ ~_:~ ..~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3216 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLIE J. DOMINGUEZ, 2221 South Loara Street, N0. 66-67-17 Anat:eim, California, Owner; RAY RUSSELL, 414 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fronta~e of approximately 132 feet on the west side of Loara Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 148 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 330 feet south of the centerline of Lorane Way, and further described as 2221 South Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, ~dULTIPLE-FAh1ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of September 12, 1466, at ihe request of the petitioner in order to allow time to present development oians. hir. Charlie Dominguez, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had sub- mitted plans of development and was available to answer questions. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the plans submitted, noting that they were inadequate in design; that there was a possibility this would never be deveioped as submitted; that the alley being proposed would have to serve the landlocked parcel to the rear as well as the duplex proposed to the rear of subject property, and inquired cf the qeti- tioner whether or not an easement was of record. • Mr. Dominguez stated there was a 16-foot easement recorded as a perpetual easement fo~ ingress and egress to the landlocked parcel to the rear of subject nroperty. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the fact that the trash storage areas were unsatisfactorily located, and the location of the garages proposed for the duplex was awkward in relation to the access drive. Mr. Domin9uez stated the*e was a gate at the north end of the property, with a road which would act as an access or exit-way for the property to the rear. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland o:fered Resolution No. PC66-108 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition :or Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-17 be approved, subject to conditions. (See kesolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mu~gall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. ABSENT• COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Herbst. Upon being advised by Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts that the voting did not carry by a majority of the membership of the Commission, considerable discussion was then held by the Commission, Commissioner oowland noting that because of the many shortcomings of the plans pointed out by the Staff in red pencil, he was of the opinion that it would never be built in accordance with the plans; however, if R-3 zoning w~ere granted, the minimum he could be required to do would be to meet the R-3 standards. Commissioner Gauer stated that if he could be assured that subject property would be developed in accordance with the Commission's interpretation of the R-3 Code, so that it would bP compatible with the adjoining property, he might change his vote, Commission~r Herbst returned tio :he Council Ci'iamber at 3:02 U,~,~, Commissioner Farano stated he was r,ot in favor of appruvir,g tne construction of rertal units at the rear of an R-1 home, even though R-3 developrnent had occurred in the area. Commissioner Gauer inquir~.d what the overlays were on the plans, whereupon 'r~ir. Tho;npson stated that because the plans were not fully dimensioned, the Staff was unable to determine whetl~er or not they met the R-3 standards, and the oveil~vs were placed by tl~e Staff for this reason, and if there were no plans attacned to the Commission's approval of subiect petitior., any ;u:ure plans submitted would have to mee! Code, un;ess ~ variance was fil?d, at wnich time the Commission could review the plans of da~elcp^:r^t. Assistant Development Services Director Robert "~iickelson 3d•rised the Commission that since nc variance nad 'oeen filed, the petitioner would have to meet Code requirements if develooment of the property w~.s to take place. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3217 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer then changed his vote from "no" to "aye", the vote N0. 66-67-17 being as follows: (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. P.BSENT: COMN,ISSIONERS: Allred. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUEU PUBLIC HEARING. REICHERT & SON, 16262 East Whittier Boulevard , N0. 66-67-22 , Whit.t:.er, Califor~ia, Owner; THOMAS SHELTOI~, 17612 Beach Boulevard, ~~~ Huntington Beach, California, Agent; requesting that property described , '' TENTATIVE MAP OF as: Parcel 1- An irreyularly shaped parcel of land with a frontaqe of i{ ~ TRACT NOS. 6311 approximately 816 feet on the east side of Lewis Street and having a ~s AND 6314 maximum deoth of approximately 855 feet, the southerly b~undary of subject .; ~ property being approximately 465 feet north of the centzriine of Chapman GENERAL PLAN Avenue, and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontaye ~ ~ AMENDMENT N0. 89 of approximateiy 601 feet on the west side of Manchester Hve~ue and having ! a maximum depth of approximately 290 feet, the southerly boundary of subject ~i~ property being approximately 158 feet north of the Anaheim city limits, be ~.~ reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2, 5000 CNE-FAMILY, 1'~ ~`'i ZONE for Parcel 1 and C-1, GENERAL COMM~ERCIAL, ZUNE for Parcel 2. ~~ ~~~ Subject tracts, located southerly of Orangewood Avenue between Lewis Street and the Sar.ta Ana Freeway, and containing approximately 26 acres, are proposed for subdivision into 57 R2 5000 ",~ , lots each and a 4-acre commercial site fronting on Manchester Avenue. Subject petition and tentative tract T.;ps were continued from the meeting of September 26, 1966, at the request of the petitioner in order to resolve development plans. Zuning Supervisor Ronald Tho~npson advised the Commission that a letter had been received fr~~m the developer requesting an additional two weeks' time to resolve their problems. ' Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 56-67-22, Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 0311 and o314, and General Plan Amer.dment No. 89 to the meeting ~: of October 24, 1966, as requested by the petitioner, in order tc allow the petitioner time ,I to complete their s~udies in regard to development of the property. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Iv1AGNOLIA BAPTIST CHURCH OF AVAHEIM, 720 South Magnulia PERMIT N0. 889 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; JOSEPH COLOMBO, 1104 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to EaPAtJD A CHURCH AiJD PFRMIT PHRKING IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 293 feet on the west side of Velare Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 260 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 3 feet souti~ of the centerline of Lorena ~ Drive, and further described as 721 ar.d 727 South Velare Street. Property oresently classi- fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ' ;I Mr. Joseph Colombo, architect for the petitioner, appeared b~fore the Com~nission and stated ~~ that a portion of subject property had been granted a resolution of intent to rezone to R-3; ~ however, this was not activated because the church purchased the property before the final . action was taken on it, and a church was a permitted use in the R-3 Zone. Furthermore, he wo~ld like to defer any further discussion until the opposition was presented. i :~ ~ Mr. Anthony DeRaddo, 728 South Velare Street, appeared before the Commission stating his ! property was directly across the street from subject property and requested further clarifi- ~ cation on the proposed use for subject property before any opposition should be presented. Mr. Louis Kaufman, 803 South 'Jelare Street, appeared before the Commission, submitting a Ir'. l petition signed by 46 property owners in the immediate area in opposition to subject petition, ' noting the church was proposing to park automobiles in the front yard facing on Velare Street; that with parking facilit?es, ttiis would mean considerable blacktopping in the area and drive- ways entering from Valare Street c~hich would create additional t.raffic to the residential street; that the bright lighting which is ~sually anticipated from night activities on church ' j property would be detrimental to their welfare; thal the traific would be considerably increased on Sundays and most other days because of the activities of the church, and noises would be un- -, avoidable with so many automobiles and people - and would not be conducive to residential ~' living; that the changes proposed would decrease the va'_ue oi the property, making it more 1~ difficult to sell the residential homes; that the most important consideration was the childrens' r,4~ safet~-inasmuch as there were no sidewalks in the entire tract, all the children walked to and ,, from school, and played, in tEie streets - and the added traffic which would follow would increase ~ the accident potential; that there was more than adequate space to the rear of the existing MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3218 CONDITIONAL USE - homes which would be used for bible study classrooms to expand and meet PERMIT N0. 889 the parking requirements for the church, and there was necessity for (Continued) permitting parking in the front yard, adjacent to a residential tract; and that tne Commission had recommended denial for the R-3 because of possible detriment parking on Velare Street would have to the general welfare of the children. Mr. Colombo stated that any lighting proposed would be in accordance with the City of Anaheim standards, which would shielded and directed away from the residential homes; that the streets would be improved with sidewalks and curbing - which would permit the , water to run off the street; that the church proposed to improve the property, and if ^;~ subject property were developed for R-3 purposes, approximately 18 additional cars would i be using the street constantly, whereas the church traffic would be only two or three times ~~ , a week for Velare Street. ,p f' Reverend Kenneth Fischer,Pastor of the Magnolia Baptist Church, appeared before the Commission ~ ~tating he had been a pastor of the church for ten years; that concern had been expressed ~ relative to the church expansion being across the street from the residential homes, and it ~ was felt that with a block wall adjacent to the sidewalk and a lawn on the outside of the ` block wall, subject property would be adequately shielded from view of the residents to the ~ - east; that it was planned to pave the rear areas and have drives with access only to Velare Street; that it was the desire of the church to cooperate in any way to meet the demar.ds of i~ the City and the property owners; that although the church had an option on the Leuschner prnperty along Magnolia Avenue to the north of the church property, it would be at least two ~ years before this option could be exercised; that there presently existed three drives on ~ Magnolia Avenue, and it took considerable time to empty the parking lot - that no left-hand I turns we:e permitted at this area; and that no option to purchase the rear property or sub- i ject property was entered into since tnere was only a tentative agreemer.t to purchase the I property. The Commission inquired of Reverend Fischer whether or not a regular school was planned for the area, whereupon Reverend Fischer replied that only a Sunday School and mid-week services were planned for the propert~; that the reason a masonry wall was proposed was to shield the lights from Che R-1 homes; ti~at the drives al~ng Velare Street having access to Velare Street would be closed to discourage trespassing on the church property and 'oreaking the windo~s ir. the homes that would be used for Sunday School purposes; that the drives would be closed with a gate and a lock, except for Sunday morr,:~1g; and that tnere were four curb breaks for the -_ two nomes because of the circular drives in front of the two homes ironting on Velare Street. Mr. DeRaddo again ap~eared oefore tn? Commission and stated that althougi; R-3 zoning had been approved for 727 South Jelare Street, it had never been developed and could not have had 18 dwelling units on it because of Code requirements; tnat tne wall along 727 South Velare Street had been removed in anticipation of using the property; tnat tne property was presently being used, and if subject petition were approved, tne property owners on Velare Street already had an idea the effect th? proposed use would 'nave or, the residential integrity of the area; that some of the trees had been removed from tne property, and the property wds in ~isrepair since the original owners of the property nad moved ;rom the area; and tnat many other things had been removed f:om the properties in anticipation of obtaining approval of the use of subject property. Reverend Fischer stated t~~at tha trees had been removed because the City had advised tnem they were not proper for the area, and the balance of the removal was an attempt to clean up the area as well as the home; that the ch~~rch had not had time to put in the sprinkler system to maintain the lawn since it was planned to blacktop a portion of the property, but this was delayed in anticipation of obtaining approval for the parking; that the frontage of the church along tJ~ag~iolia Avenue was beautifu:ly landscaped, and it was proposed to do this along the parking area; an~ tt~at i: anyo:~e had been usi~g Velare Street for ingress and egress,this was unfortunate as an atiemot had been ~~~ade to stop them from utilizing Velare Street from subject property. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to ~he overlays that were placed on the plans and inquired why a complete plan was i~ot submitted. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the Staff t~ad prepared the overlays because of parking problems, and this was an attemot tn indicate how parking could be resolved, thus eliminating the park~ng in the fr~mt yard area of the Velare Street side of suoject property. ' Chairman Camp then stated that irom his ooservation of the opposition, it was basically ' the ingress and egress to Velare Street, and inquired of the opposition if there was anything R else. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3219 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Kaufman stated they were also opposed to the blacktopping, whereupon PERMIT N0. 889 Chairman Camp stated a block wall and l~~dscaping in the front area would (Continued) shield this from any view of adjoining property owners. Mr. Kaufman then stated he was not opposed to development of church property; that the tract in which he resided had been developed with only three entrances; and that it was his opi~iion the church property would be used for short-cuts to avoid traffic signals along Magnolia Fvenue. The Commission expressed the opinion that the proposed use was a proper one for any residen- tial area; that less traffic would be generated from a church use than would be generated ~~ from multiple-family use if all the deeq lots were developed along the west side of Velare Street; that children could Ue trained to stay out of the streets during the time the church ~ was being dismis~ed from services; and that there was less possibility of parkin; on the, street from the church facilities than if apartments were developed on subject property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the compatibility of the proposed use _ and that which had been approved on a portion of subject property, and it was the opinion that the expansion of the church facilities, which was a permitted use in the R-1 Zone, would create less traffic and would be a more compatible land use than any R-3 development adjace~t to R-1, provided, however, that a 15-:oot, landscaped setback with a 6-foot masonry wall to the rear of said landscaped setback was provided. Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possible lighting of the parking area, and if this were done, down-lighted lighting, a maximum of 5 feet in height, should be required in order to shield tne residential homes to the south and east from said lignting, and ~hat the petitioners should meet with Development Review to resolve ~ more acceptable parking layout. P~:. Thompson advised the CoT~ission that Condition No. 12 of the Report to the Commission should have ~ead: "That a 6-foot masonry wall sha11 be constructed along the south property line, and that a bond i~~ an amount and form satisfactory to tne City of Anaheim sha11 be • posted with the City to guar~ntee the installation of a 6-foot masonry wa11 along the north property line". - Commissior,er Rowland offered Resolution iJo. PCoo-109 and moved for its passoge and adoption, " seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to crant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Vo. 889, subject to conditions as ou~lined in the ~eport to the Commission, amending Condition No. 12 to read: ~ "A wall along the south property line, and a bond to insure tf~e installation of the wall along the north property line; that a 15-foot, landscaped setback, i:~cluding irrigation facilities, shall be instolled along the east boundary of subiect property, and a 6-foot masonry wa11 constructed to the rear of said landscaped setback; and that any lights proposed for the parking area shall be down-lighted a maximum 5 feet in height in order to shield the residen- tial homes to the soutti ar.d east; furthermore, any appi-~va1 of the parki:ig layout would have to be to the satisfaction of Development Review". (See Resolution Book) On roll cal: the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYF.S: CON~MISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Niur.gall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEDIT: COMMISSIUNERS: Fllred. CO~IDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ANGELO "LABY, 1401 East 51s; Street, Los Angeles, Califernia, FERIviIT N0. 890 Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A h10TEL AND OFF-SALE LIQUOR STORE, WITH WAIVER OF MITlIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property des- cribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying south and east of a 160-foo?. by 130-foot parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue and having frontages of approximately 75 feet on I~arbor Boulevard and approxi- mately 240 feet on Katella kvenue. Property presently classi:ied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr. John Swint, 707 West North Street, designer of the pro~osed development, appeared before the Commission to represent tne petitioner and stated ti~at at the time he had drawn the plans he did not realize he did not meet the parking requirement; that the landscaping adjacent to subject property on the soutn had only a 5-foot landscaped setback which was adjacent to a Danish restaurant; that the liquor store was proposed to sell incidental foods with the liquor sales; and that the size of the proposed liquor store was reduced somewhat because 312 feet we~t proposed for storage purposes. MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, Octcber 10, 1966 3220 CONDITIONA:.'JSE - The Comn~ission advised Mr. Swint that a condition oi the conditional use PERMIT N0. 890 permit ior the Danish restaurant required a minimum of 15 feet for land- (Continuedj scaping ~long the Harbor Boulevard frontage, and the petitioner had been advised of this deficiency. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the owner of the Danish restaurant indicating that a full 50-foot strip of landscaping would be completed within the next six months. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the parking deficiency. Mr. John Myers, 505 West Katella Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to waiver of the required parking spaces, indicating that a11 other developers in that area -were required to meet Code requirements, and the petitioner should not be granted a waiver that was not granted other property owners. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Co~nission noted that irom past experience of many of the motel owners, the requirement of one space per room was more than was normally used because many families coming in one car would rent two or more rooms. The Commission was also of the opinion that a 15-foot minimum strip of landscaping should be provided along the Harbor Boulevard frontage, even though this might reduce the number of parking spaces. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution vo. PC56-110 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pe°mit I~o. 890, subject to conditions. (See Resolutio~ Book) The CoR~ission Secretary noted for the Commission that under Variance i~o. 1102,previously granted by the Commission for a carwash and small stores, a 100-foot frontage alon9 Katella Avenue and a 75-foot frontage along Harbor Boulevard had street light fees paid, and that any reference to Harbor Boulevard in Condition No. 1 should be deleted. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: P.YES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~Wu1ISSI0NERS: Allred. Mr. Thompson further advised the Commission that since the carwash established under Variance No. 1102 was presently abandoned and the Katella Avenue frontage for small stores had never been developed, and since subject petition encompassed both properties, Variance No. 1102 should be terminated. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC56-111 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to terminate all proceedings on Variance No. 1102, based on the fact that the carwash established on the Harbor Boulevard frontage was abandoned, and development had never occurred along the Katella Avenue frontage. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mun~a11, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 1832 - PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE NAKANISHI, ET AL, 10231 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, California, Owner; TOM MAKINO, 3202 West Jefferson Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE ~IAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 657 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum depth of approximateiy 940 feet, tiie easterly bour.dary of subject property being approximately 670 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and further described as 3050 West Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mr. Tom Makino, agent for the oetitioner, appeared fbefore the Commission and stated that on the original plan for the development of the mobilq home park, the agent had not indica~ed a sign~which was an absolute necessity in the operation of the mobile home park involving approximately 22 acres, and tne sign was for identification purposes only. ~ f MINUTES, CITY PLANN£NG ~OMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3221 VARIANCE N0. 1832 - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompsor, advised the Commission that because (Continued) the R-A Zone permitted only one lighted or unlighted sign and a maximum size of 20 square feet, the proposed sign variance was required; however, the request seemed reasonable for the use involved. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-112 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grait Petition for Variance No. 1832, subject to cond~tions. (See Resolution Book) , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fara~o, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. '~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. . VARIANCE N0. 1833 - PUBLIC I-~ARING. GEORG~ CAMBURN, 2220 North Redwood Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK (FOR AN EXISTING GARAGE) FND MINTIJ~UM PARKING SPACE SIZE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately , 51 feet on the east side of Aspen Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 105 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 2a5 feet north of the center- line of Chateau Street, and iurther described as 820 Aspen Street. Property Fresently classi- fied R-1, OD]E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that r,iie report under Variance No. 1833 was the backgrour,d regarding the conversion of an existing garage into ~ workshop and the addition of a less than minimum requireo garage space for subject property. Commissioner Rowland offered :~esolution No. PC66-113 and moved for its passaoe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1833, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call ihe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~dMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 1834 - PUBLIC HEP.RING. CLIFFORD WOLFSWINKEL, c/o Village Center, 1210 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; H. WEIMER, 1121 West Struck Street, Orange, California, Agent; requestirig WAIVERS OF (1) PAAXIMUM NUMBER OF FRFE-Sir1NDING SIGNS PERMITTED, (2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED FREE-STANDIiJG SIGN NEIGHT, (3) FREE-STf;NDIIJG SIGi~ LOCATION, AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREF~ on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corne: of 3a11 Road and Brookhurst Street and having frontages of approximately 280 :eet on Bali Road and approximately 427 feet on Brookhurs: Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMEkCIAL, ZONE. Mr. H. Weimer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the colored slides pre~~r,ted by the Staff, stating that the tops of the existi~g poles would be removed; that the proposed signs were part of the plan of redeveloping and modernizi.ng the existing shopping center; and that the proposed signs wou!d be considerably less than those presently existing on the property. It was noted by the Commission that one sign would be oriented to Ball Road and the other sign to Brookhurst Street, with a changeable sign for advertising the products of the shopping center only, and other items of interest to the shoppers in the shopping area. ~~~ I Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thcmpson advised the Commission that the overall area nf signs would be 437 square feet which included the vacant areas between the one sign. ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ „~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3222 VARIANCE N0. 1834 - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC66-114 and moved for its (Continued) passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1834, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbsi, Mungall, Rowlard, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. J. TUREK, 3159 West Lanerose Drive, P. PLETZ, 3302 West 4.~~~~~ N0. 66-67-29 Ball Road, E. SONES, 1238 South Western Avenue, and J. FUQUAY, 3238 West ( ' Ball Road, Anaheim, California, and H. LIEBERMAN, 12521 Ohmer Way, Garden ~;~ Grove, California, Uwners; H. LIEBERMAN, 12621 Ohmer Way, Garden Grove, .~ California, A9ent; requesting that property described as: Portion 1- An =rregularly shaped parcel of land at tne r.ortheast corner of Western Avenue and Lanerose Drive and having ~i frontages of approximately 145 feet on Western Avenue and approximately 300 feet on Lanerose k.~ Drive; Portion 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately ~ i 165 feet on the north side of Lanerose Drive and ha~~ing a maximum deoth of approximately t-j 234 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 132 feet west of the centerline of Courtright Street; and Portion 3- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land {I with a frontage of approximately 96 feet on the south side of Ball Road and having a maximum ~~ ~ depth of approximately 343 ieet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately ~,i I 330 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ~~ ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. Herbert Lieberman, one of tne petitioners representing a:l the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that subject petition is the result of conferences between the property owners and the Planning Staff for land assembly of the deep lots in this area; that the property owners had been attempting for some time to interest developers to develop these properties, however they had been unsuccessful; that althougn the Staff recommended assembly of a11 the 1ots, this was a beginning, ~ven thougn a11 lots were not included; that no plans were submitted since the petitioners were attempting to get approval of the zoniny so that developers might become interested; that apartments had been approved on Western Avenue, and R-2 zoning had been approved for the Jackson prope:ty on Lanerose Drive; ano rnat if development did occur, it would be in accordance with the zone approved. Mr. Jack Evans, 1302 South Garrett Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that his property was directly across the street fro~ the Turek property; that the City Council had approved low-medium density for the entire area in which subject property is located - and from his understanding, this did not mean medium density for the entire area, which would be contrary to the City Council's philosophy regarding develooment ;or the area; and that it was also understood that the City Council had recommended a Ger.eral Plan amendment to designate subject properties for low-medium density. Mr. Lieberman then stated that he wished t.o claiify tt;e request for R-3 zonirg; that it was his understandiny that the Commission could grant a lesser zone for all or part of the proper- ties since certain portions of these deep lots could be developed more effectively for R-2, while on his property he was selfish enough to hope for a heavier density - thus the request fer R-3 zoning f~r all properties. ~+~r. ~am ?unter, la.o idasterson ~treet, appear?d before ti.e Cummission and sta~ed thot al? tne R-1 homeowners were uesirous of seeina the properti?s de•~eloped. bc.t werA concerneo witn 'n~ possible approv~'_ _F R-3 zoniny, wiiicii in tneir opinion, would :,ot e_e co:npatible witi: „~ neighoorhood; that after tne City opproved the Jack=on pr~;•~.rty ior n-2 zonir~g, it ~.vas ?i~:~n i:oped the City ~vould consider development o: the nalance oi the prop?rties for R-2, 500U - a more compatible zone witn tne c~-1 already developed, but if R-3 were approved, tnis would be inconsistent and contrary to the expressions given by ti~e City Council at ti~e Jackson rezoning nearing; tiiat the R-1 homeowners were aware of the proLlems existin~ in comoinina and d?veloping the unusual-shaped lots - however, he did ~~ot :ee! tt:ese pro~er'j ow~:ers <_i~.o~~:1d be given maximum lend use of their property to the detriment oi tne H-1 i;omeowners whu had invested their life savings in tne purci~ase of thuir ;:omes, os we11 as tileir maintenance,since they purchased in this area on the ~ssumption tnat ti~e General k-lan indicated tnis ar2a :or low densit~, and this density w~uld be maintained. 61r. John Turek, 1234 South Western Avenue, another petitioner, appeared before tne Commissior•. ard stated that it was not his int?nt to develop fo_ R-3 - however, because land assembly seemed to be the best metr,od to get developers interested in these deep lots, he nad consented to R-3, and it v~as assum?d tiie City would approve R-2 zoning along Lanerose Drive, just as had ~een appro•red for ihe Jacksun property. MINUTES, CITY PLANNIWG COMMISSION, Octobe.r 10, 1966 3223 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Shirley Bellinger appeared before the Corrunission and stated she N0. 66-67-29 lived in an apartment along Western Avenue; that the apartment manager (Continued) was very strict in screening the tenants; that these apartment dwellers had plenty of parkin9 spaces - hGwever, many of them parked on Western Avenue, adding to the traffic load, and even though the apartment manager had advised them not to park on the street, she could not police the parking of the automo- biles; that if more apartments were apnroved for this area, this would add to the traffic problem and would I~ean many of the apartment dwellers would be using short-cuts by going through the R-1 areas to avoid trafiic on Western Avenue. - THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED. ~. ---~~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-115 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~"~~~ ' seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ; fication No. 66-67-29 be a 9. pproved reclassifying Portions 1 and 2 to the R-2, Multiple-Family ~,1 Residential, Zone, and P~rtion 3 to the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone, subject to ~ conditions. (See Resolution Boak) r~: On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ;arano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ncne. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GORDON L. HODGE, 18681 Crescent Drive, Anaheim, California, N0. 66-67-30 Uwner; NEIL REITMAN, 1775 East Center Street, Nn~heim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a irontage of approxi,~ateiy 125 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 6~0 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 675 feet east of the centerline of Dale Street, and further des- cribed as 2748 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COWJ~.RCIAL, ZOI~E, to establish a 94-unit motel and coffee shop on subject property. Mr. Neil Reitman, agent for Lhe petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the only change to the plans as originally approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 356 was ~ the deletion of the two first-floor, two-bedroom units and replacement with a restaurant, -_ and a reclassification was necessary to permit the restaurant to be established; however, only a coffee shop was proposed. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HcARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that in order that the petitioner might be fully covered for the use permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 356, an additional 180-day time extension might be yranted to allow time for the reclassification to be acted upon by the Council. I . j Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-116 and moved for its passage and adoption, i seconded by Commissioner Mur.gall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ~~ fication No. 66-67-30 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i;rc;,: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NCES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant an extension of 180 days for the completion of conditions under Conditional Use Permit No. 356, said time extension to expire April 15, 1967. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~i - a '` :~ ~ ~ ~ 1 , ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 196b 3224 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL SPEHAR, 15496 Ward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, and N0. 66-67-31 BROADWAY VILLAGE OF AIJAt-IEIM, 710 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; JOHN ZYLSTRA, 710 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 34 feet on the east side of Euclid 5treet and having a maximum depth of approximately 610 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 715 feet north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue, be reclassified from thP R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERtiL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to provide for expansion of the Broadway Village parking lot and for the existing driveway easement from Euclid Street for the apartm~nt units to the east. w~~ Mr. John Zylstra, agent for the petiiioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that ~ , the proposed reclassification would provide for an official driveway easement, as well as i~ , additional parking for the Broadway Village, and that he was not opposed to the requirement of wheel blocks ~z,raarating the parking area irom the driveway easement to the apartment ~' develoFment to the eest. Mr. Zylstra, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the 14-foot parking strip was being leased from the 3roadway Village for parking purposes, and the balance would be the private road to the apartment development. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC66-117 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petitior. for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-31 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CON~MISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COM~NISSIO~'ERS: None. ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: Allred. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HckRING. LLOYD PETTENGILL, 1564 Tonia Lane, Anaheim, California, -, N0. 66-67-32 _ Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land -, located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Buena Vista Avenue ' CONDITIONAL USE and having froniages of approximately 100 feet on Euclid Street and PERMIT N0. 891 approximately 200 feet on Buena Vista Avenue, and further described as 142o Soutii Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GEidERAL VARIANCE N0. 1835 COMMERCIAL, ZU14E, DEED RESTRICTED ro nUSI:~ESS AND PRUFcSSIUi~HL OFFICE USES OtdLY. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: DELETION OF DEED RESTRICTIO~IS, LIMITING THE USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TU BUSINESS ..:JD PROFESSIONAL OFFICES GIdLY, TU PERMIT THE FULL RANGE OF C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE USES. t I REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USr: cSTABLI5H k WALK-UP RESTAURANT. REQUESTED VARIRNCE: WAIVERS OF (1) h4INIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, A'~D (2) NIAXINUM BUILDIIJG HEIGHT. Mr. Lloyd Pettengill, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and =_tated that alttiough he had C-1 zoning, it was deed restricted to business and professional offices only; that he would like to develop subject property because it was an eye-sore along the street; that the I' businesses he was proposing would be complimentary to the area; that the Taco Be11 restaurant ~' people were interested in a portion of subject property, and a drive-in dair was y proposed ~. for another portion; and that Mr. Neuman and Mr. Cushman, representing the Taco Bell Company, i were available for questions if the Commission desired. Mr. Pettengill also presented the Commission with a brochure regarding the ?aco Bell operation. Mr. Duane Dawson, 1664 Buena Vista Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating that his home would be one of the homes seriously afiected by a ~ more intense commercial use for subject property; that he questioned the statement made by the petitioner that he was proposing something which would be in the best in?.E.rest of the _ Ci.ty, and inquired whether the petitioner lived in close proximity to subjec: property. ~ It was determined from Mr. Pettengill that he lived approximately thrae-quarters of a mile ,,,~ :rom subject property. _ ~^ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3225 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Dawson then continued, stating that since the proposed.Taco Bell N0. 66-67-32 would be next to his property, he felt the use would have a detrimental effect on the residential area to the east where approximately 65 children CONDITIONAL USE resided; that the deed restrictio~~s were imposed after considerable dis- PERMIT N0. 891 cussion between the petitioner and the neighbors; that he was opposed to any removal of deed restrictions, as well as removal of the abandonment VARIANCE N0. 183~ of the access ri9hts to Buena Vista Avenue, because it would be detri- ~ (Continued) mental to the residential integrity of the area by subjecting the neigh- borhood to a possible undesirable element, together with the usual trash that would be dropped in the residential area since the restaurant would be the take-out variety and papers, cups, and other paper products would be discarded on the ~~ lawns and in the street by the patrons of the restaurant; and that the pictures he was present- `;,i ing to the Commission of a similar Taco Bell operation an Euclid Street would illustrate his ~~ , basis for opposition. ~~~ Mr. John Bernbrock, 1408 South Adria, appeared before the Commission in opposition and ~ presented a~tition si ned b 102 ~~{ p~ ~ y property owners in opposition. The letter of opposition ~.i was then read to the Commission by Mr. Bernbrock. (A copy on file with the petition.) ~i Mr. Bernbrock further stated that an access gate to Loara High School was directly across ~~ -. the street from subject property, whicii would create a serious traffic hazard because there k~ were no crosswalks or traf;ic lights in this area, but knowing children, they would walk ,.I across the street to the Taco Be11 restaurant for snacks without regard to traffic hazards. Mr. Robert Stringer, 1602 Buena Vista Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that Buena Vista Avenue was only a block long and had a semi-cul-de-sac at its easterly terminus; that the petition signed by 102 persons was evidence that the removal of deed restrictions and the es~ablishment of a walk-up restaurant was of grave concern to the property owners who tiad investments of from $30,000 to $50,000 in their homes; that the petitioner had presented a similar request for a drive-throu9h restaurant approximately two years ago at which time the Commissior. visited the area and recommended derial of said request; that since there was a school, a fire station, and library in close proximity to subject property, it was urgent that the area not be developed in a more intense commercial nature; and t!iat the proposed drive-in restaurant would encourage "hot-rodders" and motorcylists using Buena Vista Avenue, tnus endan9ering the lives of many of the children in the area. A showiny of hands indicated eleven persons present in opposition to subject oetition. Mr. Pettengill, in rebuttal, stated that he had owned the home for seven years and had made every attempt to develop subject oroperty in accordance with the deed restrictions - however it had become economically impossible to develop under the present deed restrictions because business and professional office buildings were in excess, with many vacancies, and he felt the imp:oveme^t of that corner would be more acceptable than its present condition. Mr. Norman Melks, 8410 Katella Avenue, Stanton, appeared before the Commission, stating that he would be the proposed owner-operator of the Taco Be11 restaurant; that the architecture was Spar,ish in style; that in his estimation there was nothing objectionable to the type of development for the area; tnat the operation was limited to the sale of six food items, selling at 19¢ each; that it was a clean and efficient operation, and the grounds were supervised and maintained by the manager of the operation; that no problem had previously existed where a high school was in close proximity and was cor.sidered ahang-outfor juvenile delinquents; that his wife was a school teacher and he also worked with young people; that the noise would be held to a minimum and there would be no loitering because this operation was a take-out without an are.3 provided for eating the food on the premises; that parking would be more than adequate for tne operation; that he could not see where the saiety of the children would be invulved since it was proposed to have the drive approaches from Euclid Street, and a sidewalk would be constructed along the residential street. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts inquired of the proposed operator how he intended to maintain overall control of trash since nis jurisdiction wouid be only on the property itself. Mr. Melks stated that the iranchise was constantly investigated rela.tive to maintenance of the high standards and requirements ~f the Taco Bell people, and if the operator were not complying with the health standards, the City should contact the Taco IIell headquarters at 2550 Via Tejon, Palos Verdes Estates, California. The Commission noted that perhaps subject property could be policed; however, children usually walked down the streei with their tacos and soft drinks and dropped the debris on the peoples' lawns, which would be the problem many of the owners in opposition would be complaining about. MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3226 RECLASSTFICATION - In response to Commission questionin9 relative to policing the property N0. 66-67-32 on which the walk-up restaurant was located, '-' . nnolks stated he could police within one-h..lf block, but could no' ., -~?. the balance of the CONDITIONAL USE area. ~ERMIT N0. 891 Mr. Jack Snapiro, 9229 Sunset Boulevard. . ~~~~ner of an VARIANCE N0. 1835 adjacent C-1 parcel, appeared before the •,. ,:; atated he (Continued) coul~ appreciate the petitioner's positi ;. ..; cit:iculty in developiny since he nad owned his propert~ ° ~• years,and it had been difficult to find a good use; however, he Ye1t the rights of the residents in the area should also be considered since much of the properties were ~~ld for the development of single-family homes, a~d if development of incompatible uses adjacent to these single-family homes was permitted es the petitioner was requesting, the commercial landowners would be doing a disservice to the property owners, as well as the City, and he wished to go on record as being opposed to deletion of the deed restrictions since this would open many requests for similar neavier commercial uses which would be detrimental to the peace, health, safet~~ and general welfare of the single-family homeowners who would be basically affected, as we11 as be expected to use the commercial facilities. Mr. Pettenoill again appeared, in rebuttal, and stated that most of the opposition seemed to be related to development along the Buena Vista Avenue side, and if all development had occurred in a fashion which would be acceptable to the sin9le-family homeowners, Euclid Street would not have been developed with the many varied uses presently existing. A letter of opposition from the Loara High School principal was read to the Commission. TI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission as t6 the types of uses which had been established prior to reclassification of subject propertv ~n 1961 and noted that no =ignificant land use change had taken place in the general a of subject property to warrant any considera- tion of a cfiange in the present commercial ~ ice use with a heavier commercial use. Commissione: 'rarano offered Resolution No. PC66-118 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-32, requesting deletion of deed restrictions limiting the use of subject property to business and pro;essional offices only to permit the full range of C-1 uses, be denied on the basis that tne croposeo com:nerciai use would be an encreachment into c resi- dential area; tnat no si?ni;ica.t ldnd use change had taken olace i,~ tne ar<_~a to warrant consideration of deletion ui ,nese deed restrictions: tnat tne request for unlimite~ C-1 uses would have a deleterious effect on the residential integrity established; and thdt t^e heavier commercial uses would iiave an ur;favorable economic impact o:~ the well-establisi~ed residential area adjacent to subject property. (See Resolution Book) On ro11 ca11 the fAregoing resolution was oassed by tne followiny vote: AYES: CGNd~1ISSIUNEitS: F~rano, Gauer, Herbst, 1:',ungall, Rowland, Camp. NO~S: CG:.;;:1ISSIOD!ERS: IJone. ABSEiIT: CO'1u:9ISSI0~tRS: Allr?d. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution Ido. PC65-119 and moved for its passage and adoption, secor.ded by Commissioner Herust, to oeny Petition for Conditional Use Permit ;io. 891, basFd on ttie fact that the proposed use would have an adverse effect on the adjoining la~d uses. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the fcllowing vote: P.YES: CO~~'~h1ISSIGNERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, h1unga]1, Rowland, Camp. D10ES: COh1~~1ISSI0NERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIOiJERS: Allred. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution tJo. PC55-120 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance ^70. 1835, based on findings. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: FYES: COMMISSIOf1ERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Munaall, r~owland, Camp. NOES: COt~tu1ISSI0NERS: None. ABSEI~T: COMM?SSIONERS: Allred. ~ r I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3;27 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC66-129 and moved for its N0. 66-67-32 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to . the City Council that the request for abandonment of the access rights CONDITIONAL USE to Buena Vista Avenue not be granted in conjunction with Reclassification PERMIT i:0. 891 No. 66-67-32. (See Resolution Book) VARIANCE N0. 1835 On roll call tne foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIO!JERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~---~$ ,~ , VARIANCE N0. 1825 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT KEVORKIAN, 11621 Heathcliff Street, Santa Ana, California, Owner; STANLEY SCHERER, 2043 Minerva Avenue, " Anaheim, California, Agent; requestin9 WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING ,~ SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (2) IJ~AXIMUJ~ BUILDING HEIGHT, (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, , (4) MINIMUt~i NUMBER OF COVERED PARKiIJu SPACES, (5) MINIMUM PHRKING SPACE SILE, (6} MAXIMUM ' PERMITTED DENSITY, (7) MINIMUM FLOOR ARcA PER DWELLING UIdIT, AND (8) SCREEN PLANTING on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land, approximately 106 feet by ' _, 329 feet, located at the west end of and abutting Julianna Avenue, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 340 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. ' Property presently classified R-3, tJULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of September 12, 1965, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans incorporating suggestions made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Stanley Scherer, the proposed developer of the apartment complex, appeared before the Commission and stated that he and the designer had worked many hours on a new design in o~der to meet Code requirements; that he had met with the neighbors to present the revised plans, noting that the development had been reduced to 29 units, with the units in conform- ance with the minimum floor area requirement; that when he spoke with the neighbors regard- ing the oroposed development, immediately to the =ast and south no opposition was expressed - however, the woman to the east and north had opposed the development since it would block off ~ cross-ventilation; that the General Plan projected the area for multiple-family development; ~ and ttiat because of the location and cost of the property, it was necessary to construct two- _, story apartments and eliminate extension of Julianna Avenue across the property. Mr. G. Wool:idoe, 735 West Julianna Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had nevEr met the representative of the property owner; that he was opposed to two-story construction because it would act as a barrier for proper cross-ventilation; that Julianna Avenue should ce 2xtended in order to provide proper access to the apartments rather than having a gate placed at the present termination, thus inviting the apartment residents to park in frnnt of t}ie R-1 homes in order to avoid problems in leaving the area to qain access to Harbor Bouleva~d; and that the alley which is now closed should be extended at the rear of the apartment development to provide for proper vehicular circulation for the apartment. Mrs. Dorothy Parsons, 700 West Julianna Avenue, apoeared before the Commission and stated there were many apartments in the area now which were of inferior quality; that if apart- ments were to be constructed on subject property, they should be limited to one story only within 150 feet of the R-1 homes; and that adequate circulation should be provided for any multiple-family development in accordance with Code requirements. Mrs. Edwin Troutman, 704 West Julianna Avenue, appeared before the Commission, stating that her home would be primarily affected because it was the last home on the south side of the street adjacent to the proposed two-story construction; that all the property on~ners were desirous of having Julianna Avenue extended to provide adequate circulation and eliminate the possibility that apartment dwell.ers would park their cars on Julianna Avenue in front of the R-1 homes; that because the street was now terminated in front of her home, many people not knowing this would have to turn around in her driveway at night, and many times this was accompanied with a considerable screeching of brakes beceuse they had to stop rather suddenly, and the accompanying noise and lights were disrupting her p:ivacy; and that if apartments were approved for the property, it would be desirable to have construction complimentary to the homes, rather than construction which would detract from tne area. ~ Mr. James Hodges, 1731 South Euclid Street, the desiqner of the proposed multiple-;amily development, appeared before the Commission and stated the petitioner had a hardship because two-story apartments had been permitted and construction was made under the old R-3 standards which made the area a low rental area and automatically eliminated the possibility of con- structing deluxe-type apartments; that the extension of Julianna Avenue across subject property would reduce the square footage of the development by 25% because setbacks x~ould also be required; and that good planning principles would be violated in permitting traffic flow from an R-3 development through an R-1 development. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 ~22g UARIANCE N0. 1825 - Mr. Scherer, in rebuttal, stated that in addition to requiring the (Continued) extension of Julianna Avenue across subject property, an 8-foot over- hang easement along the easterly property line was required, which did not permit construction under it - which would further reduce the amount of developable land; and that he felt the petitioner had a hardship by requiring one-story within 150 feet of R-1 while the exisLing apartments were permitted to construct two-story adjacent to other R-1 property in the area. THE HEAfiING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the necessity of having adequate circula- tion in conformance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan by the extension of Julianna Avenue across subject property; that subject property could be developed under the R-3 Code requirements; and that no hardship existed in developing subject property under its present Code. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-121 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1825 on the basis that it ; was necessary to have proper circulat'on by the extension of Julianna Avenue, which the petitioner did not provide, even though recommended by the Plannir~g Commission,in the sub- mission of revised plans; that subject property could be developed in accordance with the R-3 Code requirements; and that no hardship had been proven that subject property could not be d?veloped in a manner required by Code. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed 'oy the followin9 vote: ~ , AYES: COhV~7ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMh1ISSI0NERS: None. ABSEPdT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HtARIlJG. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AMENDMENT N0. 88 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing a change to the General Plan - Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way, amending the classi- fication of Jefferson Street between the Riverside Freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road from a secondary highway to a primary highway. - Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the recommended General Plan amendment change - for the designation of Jefierson Street between the Rive*side Freeway and Santa Ar.a Car.yor. Road from a secondary to a primary arterial niqnway, based on tne fact tnat northerly oi the Riverside Freeway Jefferson Street was designated as a major higi~way, a~d tnat the City oi Orange exter.sion of Jeiferson Street south of Santa Ana Cor~yor Road indicated Tustin Avenue as a primary niynwa}•, and tnat wnen Tract fJos. 4543 and do44 were developed under the jurisdiction of the County, Jefferson Street was constructed with a 100-foot rightrof- way, or a primary highway. Furthermore, studi=s made by the Traf;ic Engineer indicateo that at the time Je;fer~on Street was extended across the Santa Ana River, the peok iiour traffic load would be 2,200 venicles carryir~g tne traffic ;rom the industrial area to the north to the various residential areas ~o the south, and t..c, ~a:~.i~~de of this traffic ~ volume required the travel lanes provid.9 by a primary arterial i~i?i:way, I fJo one appeared i~ opposition to su~;ect petition. THE HEARIiJG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution fJo. PC6o-122 and moved for its passage and adoption, secor.ded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan F,mend- ~ mer.t No. 88, amending the classification of Jefferson Street betwean tne Riverside Freeway I and Santa Ana Canyon Road on the Highway Rights-of-Way Circulation Element from a secondary ~ arterial highway to a primary arterial fiigtlway. (See Resolution Book.) ; On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE°: COMMISSIOfJERS: Farano, Geuer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowla~d, Camp. IJOES: CUMMISSIGNERS: None. ABSEI4I': COMMISSIONERS: Ailred. ~ ~ I : .~ `_ ._-~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLkNNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1966 3229 REPORTS AiJD - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Change in Street Classification for Orangewood Avenue from a Secondary to a Primary Highway by the Orange County Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Char:es Roberts presented to the Commissi.on a proposal by the Orange County Planning Commission to change the classification of Orangewood Avenue, between the west bank of the Santa Ana River and a point 600 feet east of Eckhoff Street, located in the west section of the City of Orange, from a secondary to a primary hi9hway, and then presented the followiny study data rtiade by the Staff: ~R 1. That Urangewood Avenue, at the present time, is designated as a secondary arterial highway within the City of Anaheim. 2. That the City of Anaheim design standards for seco~.dary arterials include 90 feet of right-of-way with 54 feet betwee;; curb .?hese ;~4 feet accom- modate four ianes oi t*af;ic. 3. That studies made by the Traffic engineer of the Ci~y of Anaheim prior to the opening of the Anaheim Stadium revealed ti;e necessit•; for six-lane roadways in close proximity to the stadium. Therefore, when Grangewood Avenue was developed between Staie College ~oulevard and the Santa Ana River, a secondary cross-section, 70 feet of street width, was provided within the 90-foot right- of-way. This additional street width permits two extra traffic lanes for peak hours by prohibiting street parkin9. 4. That the County of Uran9e design standards for secondar•/ a:terials include 80 feet of right-of-way wit;~ 54 feet between curbs. 5. That since the Cour.ty of Urange secondary arterials cannot be altered to accommodate six lanes of traffic, it is necessary that Orar,gewood Hvenue, within County ;urisdiction, be upgraded to a primary arterial highway in order to obtair the extra width. 5. ihat as a result o: discussions between tn? Uevelopment Services ilepartmeni and the City Craffic cnyineer, it has been dPtermined tnat ti:ere would be no apparent reason to object to this action. Commissioner Rowland offered a motior. to recommend to ti~e City Council tnat the ~ranye County Flanning Commission be urged to approve a change in street classiiication .'or Grangewcod Avenue from a secondary to a primary hignway, extending from tne west bann of the Santa Ana River oc ti~e west to o point 500 feet east of tckhoff Street, located in the west sectior~ of tne Cit~~ of Orange. Commissioner Herbst seconded tiie motion. P~10TION CARRIED. I?E,ti1 NU. 2 Termination of various Conditional Use Permits and V~riances. Fssociate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed for tne Commission the iour petitions recommended for termination, noting that all the data on the Report to ttie Commission fu11y explained the oi•igir,al uses anci the existiny uses. Commissioner nowland offered r~esolution ;Jo. PCo6-123 and rr~oveu fur ils pdssaye and edopliu:„ seco~ded by Commissione: Gouer, to terminate all proceedings or~ `Jariance ~do. 1077. (See kESOlution Book) On ro11 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMhdISSIOIJERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, hlungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIO!dERS: None. AIISENT: COh1;~1IS5I0NERS: Allred. ~ I Commissioner Gauer cffered 3esolution Ilo. PC56-124 and moved :or its passage and adoption, ~ ~' seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to te*minate a11 proceedings on Variance No. 1295. (See ' ~ R<solution Book) On roll call the fore~o?ng resolution was passed by tt~e following vote: * AYES: COhUJiISSIOIdERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, hiungall, Rowland, Camp. .f~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: iJone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. t t ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO,MMISSION, October 10, 1966 3230 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2~Continued) RECOMNENDATIONS Termination of various Conditional Use Permits and Variances. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-125 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded Uy Cor,unissioner Gauer, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 381. (See Resolution Book) ; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed hy the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. " - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. r• -^~~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ,: ~ ~ ~ . Y;.~~ Commissione; Farano offered Resolution ~o. PC66-126 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit ~,i No. 524. (See Resolution Book) ~~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i'~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~~' NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: Pdone. ;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ '~'~ ITEM N0. 3 II Conditional Use Permit No. 557 - Request for amendment to permitted uses granted in Resolution No. 1245, Series 1964-65, ~j to permit the operation ~f a one-operator beauty shop. 1 `~ Mrs. Beth Lancaster, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated she had i .) submitted a letter requestin9 that the permitted uses include a beauty shop in the area ~ designated on the plans for a hobby shop; that at the time the general contractor tzad ~i submitted the request under Conditional Use Permit N~. 557, he nad not indicated tne ~ beauty shop, although this iiad been their intention all along, and no hobby shop had ~: been constructed; that the beauty shop would be a one-operator beauty shop, and one of the residents of the trailer park wo~ld operate it; that the only sign advertising the '~ _ beauty shop would be on the yate near the sauna baths; that formerly trailer parks were built under the jurisdiction of t}ie State - however now they were required to submit a ~'j conditional use permit to permit them in the City of Anaheim; and that this would be a '~ service to the women who had no automobiles who resided in the trailer park. ~ + Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts inquired if it would be open to the general public, ,`~ whereupon Mrs. Lancaster stated it would be open to those outside of the trailer park only as guests of the residents of the trailer park, and further, in response to Commission ~ questioning, stated that no sign would be erected on the street frontage on Beach Boulevard, ,~ and the only sign would be the one in the trailer park itself. ~ ~ Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or no+ this should be consider~d at a public hearing, €~ ~ and after considerable discussion by the Commission, Staff, and Deputy City Attorney, it was determined an amendment to the resolution could be made to permit the beauty shop. . Commissioner Mungall offered r~esolution No. PC66-127 and moved for its passage and adoption, I, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to amend Finding No. 1 of Resolution No. 1245, granting !. Conditional Use Permit No. 557, to permit a beauty stiop in the area designated as a"hobby , shop" as an accessory use to the operation of the trailer park itself, and would be for the residents and their guests only. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , AYES: CONWiISSIOC~ERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. - , ~OES: CO~dMISSIONERS: I~:on2. , ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred. ~ ~ ,:~ ~ F ~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION, October'10, 1966 3231 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 445 - Sunkist Baptist Church - (Continued) Request for deletion of requirement of a masonry wall along the south and west boundaries of subject property. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented a request from representatives of the Sunkist Baptist Church requesting d?letion of the requirement of a masonry wall along the south and west boundaries of subject property bccause a chainlink fence existed along the west boundary where a school was located, and the R-1 development immediately adjacent to the south had constructed a redwood ience. y~~ Mr. Christofferson stated he had contacted the Anaheim Union School District, and they had evidenced no opposition to deletion of the masonry wall along the west property line; how- ~ , ever,upon examination of the proposed plans of development for the church, it was determined that the parking area would be located immediately adjacent to the redwood fence, and it was ' recommended by the Staff that the deletion of the masonry wall along the south property line not be granted since the masonry wa11 would provide a more efficient buffer from the sound of automobiles using the church parking area abuttiny residential property on the north. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-128 and moved for its passage and adoption, -~ seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to amend Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 822, Series 1963-64, dated July 8, 1963, to read as follows: "8. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed alony the south property line at the time the church property is to be developed". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, i ' ( / U'.-. ~ ~~/ ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~:}~ R ~ ~ .__ ..a~ ~ ,/ • ; :. ~x ':~ ..k t