Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/12/19•• _ ,~ ' ,E ~ 4 ' City Hall Anaheim, Caiifornia December 19, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAI-~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called ~ to order by Chairman Camp at 2: 00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. ~ ~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. ,1 , ;-i - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano (entered at 2:25 P.M~), Gauer (entered f =. ~ ' at 2:13 P.M.), Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. . ~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. I PRESENT - A;sistant Development Services Director: Robert N~ickelson ~ Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson j - Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts ' ~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw ~I~ Planning Su~ervisor: Ronald Grudzinski ~ ,I Associate Planner: Jack Christof~erson . 1 Planning Commission Secretary: Fnn Krebs ` PLEDGE OF ~ ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. I APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of December 5, 1966, were appr~ved with the ~ THE MINUTES following cor*ections, on moti on by Commissioner Nerbst, seconded by ~ Commissioner Rowland, and MOTI ON CARRIED~ ~~ Page 3279 - Reports and Recommendations - Item No~ 1, paragraph 7, ~, line 1, substitute the word ~~~r the word ~~ ~~ ;I Fage 3280 - Paragraph 3 should read: "The Planning Commission dia feel it could project any re-use of the front-on lots and : i _ its resultant effect on the Center City . ~. City Council." ' . P~age 3280 - Paragraphs 6-12 should read: "Commissioner Rowland offered ' I a motion to recommend to the City Council that since the:e were no major zoning decisions, they felt that a final action ~ on East Street General Plan Amendment t`o, 90 should be with- '•_~ held until it could be evaluated in li9ht of its effect on ~~ tne front-on study. This recommendation was made cn the basis of: F 1. That the City Council was in the process of working toward i i a decision on the future o; the Center City Redevelopmer.t I Plan, and until a decision was made on said plan, it would be difficult for the Commission to adeauatel}' evaluate the ~ effect on the Center City, and the City as a whole, ef ;, commercial development proposals throughout the community. ~ 2. That a commercial designation for one side of the street ~ 4 did not necessarily mean the same designation could be ~ justified for both sides of the street~ i 3. That the size and shape of the deep lots on the east side of East Street made them more suitable for multiple-family , uses which could add to the economic support for the com- i mercial uses established in the areo. 4~ That the Commission had spent considerable time in work ,;+ sessions considering the conversion of the residential , . 4 . front-on sites along arterial highways in 21 specific , ; : locations in addition to East Street, and were attemptin9 ~. ''s to find a community-wide answer for the conversion of these ~ front-on sites to more intense uses. j R~ Commissioner Rowland further indicated if the City Council is '1 ;~ desirous of an immediate decision, the Commission would recom- ~ ~~ ; mend General Plan Amendment No. 90 as originally presented. ~ :~ ~~' { i , , Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~" ~ , ;~ 3283 ~ . , ~ } , - ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 19, 1966 3284 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ALPINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 17221 East 17th Street, PERMIT N0. 240 Suite H, Santa Ana, California, Owner; requesting permission to have ON-SALE LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 117 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 170 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approxi- mately 392 feet south of the centerline of Sycamore Street, and further described as 404 and 406 North State College Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERP,L COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Frank Ciampa, operator of the Italian Villa Restaurant, zppeared before the Commission ~ and stated his restaurant was the first one constructed on State College Boulevard; however, at the time Conditional Use Permit No. 240 was first approved, it was limited to on-sale ~ beer and wine only, without a bar; subsequent to this action, several other places in c~ose proximity were granted a use permit to have on-sale liquor; that children would never be ~:r allowed in the separate dining room where the bar was located; and that no opposition had been presented to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board since the notice was posted on the property 35 days ago. s A letter signed by 20 property owners was also submitted by Mr. Ciampa, in favor of the ' ,~~ proposed use. ;~ No one appeared in ooposition to subject petition. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. j Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC66-170 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ =_econded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 240, - permitting on-sale liquor in addition to the beer and wine in conjunction with the restaurant, i and the installation of a bar subject to development of the property in accordance with p1- > i on file with the City. (See Resolution book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Ro:~•land, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CONNAISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MASAMI OGATA, 2565 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, ~ PERMIT N0. 907 Owner; TAKEO MATSUNAGA and YASUMI MIYAMOTO, 923 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agents; requesting ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 162 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, the southerly property line of subject property being approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ! No one appeared to represent the petitioner. i No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. The Commission reviewed the plans of the existing restaurant, noting that no visible service bar was indicated, and that the Staff had noted the petitioner had stated service would be ~, directly to the counter and tables in the dining room from the kitchen serving area. ~ TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. i ~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC66-171 and moved for its passage and adoption, i seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 907, subject ~~ to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~. ~ ~ '~ _ ~~ ~x AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gaue=. * .~ r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 19, 1966 3285 VARIANCE N0. 1846 - PUBLIC HEARING. WALTER J. FURIE, 1800 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California, Owner; W. T. MC CLURE, 1354 5outh Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) NUMBER OF FREE- STANDING SIGNS PERMITTED~ (2) AGGREGATE AREA OF SIGNS PERMITTED, (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN HEIGHT, AND (4) LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING gIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 250 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 320 feet, the southerly property line of subject property being approximately 410 feet north of the centerline of Palais Road, and further described as 1354 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. t ~ . ( No one was present to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the types of signs c~~sting on subject property, noting that some of the signs were placed there prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance, and that other signs had been erected since the adoption of tne Sign Ordinance which were also in violation of the Sign Ordinance. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the existing signs on subject property, and the request for additional signs; that the petitionEr had not appeared to present evi- dence of hardship; and that granting subject petition would be s~tting a precedent. Commissioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 2:13 P.:u. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC66-172 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1846, on the basis that the establishment of the proposed four signs, with an aggregate s~uare footage of 1,372 feet would be setting ar. undesirable precedent, and the petitioner had not presented evidence of hardship if subject petition were not granted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Non=. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GAR-L0, INCURPORATED, 921 West 3everly N0. 66-67-3 Boulevard, Montebello, California; H. N. BERGER, 4"s33 East Liveoak Avenue, Arcadia, California; and FAIRFIELD HOMES, INCORPORATED, 4333 CONDITIONAL USE East Liveoak tivenue, Arcadia, California, Owners; MAURICE KERNS, PERMIT N0. 861 245 South Spalding Drive, Beverly Hills, C~lifornia, Agent; property described as: Portion 1- An irregularly shaped pa:cel of land located VARIANCE N0. 1808 at the southeast corner of Loara Street and Broadway and having f:ontages of approximately 141 feet on L.oara Street and approximately 208 feet on Broadway, and Portion 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying so,~th and east of Portion 1, and having frontages of approximately 495 feet on Loara Street and approximately 860 feet on Broadway, Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. I I REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: POkTION 1- C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ti PORTIUN 2- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. iC~ ~ j; REQUESTED CONDIT?ONAL USE: PORTION 2- PERMIT A CHILD CARE NURSERY. I . ? ! REQUESTED VARIANCE: PORTION 2- WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, ~' ' ' (2) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM A DWELLING UNIT TO A DEDICATED ~E ' STREFI~, (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (4) 6. ' MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM A DWELLING UNIT TO A GARAGE. Subject petitions were continued from th~ meetings of July 18 and August 15, 1966, to allow the petitioner time to prepare revised plans. ;.~ ~ ~~~ : Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the agent for the i had submitted an additional request for continuance for six months because of theecurrentr ~ - >~ financial situation. ;~ ~~ ~a '.~ ~ _k , ~ .. ~ .. ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COANvi16SI0N, December 19, 1466 3286 RECLASSIFiCATION - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue public hearing of N0. 66-67-3 Reclassificatior No. 66-67-3, Conditional Use Permit No. 661, and Variance No. 1808 to the meeting of June 19, 1967, as requested by CONDITIONAL USE the petitioner. Commissioner Mun9a11 seconded the motion. MOTION PERMIT N0. 861 CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 1808 (Continued) RECLASSIFICA'CION - PUBLIC HEARID'G. EARL SPRATLEN, 461 West Valley View Drive, Fullerton, N0. 66-67-42 California, and HECTOR PELAYO, 232 San Carlos Way, Placentia, California, Owners; WILLIAM TOPLIKAR, 3505 Mungall Drive, Anaheim, California, Agent; CONDITIONAL USE property described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel of land located at PERMIT N0. 905 the northeast corner of East Street and Kenwood Avenue and having frontages of approximately 124 feet on East Street and approximately 113 feet on Kenwood Avenue, and further described as 1302 and 1308 North East Street. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZUNE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF A ~ SECONDARY STREET AND A LOCAL STREET WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WITH WAIVER OF THE MAXIMUM bUILDING HEIGHT. PAr. William Toplikar, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use of subject property, noting that ti~e owners had moved out of their homes because of the dangerous condition of heavy traffic and close proximity to the freeway on- ramp for the small children; that subject p*operty was now vacant, and the owners were unable to rent the property - however, the Texaco Company had expressed an interest in establishing a service station since no service station was located near the freeway on-ramp. A1r. Hector Pelayo, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission, stating he owned the tiouse at 1308 North East Street; that he had moved from his home approximately a year ago and has had his home up for sale since that time - f~owever, he has been unable to secure a buyer because of the heavy traffic, and this was the reason he also haci moved away; that one could not back out of his driveway because of the close proximity of the freeway on-ramp; and that subject property was no longer desirable for residential uses since most of the property on the west side of East Street was already commercially developed. Mr. Don ~mith, 1303 Norwood Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that approxi- mately three weeks ago, when the ct~,urch was requesting permission to use two existing homes for Sunday School rooms, he had requested the Commission or the Council prepare a survey and study of the area to determine the best possible means of developing the property; that his yarage and house were approximately five feet from the property line, and the home directly to the north had a 16-foot rear yard and a swimming pool; thzt the:e were more than adequate service station faciliiies along East Street; :hat the size of the parcel was inadequate to provide all access to the service station irom East Street - therefore, commercial uses would be projected onto a local street. Commissioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 2:25 P.M. Mr. Smith continued that it was urgent that the ~ity do some survey of these properties since so many requests were coming in for commercial uses of the property; that properties along Che west side of East Street were already developed for commercial purposes; that there was already considerable noise from the traffic on the street, and to approve a service station would not only add additional noise, but dust, fumes, odors, and additional traffic onto the local street; that there were 12 service statiors already in existence between Lincoln Avenue and the freeway, and several of the stations had been closed, or the operators had 9one `nto bankruptcy because of their inability to have sufficient business; that the Spratlen home was not vacant until just a couple of months ago, when Mr. Spratlen had to make a trip to Australia for two years; that gaining access to Eost Street by backing from the property was a problem ~ for only one home since the home at the intersection !-~ad entrance to their property on Kenwood '~ Avenue; that because of the topography of the land, the single-family homes to the rear of ~ subject property were considerably hi9her, and an exce~tionally high wall would have to be ro built which would destroy the usability of the swimming pools in their rear yards; that the ~ Te~caco Company quite often used public address systems to advertise their service stations, +' and this would be undesirable to the residential integrity of the area; and tnat, in his _ opinion, the Commission should defer any consideration of commercial requests :: ~nn East Street until the study was completed. `- ~ M:NUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, December 19, 1966 g287 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Corinne Lundquist, 1323 Norwood Street, appeared before the N0. 66-67-42 Commission and stated that the establishment of a service station on subject property would be destroyirtg the residential integr_ty of the CONDITIONAL USE area; that the oil companies, in her opinion, had been given too much PERMIT NU. ~i05 leeway in establishing service stations, because it had destroyed many (Continued) residential areas in the City; that the operators of the service stations , had a difficult time in making a living because of the competitiveness of service stations and the numerous service stations in the area; and that subject property, if the Commission considered it suitable for commercial uses, should be developed for a more compatible use than the heavy commercial use of a service station. ~ Mrs. Audrey Bleckert, 1322 North East Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, t~ ~~~ stating that she was two doors from the Pela o ~'~ y property; that there was a problem in backing ~t ~ out on East Street - however, the other property owners were concerned about the effect a ~~~ service station would have on possible future development of their properties since a service r..I station was considered one of the heaviest uses for commercial property; that she was in ~, agreement with the statement mai~ by Mr. Smith regarding a study for the area in order that ~~ the properties frontin9 on East Street could be developed for a be~ter use than a service ' station, such as a commercial-professional building, and the assembly of all of the parcels ~i _ rather than development of one or two parcels at one time. `~ Mr. Toplikar, in rebuttal, stated that he was mainl concerned with the o.~~ Y property owners he represented because there was a possibility they would lose their properties because of tht~ir ~~ inability to rent their properties; that in his estimation, the Texaco Company never had ;.j prublems in operating their service stations and had always been successful; that subject ;`.~ property was not usable for other commercial conversion; that he was agreeable to any height ',i fence, if the Commission required it; and that he was fully aware of the street noises already ;I emanating from East Street - which was one of the reasons the petitioners were unable to live Si '~ in their homes. ~ Mr. Fred iintoff of the Texaco Company appeared before the Commission and stated that one of ~~ the statements made by the opposition with whi.ch the Commission should not be concerned was the number of service stations along East Street, or whether or not these would be operating at a profit, and to deny subject petition would be discriminating against the Texaco Company because the Union Oil Company property was already zoned for commercial uses on the southeast corner of Kenwood and East Street. ~ c.f -~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ':,~ Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the conditional use permit ~I was necessary because a service station was proposed within 75 feet of the R-1 property to the nor*h and east, under the ambiguity section of 18.64.020(5), and that a variance was not ! needed ~o establish the service station witf~, waiver of the maximum building height. , Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-173 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ ~ seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- j y fication No. 66-67-42 be disapproved on the basis that the site of the proposed service i ~ stat~on was inadequate; that ingress and e9ress would have to be provided from a loc~l street, J ~ which would add considerable traffic, for which the street was not intended;-~~d that itwould ha~ p ~~ a deleterious effect on the residential integrity of the area because of the noise, dust, light, P., ~ and fumes inherent with this type of an operation. (See Resolution Book) I Un r~ll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. '.f ~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. FC66-174 and moved for its passage and adoption, f ~ se~.onded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny Petition for Conditional Gse Permit No. 905. s" ' ` (See Resolution Book) r ~' Un roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None. ~ j ABSENT: COPAMISSIONERS: None. ~~ ,'i , `; ~i * 9 j ~ ,} i :: '~ .~ :, ~ _ ., _.. - .,,,. _ .. . . . _ _ . . P MINUTES, CITY PLP.NNING COMMISSION, December 19, 1966 ~2gg RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. EUGENE HOLABIRU, 2840 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 56-67-44 California, Owner; ED GENTILE, 135 Land L,~ne, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a VARIANCE N0. 1847 frontage of approximately 73 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property beino approximately 575 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2840 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~. REQUE57ED VARIANCE: PERMIT AUTOMOBILE PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVER UF REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL. Mr. Kenneth Sarvak, 9802 Messersmith Street, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and stated he was the proposed owner of subject property, and then reviewed the proposed use of subject property, noting that the existing structure was set back a considerable distance from the street; that after the removal of the large pine trees there would still be additional _, shrubbery in the front setback,which would be retained; that he would be one of the occupants of the structure, and since he had expended considerable money on the property, pride in owner- ship would make him want to maintain the property so that it would be an asset to the community. Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, Mr. Sarvax stated that the rear portion would be developed at such time as demands for property in that area materialized, and perhaps development with R-3 structures could be accomplished at such time as the financing of such a development was obtained; and that any development of the southerly property would be presented to the Commission at public hearing since he was proposing reclassification of only the north- erly 250 feet. Mr. Sarvak also noted that similar commercial uses had been established on oroperties in close proxinity to subject property. Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson advised the Commission that if the balance of subject property were to be developed in accordance with the projections on the General Plan for low-medium densit~, there would heve to he land assembly of the deep, narrow lots; however, studies would have to be made to determine the best method of developing these lots. 'i - The Commission inquired of the prospec±ive purchaser whether or not any landscaping was pro- ! posedt since very little was indicated on the plot plan, whereupon h1r. Sarvak stated that it "! was his intent to develoo the frontage with 6 feet of landscaping as required by Code, as well ±~ as additional landscaping in the parking area; however, he did not indicate this on the plan. ~ Furthe:more, it was planned to cons~ruct a low masonry wall around the perimeter of the parking area, and the sign oroposed would be similar to the one in existence on the corner, since he ;:; did not feel the success of a real estate office was dependent upon an overabundance of signs ~ and flags. i „ ~ Mr. Thompson then stated that because the petitioner was proposing to utilize an existiny ,I structure, the sign permitted would be considerably less than permitted in the C-1 Zone. i i ~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised tne Commission and prospective owner that only one, unli9hted sign of 8 square feet would be permitted. k Mr. Sarvak, in response to Commission questioning, stated that a sign somewhat larger than ~I • permitted by Code would be necessary; that he did not want to eliminate the parking in the `.; front setback because the price of land would prohibit leaving the front fully landscaped; I that he anticipated future development of the rear portion - and if parking were reouired ~; in tne rear, this would mean the relocation of the parki~g to the front at that time; that i'. it was proposed to retain the "homey" appearance of the structure with natural landscaping i:; already in; and that many homes on Brookhurst Street were converted to commercial uses with parking being provided on the blacktop surface in the front setback. ~ : ~ Mr. Sarvak also complimented the Staff on their assistance and cooperation in preparing the peiition for him. ~ THE f-~ARING WAS CLOSED. ~'~~~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-175 and moved for its oassage and adoption, €E~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-44 be approved, subject to conditions, and the finding that development of ~~ the commercial property should be done with caution so that the parcel to the south would not r t, be landlocked, and that every effort should be made to have land assembly of the deep, narrow ,,u~,,,~ ; lots adjacent to subject property. (See Resolution Book) ~i j ,. ~ 'i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Der,ember 19, 1966 3289 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: N0. 66-67-44 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, VARIANCE N0. 1847 Camp. (Continued) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commi=_sioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-176 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to 9rant Petition for Variance No. 1847, subject to conditions, and the requirement that development of the property shall be in accordance with the C-1 Site Uevelopment Standards, except that walls adjacent to the R-A parcels can be deleted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM H. GREBEL APJD VOGE, INCORPORATED, 7601 Crenshaw N0. 66-67-43 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owners; STANDARD OIL CUMPANY, 605 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; property described CONDITIONAL USE as: Parcel 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the south- , PERMIT N0. 906 west corner of South Street and State College Boulevard and havingfronta9es oi approximately 185 feet on South St:•eet and approximately 155 feet on State Colle9e Boulevard, and Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of ~ land haviny a frontage of approximately 73 feet on the west side of S±ate College Boulevard ; and having a maximum depth of approximately 263 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being adjacent to the southerly boundary of Parcel 1. Property presently classified C-1, GrNERAL COMMERCIAL, ~ONE, limited to medical and professional offices only. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: DELETION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS WHICH LIMIT THF. USE UF THE PRQPERTY TO MEDICAL AND PROFESSIUNAL OFFICtS, TO PERMIT THE FULL RANGE UF G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE USES. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PARCEL 1- ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATIUN AT THE INTERSECTI~N OF A COLLEC~OR STREET AND A PRIMARY STREET WITHIIJ 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASOIJRY WALL. Mr. Oscar Louderback, representing tne Standard Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the change of development along State College Boulevard from Brea to its terminus at the Santa Ana Freeway in Orange. The development along South Street was also reviewed, it being noted that a service station was being constructed presently at the northeast corner of South Street and State College Boulevard. Mr. Louderback also noted that Standard Oi? Company had no location of a service station between La Palma Avenue and Kateila Avenue along State College Boulevard. Mr. Louderback, in *esponse to Commission questioniny regarding disposition of service stations they operated which were taking losses, stated that only one station had been closed by Standard Oil Company, this station being located in the Northeast Industrial Area, and that 9enerally Standard owned their statio~s and had their employees operate them, rather than ieasing stations as other oil companies did. Furthermore, his company averaged 21% more business than their nearest competitors, with an increase of only 2.7% in stations in seven western st~tes. I~r. Robert Matheison, 1915 East South Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and -equested that his letter of opposition be read and made a part of the record. ~• The letter was then read by the Commission Secretary. ~ Mr. Matheison then stated that the review of trends along State College Aoulevard outside of Anaheim was not pertinent to subject petitions; that East South Street from East Street easterly ~. had not changed for some time and was still residential in character, with two new, single- `; family subdivisions having been built in the last three years at the intersection of East and r.'~ and gouth Streets; that South Street did not carry directly through to the east, but iogged ~ approximately 250 feet tc the north, where a new service station was being built across the ~ street,to the north,from vacant property; that no land use change ;iad taken place in the immedi- t! ' ~' ate vicinity of subject property to warrant any chan9e in deed restrictions and a ;.~ , gas station ~; was considered one of the heaviest commercial uses because of the noise, light, dust, and fumes ~ :~ ~,~ ~ emanating from the property; that the medical-professional deed restrictions were agreed upon u ~Y i .s '. E _ ... _ _~._: .. _ _ . .. .,_.r..~_ . . , .- .. _ , __ ~ -- --. - , .. ,- .-,, --- . : ~ MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, December 19, 1966 3290 RECLASSIFICATION - by the residents of the area after lengthy public hearings, and were N0. 66-67-43 approved only because the type of structures would be less offensive and would generate less traffic onto South Street; furthermore, a masonry CONDITIONAL USE wall would reduce the amount of noise from the cars at this type of an PERN~IT N0. 906 operation, whereas a service station was quite open and had no buffers (Continued) to shield the residents irom the undesirable noises and lights; that Standard Oil, according to the National Petroleum News, indicated they had made a net profit of $213,000,000 in the past six months, and with such resources, they could afford to have professional engineers present their request, whereas the single-family homeowners had only their hard-earned investments in their homes, which they felt should be protected by the City; and that the Commission should deny the proposed request since the use proposed would be detrimental to the residential integrity of the area. Reverend L. George Hunt, Torrance, appeared before tha Commission in opposition and stated he represented the Regional Board for the Baptist Churches, who were interested in the success of the Baptist Mission established immediately to the west of subject property; tnat the Regional Board was negotiatirig the purchase of the mission property on the basis that the adjacent ~roperty was zoned for business and professional uses only; and that if the service station proposed was approved, this would have a very definite undesirable effect on the proposed establishment of a church at this locaiion, since the two uses were not compatible; furthermore, the deacons of the churcn were also present at the hearing to indicate their interest in opposition to the proposed service station. Mr. Rodney Sims, 1909 East South Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that subject property had been before the Commission and City Council a number ef times; that he was opposed to any change in the present deed restrictions s.nce a service station would add considerably to the traffic on a primarily local street where .~any children resided; and that the many children would be using that intersection going to school. Mrs. Albert Klouthe, 821 South State College Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and stated she had questions to ask of the owners of subject property, nanely, whether or not plans of development ~.aere under consideration for the balance of the property, and whether or not a masonry wall was proposed adjacent to the south prooerty line. Mr. Vo9e, one of the petitioners, then advised Mrs. Klouthe that they had been attempting to sign leases for a family-type restaurant; however, nothing definite was negotiated as of the present time, and that a masenry wa11 would be constructerl only if the Commission so desired, since it was normal not to require a~--~onry wall to sep=.rate two commercial uses. h1r. Louderback, in rebuttal, stated that an old huuse h~~d been r~>moved from the proposed service station site, and another o.d home was on Parce.: 2; tha+ one of the petitioners was a real estate promoter and developer and had stated it was imp~ssible to develop subject property for business-professional office use because ~hat tyEe of structure was over-built, and if subject petitions were not approved, the property wou1J not be developed - however, the owners might be forced to sell the property at a loss i.' they were unable to retain it; that the lights, noise, ard odors mentioned by the opposition were controlled by engineers and would not be detrimental to the residents if properly handled; that according to statistics in a report mad~ for two cities in the East, figures indicated service stations had less accidents for pedestrians than other intersections. Mr. Matheison requested to be heard again, and stated that figures of other cities were not to Le considered as far as suuject petitions were concerned, in the City of Anaheim; that lights and noises from a service station could not be buffered; and that subject property was zoned for both medical and professional offices, not just medical offices. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the effect of the establishment of a service station within 75 feet of the residential homes to the north and west, and from the standpoint of public health, the noise, li9hts, traf:ic, and fumes would be considerably more than if subject property were developed for the use intended; that the petitioner had not presented evidence which would indicate the operation of a service station within 75 ieet of homes wo~ld not be detrimental; that land uses in the area had not chanyed to warrant the Commission's consideration of removal of these deed restrictions; and that the burden of prooi in the establishment of these was the petitioners'. ` Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC66-:77 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- _ fication IJo. 66-67-43 be denied, on the basis that no land use change had taken place to * ~~arrant the Commission's consideration of a heavier use than was orig~nally approved; that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that would indicate the proposed service station "~ would not be detrimental to the peace, health, sa;ety, and general welfare of the residents of the area. (See Resolution Book) F MINUfES, CITY PLANNIidG COMMISSION, December 19, 1966 3291 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: N0. 66-67-43 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, CONDITIONAL USE Camp. PERMIT N0. 906 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. (Continued) ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: None. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC66-178 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 906, on the basis that the establishment of a service :tation would create undue . traffic, noise, lightin9, and fumes that would be detrimental to the residential inteyrity ~~ of the area. (See Resolution Book) E:~{ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: ~ ~ ~, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. r, F- NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,'i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. -i ~' ~ Conunissioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 3:40 P.M. i _ ~ .: ~ `r ; -I ~: _~ RECLASSIFICATI01~ - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. REICf-~.RT s SUN, 16262 East Whittier Boulevard, ~l N0. 66-67-22 Whittier, California, Owner; THOMAS SHELTON, 17612 Beach Boulevard, 1 Huntin9ton Beach, California, Agent; requesting that property described ~ GENERAL PLAN as: Parcel 1- An irregular:y shaped parcel of la~.d having a frontage ;~ P.MENDMENT N0. 89 of approximately 810 feet on the east side of Lewis Street and having ,I a maximum depth of approximately 720 feet, the southwest corner of subject ;I property being approximately 460 feet north of the centerline of Chapman Avenue, and Parcel 2- An i:regularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ,~ 620 feet on the west side of Manchester Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 900 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 160 feet north of the Anaheim city limits line as measured along Manchester Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, h1ULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE FOR PARCEL 1 and C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE FOR PARCEL 2. ~ Zoning Supervi;or Ronald Thompson suggested that the Commission consider the General Plan ~~.~ - Amendment prior to any further diswssion at the public hearing. '•~ Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented General Plan Amendment No. 89, as follows: ~~ "General Plan Amendment No. 89 has neen initiated as a result of an application for R-3, Multipie-Family Residential, and C-1, Genera: Commercial, Zoning on the property immediately ;1 south of the Melrose Abbey Cemetery. The total area for consideration in this proposed ,; amendment is that area bounded on the north by Orangewood Avenue, on the west by Lewis Street, ~ on the south by Chapman Avenue, and on the eas*_ by the Santa Ana Freeway, ar.d contains approxi- ~ mately 85 acres, of which 53 acres are in Anaheim and the balar.ce in the City of Orang~. .J ~: The major point for consideration by the Planning Commission is the determination of whether ~ I, or not a change in the land use policy for this area is appropriate at this time. r. The General Plan presently depicts 1ow density residential land uses for the majority of tiie sti~dy area. Medium density residential land uses have been determined to be appropriate for • I; the northwestern section of the area around the intersection of Orangewood Avenue and Lewis } Street, and. a"Neighborhood Shopping Center" symbol is located at the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street. :I '~ ~ The existing land uses surrounding the study area include: ~ '. i >, ' ~ a. North: Manufacturing firms, a trailer park, and a multiple-family suhdivision, `' ' { ~~ and the Melrose Abbe , I :$ y (cemetary). ~" b. Wesi: Vacant land within the City of Anaheim which has been approved for multiple- family development. A1so, in the City of Orange, there is a single-family subdivision with 7,200 square foot lots. ; ;~ j c. South: Approximately 200 acres of vacant land that is proposed to be a large ~_ commercial and residential complex knowr. as "The City". d East: The Santa Ana Freeway. ~ ~~ - ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Cecember 19, 1966 g2g2 RECLASSIFICATION - The request that is now before the Planning Commission under Reclassi- N0. 66-67-22 fication No. 66-67-22 is for approval of R-3, Multiple-Family Zoning on the westerly 10.63 acres fronting on Lewis Street, and tt~e approval GENERAL PLAN of C-1, General Commercial, Zoning on the easterly 16.65 acres fronting AMENDMENT N0. 89 on Manchester Avenue. (Continued) The determination that must now be made is whether a change in the statement of land use policy for the area is appropriate at this time. The existing land uses immediately surroundin9 the study area are primarily low density residential in nature. However, it is highly conceivable that the commercial influence of "The City" could extend northerly and have a substantial effect upon the development of the area under consideration. The developmEnt of this property to hi9her density residential and/or commercial land uses could serve to complement the overall concept of "The City". Twc alternative exhibits were presented to the Plannin~ Commission as follows: a. Exhibit "A" illustrates commercial uses extending northerly of Chapman Avenue to include the Chapman and Manchester Avenue frontages, and medium density residential for the remainder of the study area. Adoption of this exhibit would indicate that the Chapman and Manchester frontages area appropriate for commercial development. b. Exhibit "B" illustrates medium density residential for that portion of the study area which is withir. the City of Anaheim and doe= not propose any changes in areas outside of Anaheim. The medium density symbolo9Y would constitute a continuation of the medium density projected for the north side of Urangewood Avenue. Adoption of this exhibit would indicate that the portion of the study area within Anaheim is most appropriate for multiple- family residences and not necessarily commercial uses. The increased burden upon educational and recreational facilities would be negligible if either of these exhibits is approved." Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that on December 13, 1966, the City of Urange had approved a neighborhood shooping center at the northwest corner of Lewis Street and Chapman Avenue, and that many of the single-family homes southerly of subject prop_>rty in the City ~ of Orange have been assembled b several ';~ y property owners with the intent of establishing commercial uses for these properties. This was determined upon analyzing ih~ assessor's ~~ books. Mr. Thomas Shelton, agent for the peticioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the events of the p:evious public ;.earings ir. which the original request was for R-2, 5000 development of a portion of subject property - however, the petitioner was now requesting a more intense use by readvertising subject properties for R-3, M ultiple-Family Zoning on the westerly 10*~ acres fronting on Lewis Street; that it was the opinion of the owner of the property that the commercial property Nas not yet ready for development; that the owner was a builder and not a land speculator, and an expression of the Commission was desired in order that he might complete plans for development of the R-3 property; furthermore, the suggestion made by the Staff that an alternative for an interim use of tne proposed C-1 property for a mobile home park had some merit. Mr. Thompson a~vised the Commission and the petitioner that mobile home parks were permitted in all "R" and "C" Zones, subject to a conditional use permit and precise development plans; furthermore, the R-3 development could be handled in two ways: one under ttie standar.d R-3 subdivision, or as a ~lanned residential develooment which would require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that i: "The City" developed as intended, this would be a considerable parcel for commercial property, and if the single-family homes were also to be developed, there would be a considerable saturation of commercial uses in one location, and it would be a lon9 time nefore the proposed commercial property under suoject petition would be developed. ~ Mr. Henry Reichert, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that he felt the proposed C-1 property was more than adequate; however, it was his desire to begin receiving some income from the property, and perhaps a 10-acre mobile home park might be the answer as an interim use for ten years, with the balance of the property being developed for apartments, and at the end of the ten-year period, a clearer picture as to what should be developed on the commercial property could be determined. The Commission advised Mr. Reichert that development plans for the commercial property should be held in abeyance until such time as a more concrete idea was developed, and any considera- tion for commercial uses would be rather premature since nothing specific was planned by the owner of the property, and that the C-1 Zone did not permit multipl~-family residential uses. t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMmISSION, December 19, 1966 3293 RECLASSIFICATION - If the petitioner, at a later date, felt that multiple-family uses would N0. 66-67-22 be more appropriate, a new reclassification petition would have to be filed. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 89 Mr. Reichert then stated that he had already received one request from (Continued) prospective mobile home developers for an area covering 100 spaces. Mr. Thompson stated that the General Plan symbology did not set a precise boundary for commercial or residential uses; that the zoning actions would carry out the more precise boundary pattern, and the General Plan ind?cated the possible highest and best use of these properties. :~i~~~ Rfter further discussion by the Commission, Mr. Reichert stated that it was his opinion that the portion proposed for C-1 uses should be zoned C-1 in the event the need for commercial ~f~ uses arose. ~~j' No one appea_ed in opposition to subject petitiar,;, I THE HEARING WAS CUJSED. ~ Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the City of Orange did not have a General Plan, as FI such, and the boundaries of the Anaheim General Plan indicated the development trends in rl. , that area, and the proposed General Plan Amendment would indicate the feelings of the Commis- ` sion and the City relative to future land use changes and the highest and best use of the ~ properties. f' Mr. Thompson also advised the Commission that since the petitioner was not p_o osin a ;i subdivision, Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 6311 and 6314 should be terminated.r p g ~~ ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-179 and moved for its passage and adoption, ;~ seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to r~commend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 66-67-22 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~,. i ` On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ C. AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Farano, Gouer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: All.red. f. ~ - E.i Corrarissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-180 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amend- !~ ment No. 89, Exhibit "A", be approvEd, representing the Commission's feelings relative to ! land use changes in the area. (See Resolution Book) ,i ;~, On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: None. ~ i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ +I Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Tentative Map of Tract I Nos. 6311 and 6314 on the basis that the developer had requested said termination, and on the basis that a change in development plans required that these tracts be terminated. , Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. y~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 C i RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 857 - North side of Ball Road, ~ easterly of Magnolia Avenue - Approval of revised plans. € ~ F'• i Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented the revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 857, noting that when subject petition was originally approved on July 26, 1966, to ~• establish a walk-up restaurant, the plans submitted were for the "Taco Bell"; however, this 't.~ company has now cancelled its lease, and the new plans were for "Der Wienerschnitzel", and ` that Condition IJo. 5 of Resolution No. PC66-1 required that the proposed walk-up restaurant ` ; be developed substantially in accordance with the originally submitted plans. Furthermore, G~ 1 the new plans indicate conformance with the Site Development Standards of Section 18.40 ot ~~ ' the Anaheim Municipal Co~ie. ~~ , Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve revised plans of Conditional Use Permit ,~ * No. 857, establishing a walk-up restaurant (Der Wienerschnitzel), as being substantially in ~ acco.~ance with Code requirements. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEU. ~+~x ~ MINUT[S, CITY PLANNING CONU~tSSION, December 19, 1966 3294 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS CANDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 786 - Church (Joseph Tseu) - (Continued) Located on the west side of Dale Avenue, southerly of Crescent Avenue - Appr.oval of revised plans and request for a one-year extension of time. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that revised plans submitted to the Commission were precise plans, whereas the original plans approved by the Commission were concept plans, and that the precise plans are all in accordance with Code requirements; how- ever, none of the conditions have been met in the Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 786. Office Enaineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the Engineering Uepartment was consider- ing the street widening of Dale Avenue for four travel lanes in the next budget, and dedication should be given within 30 days so that tne street widening program for Dale Aver~ue could be accomplisned. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve revised plans submitted for Conditional U~e Permit lJo. 786, establishirg a cnurch, and that a six-month extension of time for the comple- tion of conditions be 9ranted, subject to dedication of a 45-fo~t strip of la~d along Da;e Avenue for street widening purposes within 30 days. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I?Eh9 N0. 3 VARIANCE N0. 1798 - Retail nui•52ry sales in conjunction with wholesale sales in the M-1 Zone (Hertzler) - Property located at the southeast corner of State College Aoulevard and Cerritos Avenue. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that when Variance iJo. i'94 ;aas approved originally on June 15, 1966, the Commission had granted a six-montn time limitatior~ with no extension of time since the petitioner had indicated he was forced to vacate a former retail site and was attempting to dispose of _fie retail items on the ~d-i site. The Commission noted, upon field inspection, that the six-morth time limitation originally granted for the disposal of the stuck was more than adequate, and the present siock on the site indicated the original items had been replenished, and the Hertzlnrs should be made awz*e of the fact that the retail operation should be phased out. Commissioner Mungall offered a motioo to grant an extension of six months for Variance Ido. 1798, and that the petitioner should be advised that no re-stocki~g of these oriyinal items should be attempted, and ~11 existi;.g stock should 'oe sold within the six-month period. Commissioner Rowland seconded tne motion. 1~ivTIUN CARRIED. ITE~d N0. 4 Definitions of restaurants which may be established in various zones. Associate Planner Ma*vin Krieger presented to the Commissior~~ tne proposed cnar.ges in deiinitior,s for various types of restaurants permitted in the commercial and industrial zones, netir,~ tt~:at the Commercial-Hillside Zone was already covered reqarding the types of restaurants that would be permitted ~nd requested that the Commission consider setting these am=ndments to Tit1e 18 of the Anaheim h1unicipal Code for public hearing January 4, 1907. Comrnissioner Rowland offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing amendments to the Anaheim A4unicipal Code, Title 18, Chaptars 18.G8, 18.38, 18.40, and 18.52 to establish the definitions of an enclosed restaurant, a semi-enciosed restaurar.t, a walk-up rFstaurant, and a drive-in restaurant, and their permitted uses in the various zones. Commissioner H?rbst seconded the motion. MOTION ~ARRIED. ~ ADJUURNii7EN'T - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner ~tilungall offered a motion to 'journ tne meeting. Commissior~er Rowland seconded the motion. MOTIUIJ CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , y-7% '.fi;-/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission I3 ._ ~ --~ ~ ~