Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/08/14~r}~ s..A.S~" ~'ry~T' .~; T c'r , '~`Y~1 ~~? wt'1~ '~3'.rc~."d~' rl ~~' ,' , ~'fE ~ ,.1y,3~t,~~ ~ ~...;'~',i ~~ ,,. ~ ~is ~ f c : 4~ .~ ~'~;~ y`rt ~ ~ ~ .,. .~i r ~~ .. ~ i: f ti 1 ~l. 4~. _ ,~ h ". ! ~~~~ } ' ~ ..: . . . .. ~ ~ . . . . U City Hall Anaheim, California August 14, 1967 A REGI~LAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Aiiaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00•o'clock PeMe, a'quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Campe - CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst (entered at 3:15 P.Mc), Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald I'hompson City Attorney: Joseph Geisler Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meet3ng of July 31, 1967 were approved as submitted THE MINUTES on motion by Commissioner Farano, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and IWpTION CARRIED. RECLpSSIFICATION - CONTINiJED 'PUBLIC HEARING. MARION V. GOODYEAR, 736 North East Street, N0. 66-67-70 Anaheim, Califoinia, Owner; FRANK GAY, 1856 INest 17th Street, Santa Ana, Ca3lforrtia, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped CONDITIONAI: USE parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the east PERMIT N0. 946 side of East Street and a depth of approximately 271 feet~ the north- west corner of this parcel being approximately 405 feet south of the centerline of I.3 ?alma Avenue, and further described as 736 North East Street.` Property presently,classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESI'ED CLASSIFICATION: C-0, CAMMBRCIAL OFFICE~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT THE OFFICE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE C-0~ CAMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of June 5, 1967, to allow time for the Commission to review action taken by the City Council on General Plan Amendment No. 90. Zdning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petitions, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that subject petitions were continued from the meeting of June 5, in order that the City Council might take action on General Plan Amendment No. 90; that the Commission on August 8, 1967, indicated that those properties encompassed in General Plan Amendment No. 90 for both sides of East Street bew tween Sycamore Street on the south and La Palma Avenue on the north be designated on the General Plan for low-medium residential density. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Mrse S. J. Szot, 727 Juniper Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that in addition to their property abutting subject property, it also abutted the nursexy school to the north,bf subject property, as well as two other properties fronting on La Palma Avenue, one of which was utilized as an electrical contractor's office, and that if subject petition were approved for commercial office uses, this would inject'further com- mercial uses which would destroy the residential integrity of the R-1 properties abui:ting it to the east, as well as reducing the marketability of their homes. Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. . Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber at 2:06 P.M. •:: a,~ a~ ,;k ``:a ~ 3550 y ~ u`-~^tr 1`7 -~:' °"`'r.' '~:, .~tz.,a5,'4p/ b `~ Ir - ~n, r ~' :y r .h;. •a„ ~, ,~1: ti ~' ~ t i ' y'J, ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 14, 1967 . ~ . . 3551 ~ i `~~. ~.':?~ ~ ~ .. RECLASSIFICATION - NOo 66-67-70 CONDITIONAL USE Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa PC67-179 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 66-67-70 be disa proved on the b i th ~ ~ ..:~1 p , as s at this would be spot zoning; that ~PERPdIT N0. 946 studies made both for front-on homes on arterial highways, as well (Continued) as General Plan Amendment No. 90, suggested that this area~ due to the shape and depth of the lots, could be utilized for multiple-faml~;+.~ units; that this would set an un~esirable-precedent for commercial uses along the east side of East Street; and that the proposed reclassification of sub3e+~s~ property was not necessary and~or desirable for the orderly development of the community. (See Resolution Book) ' . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer; Mungall,:'Rowland,,Camp:, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-180 and moved for its passage~and adoption, secorided by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 946, on the basis that the use was incompatible with the area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 1902 - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLZAM P. VISSER, 701 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTUr~E, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM•REQUZRED PARKING SPACES, on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Resh Street and having frontages of approximately 107 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 140 feet on Resh Street, and further described as 701 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed sub,ject petition, the location of subject property and land uses establi~hed in close pxoximity, and the Report to the Commission. hir. William Visser, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting they had estab- lished a florist shop approximately six years ago, and their business had grown to a point where expattsion was necessarys that in addit4.on to providing additional display space and stora~e facilities, the baby phpt4gaapher's shop would be utilizing a~m~ll portion of the expansion; that said pnotographic ehap did business by a~,pointment only in the evenings, and, therefore, the amount of parking was considerably less than that normally required during the daytime hours; that 80~ of the florist shop business was done by telephone; that no parking problems had been experienced up to the present time; and that he had attempted to acquire additional property to the rear - however, up to the present time he was unable to obtain it. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-181 and moved for its passage a;~d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1902, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call th~ foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. '~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~ ~ .4J. L .. ~....i, . ~ , ., .. . .. ,... ' ,~r ~: w~r^-~ ~F r s- '~~r ^r.~ ~ i ~ t ~ ~;` . t ' '~"~ , , ~;;t ~ ~ ~.~+ ~. MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 14~ 1967 3552 ':'"I~ VARIANCE N0. 1905 - PUBLIC HEARING. I~IuIER WILBURN, 1402 Richmond Drive, Placentia, California, Owner; Walter L> Brooks, 2312 South Susan Street, Santa Ana,. California, Agent; requesting a variance to PERMI? Tt~ INSTALLATION OF ONE FREE-STANDING SIGN, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (2) LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA, on property described as: A rectang•ularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 240 feet, the westerly bounc~ary of subject property being approximately 185 feet east of Euclid Street, and further des.ribed as 1673, 1675, 1677, and 1679 West Katella Avenue. Property presently classified G1; GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and land uses in close proximity, as well as the Report to the Commission. Mr. Walter Brooks, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission in exception to the method of calculating the sign area by the staff, noting his interpretation of the Sign,Ordinance would make the proposed sign only 164 square feet; that the ornamental por- tion of the sign is permitted by the ordinance; that the existing signs would be removed; that the existing pole was too small to be utilized for the proposed sign; that every attempt was being made to comply with the Sign Ordinance - however, if the sign were located in the center of the area, this would remove one parking space and would subject the sign to being bumped into by automobiles; that alternate sign exhibits were proposed, but their appearance was not as acceptable as that presented with subject petition; and that the height waiver was considered previously by the City Council, who recognized the fact that the R-1 properties to the east were adeyuately shielded by other commercial structures. Furthermore, the petitioner was proposing future expansion for the property adjoining subject property (these tentative plans were presented to the Commission, which also indicated that a 50-foot high sign was being r.-,,,sidered), and the proposed sign would also serve this expansion, thus it would be more compatible if the proposed sign were not located in the center of the property. The Commission inquired as to the square footage of the signs proposed to be removed, where- upon Mre Brooks indicated approximately 150 square feet would be xemoved. Mre Brooks further requested that the ataff give him an interpretation of the method of calculating the square footege of signs so that any future signs which he might submit would not be similarly calculated as haNing requested numerous waiverso Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission's interpretation was clearcut and defined; that in the Commission's mind the reasoniny behxnd having a Sign Ordinance was to control the size and height and location of all forms of signs in the community; that the Sign Ordinance was designed to restrict signs, and iz was quite generous in the overall size of signs in conjunction with all people involved, both manufacturing and purchasing of signs; an,; that the City's past interpretation of the Sign Ordinance was through geometrics, which wow;.d be the outer extremeties of the sign and also included open space between signse City Attorney Joseph Geisler noted that it was conceivable that one might have a single pole with split signs sufficiently integrated as was this sign, but all the areas between each sign were part of the display and intended to attract attention to the sign, and, therefore, these areas must be considered part of the si9n; that the Sign Ordinance permits one free-standing sign - however, this could be construed as five signs, and therefore the sign area must be calculated for the entire area, not the total square footage of each of the four to five signs; that this might be a minor difference in interpre'.ation since this was obviously a parallelogram or triangle, and by nipping off corners of the sign would reduce it from that quoted by the staff of 310 feet to 260 square feet - however, it could not be reduced to the computation made by the agent for the petitioner of 164 square feet. Commissioner Rowland noted that since this was a shopping center sign, the purpose of the sign, to start with, was for identification of the center as such and not as individual • tenants, and that this sign was no different than the sign identification of the Broadway- Robinson shopping center where none of the individual tenants were advertised on that sign. Mr. Brooks noted that this was not the time nor place to have an interpretation, and he would request the Commission to act as they saw fit, and he would discuss this further with the City Attorney's office; however, the ordinance spacifically stated that the decor of a sign was not to be included in the computation of the sign area. Commissioner Rowland inquired of the City Attorney whether or not the~interpretation of the Sign Ordinance'should be a determination of the Planning Commission, or should this be administered through the City Attorney's office? b~ a "~ t f~ ~.. ~ ra;K ~~.r ,~ e 'r~' .; 7: :Y ~t ` ~T ~ ~ ~ ~ 3553 MINUfES~ CI'IY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 14, 1967 City Attorney's VARIANCE N0. 1905 - Mre Geisler stated that the Commission must look to th~a (Continued) office for interpretation whether or nct the intent is wrong as it is computed; however, if the Commission wishes to change the ordinance, then the ordinance would'have to be reworded by the City Attorney's office - however~ he felt the existing ordinance contained speci£ic enough wording to encompass anything Mre Brooks would require for interpretatione ~:~~:'_~;; :; ~~,~y , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '~x:,.., The Commission noted that the proposal of an integrated, free-standing sign would eliminate mentmover thenexisting signs;Rhowever,sthesrequesthwastdefinitelydaSVariancearequestmprove- ;~~~ ~~ i ~`,v,~5.;;: '~'.;i;"~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-182 and moved for its passage and adoption, =;;-`"?-.:` seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Variance No. 1905, subject to conditions. `~~ ~ (See Resolution Book) ~` F p i ;~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: z~ ~. ~j pyEg; C~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. 4;~~, ,~~.~ ~~~.,; ,,,, ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. . ` '~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. 1 . .:n~ ~~ ;;~ VArtIANCE N0. 1906 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES EMMI, 1808 East Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, ~ California, Owner; DR. WILLIAM BARKIN, 3193 Cahuenga Boulevard, ~ Hollywood, California, A9ent; requestin9 permission to CANTINUE OPERATION ~ OF AN INDUSTRIALLY-ORIENTED OPTICAL SERVICE IN THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE on property i described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Kimberly Avenue and Raymond Avenue and having frontages of approximately 214 feet on Kimberly Avenue and approximately 119 feet on Raymond Avenue, and further described as 1831 North Raymond Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LTGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of the property and uses established in close proximity, `ogether with the Report to the Commission, emphasiz- ing the fact that the petitioner proposes to serve union members from throughout Orange County and that said services might better be served from a commercial facility rather than within the industrial area since this could set a precedent for other commercial uses which could be union-oriented where low rental or land cost of industrial properties would be enjoyed. Mre Martin Cosgrove, 9171 Wilshire Boule:vard, Beverly Hills, attorney representing the petitioner and agent, appeared before the Commission and noted that the City of Anaheim had granted a license for his client to operate there, and he was under the assumption this was a permitted operation in the M-1 Zone because of the granting of the license; that the function carried on on subject property encompassed union members only, and the general public was not served since members would have to have a special identification card; that of all the parking spaces provided, only a maximum of eight was used at any one time; that if this license was not meant to be a recognized use, then the variance should be approved because there were many commercial uses in the general area; and that the company still ground lenses, which wa.~ a permitted use in the M-1 Zone. Furthermore, in response to Commission questionine,, the attorney noted that children only came to the facility accom- panied by their pare~~ts, and the small waiting room was for their use while waiting for their parents to 1'>_ servede Mr, Cosgrove fi~rther noted that the grinding of lenses was the primary function of the petitioner, and the serving of union members was only an incidental use. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione I~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~,~~ Mr, Thompson noted that the lens grinding operation had been operating for some time without a business license; that when they were originally given a business license, they were in- formed the incidental sale of glasses was not a permitted use in the M-1 Zone; however, the staff had not gotten around to citing them for operating without a business license. ~'::: Mr. Geisler, in response to Commission questioning, stat~ed that the issuance of a business ~G license was not optional; that there had been several occasiens where no license had been issued, and a number of violations of the Code~ both civil and criminal, had to be taken to court; and that if subject petition were approved, the petitioner would be required to pay for past business licenses, as well as penalties. ~.F cr..~ ~ r.: .k;~ < M;; '~".. . "' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 14, 1967 . 3554 ~/ABIANCE NOe ~on~ (Continued) - The agent for the petitioner noted had b that it was his understanding they een operating under a business in for renewal, they were informed license; however, when the would h they came or not this was a pretation from the City Attorney or e mitt y ave to have Zoning Department as to an inter- whether p r ed use in the M-1 Zone. It was also noted by the attorney that the petitioner, as a main use, took care of refrac- tions and the grinding of lenses, and the business was not supported by business done for union.members, which was considered an incidental part of their worka Furthermore, in response to Commission questioning, the attorney noted the only agreement his client had was. to serve union members only; that the operating hours varied and included Saturday, with hours generally scheduled from 12:00 noon until 9:Ot7 PeM. to accommodate the union members after work, and that the union member must bring an identification card, and without this card he would not be able to obtain any service;tHat when the business license was originally granted, it was stated that this would serve unions as a clinical dispensary for glasses; and that in the future there possibly would be dental work. Furthermore, this was an occasional business rather than a daily business, and because this was only occasional, the need for parking was nc~t. necessary; that the City of Fullerton had a CM Zone which per- mitted medical of.'fice type facilities in the area; that most of Orangethorpe Avenue in the general area was zoned to permit commercial uses; and that the business had been operating for appruximately 1~ years without any complaints from the M-1 property owners. Mr. James Emmi, the petitioner, in response to Commission questioning, stated that at the time he leased the building, the lessee had obtained a business license and he serviced several uniors. Mr. Thompson noted that the staff had always interpreted a clinic-type operation on a site such as Autonetics for the employees and not for their families who might be located throughout the Countyo The Commission noted that if subject petition were approved, the requirement that the serving of unions should be exclusively only, and no servicing of other than union members ! should be permitted. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission, the Planning Staff, and the City Attorney, relative to interpretation of the issuance of a business license and thp auto- matic granting of a use even though in violation of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No, PC67-183 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1906, subject to condi- tions, and the finding that the petitioner noted a certain amount of grinding of lenses and other operations were permitted in the M-1 Zone and stipulated that the fitting of glasses would be a service only to union members who carried an identification card; furthermore, the condition be attached that only union members shall be serviced with glasses in the granting of this petition, (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: ~MMZSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbste CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEpRING. EARL A. DUNN, 5650 Ashworth Street, Lakewood, California, PERMIT N0. 956 Owner; BILL BAYZERMAN, 420 South Euclid Stxeet~ Anaheim, California, i Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER kND WINE IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately l00 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 135 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property Leing approximately 190 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1742 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMA~ RCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald 7hompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, and uses established in close proximity. The findings of the Report to the Commission were '~ also reviewed in which Mr, Thompson emphasized the fact that the petitioner`s plans indicated a beer bar in a small shopping center; that the commercial development was already deficient in parking spaces, and the proposed use would add to the deficiency - however, the petitioner had indicated that additional parking was provided on the landlocked parcel to the east. Mr. Bill Bayzerman, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and submitted a mutual parking aqreement, and in response to Commission questioning, noted that there would ~ be no food preparation on the premises and food would be served from a steam table which was ~ prepared outside of the building. - ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 14, 1967 3555 CONDIT:ONAL USE - The Commission further inquired whether or not a parking agreement was PERMIT N0. 956 reached after subject petition was filed and asked that the City (Continued) Attorney review this a9reement to determine its validity. Mre Bayzerman noted thai the shopping center facillty was built approximately nine years ago when little traffic was noted on the street; that the parking agreement would provide additional parking to the east; and that the operator of this facility, Willard Compton, also operated a similar development at Garden Grove Boulevard and Brookhurst Street. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the proposed facility would be a beer bar since a hofbrau provided for t:~e serving of food to families, where food was prepared on the premises, and sometimes entertainment wes providede Mr. Bayzerman then stated that their application to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board stipulated thexe would be no topless or similar type of entertainment. The Commission further inquired as to the type of agreement that was proposed for the park- ing facilities, whereupon the agent stated that there would be a five-year lease with option for an additional five-year renewal. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. T!-lE HEkRING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Thompson noted that Condition No. 4 of the Report to the Commission should have been a finding. City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised the Commission that the proposed lease could be terminated after a thirty-day notice, and if the petitioner failed to pay his rent, this parking agreement could be broken, which would make the petitioner in violation of the parking requirements. Furthermore, if subject petition were approved, ihe Commission should be specific in their condition that adequate parking facilities be provided since the agreement presented was only a lease agreement. Commissioner Rowland inquired that since these buildings existed with the same amount of parking, what alternative would the Commission have-since no additional parking was avail- able on the property-other than to tell him he would have to remove a portion of the build- ing in order fo meet parking requirements. Mr. Thompson noted that the first determination of the Commission would be land use. If the land use was appropriate, then a condition of the conditional use permit could require the provision of parking on the adjacent property which was landlocked; that the City would not iasue a building permit on the property without a variance if no parking was provided, or if parking did not meet Code; furthermore, other commercial uses required less parking spaces than the proposed usee Commissioner Herbst entered the Council Chamber at 3:15 P.M. Chairman Camp inquired if a variance would be required if the petitioner came in with a request for a coffee shop since subject property was already zoned C-1. Mr. Geisler stated that not only was a variance required, but adequate parking for the use would be required, and that the only uses where present parking was adequate would be acceptable - many other uses could not qualify since a specific amount of parking must be provided. Mr. Thompson, in xesponse to Commission questioning relative to shortage of parkin9 if a coffee shop were proposed, stated that it had been the department`s policy to try to check all business licenses because of the lach of sufficient parking in older-type commercial facilities. ';•d '::::;:L ~ `~7 ~i {5 :,:..:,::,;4 ~;;:a ;:~~ Commissioner Farano noted that the agent for the petitioner was unsure of, or had any knowledgel of the food preparation proposed for the facility; furthermoie, the plans did not indicate ~ any provision. ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-184 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 956, on the basis that the proposed beer bar would be detrimental to the general welfare of the citizens ' using the shopping facility; that inadequate provisions were being made for the preparation and serving of food; and that the parking agreement was inadequate since it represented a lease agreement which could be broken, thereby creating a parking shortage in a shopping center already deficient in parking. (See Resolution Book) . ~."+~: ~`:3 ~ ~ ~~" r~~ ~ r~ t ,~~~`~I z s . ij4 ~!'~~~~+4"ric ij~.~ i~~C".v ~~r'~ G~~ ~. Tx~' ~ ~'~~C .. ~'~ t'~r^ 'dt'~a~'~~~~ ~ } ~ ~~ ,~. . . . : ~y - ~ r1 - ~' L T t ~., :: y~, ~. ~ ~ , ~ *}': .,, Su. MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 14~ 1967 3556 . i,''r CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ' ` ;;~ PERMIT NO. 956 vote: ' ~ . (Continued ): ~ ~ ; rt •- r, . . . . . .. . _- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, i~:. ~= Camp e ~~, NOES: QOMMISSIONERS:, None. ~~. ABSENT: GUMw1ISSI0NERS: Nonee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. y• RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. NORBERT AND DORA ANN EIMERS,.628 West Va11ey View i- , N0. 67-68-10 IJrive, Fullerton, California, Owners; NIESA LAND COMPANY, 128 East Katella Avenue, Orange, ~alifornia, Agent. -.Property described as: VARIANCE NO.:i904 A.rectangularly shaped_parcel :of land having a frontage of approxi- mately,334 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue and having a '~?~ maximum depth of approximately 634 feet~ the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 320 feet north of the centerline of Broadway. .;~' Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. "._s~.;~ : ~, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. : , '~"~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO ESTABLISH A 120-IE9IT, lYVO-STORY APpRTMENT 00MPLEX, WZTH ~,~ WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING I-IEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE ~;~'~ BETWEEN RUILDINGS, AND (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS. '~~~ ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petitions, the location of subject ~ property and the uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission ~ notin that a ~ g previous petition for establishment of a garden•apartment type development `:;;:~~, : i was withdrawn by the petitioner, and that the developer proposed to locate the recreation ''~~~ area adjacent to the single-family tract to the west. `'~. . j'~~t; . Mr. Robert Glover, representing the agent for tt:a etitioner a ~ ~ PPeared before the Commission d o ' `~``~ y. an n ted that sub ect p y g ~ pro ert was desi nated :n the General Plan for medium densit that the distance between buildin s would b i a~F, g e n accordance with Code requirements; that the car ports along the Magnolia Avenue frontage were of Spanish-type architectu e d ~-~ ~ r an would pro- vide a private entrance to the carport area ~ 'y Mr. Thompson,;in response to Commission questioning, noted that the distances between interior ~~ buildings wsre corinected by a roof, although,they were calculated as being individual struc ' :iw;~ tures, not one building. , r. ~ A letter of opposition from Mr. Donald Patterson~ 2648.W. Sereno Place, was read to the Commission. { `~ ~: Mr. Glover, in rebuttal, stated that the existing trees would be removed, and a six-foot ~ ~ masonry wall would be proposed around the periphery of the property, and that any further opposition would be eliminated sin e th r ; c e o chard would not be in existence. i ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i ' Commissioner Rowland noted that there was no argument that sub~ect property was a proper, multiple-family residential designation and th ai f f , e w ver o the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-A property was a technicality; however, it was his feeling that an y other waivers of the Anaheim Municipal Code were not valid, and from the standpoint of m co munity value, as the density increased to:,the maximum, it was more difficult to maintain privacy - therefore strict adhe to h R " , rence t e -3 Code requirements should be required, and no recognition of hardship should be given by the Commission relatlve to setbacks o i; . r separation between the interior units. ' , ' ;. i Mr. Thompson further noted that the recreation'facilities would be adjacent-to the developed, single-family residential tract t th < !' o e west and could create a contiwing source of iiri'ta- tion since the concentration 'of noises from a 120-unit development in this ll e ( sma r creation area would create an invasion of privacy'of the R-l tract. ~ ~ Mr. Rowland further noted that the R-1 tract should not share in the problem of the recrea tion facilities of a multiple-family development d y i i ~ ~ _~ ~ , an an cons deration of revised plans should include the relocation of the recreation facilities to the center of the R-3 develop ment. i Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-185 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allre d to recom d i . ~ . , men to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-10 be approved~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) _..__.. ._. _. ; . ~ ie~~ ---- . _ __ . - '" j ' ;. .. . ~4:r~`:? ; ~~ ty~~u f'y { .~4~rF'~{ut<y,..R~5'~~F~ ~~rr' r,~,}'~u/1~"#7 y~. 7,'~'~; . '?S~r~ x ~ {l': ! i 's'a ~M+ L1 ~ ~l.;t V t~ ~~; ~ 5i . '+,~' ~ ;S' ' r . . F~J' . . . ' . ' . .... " __ ..__.____.~._._.._ ... . ~ ` ~ j1 . ` . . .~ . . t / ~ ~ ~: _. MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 14, 1967 _ _ 3557 ~ ' .:;~ RECLASSIFICHTION - Orr roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~- ~~ NO. 67-68-10 AYES , ti~ : COMMISSIONERS: ATlred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, VARIANCE N0: 1904 ` -~ Rowland, Camp, (Continued) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. :; "~ r ;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIpNERS: Noneo ~ , Commissioner Rowland offered a'motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance „',;~ Noe 1904 to the meeting of September 13, 1967, in order to allow time for the developer to i r a - -;~ ev se plans reloc ting the recreation area to the center of the proposed R-3 development , and redesign of the location of the units so that waivers of the required side setbacks and ;~ building separation conform with the R-3 Code, and that the only waiver then would be the o - tb h i ,~ ~ ne s ry e ght limitation within 150 feet of R-A parcels to the north and south y . Commissioner Farano seconded the motiono MOTION GHRRIED. •'>;~ For clarification purposes, Mr. Thompson inquired whether the Commission was concerned i relative to the side yard setback when carports abutted the side yard, whereupon Commissioner ~ Rowland noted that this would not be a concern, although the proposed development was not a - true R-3 or planned residential development. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC E~ARING. CITY GF FULLERTON, 303 West Commonwealth Avenue~ N0. 67-68-11 Fullerton, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: Parcel No. 1- An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approxi- mately 2.06 acres, having a frontage of approximately 505 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 190 feet, the easterly bounciary of subject property being approximately 150 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and Parcel No. 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately Oe8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of apnroximately 145 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property being approximately 890 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZANE to the C-1, GENERAL ~MMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, together with the Report,to the Commission, in which " it was'noted that the City of Fullerton was proposing to se11 Parcel Nos. l and 2 and retain the remainder of property for water purposes; furthermore, that no development plans were proposed for subject propertye Mre Jack Royer, Manager of Municipal Utilities of the City of Fullerton, appeared before the Commission, noting.they had declared this property as surplus, and since they had no inten- tion of developing the property for water purposes, it was assumed commercial zoning for the property would be appropriate because of existing commercial property to the southe Mre Royer further noted that they had no preference to zoning and no development plans for its use~ their prime concern was to place it on the market for sale. Chairman Camp noted that in view of other development in the area, subject property was much more suited for multiple-family residential development rather than commercial uses since there was no support for commercial uses in that areae Mr. Royer noted that they had an appraisal made on the property on the basis it would be sold for commercial uses, which would be more in line with the development in the area, and that the noises from the pump plant facilities to the north might not be compatible with the residential uses which the Commissfon suggested. The Commission further noted that one of the problems facing development of subject property ' was the fact there was insufficient support to develop for commercial uses, and a better economic opportunity to provide support to the existing commercial uses with multiple-family residential,uses was more in keeping; furthermore, the City of Anaheirti Park and Recreation Department had requested a continuance of the petition in order to complete their studies of the :property. Mr. Royer then indicated that a continuance to the meeting of September 13, 1967, would be suitable to them. .:ommissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 67-68-11 to the meeting of September 13, 1967, in order to allow time for a report from the Park and Recreation Department relative to studies made on subject property. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. : TI ~ . ~ lY .Y ?: -~"F. t ~- ' . . . . . . - -----`\ . :.;.~R,~ f+ . ~ . . , ~ ' 1 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~`"'~ . ...:;i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOPd~ August 14, 1967 3558 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 ~ REGOMMENDATIONS. , Termination of Conditional Use.Permit No, 460, I , Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that property on the east side of Webster.Street approved for temporary use of an existing structure as a church was granted on August 5, 1963, and.several extensions of time have been granted; however, on December-5, 1966, Conditional Use Permit No. 901, covering the same property, was approved for the establishment of a private educational institution in the same structure - thereby nullifying the use granted under Conditional Use Permit No. 460~ and the staff recommended termination of,all proceedings. Commissioner Mungall offer~d Resolution No. PC67-186 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 460. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. IT'EM N0. 2 ~ '- City of Pl.acentia request for consideration of establishing a special committee to be known as the Boundary Zoning Advisory Committee. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission a letter addressed to Chairman Camp from the City of Placentia suggesting that a Boundary Zoning Advisory Committee be established to resolve the many problems regarding zoning and land uses where potential development of property is adjacent to other jurisdictions, namely the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, and Placentia, together with the County of Orange. Further, it was recommended that a member of each Planning Commission and Planning Department meet with the City of Placentia hosting the first meeting. Chairman Camp noted that this was an excellent means of discussing mutual problems of concern in regard to regional government, and further that he thought the City Council should concur in the appointment of Anaheim personnel to the committee. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to advise th~ City Council that the suggestion made by the City of Placentia for the establishment of a Boundary Zoning Advisory Committee,encompassing the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, and the County of Orange, is a valid one and recommending that if the Council deems this a worthwhile committee, that the Planning Commission be advised to appoint their representative to attend the first meeting which will be held in September. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED> ITEM N0. 3 Reclassification No. 66-67-68, Variance No. 1897, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409, Revision No. 2; R-A to R-1 on Portion No. 3, recommendation of minimum ground floor space for Portion No. 3. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the developer of the R-1 portion of Tract No. 6409, Revision No. 2, had advised the staff that floor plans for some of the single-family homes would be 1,204 square feet, which was below the minimum ground floor space in the R-1 Zone which was 1,225 square feet; and that in discussion with the City Attorney's office regarding waiver of ground floor space should be referred to the Planning.Commission for a recommendation and brought to the attention of the City Council at the time of their public hearing on the abovementioned reclassification and variance,petitions. Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner and developer, appeared bPfore the Commission and advised the Commission that approximately 10~; of the homes, or 18, would be projected for the 1,204-square foot size. ~ ~ ~ ~ • MINUTES,'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; August 14~ 1967 3559 ',~~{, REPORTS AND ~~ RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 3 (Continued) ~,~ ` . ~°. Discussion was then held by the Commission as,.-to the waiver, and whether the Commission ~• sho.uld,recommend.that if the City Council considered this waiver, that it be limited to. ~;: . ~~ a.;certa3n,percentage of the lo:s. ~~~: ~~;~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council in their considera- ~~? tion of ,Variance No. 1897 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409, Revision No. 2, for Portion ~~: Noo 3, that the'waiver for minimum ground floor space be gran•ted but should be limited to ~r a minimum of 1,204 square feet and not to exceed 10% of the lots 3n the R-l tract. 'Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland M1z M., offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst ~:, seconded the motiom. MOTION CARRIED. ~:',:;i < . ~ , . . ~ . `'~~' The meeting adjourned at 3:55 P.M. ',;~ Respectfully submitted, ;:;,~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary ~ ~ Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ ~: i `y `.h~ i ~i. 1 ~ ~.~.`;~~,'_i' ..~~~~.~ ~:i.~ I.. ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~N ~.yf,a,•~s~~'I" 3't „~' ~` t ~ ~~4-F^Si I ...C,- '~T Y ~'~? ~W L,~ ~ . ~ '.. ~ i Y '1.: 1 '. `1 r 4 U !~ 1 S^~~ S f ( ' ~' T " ! '4 ~ ~. _< Y ~' 1 ~ i ) 5 ~ 7~ V /d{ ~ ~ ~ a ~y Y { ~ ~ `' f,~~ ~1~ ~,~"Y~.~ J : F/2' ,j ~ F 4 ] t ~ ~2 ~. ~ 3 4`~ 1 y j+,~'` s S~'~. ~S r ~ ~'. J f +~ .~ '~ ' ~ r J ~ ~ l v~ . ,~ ~, , ~ t ~ 1 / .t . t~ ~~,',~~1 n'T'S Y)~. J4 '.~h ~~, l~ i ! 2~ x' ~ '": ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ r ~ , ~~ T . ryl~ ~ a.} ! K~, ~ 3• -. ~ ( ~ ., "~ '~ ~ F ' ' ~• ~' F IS t r. ~;S I i ,.r t :(\ . ~ r <~-, 1 k - '~ i l ~i f t; r ~ n~~~ ~ H~~ t ~ . _ 1~ ~~Y t S7 ~ t~~ ~ 11,1•) Y / f ~ 'l 1 " ,y -f„- ~ if 7 S ~y,l R { , ~!I ~..I'( . _ , . ~ x r ~ ~ . ~ . . 3 ~ ., ~ ~' ~ ~ t~ f ii ' ~ ~ y.~~~ . . .y .ir _ '+• ~ + & , ~ ~ ~ ~ i ti : . ,: . ;., . .:, ~ . . ~ . ~ ` ~ / ` ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' y . ~ ~ C .. ~, , I _ ~ yy + ,, ~ : ~ ~• 1 . ~ J F^.e ~~ e ~' < f' t . ~ ~_ f~ i i `~ ' .,~ s t x ~.< ~rv .t ~ , ..: ~~.~> > ~ _~ ... .... .; ~ :~- . ~ - $~ ` , ~ - .. .. . t~.~ i ~ .t„YY~ T- ~l f~ t ~ ~r ~ ~ ,~ y 4 ~ . F ~ 5 ~` ~ 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. . . . ~ ~ ~ . ..., . ~ . ~...~ .. . ~ . , '. - . . ' ~' 9 . . . . . ~ ~ . . ~ ' i ? ~ . 3 . .. .. . ~ ~~ i - ..~ ':.~1. : ..,... ~ ~_~~,~. .. . _.._'. ....-,~.~~.....~ ~„~.~:~i, i ~' • ~ ~. n ~. . ~ . - ~ ~ . . i r ~l ~.. .. ..- .. -. ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 h ` ~.'~ / y ~ 1) 1 .f - y ` ~i ~l J t .! t ~ ` ' ' } f ~ 1 ~ + [ ~ t y rF• * ` 1 1 5 t ~_ t 1 - a ~ 1 . y ~ f .;:~ r y: [ - ~- T ~. , ~ .:: ~ r~ at ~ _ ~ d ; .. si : ~.. '~ r. ,'. ~ ~ , . i ..C; Y ~ ~ Y u ~ d r ~. ` ' ' ~ k ~ ~ ~n. h-K ~ . ~ . . . .. ~ ,7+rT"..: r --' ~ y.. _ ^;. ~ ... _;.,x.~:s . . , . ~ . . . . . . . ~ ~ - .. -. ~ :``~t . . . ~ . . ~ ~ '' _ . .." . :_:. . .. . ~ . . . .. . ~i*, . ... . ., .. .. . . . . . . . . . . '.~,n . . . . . ..