Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/11/06/ ~~ . ; . . .. . . .. ~ - ~>`I~`"~r~,~ ~ ' ' P ` ~, ~4 . '' ~ M~ 1~~~1~~ . . . . ' .i:h. . .~~ . ,~ '. S . . ~~ . r ~IiC ~ C!ty Hail ~ Anahefm, California November 6, 1967 A'REGULAR MEE?ING OF THE ANAFfElk1 CITY PLANIVING OOMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting o: the Anaheim r_.i;,y planning Comrnission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'cloclc P,Mo, a quorum '4ing present< PRESFNT •• CHAIRMAN: Campe - COMMISSI~JNEP;ii P.l~rEJ, Far~,no, ~~auer9 Herbst, Row.lande AE~E1.2T - COMN!ISSIONEltS: Niu~?yall~ PRESENT - P.~sistant Development Serviczs Director: Robe~t ;v;?:.k~=lson Zoning Suoer •isor: Ronnl.d '::~oTpson Deputy Cit}~ A~torney; Furmar. tiobe;rts Office Engineer: Arthur "iaw .4ssistant Planner= Charies N.oberts Plannir.3 Commission Secretary: Ann :;rebs PLEA~E OF ALLEGIANCE - Commi~sioner Rowland led in the Pledye of Alle~~iance to the Flago 4PPF~CiVAL OF -• The Minutes of the meeting or October 23, x96?, were approved as TI-~ ~AINUTES • sub~aitted on metion by Commissioner Row~.onr9, seconded by Cc,^~^~issioner Gaucr~ snd NK1Ti0N CAFcRIEDe COND:CTIONAL 'JSE - CONTINUFD f~~B;.I~ HEARING~. WALT UISNEY PAODUCT:O~1S, 500 South Buena PERMI3; NQe 970 Vie.L~ St:reet, E~.rba~k, Calffornia, Owner; 4YRAT}~R I-ATELS9 INCORPORATED, 2?Q Noith Cane:~ A.rive, Beverly Hills, California, Agentj requesting permissior, to ES'~ABLISY AN 11~-STORY, 132-.FOOT HIGH I-DTEL WITH CANVENTION, M.EETiNC,, ,AND RELAT~ED FACIL_TTIES, V~ITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUI'LDING I-IEIGHT AND (2) PROJEC- TION C•i ;IGN AB01/° ROOFTNE on property described as: A*:ectangularly shapE,; parcel of land of aporox.imat~ely 36~4 acres iecated at the southwest coraer of Cerritos Avr;nue and West Street. wit,h frontages of ayproximately 1,260 feet on CerritLS r~venue a~d approximately 1,260 feet on iVest Street, anri fur~her debcribed as 14G1 South Wtst Streeto Property presentiy classi•- fied R-A, AGRICUL'..URA;, ZONE-. Subject ~etition w~3s continued from the meeting of October 23, 1967, at the i~equest of the petitioner to resoive prob.lems in connection with the pxoposed developmento Asoistant °la;~ner Charles P,~berts reviewed eubject petition, the lc~^a':i~r. oi the propexty. • uses estar~lished in close pxoximiiy, arld the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the fact that the height limitation waiver was necessary because the property was presently zoned R~A; that the Siqn Ordi.nan:;e pr•ohibited ar.y pro,;ecti~n of a wall sign above the roofline, and the petitioner was proposing e pr.ojection of approximately 4 feet for some of the letters; that the height oi ~lie structure Nas within the Comme*cial-Recreation Height Standards Guide~ line; tnat ~he petitioner prope~~ed to provide parking adjoi.ning ti-~e facility for 1,780 carc with th~ h~lance be~ng provided on the r.orth side of Ce•rritos Avenue; and that as a result of a joint meeting between the City sta:f and the representatives of the Wrather Hotels Corporation regarding street aligr,ment ar,d st.~eet wid+_h lonc rar.ge piojections, it was decided that a traffic study was necessary to de+.ermine the ex.isting circu:.ation as it pertainec? to anticipated ;3nd uses in the area, Mz•. Herry Pollard, attorney for the Wrather HotelsCorporation, appeared before the Commissi~n r~~questing clarificati.on from the Commission as to the suggestion made by the sta£f that the petition again be continued to al~ow time for the traffic study to be madee The Commission advised Mr. Pollard that continuance was not necessary if Condition Noa 2 of , the recommended conditions proved flexible enough and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for ultimate widening of Cerritos Averue including a landscape median strip, Zoning Supe:visor Ronald Thompson noted that Condition Noo 2 could be revised to allow for flexibility and the ultimate widening; however, they had not determir.ed whether a lar.dscape median would be provided, and the amendment might include additional dedication to include this, as well as providing a minimum offset for the street, and the Cxty Engineer representa- tive cpuld answer any questions regarding West Streeto r t~;,~ sr ?~'~'7~ ~"r ^'"~` *: r" ir~si.es~ ~ k F r. I`~ t'~`"'' ~-~ e`'" r-.~~ r~ ry ~ y. ~~ } ~i ~ . ~ ~ ~ l~/ MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING QOMMISSION, November b, 1967 3643 CONDITIONAL 11SE - Office En~ eerT,A~rNtl~ur Daw advised the Commission that in a discussion PERMIT NOo 970 with the~Ci~ ~.ngineer, who was present at the,meeting, with the peti- (Continued) tioners, it was his understanding that a similar condition should be • included or. the West Street frontage in order to provide a A5-foot right-of-way on West Streete The Commission inquired whether consideration was given to the ezistence of the monorail~ Assistant Development Services Director Rober~ Mickelson advised the Commission that it would be necessary to discuss in detail any consideration of West Street since both the Wrather Corporation and the Disneyland people were desirous of constructing Cerritos Avenue with a different cross-section than the Genera.l Plan called for; that presently the City required a 90-foot right-uf-way, pending certain demands; that Cerritos Avenue would be offset with a median strip landscaped and turn pockets provided at the intersection of West and Walnut Streets - however9 more dedication was needed than the plan indicated, and the property owners had indicated that if they did plan to go ahead with plans, they ~vould prefer having a 40-foot~half width along the south side of Cerritos Avenue and a 50-foot hal: width along the north side, but with a median this might be increased to from 100 to 110 feet~ that the problem regarding the monorail supports on West Street might preclude requiring a 45-foot half width, and after further study by the ~ity Engineer and the Traffic Engineer, there might be a change in the width of the landscaped parkway or the limitation of no parking along West Street in order that supports might not be affected - however, widening could take effect; and that the information just given was made in an attempt to clear up some questions Mro Pollard hade ~ ;s Mr, dollard then noted that he had understood at the meeting that any consideration of '~' }" ,,; West Street would be left o en g g g y, p, pendin the En ineerin and Traffic stud and he would ~ , ° prefer that this be left open rather than making it a condition of approval of subject ,~ w ''~ ` petition; however, it was not his desire that subject petition again be continued for 'S' e~ ~i ~~` submission of the report, leav:ng any decision open untfl the study was completed. Further•- ~`~ ~ ~ more, the Wrather Corporation woul.d be before the Commission from time to time as develop~ ~ ~ .j ment of the property progressecl and then the decision could be finalizeda r; > 41 ~`~',, ~ Mre Mickelson noted that when the petitioners were before the Commission regarding Condi- ~~ ~j tional Use Permit Noe 544, this same question was raised regarding dedication of West Street, 1 ~ i''~i at which time it was determined that the width would remain at 40 feet, and since this was '~ ~~{ not a critical problem at this time, there was no need to move the supports of the monorail ~ ~" `'y~~ along West Streeta r ~F, ~ ~ t ryl ~ I Mra John Wise, representing Walt Disney Productions, appeared before the Commission and asked ~~ * ` ~ why consideration of West Street was being discussed since the petition was filed for the .:,; z` :+ westerly portion which had a frontage only along Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street; further- ~~i more, 45 Feet had been dedicated along the north side of Cerritos Avenue, and if additional ° dedication wer.e necessary to make this a standard streei:, they would dedicate from the north ~ ~• side ra+her than from the south sideo : .~.~ a The Comm~ssion inquired, of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether or not the City could impose sumt requirerner,ts on the property in question, if it was not a part of the petition, ?.;~;.:;:';'~ whexeupon Alro (~~oerts noted that the petitioners had nor filed a lot split zoning a certain 4 7;- portien of the property; therefore, any consideration of the petition would include all of the property and w~ould k~e considered part of the total development - however, it was up to ?~;.-,,,;.~ ihe Commission to determine whether any conditions should be attached to the West Street ~ `~ . .. `~ frontagee 3 - ~_.-.~;; Mre Thomoson noted that after reviewing the title report of the property, all of the Qrooerty ~ ;, ` was advertised for consideration rather than one lot of the entire parcel; even though devel- ~ opment was occurring on one parcel, the total parking facilities we.re considered for the ~~+ entire development in subject petition. ~~ ~+;~ Discussion was held by the Commission as to dedication requirements and the median strip ~ proposed. ~` , ' M" 4 Mr. Mike Bagnal, representing Disneyland, asked for clarification on the dedication require- i I~;'.+ ~' ments. ~ „ 4 i '~, ~t; ,~ bir. Mickelson noted that since Cerritos Avenue already had dedication to the u'ltimate right- ~ ` ' of-way on the north side, if it was necessary to have an additionai 5 feet from the south I s: ` ~ side ~- and if an offset centerline was approved~ the additional 5 feet would be required s ~ along the north side, exclusive of any property for a landscape median strip. ~ ~ ~ -*^ ~ ~;: Mr. Bagnal then inquired whether or not West Street would be included in the dedication ~ requirements, whereupon the Commiseion advised the representatives of Disneyland that West ~~ Street :~;,vid ic~~~ain at 40 feet•. . !~"..~ ~, ~•. * i'- , r - .. . . _, i „ .. . .. . . ,. ~ .. ~.. ..,. . .,. ,~.i .._. ~~ , . .. . . _. . ..,.. ~. .. . ....,. ~~ ~ ~'+~ i. ~!,~~ v~ ~,+"~in~'.F~'~~y~-s°`~+~ qata~s,~;~3x'zs'~=Hy'~.F3~'~".~-'F'~"~'d_rr'F~uaw~ .:~ yri r r~.~.~r '~;.s.g hrsa.g~~~ ~j~,,~ Q?~'~ a I~' lh Y F 72 }vs, °Z` -•1 Lt` 4 I' "I + 7 C : i ~.~.f~' .. , . ( . . •^~+,~.. w C~ p ~~ MINUIES,,CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 6, 1967 3644 CONDITIONAL USE - THE HEpRING WAS CLOSEDo PERMIT NO. 970 ~ ' (Continued) Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Nne PC67-243 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commi~sioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 970, grant±ng a waiver of the wall sign of 4e6 inches extending above the parapet and granting the waiver of the 35-foot maximum height in the R-A Zone, to permit a 132-foot hig'h hotel tower since ihe height was withir the Height Standards Guideliae of the Cortuner~ial-Recreation Area9 subject to conditions and an amendment to Condition No. 2 to include that an ultimate right-of-way of 90 feet plus a landscape median strip on Cerritc,s Avenue, together with a minimum offset for the centerline, be required. (See Resolu+,ion Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution.was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Campe NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: C01~IMISSIONERS: Mungallo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TE~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East PERMIT N0, 968 Lin~oln Avenue, Anaheim, California; pro~osing that.property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 400 feet on the east side of West Stre?t, north of Winston Street (abandoned), west of the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp, and extending northerly to and having a frontage of approximately 390 feet on Lhe south side of Ball Road be permitted EXPANSION OF A I'HEME TYPE AMUSEMENT.PARK TO PERMIT DISPLAYS~ EXHIBITS, AMUSEMENT RIDES, THEATRES AND EXHIBIT HALLS, ADMINISTRATIb'E, STORAGE, MAINTENANCE l,ND PROCESSING FACILITIES, AND THE KEEPING OF BIRDS AND ANIMALS USED IN THE OPERATION OF THE PARKe Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson adv'lsed the Commission that a letter had been received from representatives of Disneyland requesting that Conditional Use Permit Noe 968 be continued for two weeks in order to allow time for re-evaluation of the proposala Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Noe 968 to the meeting uf November 20, as requested by th~~ property ownere .Commissioner ` Allred,seconded the motione' MOTION CARRIEDe - CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIU~r~ 204 EaSt t PERMIT NG~-969 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; requesting permissio~r to EXPAND ~ AMUSEMENT PARK PARKING FACILITIES, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LAND6CAPING r1ND (2) MINIMUM SETBACK on property described as: An irreyularly shaped parcel of land located on the northeast corner of West Street and Katella Avenue and having ` frontages of approximately 1,280 feet on West Street and approximately 1,280 feet on Katella Avenue, and further described as exter.ding easterly to and having a frontage of ;i approximately 420 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevarde Property presently classified R-A, AGRZCULTURAL, ZOhE~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter had been received from representatives of Disneyland, owners of the property, requestiny continuance of subject petition until they could fully review the proposala Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit '~ No. 969 to the meeting of November 20, 1967, as requested by the property owner. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. NICf~DLAS J. LiOVALIS, 920 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, _,,.PERMIT NOe 975 California, Owner; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND WIDIE IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 273 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 241 feet, the southerly boundary of said property ~ being approximately 159 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 918-A and B South Magnolia Avenuee Prooerty presently classified C-1, GENERAL ~MMERCIAL, ZONEo AsEistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action, and emphasized the fact that in Decamber, 1964 the Commission denied a request for on-salz beer in this small shopping center which was part of the property being considered for subject petition; that small 11 ~~ `:~ „'}-,~ m. ~pW~s z ~ y ~' ~,33'r7'1f'\~'''P~"* t~i", ~""a"'~r f ~ "~' z~, ~ ; ~t" ~ .. r ~ x.: ~~ .~_ T - ~ / /r s„~/ ~ ~/ MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING GOMMISSION,,?~ovember 6y 1967 3645 CANDITIONAL USE - shopping centers were frequented by youngsters, .thus making th~ sa2e of PERMIT NOo. 975 _'alcoholic beverages an incompatible use;:and that the Commission would (Continued) have to decide whether subject petition qualified as a restaurant or was still considered a beer bar since if no_opening were orojected into the second storeg there would be adequate kitchen.facilities with a coverage of approximately 26%, but it would be inadequate if the two stores were int~erconnectedo ,. ,-5 ~ Mr. Dovalis, the.petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the history of the small shopping cen.;+:er, noting that since a walk-up restaurant was approved on sub3ect ;~ property, marry other restaurants had been established in close proxittdty and were permitted ;:~ to have on-sale beer - therefore, the request would seem to be-in order, and that many attempts `'~4"' had been made to lease these stores, but those who had respoadsd stated they wanted assurance ''< that on-sale beer would be permitted before signing a leaseo Furthermore, it was imperative that these stores be rented in order that operation of the small shopping center could realize `'~ some return for their investmento ~° Mro Dovalis further noted that he had contacted Mro Schofield and Mro Mitchell, owners of t property in close proximity who had stated they were not opposed to the pr~posed request {`'' so long as the petitioner abided by the law, and that the area had changed in the past few i~'~; ? years, making the area comner.cial in appearance within close proximity, and the proposed }':': use was in line with a more intense commercial usee ~ ;:~ `: , k'•r " Mre Dovalis further reviewed the requirements as suggested in the Report to the Commission, r~,-=-, notin that there was landsca in alread in the Y`" F g p' g y parkway and trees were planted in the shoppi a z center., together with a planter box in the front area which was set back 20 feete _;;• *3 j!, The Commission noted that ir, rEViewing the plans the restrooms could be reached oniy by going ;~}•::!`.:?;~; through the ki;chen area, which was undesirable~ ti M:! ~?r ~~ Y ~ Mre Dovalis noted,that the development would have to meet County health requlrements, and S-?'~~"`~ ~~ this situation would be taken care of at that timeo ~' -~:; ~7~ ~ The Commission inquired as to the method of attra::ting young people with the proposed p~:,l ~ ,?'+~`{'~'~`.;f table and shuffleboard since on-sale beer and wine would prohibit them from entering the ~{ , krt establishmento Fh ~y, . ~ . . . . . . ~~~~:,~_ Mr< Dovalis noted there were no specific plans for the type of operation on subject property, ~,~~~ *~ and ABC regulations would prohibit admission of anyone under 21 years of agee r,~ ~~ g~ ,~ The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether or not more concrete plans could be submitt ,:.~} in order tha~ the Commission would have a better idea of what was planned or proposed. Sf ' a~ "~,~,~ Mr. Dovalis noted that it was hoped to have both stores developed as one in the event anyone ~' `~ requested a lar9er facility, and this wes the reason for asking consideration of both «;.~ facilitieso ° ~~ The Commisslon noted that the petitioner was requesting a rather flexi',Ip program for ultimate ~ development of these two stores; however, this made it very difficult ~-;~ the Commission to y,~~„~ determine the type of operation that was proposed and would be developed under this conditional " use permit since under a conditional use permit tha Commission could require specific plans of 3~~ development, thus the plans submitted could be interpreted as either being in conformance with ;~'~ Code if one store were develooed, or below Code requirements if both stores were combined, '':~4 and there was no reason for the petitioner askin9 for further waivers in the future if the ~ ~; development again did not succeedo Furthermore, revised plans should be submitted resolving ~ ~ the restroom problem, as well as ruore concrete plans for the second store. ~~-~~' Mrse Rachel Nagel, 914 Ira Court, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated her ~,{~~L~ property was.not conti9uous to subject property, but the petitioner had been bef~re the Commi- ~x~~f~~ sion on several occasions tr in t.o obtain the p proposed by the ~,.} y 9 pro osed use which had been adjoining property owners; that there were 53 minor children in the area who must pass subject ! property, especially the location proposed, either from junior or senior high sc;~ool or the elementary school, using Magnolia Avenue to gain entrance to Heffron Drive, and the proposed ~~~ use would not bb a suitable type of business at the location proposed; that the petitioner ' may have spoken to some o: the neighbors, but that she had also spoken to her neighbors and ! all were in opposition; and that reference had been made to Rossario's restaurant further ~, down the street, and the comparison of sub~ect property to Rossario's was not the same sinc-• the latter location was not near residences. *. Mrs. 13~ck Dov~~;lis appeared before the Commission, stating that..she also had five children ;~ and was arixiots to have the best environment for her children - however, of all the small shopping center.s she knew, there were many hamburger facilities and five-and-ten cent stores ~. ; just as they had on their facility; that there have been six operators of the walk-up restau- rant who could not succeed:in this operation, and they all claim they were penalized because ~ r ia ~ ~ ;;x+ ' '~ 0 O MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 6, 1967 CONDITIONAL USE - of theix inability to sell beer and wine with the food - therefore she PERMIT N0..975 considered,this a direct hardship; that they.had attempted to get other (Continued) types of stores for +.hese two vacant facilities, but they have been un- suc~essful; and that in her estimation, there.was little difference in the stetement that food was proposed with beer or beer was proposed with food in detexmining whether or not this would be a beer bar or a restaurante The Commission inquired whether or not some type of music (3uke boxes) would be provided on the premises, whereupon Mr£. Dovalis stated she was not..aware of~any; however, all of the tenants had small radios going all the time which,did n~~.r„eem to disturb the other tenants or shoppers. I~A;}+ ~'~`4s~ The Commissior~ further inquired whether or not the petitioner fel•t that granting the condi- r~ tional use permit would solve all the business ' problems of trying to rent the various stores, whereupon Mrs. Dovalis stated there was not enough business in just the sale of food, and tliat if the sale of beer could be made with the sale of sandwiches, this might improve the business. ;~ s' The Commission further noted that others who had a ;;~ ppeared before the Commission asking ror ~: a similar use had indicated that the sale of beer or wine was~only incidental to the sale of food and was nothing more than a ce~rtesy; that it was the•~Commisaion's desire not to permit conversion of establishments into beer bars - therefore they could not see how approval - of subject petition would solve the economic problems of the petitioner and his small shopping centero " .;~;: i' Mro Dovalis then stated that it was their intent to operate an establishment in good taste, ! and it was not their desire to gain one tenant while losing the other eleven tenants~ - °;:t <:~.; ,~; THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring plans which would indicate to the Commission that this would be a bona fide restaurant instead of a beer bar, and inquired of the petitioner whether he would present plans to the Commission which indicated a better use of the second store than that now before the Commission. Nlro Dovalis stated that they had made some attempt to 9et a prospective lessee to present plans;` however, they had been unsuccessful, and inquired what the Commission desired in th~_ way of plans which he could submite The Commission advised the petitioner that the floor plans should indicate how the second store would be utilized so that the existing restaurant would not be separated from the second store, thereby permitting beer and wine to be sold separate and creating a beer bar rather than a bona fide restaurant, which would be serving beer and wine in conjunction with the serving of food. Commissioner Herbst offered a motior to reopen the hearing and continue Conditional Use Permit Noe 975 to the meeting of November 20, in order to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans which would indicate combined use of both properties, and in order to permit the Commission to determine whether or not the proposed use of the two stores would con~,titute a bona fide restauranto Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ :.U ;r , +; CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. G.L.A. DEVEIAPMENT COMPANY, 415 West 4th Street, Suite D, PERMIT N0. 974 Tustin, California, Owner; COVINGTON BROTHERS, 2451 East Orangethorpe ' Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agentg requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 6ELF-SERVICE, COIN-OPERATED CAF2WASH, WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED LANDSCAPING on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land located to the north and east of the northeast corner of Knott Street and Orange Avenue and having frontages of approximately 37 feet on Knott Street and approximately 25 feet on Orange Avenue, the easterly boundary of said ! property being approximately 203 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street and the northerly ; boundary being approximately 250 feet north of the centerline ~f Orange Avenue. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property~, the uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the fact that the proposed structure would be located 3Q feet from the property line, which would create a visual block of the small shopping center to the north, and that the petitioner was proposing to utilize an existing 25-foot common easement easte~rly of the service station as an exit drivee i 4 _ k --,~ a :' - ----~ ,.; ~ ~' N 5 - .r ~ ~'`1~ ~ ~~} '~ r ~ ~"s r. . K. +4 ..'t. '.' . ~1w._ .w4. , n i : X.e, u.. . l . ~ . .. . ._ . . 1 r „5~~a,F i4 r,ytiz x x :i~N"7$.la [:'".O- A~ ~ . ~ tqe r~'i, t~'~'~, "_ Y ~ ~ r -Y i --._ ' .--,_ t .~'_._." _' " " ... :.;~.'~~ -~ ~ r~ O ~ ~:~ t~ } ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 6, 1967 3647 CONDITIONAL USE - Mre George La Argyros, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and PERMIT NOo 974 stated they had purchased the property from Cov_ington Brothers and (Conti.nued) Mro Liebman and had entered into an agreement with Covington Brothers for ~ the lot split in 1965, which was approved by the City Engineer for approxi- mately 37 feet from the property to the north; that a 25-foot mutual access agreement was held with the service station property; that the lot split occurred when a request to establish an Orange Julius was made to them - however9 due to circumstances beyond their control this transaction was never consummated; that automobiles were now being parked on the property, which was creating a problem; and that the setback problem referred to in `.;~; the Report to the Commission had been resolved with the ad3oining property owner and they ';~ now ro osed to set back 55 feet from the '`i P P property line on Knott Streete ,.._ The Commission inauired as to the area to be designated for drying the cars, whereupon the petitioner stated that the building would be set back in line with the parking stalls and the cars could park in the easement while drying offe The Commission also expressed concern that the lot split seemed to be irregular and requested Office Engineer Arthur D~w to give his interpretationn ,,,. 1 Mzo Daw advised the Commission that a check of the maps indicated one set had two parcels, one of 150 feet by 150 feet,with a second lot lln6 feet fronting on Knott Street, and check of the assessor`s map of this date indic~ted ].25 feet along Orange Avenue and 150 feet on Knott Street being owned by the Shell Oil Company; that the City Engineer's maps usually checked against the assessor's maps - however, these indicated a 125-foot by 125-£oot site for the service station, and no others encompassing the 37-foot parcel existed, but if the Commission considered sub3ect petition favorably, the condition of requiring a parcel map was necessary since this would allow time for the City Engineer to investigate to determine if a parcel.map, in fact, was neaessaryo Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that the title report submitted' by the petitioner insured the authenticity of the parcel •- however, of the five maps checked, , only two maps matchede The Commission also noted that on field inspection of the property 4his date the Commission felt the site was inadequatee Mro t,awrence Lechman, proposed operator of the carwash, appeared before the Commission and stated thyt a_25¢ carwash did not generate as much traffic as a regular carwash; that the cars would enter on Knott Street and would wait in •the 50-foot setback while awaiting their turn; that most car ownere did not wait to dry or vacuum their cars, thus there would be very few cars waiting; that the essement with the service station would permit exit to Orang, Avenue, and traffic could be channeled if a fence was placed in a strategic location; and that in his estimation, no traffic problem would exista The Commission noted that on inspection of the property, it was dete-rmined there would be inadequate area even if exclusive use we::e given for the 25•-foot easemente Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired whether or not the service siation coerat:y :; storing his old cars in the easement, whereupon Mr, Lechman replied tl:;a= the easement could not be blocked since it was thei: intent to use the easement to hold i' cars between Knott Street, the carwash, and Orange Avenue~ :onsiderable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the un<i~!s;rable effects the ,. ^~osed development would have due to its extremely small size; that tiia sarvice station was ir,adequate, and inspection by the Zoning Fnforcement Officer shoul.d be 'Lnstituted to clear up the service station site; and that to grant subject petition wi~;'!d. set an undesirable precedent for requests from ~,ther service stations, thus maki~,g the service sta;ion sub- standard with an undesirable use adjacent to many residential areas., Mr. William Landis, representing owners of the shopping center known as•KT.M Properties, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had discussed with tb.e petitioner the possibility of setting the building back in line with the shopping center, and they would have no opposition to tne carwash if it were relocated ta the ea;t as proposedo THE HEARING WAS CIASHDo The Commission discussed the vaxious problems regarding a clouded 1ot split and the impossibility, of using the 25-foot easement for parking of cars while drying, due to sharing of the easement with the service station; that the size of the parcel was inadequate to develop for the use intended, compounding problems already in existence; and also the possibility the 37-foot parcel covld be combined with the shopping center sincg thia seemed to be a more appropriate ~ use than any use that could be suggested for the propertya ' i ( ~~' "~~ ' '_' . . ~ ;.~r ~ ~ F ~ '3 MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION9 November 6, 1967 3648 i t~~i qy,"'y"~~F~'.',~A*'d~ "'yi y a7t~".~'~#~•9k"~y 7.^ as ~~~n -i, ~_~ '1 f,~ ;._1 Tl x~~ :1: 4 ~:i" "~~ CONDITIONAL USE - Mre Landis a3vised the Commission that they had been negotiating with the ~ PERbIIT N~o 974 petitioner for the purpose of expanding the shnpping center; however, they + (Continued), had not reached an agreement, but they still planned to pursue this '}~~ expansion, ;•~ ,j I Commissioner Allred offered Resolutfon Noe PC67-244 and moved for its passage and adoption, f seconded by Commissioner Faranol, to deny Petition for Condttional Use-Permit Noe 974 on the ~ basis that the site proposed was inadequate for the proposed use, creating a problem which ~ '"- could set an undesirable precedent for requests from service stations in the city; that the common easement shared by the proposed development and the service station could create traffic hazards when automobiles from the carwash were parked while drying; and that the M '" „„L proposed use was undesirable located immediately adjacent to a small shopping center. "~:~:~ r;~a (See Resolution Book) tG'1. ~' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbsty Rowland, Camp, ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungalle i k. . ,:`' CANDITIONAL USE •- PUBLIC E3EARINGo RAYMOND Ne ROUGH, 20a4 West Greenleaf Avenue, Anaheim, , PERMIT N0~977_ California, Owner; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT.A 3-STORY, 48-UNITy ADULT ONLY APARTMENT-HOTEL, WITH WAIVER OF (1) BUILDING SITE AREA PER ~`~ '~ DWELLING UNIT9 (2) M.INIMUM FIAOR AREA PER DWELLIAG UNIT; (3) BUILDING AND ,,' STRUCTURAL HEIGHI' LIMITATION9 (4) FRONT AND SIDE BUILDING SETBACKS, AND (5) OFF-STREET PARK- ~:, ING REQUIREMENTS on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a .~y ; frontage of approximately 210 feet on the north side oF Glenoa!cs Avenue and having a maximum ~ deoth of a;~proximately 130 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being approximately ~ 335 Feet west of the centerline of Euclid Streete Property presently classified R-3, ~ MULTiPLE•-FAMZL'f RESIDENTIALy ZONE~ Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub,~ect petition and the requested waivers being asked, the location of the pzoperty and uses established in close proximity, noting that the petitioner had submitted revised olans which proposed 48 units instead of the original 50, and the Report to the Comir,ission, emphasizing the fact that tne 7-foot clearance for subter- ranean parking aight not be adequate i: campers and pickup trucks were proposed to be stored in the garage, thereby creating additional on~street parking; that no arrangements had been made to indicate where trash collection would be made because of the limfted heightg that the proposed use m7.ght be a means for satisfying a demand for smaller, bachelor^type un3ts ~ however9 the petitioner was not proposing a restdential type facility since he had indicated this wouZd be an apartment•-hotel, and the Commiss:on woL::: have to decide whether or not this use was appropriate for the R~3 area in s:~:Lch it was proposed to be locatede Mre Robert ~, Jones, ~5 NLR, "-~t for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated the proposed development was a new concept which wouid be used whether governmental ~uris- dictions liked them or not; that the United States Government had allocated sevezal million dollars for low cost housing tr. providing a rentai subsidy; that the cities would be iaced with providing housin9 which Hould be within the realm of the iower income people such as senioz citizens and young mar:^ied couples; that there might be a high ratio of turnover, but they were attempting to meet a demand; that the proposed new concept had r.ot been presented before - therefore new ruies and regulations might be necessa=y to govern this type of develop- ment3 that a similar type of development had been approved for the Fredricks Development Company at Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street; and that the location of sub3ect property made it convenient to shop within walking diatance for older peopleo Furthermore, the staff had indicated in the Report to the Commission that the proposed development might be classified as a motel-hotel because of the rapid turnover of residents in the facility; however, in their estimation, this was still an apartment complexe Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts inauired of the agent whether or not these would be rented on a daily, weekfy, or monthly basiso Mro Jornas replied it w6uld be a minimum of a monthly basis since it did not pay to have rentals on a daiiy or weekly basisp that maid servicee may be provided - however, this had not been decided definitely~ Mr, Roberts no~ed that the hotei••motel tax ordinance required payment of a 4~ room tax if rental was on a da!ly or weekly basis. The Commission noted that the Fredxicks development was stipulated to be a hotel-motel, and because of its location at the intessection of a maJor and aecondary highway9 was more in keeping with the use prooosed. - '~ `~ - ~: ~ 1~. ~ . '~`:; .Y"' ~ ,. ,`~~'~~t ~.. . . ~ (~' t.~ MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING CON,MISSiON, November 6, 1967 3649 ,4~:~ Ii ` r ~ CONDITIONAi. USE - Mr, Jones noted that the homeowners of Gramercy Park were in favor of,the ?ERMIT NOo_977 prnposed development and had indicated no opposftion ,(no ev-idence submitted (Continued) they were in favor)o monthly basis, the developmentf ouldsbe~limitedtiniits advertising9tand anylconsiderationnof advertising as a motel-hotel would be out o£ the questione - Mro Jones further noted that the 7-foot clearance questioned by the staff,was in keepin9 with other developments ne had designed, and he felt sub~ect developRent ~xould be no different than any other> ~:i:-:; ,~,, '`""- The Commiss3on noted that the reason so many campers and trucks were parked in the stxeet was ~r_ti;;,~f, ' the inability to get then~ _nto a covered parking aseay due to inadequate clearance.. ~:";r :'1 t :'~~ Zoning Supervisor Ronaid Thompson noted that many of the Qlanned residential developments ` designed and developed ~n the cSty provided fa: both covered and uncovered parking facilities, *~ ', and since this was proposed for older peopley it would seert: iikel the would have campers ~ -~ than other types of residents in apartmentsa Y Y ;:; ; Mro Jones, in response to Commission questioning, statec+ it was their intent to develop this 4.` 1 property in order to oualify for rental eubsidy9 and that the proposed development would not require as much maintenance because they proposed potted plante and trees with no iawn ,' maintenance, and adequate recreational facilities were proposede a~. i~ Tt~ HEARING WAS CLOSED~ '!:j?; ; Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the locatfon of the proposed develapment on ~ ~ a locai street which provided ::3r.cess to a large multiple~f3mily deveiopment, end the fact : that the development should be Iocated at the intersection or on arterialsy that the request t ~_ ~ '~ made for waivers of the R-3 Code could establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests ;i throughout the city while the City was attempting to upgrade the multiple-famiiy se9ment of , ,~ the community and could change the multiple-•family concept throughout the city; and that the j ;~ request for a eubstandard9 400-square foot apartment would provide an undesirable environment ~y" =>'-y for a artment iivin ~ . ., p 9~ Commissioner Herbst offered Reaolution tdoe PC67-245 and moved for its passage and adopt3on, seconded by Commissioner Faranoa te deny Petition for Cond3tional Use Permi.t Nce 9?7 on the baeis that the size of the proposed unfts would place them fn a category of a motei rsther than apartmentsy and this type of use was more appropriately lacated a.d~acent to art=rial highways; that the size of the un:ts and resultant living environment would set an undesirable precedent for similar reouests for substandard livina qua:ters, while at the same time the City had been attempting to uqgrade the living environment of the multiple-£amfiy residentia? segment of the cortununity; and that the petitioner was proposing a density of 85 units per net acre, or more than twice th,at permitted by Codeo (See Resolution Book) On roll call the fosegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs OOMMISSIONERS: Alired, Farano, G3uer, Hexbst, Rowland~ Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mung~llo CONDITIONAL U5E - PUBLIC E~ARINGo FRANK GOLEMBA, 107 South Mountai~ View Place, Fullerton, PERMIT NOe~7~ California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A AAY CARE NURSERY IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel oi 3and having a frontage of approximately 52 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and having a maximum depth of approximately 115 feet, the sowtherly boundary of subject property being approximately 134 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further described as 715 North Anaheim Boulevardo Property presently! classified C-2, GENERAL COM,MERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed zubject petition9 the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity9 noting that the only physical changes proposed wexe removal of the existing garage and shed, olus construction of a 6-foot chainlink fence along the rear and side,as well as the front yard area -~rhich would be 3 feet, and that the Commission might wish to consider the possible undesirability of a chainlink fence in the front yard area; furthermore~ no covered parking wo~id be provided if the garage were removed, and no guest or emQloyee oarking was pxooosed except what could be accommodated by the driveway, _ ..~c;--z,' 6.' ,' ~ . " ;~` "+~' -a~' ~' : . ~ 5;r ;5 .ir ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy November 6, 1967 3650 CONDITIONAL•USE - Mrse Evelyn Golemba, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Camnission PERMIT NOe 976 and noted it was planned to place the 3~foot,chainlink fence almost parallel (Cont~nued) with the setback of the house; that dedication of 5 feet for alley widening purposes prohibited providing parking in the rearj that although'sHe had originally indicated a maximum number of 27 studentsy it was now proposed to have 24 ranging in age from 2 to 5 years; and that the Fire Department had visited the property before she had submitted her application and had approved the development on the basis that it had four exitse Mrs4 Golemba also noted that it was her plan to request a loading and unloading zone from the 5tate Department of Highwayso The Commissio~ noted that the granting of a loading and unloading zone on a narrow street such as Anaheim Boulevard, wfth its heavy traf£icr mignt cause some traffic problem because people would be del±vering their children at the time when traffic was very heavye Mrse Golemba noted that the dance studio to the north was not sequired to provide any parkinge Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Cortuaission that the loading and unloading zone proposed would have to be applied for to the State because this was a state highway9 and that the drive could provide for two cars for parking purposese Mrso Golemba, in response to Commiss3on questioninq9 noted that either she or her assistant would be residing in the apartment development on the second floor, and that there would be only two employees in addition to herselfe No one appeared in oppos~tion to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner I?erbst again expressed conc~•rn regarding the loading and unloading of children during the peak traffic hours along Anaheim Boulevarde Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe PC67-246 and moved for its passage 3n~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 976, provided, however, that the proposed 3~foot chainlink fence would be relocated to the west as indicated by the petitioner, and subject to conditionae (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution rras passed by the fol~owing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONE[i.S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbs~, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIOhERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall~ TEMPORARY RECESS ~ Commissioner He.^bst offered a motion t~o recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Allred seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting recessed a1: 4:05 PaMo RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:15 PoMe, Commissioners Mungall and Rowiand being absent. ~ ~.+~ VARIANCE N0~ 1923 - PUBLIC f-IEARI~G~ 3EVERAGE DEVEIAPERS, INQORPORATED, 800 East Broadway, Anaheim, California, Owner; SARA AiTKEN, '800 East Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to OPERATE A COI.D STORA~E FACILITY, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED BUiLDING SETBACK, (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF- STREET PARKING, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Vine Street, having a frontage of approximately I25 feet on Broadway and a maximum depth of approximately 161 feet, and further described as 800 East Broadwayo Property presently classified M-7., LIGHT dNDUSTRIAL, ZONEo Assistant Planner Charles Roberts Feviewed subject petition, the location of the propert~ and y the requested waivers, noting tnat the setback preposed was similar to that already established in the area, and it also represented the last vacant parcel in the central industrial area to be developede Mre Andrew Spatzier' representing the president of the Beverage Developers, Incorporated, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questionse Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the petitione~ wouid be opposed to providing trees ~__ since Broadway was a heavily traveled stFeet and there wss a need for addi~~,onal foliege~ "'r ,sraca~A+~3C'";~[;~`~~: ~,: ~ jr .; o,;i 2'' . .. . ~~~~.~ ' r ;',( :t r ,,~; i 3 ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 November b~ 1967 3651 VARIANCE NOo 1923 - Mre Spatzier repl3ed tteat they would re~aia the ~existing trees and add (Continued) • more treeso Commissioner Gauer itiquired w!l~ether the lanascap3.rug would be as proposed on the plans, whereupon Mr, Spatzier eta~ed that laF~decapimg couYd bQ increased and ad3usted with the type of landscapinq that weuld have a 1~ow mainten~anc+e factoro No one appeared in opposition io subject peti.tion, THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Eerbst offered Re.solution Noo PC67~247 and moved foT its passage and adoption, ``F;<1~~ seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 192's subject to conditions, ' and the requirement of tree wells and trees aiong the Vine Street frontageD together with additional.landscaping in the required 5-foot setbaak along a local streeto (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolut:on was passed by the following vote: :`. AYESs (~MMISSIONERS: All~ed~ Farano, Gauer, Herbstp Campe HOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: OpMMISSIONERSs Mungall~ Rowiand. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 4:20 P,M, RECLASSIFICATION - PIJBLZC F~.pRING~ FOREST LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, P,O. Box 1151y NOo 67~-~8-31 _,r Glendale, Californiay Owner; FOREST LAWN MORTGAGE 8 INVESTMENT ~MPANY, 1600 South Glendale Avenue9 Glendales Cel.ifornia~ Agent; requesting that property descrtbed ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of iand located at the northwest corner of Westport Drive and Peregrine Street, having frontages of approximately 271 feet o:~ Westport Drive and approximately 134 feet on Peregrine Street, the northerly boundary of said property being approximately 784 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue9 be reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the P-1, AU1'OAM1~BILE PARKING, ZONE. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the uses established in close proximity, noti.ng that the propez•ty had been reclassified~tortheand R-3 Zone in April of 1967, and that the proposed expansion of parking facilities was due to the fact that tY~e East Anaheim Shopping Center was expanding, as well as the establishment of a post offi.ce adjacent to subject property; that by reclassifying the property to the P•-1 Zone th~s would permit multiple•-family development without reclassification and still would not commit the property to comme=cial uses at a later dateo Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson ~dvised the Commission that the applicant had submitted plan~; however, he had also stipulated that parking would be in accordance with the C-1 site development standardsa Mre Austin Eddy, representing the petitioner, appeared before the (:ommission and s"tated he was available to answe: questionse a~ ~ ~"~ ':;ia ;~'1 ~ ,:~~~ ~ J ~ ~ Mre Thompson further noted that landscaping and a 3-•foot wall alonq the interior pnrtion would have landscaping similar to that wttich the telephone ccmpany areas had, whereupon ~7 Mre Eddy stated that the only portion of the property where they w?re desirous of building the wall would be along Citadel Lane, or the Mesterly portion of the property. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ '{ Commissioner qllred offered Resolution Noe PC67-248 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication Noe 67-68-31 be appxoved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) '~ -., On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYF.S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Campo NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: CC%~;AISSIONERS: Mungallo - :~ t A my~'"`r~ 0-f ~~»• 'a`~ F~t'i1 t'~ri~ '44~'a 7: t£,''F r cS rv'1 .`% Y ::~ ~ a 8 y.~ : Y 7~a +~ J ,~ t A~? t j7 r P A A~ _.,~ ~ . „~~I rt "r~ ='. , ~;~ ..,~, J '_'_"__ _.-_. . .' "._" 1 y r~ ,('^` ~~ "r ~ { . . ~ Q~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ f-. ~ UIINUTES, CITY PLABINING COMMISSION, November 6, 1967 ~ { 3652 T '- ~fi f,tECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HHARING, RpLAND KROEGER, 90I East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton NO> 67-68 30 C ~ ~ , - alifornia~ Owner; A.NN MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheimy California A t "~~' , gen ; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel VARIANCE NO„ 1922 of land having a frontage of a i ~'"` ` ~' pprox mately 610,feet on ttne east side of Sunkist Street and having a maximum de th of a p PProximately 650 feet TENTATIVE MAP O the ~ ~, , F southerly boundary of subject teing approximately 690 feet north TRACT_N0. 6496 of the centerline of B ll pr~ te ~ ~, ` ~ '~ a Road Prc r y`presently Glassified A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (COUNTy ZONING) ; ;~ ~ c::: r'- , , : ~~ ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1~ ONE-FAlJIILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE a~v , o J,~ `'~a' REQUESTED VARIANCE: ESI'ABLISH A 39-LOT~ SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH WAIVERS r ~ 9 OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK AND (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS, `~ ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract,located approximately 709 feet north of the center~ lin £ l ~ ~ ~q e o Ba l Road on the east side of Sunkist Street and contain- in a i t l a ~ g pprox ma e y 908 acres, is proposed fo: subdivision into 39 R•-1 One••Famil R id ti `' ' , y es en al, Zoned lotso ~ ~: , Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petitions, the location of the propertyy and noted that the petitione r was requesting prezoning for the property currently in the County of Orange •- however, subject to annexation into the Cit d ~~ y, an noted that the waivers requested were for a 56-foot lot width on a cul••de-sac for three lots, a 22o5-foot minimum required f t d ~ L, r ron yar setback on eight lots, and a minimum lot width of 68 feet on one lote ' C ~ r' Mra Cal ~ueyrel, representing the engineer of the which the waivers weze b ~ r s e ~ e e h t ~ , ~ ; e ng sequested and noted it was more desirable to have the rear yards available for living purposes W thus the request for the f o t d ~ ;~ ~ + ~~' r n yar waivers on some lots; that the Count re uired onl a 20-foot setback ~ however since annexatio y q Y 9 S ~* n was proposed into the City of Anaheim, they were required to comply with the 25-foot setback requirement; and that the rice a f r~ ~~ p r nge o these homes would be in the vicinity of $35,000 to $409000, ''. „ , ~~ ~'- ~ No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitionse r,.:~:'~ F ;kt THE 'HFpRING WAS CLOSED< t cj ~ ~ ~ '~" ""''~ Comm~ssioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo PC67~249 end moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commiss4oner Herbst t e ~ ~ `~~ ~; Y , o r commend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi•- fication Non 67~68-30 be approved, subject to conditions (S R ~ C ~ > ee esolution Book) ~ ~ ry + On roll call the foregoing resoiutiort was ~ passed by the following vote: ~i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland Camp _ , , NOES: COMMISSiONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungalle ' ~ ~` Commissioner Farano offered Resolution Noe PC67-250 and moved for its passage and adc~tion, seconded by Commissioner Allred to a t P i ` , gr n et tion for Variance Noo 1922, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Hook7 ~- ~ a; On roll call the foregoing resolution Has passed by the following vote: ~~ "' AYES. OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland Camp ~ ~ , , , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None> ~ ~ t: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mungalle } kl ~~ ~I ~~., „~,;t~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract Noe 6496, sub~ect to the following conditions: _ lo That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each ~ subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6496 is granted subject ~ to the approval of Reclassification No, 67-68-30 and Variance No, 1922e 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at str.eet and~or alley openings to Sunkist Street, shall be dedicated to tlie City o~ Anaheime 4a That in accordance with City Council policy a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the westerly property line separating Lot Nos< 1 and 34 through 39 from Sunkist Street, except that corner Lot Noe 1 ahall be stepped down to a heigh~ of thirty inches in the front yard Qetlsack' and ~ except that pedestrian openingsshall be provided in said walls where , r r ~ . ~ % ' ~ . . .. . . . . . ' . . ' . V ~ . . . ~ . ~ . . . . ~~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION9 November 6, 1967 3653 RECLASSIFICATION,. - cul~de-sacs abut the planned highways right-of~way line NOe 67-68-30 of an arterial highway Reasonable landscaping, including VARIANCE N0: 1922 irrigation facilitiesi shall be installed in the uncemented TENTATIVE MAP OF portion of the arteriai highway parkway the full distance of TRACT NOV6496 said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and (Co~itinued} subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenancee Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the xesponsibility for main- t~nance of said landscaQingo ~ - 5o That a21 lots within this tract shall be sexved by underground utilities~ ~ 6e That Stzeet "A" and "D" Circle shall be named Whidby Lane; that Street "B" shall be n:uned Laramie Street; and that Street "C" shall be named Gelid Avenuee Comm3ssioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~1 RECOMMENDATIONS City of Orange Zone Change Noo 496, Precise Site_Plan No> 266, and Variance Noo 96, requesting permission to establish a commercial•-professional office.complex, and a variance to permit an equipment rental yard in the C•-1 Zone on property located at the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road~ .Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Commission the City of Orange Zone Change No. 496, Precise Site Plan Noo 266, and Variance Noe 96, noting that sub~ect property is located at the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road, having an average depth of approximately 45 .feet with a frontage of approximately 507 feet; that the proposed rezoning to C-1 was requested in order that a commercial-professional complex could be established on the property which would be in keeping with the commercial uses established at the northeast corner of this intersection in the City of Anaheim; and that the purpose of the variance was to permit an equipment rental yard, which according to members of the City of Orange Planning Department could involve rental end storage of heavy equipment that could have a harmful effect on the commercial uses established in the City of Anaheim, as well as those that are proposed for sub3ect propert?~o Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the City of Orange Planning Cortunission be urged to approve Zone Change Noo 496 and Precise Site P13n Noe 266 as being in conforrt:ance with the uses established at the northeast cosner of Je#ferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim; however, that Variance Noo 96 be denied on the basis that tha storage and rental of equipment could include heavy equipment which could have a harmful effect on the established uses in the City of Anaheim, as well as the proposed commercial-professional office comp7.exo Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I'fEM NO_ 2 City of Buena Park Zone Change Z-326 - Proposing that property bounded by the ~anta Ana Freeway on the north, Page Street on the south, Stanton Avenue on the west, and Dale Street on the east be reclassified from the A-P, T, C-4, M-1, R-2 and R-1 Zones to the C-M, Gommercial Manufacturing Zone. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Commission the City ~f Buena Park Zone Char.ge Noe Z-326, noting the location of the proper~y, uses established in close proximity within the City of Anahefm, and land use designations for this area on the Anaheim General Plane After a brief discussion by the Commission as to the possible effect on the small R-1 tract ~ in the City of Anaheim the proposed zone chang~a might have, Commissioner Rowland offered a , motion to recommend to the City Council that the City of Buene Park be advised thvt the City of Anaheim is in general concurrence with the proposed Zone Change Noo 326 as being ' in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for this areao ~~ommissioner tillred seconded the motiono MATION CARRIED. `' O ~ "y~~"+ 'Yi.'~~~i~i / ~ ~z^ ~ + ~ , ~+ y ; a,~~u t 2~ ?. j/ ~ ~ ,~' ~. :,~j .,S ~ ~ \9 \~ IYIINUTES, CITY PLANNING GUMMISSION~ November 6, 1967 3654 ~ REHORTS kND . ~ ITEM NOe 3 RECOMMENDAI'IONS, Orange County Use Variance Noo 5977 - Proposing to.establish a (Continued) business for a hypnotist with parking in the front setback in the R-P, Residential-Professional District on property located on the west side of Brookhurst Street approximately 750 feet north of Lincoln Avenueo Assistant Pldnner Charles Roberts presented Orange County Use Variance Noo 5977 to the Commission, noting the location of the property, the proposed use of the property, previous use variance approved on subject property, and the fact that the proposed use requested under this petition has already been established on the property. Mr. Roberts further noted that in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, to practice or profess to practice the business of hypnotism is not permitted, and that the close proximity of the proposed use to the City of Anaheim boundaries could establish an un~- desirable precedent for simila: re~uests within the City of Anaheims therefore, the staff recommended denial of the petition. However, if the Orange County Planning Commission deemed the use appropriate, the Anaheim Planning Commission would recommend that the dedication of a 60•-foot half width for street widening purposes for Brookhurst Street be made a condition of approvale Discussion was held by the Comaission as to the specific section of the Anaheim Municipal Code the practice of hypnotism was prohibited, it being determined tnat it was not part of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Rowland offexed a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance Noo 5977 on the basis that because of the close proximity to the City of Anaheim boundariesp to~ether with the fact that the use is not permitted in the City of Anaheim, approval could set an undesirable precedent for similax uses in this and other areas of the City; however, if the Orange County Planning Commission deemed the use appropriate, that dedication of a 60-foot half width for street widening purposes of Brookhurst Street be required as a condition of approval. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ADJOURNMENT ~ There being no further business to discusa, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meetinge Commissioner Farano seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo The meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M, Respectfully submitted, ~/~/~'v/~ ~~^~~`C'J ANN KREBS, Secretary ~~ Anaheim City Planning Commission :. ~ . , . . .. . . .,.. .. ..... ,., ..a.i`. _ .. . _. . ,.. .:.. :...... ;j~ .. ~ . . :.; ... .. .... : . . .. , . ..: ~ .'. .. tl~i` , _ : ~ 2 , ~ i ~ ~ ' I ! ' ~ i ~ ~ . ~ i ~ or~rh~ 1`~~t~ , y t: y ~ ~ ~ ;R I 4~ K ~ . ~~' k '' . -~ tx f - ~ ~,,7q~. ~a ~ ....'} ~' "~ ~ v ~ r ~ ~ ~i~'1 LL~Y~Yff4Ly,~ h. 1 y~~t 7~~,,.J4P Y~fi ~ffl #~ +~fi '",~ 7 y '~ L J • Z r ~ )+,b ~2 ~,y r1'4 c I 7'f .t lr L~~ ~~' "t+ ~Y ~ r' ,x ~~ 4.~ csr N j ~. k~~, l 5 c~~. ,~- ~ Y S' ~>~t~ .~ 1 i t a3 r ~ t ~ ~, t < ~.F r ~ 4 S~`-a?' ~tt~i" Af9 za ~'~". e n r ~ ~.v ,~,4t ~ xr~r n f t, ti i ~ ~ j ... ( cy q.~ x. t ~1 v.. ~i ~ t{ r ~~ T.~~ j~v 4 ~ F C u t~. h ~~ f 1 `y ~> ~7 t~~ 7 n i,~,a ~ ~ ~ 1~~, ~~{ ~~, ~ ~~ t ~ Y ~~ w ~ ~ ~ s~C sC k °rh ~.. ~ F~ ~t ~~ y ~d7 r y~! t a- 1:~ 1 ~~p t + i r 7 J !1~'~fi~S~~fi y'~~iSFt~t~~i s1J il~ n S ~rr'y ~: - st~~` ~ i ~_"^y ' ~~~' ) ~ f 9 ~h, t . 4~ 1 ~ f .~ . ~~E~i~t4`z~~''~ '~r~.va~~ [~_ ~ t ,~t~'~ ~ t . ~ S j,~ ~. r~f r Y ~ ~ t ; ~ ~ i A"1~.~ e.h 1 ~ ay y t s a~F ,~y x~ r xl d.^~. i}~ y S ~ ~ ~5s ~rCrpv''y,,,t'eE~. .d~ia ~ ~~ {:Y~~ ~, ~~ ~s f s ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~+y~~ti~u~~'".~t >>+S'~ s~'~T 1 ~ ~S~ ~ _~ ~'r :i ~ ~3 ~~ t~?t '~r ` - ~ ut i ~z~~x~ ~ r ~ , ~ ~ ~ r.. , , ,, i ; ~~.~ S~-~¢~ 1. i x~ ,c 3 '~~ o ,, > +t +` +- c t i I ic'^~'a.~t~~~r~4~ ri~J~t~`i,~!"5j~~ y~;. L 7 rz ~~Y ktx r~rt 4 ~ r~i aa ~~ k s ' ~~. ~'., i 3 . ~ IC^( ~ { ~,~`rc. /'(~ t ~"r! ~1y t `'+ ` ~. r .., s Y~ ~ S 1 , ' y~sAl ~~y~~,~l 4. 3Filt ! 5 h1 ~)u 4• l ,~4 J .~. 1 ~ , ~ ~`~~~Q~ 4~ '~L;tYJ.~~~ r~ ,~'~I ~+ - ! il 1 Y .k~ ~~ ; ~' tX k x I _r 'I .p5~'~' ~ di~ `~ ; F ~ F ~+ ~ ~`-. S ~ r i ~ ° ~ f ~ ~'~'S '~~ ~ ~ ~s' ' c ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~' ' ~ `~'• ~ ) t-^ ,~I ~. 5 a 'Z- S' W ~ J.4( ' 1 ' jj d .5.1 )t£'~ 1 \ ~ ~ ( s ~. : ) E ~ I '- ~ 1 ~ ,~f~ t 4 kht^ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ' _ ~j n r. ~ .:~ ~ ~; r ~ i:' ti ) ~ j ~- i ~ t ~, ~ • ~ " t". . , ~. . . ~ ~ . ' ~ - ~.. . - . . . ~i ~ i L~: ' - . . . ~ 1 i 4.` , l ' . • . 1 . I ~f I r~ ~ ~ 1 ~ '~ ~ .. , ' . _' t + T. y ,- ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ P . I ' '; . . , ~ ., ; ' .. . . ~ ... . . ;:- .',.: '.... , ' . .. ., . ... .. ~ ~__ .... .. _ . I ~ , .. . .... . .. ~:: ... ':. . .. . ' . r` I ' I I .. . . . ~ .. . I ~ ' ~' • . . ,. : .. ;' ~~~ . .. , r.- , .,, ~, .~D ,.:- . ~~. . ~: i ` - I .. ... ~.. . ~.~.` ", . ,- " ~~ .. ... . ~.. .~. ~ :-.' .~,.. . .. -. :~ .. J ., . ,, . . . . ~ ~ \ ` } w + 4 ~~ \1 1 ~ 4 y',', - . ... . ~ # 1 ~ cJ~ ~ ~`~ , . . . ... .. ~., .. ~~' ~ . ~ ~. ~?. I ~w , ~~~ . ti~.~ . . . . .. ' 1 ~ n ~ ~.. . ... . . ~ .. . . . f . . 'A.~. ~ . . . . . .` ~ . . . ~ ', . ... ~-.~ : .... . . ... . . ~•~ '.~lY !~: . ~' . . . . - . . ~ ~ . . ... . . . -~~ . . . '. . . . . _.. ~ I ~ .