Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/01/15`s!~ n<i `~n .,~~ -Yf"'~e' t ^ t"~rry 7~{+ ~T f "f°' S~f ~+~ ri~~+t'~'l5n,i ~ n , ~ A~111fM~ u _ ~ . '~"t ~ J ~. .~ ,..~, ..-a,.~•: "_' . .. ~ ` ~ ~ . ~ + ~ ~ ~ 9 ;i G - " - ' City Hall ' ';±~ ' ~1 c•; Anaheim, California `;?;s; January 15, 1968 ~.;::~ ... ' A REGULAR N~ETING OF THE ANAF~IM CITY PLANNING CONQ~IISSION 3.u ': _ . REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called t o d b i C ' ~a ` ; ~;y~ o r er y ha rman Camp at 2:00 o clock P.M., a quorum being present. ,~:K.~ { PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp. . ~ ~:r ~ , ,~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, and Rowland (who entered the Council Chamber at 2:30 P.M.). ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano. PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: F_4..': Low~ry Office En9ineer Representative: Robert Jones Associate Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer THE MINUTES and motion carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of Jar.uary 3, 1968, with the following corrections: Page 3713, paragraph 5, lines 2 and 3 should read: "rentals, whereupon Mr. Frye stated it was their intent to turn back....which governed"; and ~ Page 3723, paragraphs 6 and 8, first line should read: "Mr. ~~~b~~~~ CON~ITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JOE PHARRIS, 499 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim , PERMIT N0. 994 California, pwner; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the i west .side of Brookhurst Street and a maximum depth of approximately 330 feet, the sou:.herly boundary of subject property being approximately 450 feet north of the centerline of Orange ~ Avenue. and further deseribed as 499 South Brookhurst Street. Property presently classi- ~ fied C-i, GENERA~. COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ .4ssociate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the existing i zoning and oPVelopment proposed, noting that the petitioner was requesting permission to h3ve on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with the serving of food in an existing restau- rant, and no alterations were proposed; that the property was developed while under the jurisdiction of the County, and C-1 zoning was initiated by the Planning Commission to establish the uses in the most appropriate zone; and that the Commission would have to decide whether or not to require that subject property be developed in accordance with the site development stan~3ards of ttce C-1 Zone if subject petition were considered favorably. Mr. Joe Pharris, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating he was the owner of the property and part owner-operator o£ ti~e axisting restaurant, and noting it was his intent +.o serve beer and wine .s ~n inciden.~iel us:: in cor.;;unction with the serving of food, and no b ar was planned. Furthermore, the.~e was adequate trash storage area in the rear and all , r.eceptacles had lids on them to kF~ep the trash from blowing around. Mr. Pharris, in response to Commission questioning, stated the counter was a cafeteria-ty~e counter and that th b w ~ , e eer and ine would be served with meals at tables, and these beverages would be served in glasses. Furthermore they were not soliciti b ; , ng usiness as a beer b~:. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. i TN~E 1~ARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts further noted for the Commission that the existing uses in the shopping center required 53 parkin s ac th t g p es; a only 23 spaces were being provided - however, there was a iarge area to the rear which was undeveloped at this time and could supply the additional needed parking spaces just as the parcel to the north was providing their parking. 3729 ~ ". ~; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 3730 CONDITIONAL USE - Considerable discussion was then held by the.Commission relative to PEAMIT N0. 994 Finding No. 7 of the Report to the Commission, and upon completion it (~ontinued) was determined the petitioner would be required to comply with these conditions as well as the six other conditions of the report since the property was not in conformance with the site development standards'of the C-1 Zone. Commissioner Mur.gall offered Resolution No. PC68-14 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cor~unissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Condi~ional Use Permit No. 994, sub~ect to.the'requirements under Finding No. 7; namely, a 6-foot masonry wall along the westerly boundary, trash storage areas, screen planting along the westerly boundary where the parking area would abut the R-1 subdivision, the provision of interior landscaping within the parking area, provision of an appropriate number of improved parking spaces to meet the C-1 Zone requirements; and conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: ~b1MISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. VILLA ENTERPRISES, INCORPORp'I'E,D, 1405 East Chapman ~ PERMIT N0. 996 Avenue, Orange, California, Owner; ANN MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard,~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DAY SCf;~OL;' IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR KINDERGARTE~J THI30UGH SIXTH GRADE CHILDREN on ' property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 75 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 224 ~ feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 312 feet east of the ~ centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 400 West Vermont Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAM:.LY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses estab- lished in close proximity, and emphasized the fact that the petitioner was proposing to utilize only one bedroom and an adjoining bath of the residential structure for a classroom, proposing an accessory building of approximately 412 square`feet for another classroom; that two teachers would be teaching 40 students ranging from kindergarten through sixth grade, and one of the teachers would utilize the remainder of the residence for living quarters; and that parking for residential use would be adequate, but a.ny employee or guest parking ~ would have to use the existing driveway. ~ Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that subject property offered the best facilities for the proposed school that could be found in and around Anaheim since there was ample room to the rear for play area - being about 7500 square feet, together with a courtyard of 1750 square feet which could be used for an outside classroom or lunch area; that the garage would serve both as a garage and office for the operator of the school; that one bedroom of the existing structure, which had an outside entrance, would be used for classroom purposes, and the block building opposite the garage would be the other classroom; and that there were two baths, which would be adequate to serve the needs of the children. Furthermore, she had contacted Mr. Phillips of the Fire Department who had indicated there was no fire hazard problem; that she had discussed the location of the proposed school with Councilman Dutton who saw nothing wrong with the school for subject property because of the uses that had been established, such as apartments, the Department of Agriculture facilities, a service station and market, etc.; that the petitioner was desirous of maintaining only a chainlink fence around the property - similar to that along the property lines of public schools which were adjacent to residen- tial uses; and that the present tenant of the residence adjacent to subject property had ten children who could conceivably bring home twenty children after school to play - thereby creating more noise than the children in this school. Mrs. Madison further noted the staff had recommended a circulax drive for the front of the property to provide a drop-off area for parents bringing their children to school; however, the present drive was 14 feet wide, and a 3-~oot fence separating the court area from the house could be removed to provide a turn around area, and inasmuch as the south side of Vermont Avenue was unimproved, the school operator was desirous of waiving the required sidewalk for one year in order to spend this money on improvement of the school facilities. Mr. William Gabaldon, owner of the property at 330 West Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, and stated that the traffic for this street would be increased by parents bringing their children to school; that residents to the west had to back out of their driveway, which at times was hazardous, and the parents would be unable to utilize the existing drive without creating further traffic hazards; that the tenants in the apartment ~.: ?.,v,^t ..~.,, .yla^ „v...rr _'.._".~.- - - -- - ::~ ~ ~ F..~J ~~ j ~ ~ 3 i 6 .r ~ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CISY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 3731 CANDITIONAL USE - adjacent to the east of subject property worked at night and needed to PERMIT N0. 996 get their,sleep during the day, which would be impossible with the (Corrtinued) school adjacent to their apartments; that the family mentioned by the agent for the petitioner li.ved in a home he owned, and they had only nine children, all of whom were in school all day and neveF brought home the number of children she mentioned; that whenever the neSghbors told the mother of the children they were noisy, she made sure they stopped the n~~isiness, which could not be done:if the school were permitted on sub~ect property; and that in his opinion, the area was too residential in character to warrant being sub3ected to noises that children make in their play area at`school. Mr. W. S. Griffiths, 406 West Vermont Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting he had purchased the property some time ago for the purpose of residing there, and that if he had wanted to live next door to a school he would not have spent the money he had for his property; that the school would generate considerably more trarfic into the area than the existing residence; that all the nine children living in the Gabaldon home were in school all day, and noises from the proposed school would be harmful to his wife since she could not escape the noises, being confined to a wheelchair; that the fence along his'property line was not completely on sub3ect property, some of it being on his property and the other being on subject property; and that approval of subject petition would create an imposition and financial loss to him. Mrs. Madison, in rebuttal, stated they had assumed the property to the east was zoned R-1 - however, the owner indicated there were apartmentse Mr. Roberts noted the property was zoned R-1, bur; had a variance approved for multiple- family development. Mrs. Madison also noted that the property owner to the west had a greenhouse on his property, and she was not sure whether this was a hobby or a business; that the children would be in the play area only fifteen minutes twice a day and at lunch; that there was -~~':op signal at Lemon and Vermont and one at Vermont and Harbor Boulevard to assist parer;•'~, dropping off , their children to school, thereby making it unnecessary to have the circular drive; and that class hours would be from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., which would be after thr rush hour in the morning and before the rush hour in the afternoon. Mr. Griffi*.hs, in response to Commission questioning, stated that residents of subfect property had to back out of their driveway and their drive was considerably smaller than his, and he also had to back out of his driveway. Mrs. Madison noted that the parents of the children could drop off the children in front of the school rather than going into the en:rance; that the operator of the school was desir- ous of delaying any circular drive construction in order to take care of the repairs of the inside of the proposed school. Mr. Roberts brought to the Commission's attention the fact that the plans indicated 34 feet from the existing residence to the curb, rather than the property line - therefore there would be adequate room to place a turn around area in the front yard or a circular drive. Commissioner Rowland entered the Council Chamber at 2:30 P.M. ;) 2 ' j`~" '!+ ;~ Mrs. Madison then requested clarification as to the area needed for a parking and turn around area; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that in reviewin9 the plans, it was noted 19 feet ~ would be needed for a parking stall and 44 feet would be needed for both a parki.ng stall and a turn around area, while the distance from the property line to the 3-foot fence was only 31 feet - therefore, even removal of the fence would not provide for the 44 feet. Mrs. Madison, in response to Commission questioning, stated they could remove the 3-foot fence to allow for additional footage, and there was no opposition to construction of a circular drive, but they would prefer to have this deferred until a later date because of financing. Mrs. Madison.further noted that the entire play area to the rear of all structures was completely fenced. Mr. Griffiths noted, upon being questioned by the Commission, that the fence on the westerly ' property line was partia~ly open, and the fence was constructed in a zig-zag fashion; further- more, if subject petition were approved, he would remove his fence, and since he was unalter- ably opposed to the petition or use of the property for a school, he would assure the peti- tioner and the agent, as well as the Commission, there would be considerable harassment on his part because of the damage children do to properties in the area, r` '' t~ ~ ti !.'!~:`,4t'' .. : ~r ~`t "r ~'. "';; .~ri ~; I I ~ ~/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 ~, ~ ` - ~•. 3732 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Gabaldon advissd the Commission there was no chainlink fence PERMIT N0. 996 adjacent_to his ~roperty, and furthermore, he did not want the school (Continued) children in his yarde ~' .~ TFIE F3EARING WAS CLOSED. Mrse Madison advised the Commission that it was her understar..9ing the owners of subJect property had submitted a prev±.ous petition for a multiple-family development, and the property owner to the west had objected to two-story construction because this would shade his plants in his greenhouse - however~ the property owners were desirous of sell- ing their property and wanted to develop the property to its highest and best use, and they had every right to do with their property as they saw fito Mr~ Roberts inquired of the Commission whether they would consider requiring a 6-foot masonry wall in lieu of the existing chainlink fence; whereupon the Commission replied that the uses established on either side of sub3ect property we.re xesidential in character, while subject property would be used for commercial purposes, and although the agent for the petitioner had indicated the area was in a transition stage, this might be a number of years - therefore a masonry wall should be required to insure the neighbors were adequately protected. Furthermore, a circular drive was necessary to provide for the drop-off and pick-up of students rather than having them left off at curbside which was not developed wi.th sidewalks or curbs, and that the required sidewalks could be recom- mended for waiver to the City Council for one year, and the petitioner should submit a letter to the Council requesting said waiver. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. F'C68-15 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 996, sub~ect to conditions as outlined in the Report to the Commission, as well as requiring a circular drive in the front setback area and a 6-foot masonry wall along the periphery of subject property. (See Resolution Book) The Commission Secretary inquired whether the Commission was desirous of limiting the number of students, and the Commission, upon determing that the State required 20 square feet per student for school area and 65 square feet for play area, noted this would be governed by the State requirements since the petitionar was proposing only utilization of one of the rooms in the residence for school purposes, as well as the ad~oining acces- sory buildinge AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe ABSTAIN: ~MMISSIONERS: Rowland. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC 1-1F.qRING. A. L. STARMER, 308 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, PERMIT N0._997 Owner; HpWARD Ee NEEDHAM, i003 Laramie Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to USE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE pg pN OFFICE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the south side of Rail Road, approximately 105 feet west of the centerline of Claremont Street and haviny a frontage of approximately 64 feet on Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 97 feet, and further described as 308 West Ball Road. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub3ect petition and the location of the property, noting this was another request for use of the properties along the ~outh side of Ball Road considered under Reclassification No. 67-68-33 and Area Development Plan No. 8, proposing commercial office uses for those homes fronting along the south side of Ball Road between Iris Street on the east and PaJ.m Street on the west; that the plans submitted by the peti- tioner indicate the structure wouid be converted for commercial office uses; that adequate parking was being provided to the rear of the property as xequired under the C-0 2one; and' that in the event subject petition was approved, the petitioner should be made aware of the fac:t it could be used only upon completion of rezoning to the C-0 Zone. Mr. Bruce Armstrong, Young Rea1. Estate Company, representing the petitionex, appeared before the C~mmission and stated that a real estate office already existed to the west and a doctor's office was established to the east. The Commission inquired as to wheiher or not a front yard setback would be maintained as it presently existed; whereupon Mr. krmstrong stated the only chan9e would be a decorative masonry wall in the front of the building to lend a more comrrercial office building appear- ~ ance - however, no other structurai changes were planned. 1_ ~: ~ - - ---:.~~~: . .. ~ . . .- , - ~ . . . . ~ ~ y , . . . .. . . , . . . .. ~ ~ ~ . . ~~.. . ~ . . . . ~ ~.. . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 3733 CONDITIONAL USE - No one'appeared in opposition to subject petition. PERMIT N0. 997 (Continued) TI-~ }3EARING WAS CLOSEDe ` Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC68-16 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, t g a t P ti '~ o r n e tion for Conditional Use Permit No. 997, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) : On roll :call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall,_Rowland, Camp, NOES: COIupu1ISSI0NERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ,. VARIANCE N0. 1937 - PUBLIC HEpRING, KNOTT AVENUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 315 South Knott Avenue A x;~ ~ , naheim; California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITI'ED SIGN AREA r , ~ on prope ty described as: A rectan ularl sha ed having a frontage of approximately 257 feet on the t id 9 v 3 l ~ `~ ~ wes s e of Knott A enue and a maximum de~th of approximately 442 feet, the southerly boundary of subject t ~'`w ~~ proper y being approxi- mately 1,050 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 315 South K tt '-y~; no Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZANE. Associate Planner Charles Roberis reviewed the location of subject property, r.oting that the church was developed in the R-A Zone under Conditi l U "~~~ ona se Permit No. 622 in September, 1964, and that the R-A Zone permitted only a 20-square foot sign whereas th ti i ;+"~ ~ , e pe t oner was proposing a b0-square foot siyn and cross; furthermore, if the Commission considered subject petition favorabl th y i h ~~ -3i'~ y, e g m t also wish to determine whether sign regulations for churches in the R-A Zone were too restrictive or ot ~'~ : ~ n e : : , ~ No one was present to represent the petitionero ~t°' '" ~ No one a ppeared in opposition to subject petitione ~ ~~ 1 i~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. - ~~ a #i~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-17 and moved for.its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer t a t P i ~"1~ , o gr n et tion for Variance Noo 1937, subject to conditions;:~~~ (See Resolution Book) ~. , ~cr ~; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin vote: 9 . ~'~~ AYES: COMNISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo { ~. [ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe ( Commissioner Mungall offered a moiion to direct the staff to stud the possibility of amend- ing the ordinance relative t si t ~ ,, ~ ; o gns for churches in the R-A Zone o approximate 60-square foot sign. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion MOTIONeCA j . RRIED, 1 , i VARIANCE N0. 1938 - PUBLIC HEARINGe ELBERT SMITH, c% Clark Miller, Attorney, 2014 No th . ~ , ~: r Broadway, Santa Ana, California, Owner; ADVENTURE INN, INCORPORATED P 0. B . , . ox 1164, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PpRKING SPACES o n property described ase An irregularly shaped parcel of land lying south and east of the service station at th u ' e so theast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue and having frontages of approximately 143 feet on ~ Harbor Boulev rd' d r 3 a an app oximately 450 feet on Manchester Avenue~ Property presently ~ classified C-R, COMMERCIAL RECREATION, ZONE. ~ ,. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and uses estab- f~ lished in close proximity,'noting that the Commercial R ' ~ ecreation Zone required 287 parking + spaces for the combined facilities of a restaurant, cocktail l oun e a d t l ~ . g , n heater, and the petitioner was proposing only 265 spaces; that when the conditional use ~ for the theater 3nd restaurant, n ifi p t ~ ` o spec c plans for the restaurant had been submitted and it was impossible to determine at that time th u ` e req ired parking spaces - therefore, the Planning Commission made a finding and a condition in their resolutio f ~ n o approval that when the restaurant was to be developed, required parking would have to be provided; and that the ~ requested variance was f i or wa ver of that required parking, Mre Harvey Hiers, Vice President of the proposed restaurant-theater facility, who held a 55-year lease on sub ject , propertyy noted the parking facilities would be 22 spaces short of that required; however,, because the lessees of subject t proper y and the owners of tlie , property across the street, knorm 3S ~:a l~c•rf;.:: .'. --.:, ,+Aot~~~ _~: stau a t r ~ r n , ~ •r~ he same :i . 1Pr.~~ ~~~ j ,~L~, 'r~ F}` ~ ~ j~'~: i~'i~ t~' '~f` ~ ~;<t ~, . ~~~ {J En, ~~a. .N 7 f;~r a ~ y r :i y~ ~ - - . ._ '"'._'~_. _" _ ' . . _ . ~• ~ `~'' V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, January 15, 1968 3734 VARI.4NCE N0. 1938 - personss a reciprocal parking agreement ~s per a i.etter submitted with the {Coritinued) application 3ndicated that any additional parking necessary for emergency purposes would be avaibable on the Howard Johnson property for either employees or patrons thr.ough a valet parking system since the Howard Johnson facility, even during the summer.months when filled to capacity, had a considerable overage of parking sequirement; ~that MreEdmondson was also available to answer questions; and that the waiver requested was for an 8~ reduction. No bne appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARIIIG WAS CLOSEDe Commtssioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-18 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Munga2l, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1938, subject to conditionso (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~•ote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer9 Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Hone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe VARIANCE Np,<7,q39 - P(7BLIC t~ARINGe MRS~ JOHN J. CYPRIEN, 120 North Sunkist Street, A~aheim, California, and BANK OF AMERICA, 801 North Main Street, Santa kna, California, Owners; JOHN F. CYPRIEN, 847 North Cambridge Street, Orange, California, A9ent; requesting WAIV"ER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having frontages of approximately 168 feet on the west side of Milton Street and approximately 241 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street. Sub3ect property is located at the westerly terminus of Seville Avenue and its northerly boundary is approximately 490 feet south of the centerline of Underhill Avenue as measured along the Milton Street right-of-way linee Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, its present 9 bothnMiltonUend Sunkistss~d in close p:oximity, noting that the property had frontages on reetsy and the existing structure would have to be relocated so that the Metropolitan Water District transmission line could be placed in the ultimate right-of-way'of Sunkist Street which was projected by the,City of Anaheim for widening at a future date, and that approval of subject petition would allow the petitioner, at a future date, to subdivide the balance of the property for single-family purposeso However, the waiver would apply oniy to the existing structure and seemed to be warranted based on the faat that the adjoining sinyle-family homes had waivers of the front yard setback. Mr. John Cyprien, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and read a special letter from the City of Anaheim regarding the street widening program for Sunkist Street, received by them in 1962, noting that perhaps the time had come when the City would exercise this program since the Metropolitan Water District was placing their transmission line through the street; that the waiver of the front yard setback would permit them to later subdivide the balance of the property with regular R-1 lots for which a circular drive was proposed; and that the single-family lots to the north and east were 9ranted waivers of the required front and rear yard setbacks at the time they were developed. No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition. TI-~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr~ Roberts noted for the Commission that at such time as the property was subdivided for deyelopment into the R-1 lots, then a reclassification would be necessary for the oroperty. Commissioner Gauer offered Resoiution No~ PC68-19 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded b.y Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1939, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. j k~N~ }~ : f~r ~-x'- t~ f tra rv,y~ }-~~ r~?r '7~-,' ti ^~`Ct jY1 / x° _~ 1. ~ u. ~ ~` ~, . - _ -, t . > . ~'r ~ck,` --'---' ~_ __ ._ .. . .. .. . .. .~~._ ~. _ .. . . - _ _ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 3735 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC ~ARING. GAHRIEL PATIN, 276 Wilbur Avenue, Yuba City, California; N0. 67-68-46 Owner; WILLIAM PRITCHARD, 22834 Ostronic Drive, Woodland Hills, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land having a fro~tage of approximately 100 feet on the PHRMIT N0. 995 north side of Lincoln Av.enue and a maximum depth of appxoximately 420 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 990 feet east of the centerline of Knott /+venue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZANE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZOIJE. y,~';~~` REC~UESTED CONDITIOiJAL USE: lU. ESTABLISH A MOI'EL WITH WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING ~':;';3;, HEIGHT AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK, :.~ . _i:~' _ ;~ ~ w~ ! ~ ~`~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the proposed ~ use and established uses in close proximity, further noting that the petitioner was propos- I ing to develop the front 310 feet, and no plans were submitted for the rear 110 feet; that ~ the development would occur in two stages, with 18 units first being developed and the ~ remainder when business warranted it; and that the petitioner was not proposing screen I landscaping along the easteriy property line where he was proposing to have parking adjacent ? to the easterly property line. ~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, PC68-20 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-~ fication No. 67-68-46 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-21 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 995, suh~ect to conditions and the provision of two-story construction being limited to the west boundary and one-story alc:.9 the east boundary of subject property as stipulated by the petitioner, together witn the required screen landscaping along the easterly boundary abutting the proposed parking area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OJHAAISSZONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. VARIANCE N0. 1940 - PUBLIC HEARZNG. S.I.R. DEVELOPMENT OOMPANY, INCORPORATED, 1314 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVERS OF TENTATIVE MAP OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM IAT AREA, (3) MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE TRACT iv0. 6090, AND REAR YARD SETBACKS, (4) MAXIMUM COVERAGE, AND (5) MAXIMUM FENCE REVISION N0. 3 1-IEIGHT AiJD LOCATION on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 180 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a maximum depth of approximately 580 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 540 feet north of the center- line of Harriet Lane. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract, containing approximately 3.2 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 23 R-1 zoned lots. Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted the location of subject property and the fact that ; the properties to the south had been developed for R-2, 7200-square foot lots, and the ~ petitioner was proposing to develop these lots as transitional lots between the 7200-square ' i foot and the R-2-5000 single-family lots; that the proposed development was a new garden type concept in an attempt to obtain greater use of the property and still retain the maximum privacy; and that Items 9 and 10 covered the properties to the north - first to consider if R-2 zoning were appropriate, and secondly to request R-2-5000 for the balance ~ of the property - also developing these lots with a new garden type concept, proposing ~ the homes to be constructed on the property line, but providin9 a 10-foot side yard between structures on adjoining lots, with an 8-foot high fEnce being proposed to create this maximum privacy. ,~ ~~;~. M ~ .~; ay.'1'"X. } ~~.` t , u ~;'~P,Y~..x ; ~ .~1~ ry i ..~~ ., .,: .. ..~ - .., ,. ~ - . ., .: .:, . ~ ~' .. , . ~, . .. . ,~. ~. ~ : . .:.r4~ (.r:; ~ . , . . .:., . _ . ....._" . . .....~._.... ..-.____ , . ~ " . ~ . ~• . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . . . '__ "_ ..__ .._ . .J ~ Q ~.~ MINUTES; CIIY P.LANNING CANIMISSION, January 15, 1968 3736 VARIANCE N0. 1940 - Mr, Robert Solomon, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated this proposed new concept was similar to that ,, TENTATIVE MAP OF developed by Deane Brothers in Huntington Beach; that the architect TRACT N0. 6090, for the development was present to answer technical questions; and `~ REVISION N0. 3 that the proposed development was a new.method of providing flexibility (Continued) in the utiiization of land. ~ ;~ , The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed concept was accept- able; however, the 1ot coverage would have to be a maximum of 40% since the petitioner was .~~ ,, proposing a reduction in lot size - this would reduce the amount of play area for children ~i~ since from experience in other developments it was determined that a higher coverage created too crowded an appearance, especialiy if a pool were proje;.ted for the property. ~' x~ No one appeaxed in oppositSon to subject petitionso t , THE HEARING WAS CL05EDo r,,`,,.,~~ Discussion was held by the Commission relative to assuring that future development on the ~ 10-foot side yard would not be possible if a property owner projected an addition to his ~. property since this 10-foot side yard represented the minimum between buildings. ~: s, ~ ; Mr. Roberts then stated this could be made a finding and condition in the approval of the m; variance - that in no case should the distance between buildings on adjacent lots be less - '"`` than 10 feet. ~ } ~~r The Commission also instructed the staff to review an y plan where the 8-foot high fence , ~a was proposed along a reverse corner lot in order that the sight line of cars backing out c.-.~ from tne property would not be obstructed. ~;": .. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-22 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1940 for minimum lot width, minimum lot area, minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks, and maximum fence height, but denying maximum coverage and requiring that development occur with a 40% cover- age on the property, together with a finding and condition that in no instance shall the 10-foot side yard be reduced between structures on adjoining lots. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutio~ was passed by the following vate: A1lES. ~MMISSIONERS: Ailred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowla~d, Camp. NOES: ~MMISSIOtVERS: iVone~ ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: , Faranoo Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6090, Revision No. 3, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6090, Revision No. 3~ is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 1940. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to Brookhurst Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 4. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the westerly property line separating Lot Nos. 73 and 74 from Brookhurst Street. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Par!cway Maintenance. Following.installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shail assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. CoTUnissioner Mungall seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. - -~ ~ ~». . ~-n v i: ~ , w r'7 u.,er.;.Y-'x` , . ~ . ~ ,. ~ ~ .,, . _. .a . . . . . ~ "~J~'"4,~j...'~ , t:: ~* t;f ;~ ~~°~r -a: ~..`r _.~.._... - ~ ' --- ._...__. _..__._ ' .. . _.._. 0 ~ ~J ~ MINUIES, CITY PLANN7.~~:G COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 3737 RECLASSIFICA7ION - PUBLIC F£ARING. SeI.Re DEVEIAPMErT OOMPANY, INCORPORpTED, 1314 South N0. 67-68-49 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 420 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a maximum depth of approximately 1,280 feet, the southerly boundary being approximately 725 feet north of the centerline of Harriet Lane and the easterly boundary being adjacent to the westerly end of Woodworth Road, be reclassified from the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZANE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that subject property was ad3acent to the previous petitio~ considered for waiver of the lot size, and the petitioner was pro- posing to develop the property for R-2-5000y One-Family, Zone; however, the Commission would have to determine whether R-2 zoning was appropriate for subject propertye No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC68-23 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 67-68-49 be approved, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowiand, Camp. NOES: WMMISSTONERS: Nonee ABSENT: CONWIISSIONERS: Faranoa RECLASSIFICATION N0. 67-68-47 VARIANCE N0. 1941 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0~ 6544 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, 5751, REVISION N0~ 3 - PUBLIC F~ARINGa S..IoRe DEVELOPMENT ~MPAivY, INCARPORATED, 1314 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 420 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a maximum depth of approximateZy i,280 feet, the southerly boundary being approximately 725 feet north of the centerline of Harriet Lane and the easterly boundar~ being adjacent to the westerly end of Woodworth Roade Property presently classified R-i, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. . REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: ESTABLISF: AN 80-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MIriIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS, (2) MAXIMUM COVERAGE, AND (3) PERMITIED FENCE FIEIGHT AND LOCATIONo TEiuTATZVE TRACT REQUE5TS: Subje~i tracts~ containi~ng approximately 16.4 acres, are proposed for subdivision into 40 R-2-5000 zoned lots for Tract Noe 6544, and 40 R-2-5000 zoned lots for Tract No. 5751, Revision No. 3e `_ ~~ ,~ ~ r7 '"~ ,;~ ;~ -,~ .., ~~:y ! , >:~i ~^`:~ ;~ ;,~~ i.~' ~; ~ , ~;, Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the R-2-5000 Zone was being requested, and waivers of the maximum permitted coverage, minimum required side yarcisand maximum height of fences in required yards were being requested; that the maximum coverage proposed was 5(~, and under a new concept of garden type housing, the petitioner was proposing to have a 10-foot side yard on one side of the structure~ with the ' structure being on the lot line.- however, in no instance would the distance between two structures be less than 10 feet. Mr. Robert Solomon, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission noting that the garden ' type, single-family residence concept they proposed was now under development in another area !. of the County, and the proposed development would allow for greater flexibility to create the ! type of development being proposed. The Commission advised the petitioner that the proposed 50~ coverage of the lot was far in ~ excess to that permitted in the R-2-5000 Zone since this would further reduce the recreational~ area for children on each let and might project the children to playing i~ i,he street; that from previous experience of coverage of more than 40% o£ lots having 5,000 square feet, it ' was determined that any proposal for 5,000-square foot lots would require a maximum coverage ' of 40~, and that the petitioner was proposing to reduce the front, rear, and side yards - even though he was proposin9 complete privacy,,this did not provide for a play areae i The Commission also noted that if subject petition were approved, consideration should be given to reverse corner L.ot Noso 37 in Tract Noe 6544 and 24 and 25 in Tract No. 5751, Revision No. 3, which should be reviewed by the Development Services Department to determine .' g -'_ ~ ~ ~ 3738 gr ~ _ . ,. ~~ +k., r,~,~; x i e MINUTES, CITY PLANNIiVG COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 RECLASSIFICATION ~v0 . 67-68-47 VARIANCE N0. 1941 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6544 TENTATIUE MpP OF TRACT ,v0. 5751, REVISION N0. 3 (Continued) - if there were sufficient sight line distance adjacent to the proposec fences for clear vision of oncoming traffic. No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitionse THE I~ARING WAS CLOSED„ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC68-24 arid moved'for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification N'oe 67-68-47 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: ~'~.OMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp, i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ;' ABSENT: ODMMISSIONERS: Faranoe Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC68-25 and moved for its passage and adoption, ' seconded by Commissioner Gauer9 to grant Petition for Variance No. 1941, in part, denying the maximum permitted coverage and requiring development with a maximum of 40,~ coverage; that in no event shall the minimum required 10-foot side yard between structures on adjacent ' lots be reduced to less than 10 feet; and subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book) ! On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OO1~NilISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CO:~UITSSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoo Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6544, sub,ject to the foilowing conditions: le That the approval of Tentatfve Map of Tract ~o0 6544 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification Noo 67-68-47 and Variance Noe 1941a 2e That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. : 3e That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to Brookhurst Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 4e That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the westerly property line separating Lot Nos. 75 through 81 from Brookhurst Street. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facili- ties, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibiiity for maintenance of said landscaping. 5. That all lots within this tract. shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That plans for development of reversed corner Lot No. 37 shall be reviewed by the Development Services Departmer.t to determine if there is sufficient sight line distance adjacent to the proposed fence for clear vision from oncoming traffic. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5751, Revision No. 3, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of I'entative Map of Tract Noe 5751, Revision No. 3, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 67-68-47 and Variance No. 1941. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more then one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shali be submitted fn tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~~-~ ,, 'i; `;;: < . O . C~ C~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 - 3739 RECLASSIFICATION - 4. That plans for development of reversed corner Lot Nos. 24 and 29 N0. 67-68=47 shall be reviewed by the Development Services Department to VARIANCE N0: 1941 determine if there is sufficient sight line distance adjacent TENTATIVE MAP OF to the proposed fences for clear vision of oncoming traffic. TRACT NJ: 6544 TENTATIVE MAP OF Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TRACT, NJ. 5751, REVISION N0. 3 (Continued) AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION, 204 East '"„r.' PLAN ND. 88 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing consideration of the ~"'~'"- . extension of Casa Grande Avenue through property known as the Katella ;:~ ,.,.,,,, ~:;:°::,:j Avenue school site located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue „~?°`:'~ and West Street, said street to provide for additional circulation for properties to the ~r t west of the school site. ~ Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented a report on Area Development Plan IJo. 88 "~ as follows: ~:: ~' "BACKGROUND: ~, "~"~u The Katella Avenue School site located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue ~::;?t.~ `~_.:~.,~; and West Street is no longer in use and the property is to be sold. A stub street, '~';,~';;~ Casa Grande, exists at the west boundary of the school site. A study is being done to `'~~ determine if Casa Grande should be extended easterly to West Street. r~`r,~~~'~ ';`z~''`.~ FINDINGS: ,:s~;'~ 4.~.:.,...~.o _..,- 1. The school site is 4.17 acres in size. 2. The property is within the Commercial Recreation Area and is under a Resolution of Intent to the C-R, Commercial Recreation, Zone covered by Reclassification No. 66-67-61. 3. Subject parcel.is bounded on iF,e west by a motel and a multiple-family tract. It is'bounded on the south by a single-family tract, on the north across Katella Avehue, by a service station at the northwest corner with vacant property to the station's west. The northeast corner is'a portion of the Disneyland property. To the east, across West Street, there is a service station at the corner with two motels to the south. ~: ~ :~;~ ;~ ,~ :~ ~~~' 4. The properties to the north, east and the northwest are all within the Commercial Recreation Area as designated by the General Plan and are under a Resolution of Intent to rezone to the C-R, Commercial P.ecreation, Zone. 5. Casa Grande Averine was stubbed to the western boundary of the school property in 1957, at e~hich time it was assumed that the school would eventually be replaced with other uses and the street extended to West Street. 6. The present traffic count on Casa Vista Street is 2,000 vehicles per 24 hour period in each direction. 7. The Traffic Engineer projects an average daily traffic of 2,750 cars for Casa Vista Street end with Casa Grande put through to West Street an average daily traffic count on Casa Grande of 1,250 cars. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The property under consideration is within the Commercial Recreation Area and is under a Resolution of Intent to rezone from its current zone of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the C-R, Commercial Recreation, Zone and as such its lrigical development would be for a tourist oriented use or uses. 2. It may be desireble to extend Casa Grande Avenue to West Street at such time as the school property is developed for any use which would create a traffic load demanding the additional circulation. f t 1r~ :eTx~ ~, ~;~j~:~~ ~~ ' 2' t , f:_ 7 .cSF.~ ~:a] ',?F.y'j,..'X~ tl ~... ~ Y.r~~ r..r~.. ( W' 7.: .tx Ht~{• . 1'~' ~ ~~~« ~ ~ ~ .. ' ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ A [ ~ ':? ~t.7 ` ~ ry i~ MINUfES, GITY PLANNING fbMMISSION, January 15, 1968 3740 '~^' , AREA DEVELOPMENT - RECOMMENDATION: ;a ~ PLAN N0. 88 '.;:';~', (Continued) The approval of Area Development Plan No. 88, Exhibit A, as an ';; indication of the location of the extension of Casa Grande from its :??;~ present terminus to West Street; the need for 'such extension to be finally determined at such time as the school property is developed." ~:i,y~ Mr. Grudzinski further noted that the proposed extension of a local street located just to the south of the Commercial Recreation Area would provide for additional circulation; -.`:~ however, due to the fact that a center divider existed on West Street, only traffic south- ;,:~;~;< ;-;.• ; i bound would gain entrance and exit from Casa Grande Avenue. ; ~ ';~ Mr. ~harles Bush, representing the Anaheim Elementary School District, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating thai the Board of Trustees felt this extension of the street through the school property would reduce the value of the parcel since the size of the parcel would not be attractive to proposed developers since there would be two separate parcels divided by a local street, and that it was their desire to obtain the maximum price for the property, and this could not be accomplished if the street were approved through subject propsrty. A gentleman in the audience owning preperty in this area concurred with the statements made by Mr. Bush. THE HEARIN;~ WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the proposed area development plan and the extension of Casa Grande to West Street, and at its conclusion, it was determined that the proposed extension of Casa Grande Avenue was not warranted since no evidence was submitted that the amount of traffic now existing on the street was not being handled adequately by the present circulation; that access through subject property could serve only persons planning to travel south on West Street - because of the existence of a center divider separating the flow of traffic; and that the purchaser-developer of the property should be given the opportunity to decide whether or not a better circulation was necessary at the time of development of the property, and if this circulation were needed, the street still could be extended through the property. Furthermore, there was a possibility of injecting Commercial Recreation traffic through a local street, which was not the intent o£ the circulation pattern for this area. Commissioner Gauer'offered Resolution No> PC68-26 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 88 be disapproved on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence at this time that the extension of Casa Grande Avenue was necessary; that such a condition would greatly encumber the property; and that the determination of the need for this street extension should be held until such time as it is known what type of development was pro- posed for the property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Farano. STREET NAME CHAISE - PUBLIC I-IEARING. INITIATED BY THF CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing street name changes for Walnut Street west of Jefferson Street to Coronado Street, and Walnut Street, approximately 500 feet east of Coronado Street at its intersection with La Palma Avenue and extending easterly to Fee Ana Street,to La Palma Avenue. i ~ Associate Planner Cha~les Roberts reviewed the history of the renaming of Walnut Street in the Northeast Industrial Area, indicating that a portion of Walnut Street between Jefferson Street and a point approximately 500 feet east of Van Buren Street had been renamed to Coronado Street in March of 1965; that the portion of Walnut Street lying between Fee Ana Street and a point 500 feet east of Van Buren Street was not renamed due to the fact that the City was in`the process of adopting a precise alignment for La Palma Avenue from Jefferson Street easterly to the Imperial Highway, and that the alignment was proposed to in'~ersect with Walnut Street at this point - then the two alignments would be coincidental as they continued easterly; that the County of Orange had renamed Walnut Street between Fee Ana Street and Lakeview Avenue to La Palma Avenue on November 22, 1967; and that with the adoption of the precise alignment, the name of La Palma Avenue had been attached to the alignment not formerly named Walnut Street. Furtherm~re, that portion of Walnut Street lying westeriy of Jefferson Street w~s not renamed in 1965, based on the fact that thare were no plans for said extension westerly in the foreseeable future - however, ; . ,. _.___,.._-- _-- _ . ___. _. T ~.._ ._._.. ._ ~~„~, ~. _ ~ f ~ ~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN;, COMMISSION, January 15, 1968 { tJ l. 3741 STREET NAME CHAN3E - this portion of Walnut Street had been dedicated as a public street (Continued) and appeared on all City maps, and in order to avoid possible con- fusion at such time as a physical extension of the street was accomplished, the staff felt it should be consistent with the name of t}ie street which extends easterly from Jefferson Street, namely Coronado Street. No one appeared in opposition to subject street name changes. No one appeared to express any opinion on the proposed name changes. THE HEARING WAS CIASEll. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-27 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Walnut Street lying between Jefferson Street and a point approximately 1,450 feet west of Jefferson Street, located in the Northeast Industrial Area, be renamed Coronado Street, and that the port~bn of Walnut Street existing between a point 500 feet east of Van Buren Street and Fee Ana Street be renamed La Palma Avenue in order that continuity of street names be established in this area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NJES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 1 RECOMMENDpTIONS Orange County Zone Change No. ZC67-48 - M. Le Whaley, e~. al, petitioners (Sectional District Map 19-4-10) - Proposes a change from R-1 Single Family Residence and RP Residential Professional Districts to the C-1 Local Business District for properties located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, extending from Harriet Lane on the north to and including the one parcel south of Pacific Avenue in the southwest Anaheim area. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented Orange County Zone Change No. ZC67-48 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of the property, existing zoning both within the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange; previous zoning action on the northernmost parcel by the Orange County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, and the petitioner's request for a zone change to the County's C-1 Local Business District - comparable with the City of Anaheim's General Commercial Zone. Mr. Roberts further noted the following: 1. That Brookhurst Street has been designated on the Highway Ri9hts-of-Way Plan as a major highway (60-foot half-width); that the present half-width ad3acent to all of sub~ect property is 40 feet; and that approval of C-1 Zoning would necessitate dedication of an additional 20 feet, which would reduce the setback of these structures. 2. That subject lots, with two exceptions, are provided access by a 20-foot rear alley only, with no eccess to Brookhurst Street. This situation is desirable only if the present RP zoning is retained, or if the residential structures were to remain with limited commercial uses; however, full dedication would eliminate retention of any of the existing structures, since all front setbacks and several structure fronts would be within the new right-of-way. Furthermore, C-1 Zoning would of necessity require several access points from Brookhurst Street, possibly located at every third or fourth lot. 3. That development of these properties for C-1 uses would create "strip commercial" which tends to create the undesirable dispersion of established commercial uses located at Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street and Ball Road and Brookhurst Street, and would further complicate traffic on the only north-south major arterial in this part of Anaheim. I ?;; ~ I ~ .~'~ ,~~ ~ r. Discussion was held by the Commission as to the effect heavier commercial uses for these properties would have on the retention of the remainder of the homes fronting on Brookhurst Street within the~jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim for residential purposes, and the possibility that an undesirable "strip commercial" appearance would result, similar to that now existing along Brookhurst Street northerly of Lincoln Avenue. . . -- . . . .-... .... ~ ~ ~.~:1'_:-.:. __ ..:.; . V . ~~ ~ . ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CpNIMISSION, January 15, 1968 y~.~,'% r` E:x S -b~zxr v^<'..3: ~ 3742 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning'Commission be urged to deny Orange County Zone Change No. ZC67-48 on the basis that heavier commercial use for these properties would create an undesirable "strip commercial" appearance; that the additional dedication required to widen`Brook- hurst Street to a major highway would place some of these structures in the ultimate right-of-way; that the only access to these properties is gained through a 20-foot alley to the rear of the parcels, which is inadequate to service heavier commercial uses; and i:hat the City of Anaheim's Front-On Study of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways noted that even limited commercial-professional zoning for the properties would not be highly feasi.ble due to the additional dedication and resultant site development problems. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Conditional Use Permit No. 803 - Harry Jung Enterprises, Inc. - Establish an auto rental agency on an established service station site - Request for deletion of conditions. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented the request of the proposed operators of the auto rental agency, requesting that Condition Ncs. 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 1926, dated January 31, 1966, requiring that a 25-foot radius corner return for street widen- ing purposes and repair of damaged and hazardous sidewalks along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue be accomplished as conditions of approval of the proposed operation; that evidence had been submitted that the property owner would not comply with these conditions, and the proposed operator requested that these be deleted. Mr. Roberts further noted that since these conditions were part of the normal site development standaru's of the C-1, General Commercial, Zone prior to the issuance of a building permit, the staff felt their inclusion in the resolution approving Condi- tional Use Permit No. 803 was in line with standard procedure for any other C-1 developer, and they could see no reason for the deletion of same. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny the request for deletion of Condition Nos.'1 and 2-of Resolution No. 1926, Series 1965-66, dated January 3T, 1966, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 803, on the basis that the requirements were part of the site development standards of the C-1 Zone in which subject property was located. Commissioner Allred.seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I TEM Np_3 Conditional Use Permit No. 961 - John Summers-Vernon Perera - Requesting permission to establish a pre-school and nursery in an ~xisting residential structure located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, approximately 560 feet south of Ball Road - Rraquest for approval of deveiopment plans. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented development plans for the proposed facility, noting that one of the requirements of approval by the Commission on September 7, 1967, in Resolution No. PC67-189, was that the existing structure be brought up to Fire and Building Code requirements -however, when the petitioner had obtained estimates for the requirements it was determined a new structure would be less expensive than brin9ing the existing structure up to Code - therefore, the development plans were before the Commission for approval, and that the personne: of the Building Division had indicated the proposed septic tank on ~he property would not be permitted because the City of Anaheim facilities were available on Magnolia Avenue for sewer connection. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve the development plan marked Exhibit No. 2 under Conditional Use Permit No. 961 for the establishment of a pre-school and nursery school, provided, however, that the proposed septic tank be deleted and all sewer connections be made in accordance with requirements of the Building Division. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:45 P.M. t t,t.. ~~ Q MINUTES, CITY PLANNIA~ CpM~u~ISSION, January 15, 1968 r 1 ~~c i t~'~,~e ~ 3743 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 4 ~ RECOMMENDATIONS Reclassification Noe 58-59-65 - Hillhaven Convalescent Hospital (Continued) located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, west of West Street - Request for review of Ordinance No. 1422 and clarification of definitionse :i~.{ I` ,i'.ii °s'::';; Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from the administrator of the Anaheim btemorial Hospital that the Planning Commission review Ordinance No. 1422 which established C-1 zonipg on subject property - in light of the definitions of a"rest home" and "sanitarium", in order to determine whether the language of Ordinance No. 1422 was broad enough that an interprezation could be made that the existing Hillhaven Convalesce r' ~ Hospital property was zoned for hospital usee ,~; ~'~ ~.; The Report to the Commission was then reviewed by Mr. Roberts, relative to the background + ' and findings pertaining to th3s ordinance and the fact that the Anaheim Memorial Hospital ~° ~~ planned to lease 23 of the 72 beds to operate them as general hospital beds on a limited '"~ ~~"' basis as outlined in the Crii:eria for Admission. ~~ ~'1 Mr. Roberts further noted that upon request of the hospital administrator to declare that ~ the Hillhaven Convalescent Hospitai had been zoned for hospital use and extended care, a , ;" very thorough examination was made, and it was determined that the language of the ordinance ; ~' was too specific in that it specified a rest home rather than a full-fledged hospital - therefore~ the staff could not handie this interpretation administratively and was present- ~ ing it to the Commission for further clarification. Mr. McAlvin, representing the Anaheim Memorial Hos ital a ~ noted that the Report to the Commission was a very accuratepandecomprehensiveCr portiof the ( J proposed use of this facility; that the State had agreed to license these beds - however the ; zoning of the property must indicate that it provided for this type of service; and that thisi proposed type of progressive care was presently being used in the Midwest and East, and meant a savings of 25% to the patient. ~ The Commission inquired whether or not the proposed licensing would change any existing operation of the convalescent hospital; whereupon Mr. McAlvin stated there would be no cwr,nge in the present operation of the convalescent hospital. The Commission inquired of the staff what methods could be used to establish this facility as the hospital was proposing~ Mr. Roberts noted that in the staff's discussion with the City Attorney's office it was determined any change in the strict interpretation of the Code would have to be handled through publ'ic hearing, such as a conditional use permit petition, and if the change could be satisfied by this method, the City would have no ob,jectf.an to the proposed usea Further clarification was requested by the Commission as to how the use was established; whereupon Mr, Roberts stated that aithough sub~ect property had C-1 zoning which permitted a hospital by right, that portion on which the convalescent hospita] was located was limited to a rest home through the fiiing of deed restrictions as required by the City, and said deed restrictions could be amended only through public hearing. The Commission then inquired of Mr. McAlvin whether or not specific rooms of the convalescent hospital were to be designated, and whether the balance of the convalescent hospital wouid remain a rest home. Mr. McAlvin stated that these rooms could be designated on a floor plan; however, it was not the hospital's plan to use more than the 23 ueds at this time. Furtherr.:ore, they felt that to restrict the use of the convalescent hospital to 23 beds would eliminate any possible expansion which might be necessary in the future. The Commission expressed concern that approval of use of a portion of a convalescent hospital ~ might establish a precedent for other convalescent hospitals and rest homes to request the same type of use; whereupon Mr. McAlvin stated this was rather a unique situation which the Anaheim Memorial Hospital had entered into and had gone to considerable work to resolve all the problems which the State had presented, and it seemed hardly likely this same type of facility would be requested of other convalescent hospitals, since they must operate under a special license provided by zhe State, and if the Anaheim Memorial Hospitalv~re proposing to use the entire 72 bed facility, ii would require a major overhaul of the hospital facility ~ itself and the operation - therefore, the expansion might be very limited even though it miqht seem desirous. Furthermore, it was up to the Bureau of Hosaitals themselves to state if any portion could be turned over for hospital use, over and above that presently being requested. i i ,r.t , i.,n '~ ~ r .~ . ' ~a~.7~rS- ~-i ~ ,~~wr~'... vabv ..-i.S~. . + . . . . . . . . - ~. ~~-~.-,-- ~ ~. ~ -.~ MINUTES „ CITY PLANNII~ COMMISSION, January:l5, 1968 3744 . REPORTS:'AND >REO~MMENDATIONS - ITEM N0: 4 (Continued) Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowery stated he would concur with the recommendations made by Deputy;Cit"y, Attorney Furmanr;Roberts regarding requiring public hearing to consider amend- ment of any deed restrictions: After consultation with the Commission Secretary relative to the earliest date possible for setting this.for public hearing, Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to direct the staff to set;for'public heaiing a conditiorial use permit to'permit the use of an exieting rest home asra hoepital annex for;~ambulatory.patients requiring minimal care.and to'set for public;Hearing:Reclassification No. 58-59-65 to consider deletion of deed restrictions ` presently limiting use of the property to certain specified uses, said public hearing to ° be sctieduled for January 29;` 1968. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TEMPORARY ALl70URNMENT - Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to . January 22; 1968, at 7:00 P.M., to continue the study of possible acceptable areas for multiple-family residential uses to be depicted on the General Plan. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. • WORK SESSION - Chairman Camp convened the.work session at 7:30 P,M., January 22, 1968, to consider discussion of the 37 areas for possible amend- i ment to the General Plan for higher density uses. Those present at the work session were Commissioners Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall~ Rowland, Camp. Also present: . Development Services Director Alan Orsborn Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski 7_oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson Associate Planner Charles Roberts :Assistant Planners Pat Brown, Chuck Hooker, and Dave Williamson. After the Commission and staff had reviewed 19`areas, it was determined to continue consideration of the remaining 18 areas after public hearing on January 29, 1968. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, l~ f,;~l ~ 4, ;G, ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~~~ ~,:, ;:; 1 -~{ i Si~ ~ti r ~ - 1 . ~ t i~' ~S 1 :f veH '-~~~~ ry. ~ ~ > t ~~ '~ . 1 3 1 Y~ .:. ~ ~ 7 ' ~I .. A C~ i~~; r .~ ~j ~. } ~ . .i. ~ i F 4 ~ ~ ~ 4' i ~;~ i 4 ~.. t : ~ .,t . .. 7 t ~. f x r ~~ ~ r ~,~~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r '~ t r! . ~ t '~ . . }.. . . .~. .,. ~. • - .. , , ~ . : „ ~, .., . ~.. _ . ~. .~. .. .. ~ ~ :. .;~,~ - ,;~.~.. . . , .: , , . .... ,_~ . '... - . -..:; . . t1 r ,~ ~ ~ ',~ ~ ~ . , ... . _ .. _, , ..~~ - ~^ ~~ . ;.:~ .::, ~;.: t , . . . .. . . . , , . . . . , . ! .. . _. ... . . . .. ..~ ~ . ... ..... . . .. . . ~ t . _ . . , ... .. , , .... . .. :~ ~' ~+}~,~ }w~^t ~ tl~~r ~'~ ~3 ~ ~ 4 'rr `. r t~ ~ ~ ' t~y ~~~14~ at ' ';=9 F 'fea i ' ~ .Ar ~'riF 3 .i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 1 i x i ' ~ i Y :i q i.{; a L ~:9 i ~ t~ ;.:ti 7 ~~' r' ii .:,i ~t v , ~ ~~ ~. ` 7 ,~ ., l r ~ ~ ` i ~~~}~.i 7 r ' ~ i 1 k 1~ ~ i ~ i t ,~ s '~ ~ 1 a r i i ~ ~ r ~ + i ' j . •~A ';!~..'~ It.. . . .,. .. . . , .. .,~ . • _ ~ .i `~, e-.,~ .. ~ . . _ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~~ A ~ f ~ ' y ~'~ ~ I '~ -; _ . g' _ i n t ~ S . t ; i ~ ,I i ~ a~ t ~ f~ ~ ~ _ \ ' 4 ~ t 4 ~.i. 1'1!. . ~ tf{ } ~ r ` r ~ C, ` ~ ' r!~ ~s ~ ~ ~ - r + . l,~.y ~` Y t i :1 Z '~ ~ ~ ~~~ y ,. i. , :.: Y ) r t 1 r="t'~.1 r:s ~ . , . . . . .. -_ _.. ' . . . .. . ~ 1 ~ l l•,„: . ~ . ~ . i.....~ . r~ - . . , . ~ ' .. .. ~.. - . . ~. ~ ~ . ~..:~ ~ ~ . ..